The Kratz book

[missy1974]

I haven't read KK's book and wouldn't want to. From what i know about him i wouldn't want to listen to any of his fabrications in a book. It would be fiction/fantasy land stuff IMO.

I refuse to buy it. I would read it if I could find it, but can't find it. My local and provincial library doesn't seem to have it, not yet anyway. I just want to find all his lies :biggrin: I hope that some of them will help dig his hole just a little bit deeper. I have read some good posts on reddit that show some of the stuff in his book, compared to the "facts" or what was presented in court. The preview of the book also gave a good enough overview to know that there are "alternative facts" in the book. It's definitely fantasy land for sure. He just keeps making up chit as he goes IMO From the trials... to interviews in the last year... to the book... he keeps changing his theory. He has said she was wrapped in a blanket, she was wrapped in a tarp, she was dismembered, and I'm sure there are others comments from him too... I try to listen to his interviews... but... just.... can't. I am still of the opinion that she was on the back mat in her RAV4 and it was disposed of afterwards, and this is the reason that there was no blood on the carpet in the back. Kratz seems to acknowledge in his book that the mat is missing, so there is that ;-)

Here is an interesting 'fact' from someone that has read the book:

Kratz's book was originally promoted as 320 pages. The final release wound up being 192 pages. Subtract the forward, acknowledgments, pictures and blank pages and you're left with fewer than 160 pages of content, or half the intended amount. This total includes a 15-page chapter on "The Prize" himself, separate from the Avery/Dassey conversations.

so really... 145 pages on 'content'.

 

[CoolJ]

I refuse to buy it. I would read it if I could find it, but can't find it. My local and provincial library doesn't seem to have it, not yet anyway. I just want to find all his lies :biggrin: I hope that some of them will help dig his hole just a little bit deeper. I have read some good posts on reddit that show some of the stuff in his book, compared to the "facts" or what was presented in court. The preview of the book also gave a good enough overview to know that there are "alternative facts" in the book. It's definitely fantasy land for sure. He just keeps making up chit as he goes IMO From the trials... to interviews in the last year... to the book... he keeps changing his theory. He has said she was wrapped in a blanket, she was wrapped in a tarp, she was dismembered, and I'm sure there are others comments from him too... I try to listen to his interviews... but... just.... can't. I am still of the opinion that she was on the back mat in her RAV4 and it was disposed of afterwards, and this is the reason that there was no blood on the carpet in the back. Kratz seems to acknowledge in his book that the mat is missing, so there is that ;-)

Here is an interesting 'fact' from someone that has read the book:

Kratz's book was originally promoted as 320 pages. The final release wound up being 192 pages. Subtract the forward, acknowledgments, pictures and blank pages and you're left with fewer than 160 pages of content, or half the intended amount. This total includes a 15-page chapter on "The Prize" himself, separate from the Avery/Dassey conversations.

so really... 145 pages on 'content'.

I have the afternoon off. I think i might take a trip to the bookstore and see if I can read this pile of drivel.

 

[missy1974]

I have the afternoon off. I think i might take a trip to the bookstore and see if I can read this pile of drivel.

LOL We don't have a big book store where I live, otherwise I would do the same thing! Oh well.... if you go to the preview of the book, you can actually search words or phrases, and I've been able to find quite a bit that way without even having to read the whole thing.

 

[missy1974]

Here is an alternative fact...

On NOVEMBER 3rd:

Wiegert knocked on KK's office door to tell him about TH. He says Wiegert told him a young women named Teresa had been reported missing that morning. Wiegert goes on to say ... “Guess where Teresa was last seen?” Not in the mood for games, I waved at Mark to continue. “At Steven Avery's salvage yard.”​

So here's the thing....

#1 She wasn't reporting missing until mid afternoon on Nov. 3rd by her mom, KH.

#2 KH didn't get a call back until approximately 5pm, and that was from Lemieux.

#3 Lemieux informed Wiegert at approximately 5:30pm on the 3rd.

#4 AC didn't go to ASY until approximately 6:30 -7pm.

#5 Wiegert went to TH's around 6pm with Lemieux.

So how did Wiegert know all of this info to walk into KK's office that day? The morning of the 5th, Wiegert and Remiker were discussing the case, and we have heard that recording, they still didn't know if she was at Avery's or Zipperer's last.

