I can't say it because the forensic test was botched in Culhane's problem-laden lab.
What test conducted by the state would result in wood becoming embedded in the bullet?
Why would the state contaminate the bullet fragment with red paint?
I am curious where you get this 'information'.]
The negative control sample was botched. Not the testable material. There is a tremendous distinction between the two, correct?
Contaminate with red paint? What, other than the rudimentary assertion of someone with a clear bent on drawing the bullet into question, that it might be red paint on the bullet?
Same with the 'embedded wood particles'. You get ambiguous words like "appear", and "suggest", and "unlikely".
Read what the affidavit says about both:
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/048-Affidavit-of-Dr-Palenik.pdf
This is called throwing something at the wall to see if it sticks. It didn't, which is why it was summarily dismissed.
None of those things support that Avery didn't kill Teresa Halbach. Even if it turned out that the bullet had hit some sort of wood product.
There is a reason those terms are used. There is a reason it is "unlikely" to be blood, and with a flimsy reason, as opposed to something definitive.
[It just shows that the state was prepared to submit dubious 'evidence' to mislead the jury.]
It shows no such thing. If anything, and this should be rather clear at this point, it shows that Zellner is willing to do or say anything to try to mislead the court.
The evidence of this is overwhelming. Just look at her claims from early 2016 through her motion for scientific testing, where she makes all sorts of claims and demands, only to up and "decide" not to test the blood? Please.
http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...st-Conviction-Scientific-Testing_redacted.pdf
[The bullet fragment is most likely completely unrelated to this case.]
Need I provide all the tie-ins again?
{If the state is trying to claim Teresa was the victim inside the house or garage, I would expect there to be some evidence of it. Since they could not provide a scintilla of evidence of their claim, I am persuaded that they did not prove their case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.]
Well, unfortunately, criminals often try to dispose of evidence that links them to the crime. Which is what you see in this case. Avery was doing things exactly related to the disposal of evidence that night, and lied about everything he was doing. It's really very straight forward, unless you are willing to bend over backwards time and again to indulge Avery's wholly baseless claims.
He acted odd and inappropriate toward the victim beforehand. Showed the victim increased attention.
Took measures to ensure the victim wasn't aware she was coming to see him.
Teresa was last in his presence. No sightings, no calls, no messages.
Avery lies about his activities.
Evidence turns up. Her vehicle, her blood, his blood.
Evidence turns up that begins to prove his lies. Dog tracked her to his house and garage. Cadaver dogs indicate on a burn barrel where the victim's remains are found.
Turns out Avery was actually doing things where evidence would later be found, and, in fact, was doing things related to disposing of evidence, and lied about it, of course.
As said, I don't know exactly what happened in the trailer or garage. But she was there. He was there that night, but lied about everything he was doing.
[Since no one claims Teresa was never outside of her vehicle when she was there, it is probative of nothing that dogs might have signalled that she was in the yard where the vehicles were being photographed.]
The dog tracked her directly to his trailer and garage, then away from his trailer and garage, toward the Kuss Road cul-de-sac.
[You do not seem to understand that the defense is not required to prove anything. Nothing requires me to dismiss arguments or facts brought forth from the defense, or to ignore evidence and arguments which have come after the trial.]
Lol, this is code for 'I'm going to believe what I want, so there'.
I understand exactly what is required of the defense. I know, at trial, they did the best they could, and could only present disjointed evidence to make it appear that Avery was the victim of some conspiracy.
[As I have demonstrated, your claim is overstated.