Is he lying? is he mistaken on the day? I mean ... this is a book and it's not like he didn't have time to check his facts. If Wiegert knew of TH's disappearance the morning of the 3rd, how? and gee... that's a bombshell, isn't it? For the record, I don't believe that's how it happened.... I think it's Kratz being a liar and trying to insert his importance to this case, sooooooo important that Wiegert came right to him, but from the facts that we know, this is not logical. Maybe it could have happened on the 4th, and if it did.... the statement of "where she was last seen" "at Steven Avery's Salvage Yard" just reinforces to me that they targeted him, for 2 reasons.... first because it's not STEVEN AVERY'S Salvage yard, it's Avery's Salvage yard... and two, because of the incident the night before with the Zipperer's, they should not have come to any conclusions that the Zip's were cleared, not at all.

JMO

 

[CoolJ]

Here is an alternative fact...

On NOVEMBER 3rd:

Wiegert knocked on KK's office door to tell him about TH. He says Wiegert told him a young women named Teresa had been reported missing that morning. Wiegert goes on to say ... “Guess where Teresa was last seen?” Not in the mood for games, I waved at Mark to continue. “At Steven Avery's salvage yard.”​

So here's the thing....

#1 She wasn't reporting missing until mid afternoon on Nov. 3rd by her mom, KH.

#2 KH didn't get a call back until approximately 5pm, and that was from Lemieux.

#3 Lemieux informed Wiegert at approximately 5:30pm on the 3rd.

#4 AC didn't go to ASY until approximately 6:30 -7pm.

#5 Wiegert went to TH's around 6pm with Lemieux.

So how did Wiegert know all of this info to walk into KK's office that day? The morning of the 5th, Wiegert and Remiker were discussing the case, and we have heard that recording, they still didn't know if she was at Avery's or Zipperer's last.

Is he lying? is he mistaken on the day? I mean ... this is a book and it's not like he didn't have time to check his facts. If Wiegert knew of TH's disappearance the morning of the 3rd, how? and gee... that's a bombshell, isn't it? For the record, I don't believe that's how it happened.... I think it's Kratz being a liar and trying to insert his importance to this case, sooooooo important that Wiegert came right to him, but from the facts that we know, this is not logical. Maybe it could have happened on the 4th, and if it did.... the statement of "where she was last seen" "at Steven Avery's Salvage Yard" just reinforces to me that they targeted him, for 2 reasons.... first because it's not STEVEN AVERY'S Salvage yard, it's Avery's Salvage yard... and two, because of the incident the night before with the Zipperer's, they should not have come to any conclusions that the Zip's were cleared, not at all.

JMO

Why in the world would Weigert go to Ken Kratz on November 3rd? I thought Kratz wasn't apart of this until after the RAV4 was found. That makes NO sense.

 

[missy1974]

ohhh has anyone listened to this interview???

[video=youtube;toYdlGiYY2g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toYdlGiYY2g[/video]

I am listening (I have the window covered so I don't have to see him haha) so many wrong statements!

He brings up "sweat" again on the hood *sigh* IIRC they didn't even do any presumptive testing to see if it was blood on the hood latch, and of course, failing to mention that a technician testifies to taking samples from inside the RAV4 and then releasing the hood and checking the battery and wearing the same gloves. smh

oh and.... KK says they tested ALL of the blood and there was no EDTA. BS. They tested 3 of the 6, or better known as 50%.

I'm 20 minutes in... need to take a break haha

 

[missy1974]

Why in the world would Weigert go to Ken Kratz on November 3rd? I thought Kratz wasn't apart of this until after the RAV4 was found. That makes NO sense.

Exactly. So either he is inserting his own importance to the case and is right out lying. Or if Wiegert did go to Kratz on the 3rd, Wiegert knew before 5:30pm and they were targeting SA (obvious by the Steven Avery's salvage yard comment). Which would then bring into question a bunch of reports and times, etc. They or Kratz, can't have it both ways IMO

 

[CoolJ]

Exactly. So either he is inserting his own importance to the case and is right out lying. Or if Wiegert did go to Kratz on the 3rd, Wiegert knew before 5:30pm and they were targeting SA (obvious by the Steven Avery's salvage yard comment). Which would then bring into question a bunch of reports and times, etc. They or Kratz, can't have it both ways IMO

Is there any evidence that Kratz knew TimH (Teresa's brother). He was a lawyer in Calumet at the time. Working on a theory now that i know how early Kratz(by his own admission, right from the horses mouth) was involved.

 

[Bethlamb16]

I just watched this whole video. Based on what I know KK definitely lied or stretched the truth. KK says that it wasn't the 6th search when the key was found but the 1st "thorough" search and the other times were "targeted" searches for certain items. I call BS on that. KK also says that Steven told his brother that TH didn't show up and that Steven called Auto Trader on 11/3 to say TH didn't show up. Is that true? I just think KK is such a liar and was hoping the guys interviewing him would have followed up better. It is like they were one-sided like they accuse the filmmakers of being. KK also completely minimizes his "sexting". He coerced sex which is so much more than just sexting. He just makes my skin crawl but I was hoping he would be honest about the evidence. I also don't agree that the family told BD not to plea in order to help Steven. How about they told him not to plea because they believed he was innocent? Just some thoughts I had when listening to this and wanted to reach out to see what some of you think. I don't post often but this case and a couple other cases I follow as much as I can.

One more thing. Is there really a first movie made by making a murderer filmmakers that was shown at Columbia Film Festival?

 

[proudfootz]

I haven't read KK's book and wouldn't want to. From what i know about him i wouldn't want to listen to any of his fabrications in a book. It would be fiction/fantasy land stuff IMO.

I won't read OJ Simpson's book either.

 

[proudfootz]

I just watched this whole video. Based on what I know KK definitely lied or stretched the truth. KK says that it wasn't the 6th search when the key was found but the 1st "thorough" search and the other times were "targeted" searches for certain items. I call BS on that. KK also says that Steven told his brother that TH didn't show up and that Steven called Auto Trader on 11/3 to say TH didn't show up. Is that true? I just think KK is such a liar and was hoping the guys interviewing him would have followed up better. It is like they were one-sided like they accuse the filmmakers of being. KK also completely minimizes his "sexting". He coerced sex which is so much more than just sexting. He just makes my skin crawl but I was hoping he would be honest about the evidence. I also don't agree that the family told BD not to plea in order to help Steven. How about they told him not to plea because they believed he was innocent? Just some thoughts I had when listening to this and wanted to reach out to see what some of you think. I don't post often but this case and a couple other cases I follow as much as I can.

One more thing. Is there really a first movie made by making a murderer filmmakers that was shown at Columbia Film Festival?

BBM.

I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but there is some interesting byplay early on.

Comedy hosts make jokes about addiction (KK known drug and 'sex' addict).

KK quotes Mark Twain about how it's easier to fool people than it is to later convince them they've been fooled (apparently not a genuine quote from Twain - irony abounds!). KK is trying to pin this on the documentary, when instead it fits in very well with his own performance in the salacious 'news conference' that tainted the jury pool with the so-called 'confession' cobbled together from Brendan's coerced statements salted with facts fed to him by his interrogators.

They go on to discuss the everlasting 'cat incident' which is, of course, irrelevant. He admits it is irrelevant, which makes you wonder why he brings it up at all. Oh yeah! To make SA out to be the sort of guy who should be in jail regardless of whether he is actually guilty of the crime he is charged with.

KK then asserts the sex and drug crimes he has himself committed came 'years after' the Avery case.

According to this document KK admits he was abusing drugs as early as the Avery case:

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=113968

And according to this article some of KK's sexual predation goes back to at least 5 or six years before the murder of TH:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/lo...cle_3a5b3666-5951-11e0-96d1-001cc4c002e0.html

Looks like KK is either genuinely out of touch with reality, or is simply someone who cannot tell the truth even when he knows others know he is lying.

Next up - allegations Steven was planning on building a 'torture chamber' (another one of KK's own fantasies). Another non-fact taking up space where reality should be. Along with utterly unsubstantiated allegations Steven planned on abducting, raping, and killing people. Perhaps this is more psychological projection from KK? Who knows? But it seems more descriptive of KK than anyone else in this scenario.

Steven is not a Boy Scout? No one claims he is.

Ten minutes in, and it's time for me to clock out.

Only so much BS from KK I can take. Seen enough to know KK is either a lunatic or a liar, because what he is trying to sell does not accord with established facts.

MOO

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Let me get this straight...

A self proclaimed narcissistic sex addict lawyer is character assassinating two LBGT women (one who is a lawyer herself), who made the film MaM, correct?

Seems to me there might just be some underpinnings to this. Seems to me, they just might not have been interested in Mr. KK...

Guess the pickup line..Hey ladies, are you the kind of girls that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA? Nope, sorry we are in a long term relationship with each other. Must have infuriated him being the ladies man he is...LMAO.

JMHO, of course.

 

[missy1974]

Is there any evidence that Kratz knew TimH (Teresa's brother). He was a lawyer in Calumet at the time. Working on a theory now that i know how early Kratz(by his own admission, right from the horses mouth) was involved.

How could he not know him? It's not that big, is it?

TimH also filed a lawsuit against SA right around the time that SA settled with Manitowoc County, would be shocked if he didn't get a heads up from someone in the know, and who would that be? JMO

 

[CoolJ]

How could he not know him? It's not that big, is it?

TimH also filed a lawsuit against SA right around the time that SA settled with Manitowoc County, would be shocked if he didn't get a heads up from someone in the know, and who would that be? JMO

I'm gonna keep this theory to myself for a little while I think...

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Did anyone check the property tag numbers of the evidence collected from the burn pit to see what it contained? Is it documented that "grommets" were found or is that a figment of KK's imagination?

 

[missy1974]

I'm gonna keep this theory to myself for a little while I think...

I think I can see where your theory would be going....

I have noted many times the similar phrases that he had used and phrases in this case. It's interesting for sure. JMO

 

[missy1974]

Did anyone check the property tag numbers of the evidence collected from the burn pit to see what it contained? Is it documented that "grommets" were found or is that a figment of KK's imagination?

ohhhh grommets! I started looking at this earlier today but then had to go to the hospital.

NO, no grommets are noted in the evidence logs. But I did find mention of them in the trial.

IMO grommets and rivets were used to mean the same thing. I will see if I can find the mention of grommet in the trial again and will post it. I know we have a photo of a rivet, but no grommet. They also say "zipper" in the trial, when it's just a pull from a zipper, not an actual zipper.

 

[Karinna]

I think I can see where your theory would be going....

I have noted many times the similar phrases that he had used and phrases in this case. It's interesting for sure. JMO

I have been following the Karen Ristevski case on another thread here and one of the posters there posted from this site. Thought it was quite interesting and it also has articles from MAM.
Making a Murderer: Mike Halbach talks to the media; what is he hiding?
http://myalcomy.com/making-a-murderer/mike-halbach

 

[Saul Vesalot]

ohhhh grommets! I started looking at this earlier today but then had to go to the hospital.

NO, no grommets are noted in the evidence logs. But I did find mention of them in the trial.

IMO grommets and rivets were used to mean the same thing. I will see if I can find the mention of grommet in the trial again and will post it. I know we have a photo of a rivet, but no grommet. They also say "zipper" in the trial, when it's just a pull from a zipper, not an actual zipper.

Q (By Attorney Strang) Um, you were involved, I think -- The very first picture, um, you were shown, and you explained for the jury, uh, showed you involved in a sifting or sorting sort of process, yourself, um, at the -- at the Dane County Morgue?

A (I think by Eisenberg but I could be mistaken) No, that photo was actually taken at the Wisconsin Crime Laboratory in Madison.

Q Okay. The -- the Crime Laboratory. And this -- this is, again, a process where you -- you spread things out on tarps or plastic sheets and went very carefully through a thinly spread layer of the debris or material that had been recovered?

A Of -- of badly burned, uh, debris. Correct.

Q All right. One of the things that came out of that was, to your knowledge, the discovery of some, you could call, metal grommets or rivets here? Were you around or were you aware of discovery of some metal --

A There were some metal objects that, uh, I had identified as such in my original sort on November 10.

--------------------Day 13 of the Trial Feb 28-------------------------

Rivets and grommets appear to be one and the same, there are a few more instances of the word grommet appearing on this day, but I think they all mean rivet.

 

[Karinna]

I think all the "grommet" stuff is irrelevent if it didn't come in as evidence in the previous Trial anyway.
And from what KZ has stated she is going to prove planting of other evidence that has nothing to do with rivets or grommets.
She is also not looking for a re Trial of SA but to walk him straight out of prison.
If SA is to be exonerated at all it will have to be on completely new evidence, which i think from what i read is usually of the DNA type in overturning wrongful convictions, not the old stuff that has been rehashed ad infinitum, and some of it that wasn't even brought up in the initial trial/conviction of SA. They have already been there & done that. All IMO.