The Kratz book

Jaiddie said:

http://www.crimecon.com/blog/2017/5...book-isnt-the-other-side-of-making-a-murderer

'Ken Kratz on Why His Book Isn't the "Other Side" of Making a Murderer'


"If one little piece of evidence gets Avery a new trial, if I were the State, I would welcome the opportunity to re-try Steven Avery because there is so much evidence that we didn't even use because we didn't have to in order to prove his guilt. We didn't use mitochondrial DNA matches or other forensic evidence that we had because it was unnecessary. We didn't use all the jail calls in which Avery made admissions to his family. So part of that was strategic and is still available to submit in case he gets a new trial."

I cannot believe the stuff that comes out of this man's mouth sometimes, I swear! :stormingmad:So now KK wants us to believe that the state had actual audio jail calls of SA, HIMSELF, admitting some things to his family about this crime and instead of submitting THAT to the court, he decided it would be better to go with the jail snitch's testimony about the supposed "torture room" SA told him he wanted to make. Not only that but the state ALSO had more DNA matches that pointed to SA but decided to save that evidence for a new trial? Does KK listen to himself?!? Does he not realize that there is gonna come a day where he will be ordered to produce all this unnecessary "evidence"? I do not believe for one minute that the state decided to sit on (what I would consider to be) all this explosive "evidence". KK would have been shouting all this from the rooftops if they had evidence of SA admitting any kind of guilt or DNA matches other than the blood in the RAV4.

Sorry about the rant, but KK makes me so angry with all of the delusional stuff that he has spouted. Ugh! :furious::shakehead:

Click to expand...

You have to understand though, KK is a psychopath.

Well, let's just say that I allege he is a psychopath....:waitasec:

Interesting that this 'slam dunk' evidence doesn't turn up until ten years later. And no one's even mentioned these so-called admissions before.

BigCityAccountant said:

RSBM

I agree Missy! How did the towel become a "small white towel"? A little embellishing the story, huh?

A. After she was out there, around October 10th, it was like about a week or so after that, she had stated to me that he had come out in a towel.
Q. He meaning whom?
A. Steven Avery.
Q. Had come out where?
A. She didn't specify, she just said that he had come out, just in a towel.
Q. All right. Did Ms Halbach describe for you anything else about that, any other details about seeing Mr. Avery in a towel?
A. The only -- I just said, really, and she said, yeah, and she said, yeah, and she laughed and just said kind of, ewww, you know.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-c...-Trial-Transcript-Day-2-2007Feb13.pdf#page=59

Add to that~~

ANGELA did tell me TERESA had confided in some people at the AUTO TRADER magazine when she (meaning TERESA) had been at STEVEN AVERY's residence on a prior occasion, he had come out of the house trailer to meet her wearing nothing but a towel.

CASO report, page 15

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CASO-Investigative-Report.pdf

So, where does the "Small, white" come from? KK's sick imagination? For all we know, it was a beach towel.

It is not in testimony and it is not in CASO reports?

Lastly, if TH was on the road at that time, then why were her whereabouts during that time NOT investigated?

Click to expand...

To be fair, any towel on Avery is going to appear small! [emoji23][emoji23]

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...Kratzs+False+Statements+about+Steven+Aver.pdf

KZ tweeted this today. I thought I would add it here since it fits the topic ;-)

The one's that stand out to me...


I have thought this for awhile and then when we got the copy of TH's day planner, there was clearly a note with another Steve written at the bottom of the Monday the 31st, plus she called SS that day before she left to do her AT photo's. I am not sure and I don't have the time to go and look, but I don't think we have State 5509-5514, the doc she references.

KZ also points out the false statements that KK wrote about the :cat: incident.

Hemingway, it is reputed, once won a ten dollar bet, that he could write a complete short story in under ten words. He won the bet with this:

For sale. Baby shoes. Never worn.

It occurred to me today, that I could sum up Krunts literary career with a similar short story:

For sale. Personal integrity. Never used.


You know, I can't even imagine buying this miscreants book. I was almost shocked that he was invited to Crimecon. He's getting paid to spread his absurd opinions, which no one in the free world is buying at this point... ( seriously, would you book a room in a hotel catering to a criminal sexual deviant?). Nancy Grace and Ken Kraz is NOT my idea of a fun filled event!

The worst part to me Safeguard is that people DO buy his book, they DO read it and they DO believe it! I only read the portions that Amazon had on preview lol and then excerpts here and there, that was more than enough to know it was mostly BS. His misrepresentation of the truth is ridiculous.

I know Missy. It boggles my mind! I couldn't believe that Webslueths, would promote an event, ( Crimecon)), that glorified a criminal, (That's not what we're about right?) and spread false information!
I can't wait for the day, when all is said and done in this case... Justice long over due... but better than never, I suppose.

My suggestion: print off those refutations onto one small sheet. Make some copies. Go to your local book stores and slip a sheet into every copy of the book they have in stock.

CoolJ said:

My suggestion: print off those refutations onto one small sheet. Make some copies. Go to your local book stores and slip a sheet into every copy of the book they have in stock.

Click to expand...

Haha, love this idea CoolJ!

Safeguard said:

Hemingway, it is reputed, once won a ten dollar bet, that he could write a complete short story in under ten words. He won the bet with this:

For sale. Baby shoes. Never worn.

It occurred to me today, that I could sum up Krunts literary career with a similar short story:

For sale. Personal integrity. Never used.


You know, I can't even imagine buying this miscreants book. I was almost shocked that he was invited to Crimecon. He's getting paid to spread his absurd opinions, which no one in the free world is buying at this point... ( seriously, would you book a room in a hotel catering to a criminal sexual deviant?). Nancy Grace and Ken Kraz is NOT my idea of a fun filled event!

Click to expand...

There were a surprising number of people that I overheard while waiting in line for the KK/TF session at Crimecon who said they weren't familiar with MaM or Steven Avery. Many were attending that session just because it was the opening session of the conference.

I was interested just to see what they'd have to say. KK is a smooth talker. He rattles things off as facts leaving you going oh, yeah, I see...and then the smart people go wait, what???

It's easier to see his deception and semantic games when you read the book. I didn't buy it but borrowed it from my library's digital loans app.

What bothers me about the case is that I feel neither side is telling the complete truth, and that due to the ridiculously idiotic decisions and behaviors of LE in the beginning of this investigation there will never be true justice for Teresa.

Zellner now has 13 false statements in KK's book lol

I think the 13th one is the one about the letters between SA/KK

missy1974 said:

Zellner now has 13 false statements in KK's book lol

I think the 13th one is the one about the letters between SA/KK

Click to expand...

Imagine that![emoji6]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

:hilarious::hilarious:

This was on KZ's Twitter, but it's applicable in both this thread and the other, so I will just stick it here.

Kathleen Zellner "Not Ruling Out" DEFAMATION Suit Over Ex-Da's Book

http://www.**************/4379837/m...-ruling-out-defamation-suit-over-ex-das-book/

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/201...llner-sets-the-record-straight-001869667.html

This is an interesting read...

Concealing exculpatory evidence is not a rare problem. In 2013, then-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals wrote that “There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land,” because courts have defined “materiality” so narrowly that prosecutors rarely if ever have to face consequences if they hide evidence that favors defendants.

The National Registry of Exonerations(which I founded) lists 2,061 innocent defendants who were convicted of crimes in the United States and later exonerated, from 1989 on, including 802 who were convicted of murder. In half of the murder exonerations (398/802) the prosecution concealed exculpatory evidence at trial, including 17 cases with innocent murder defendants who pled guilty, 57 with defendants who falsely confessed, and 91 with supposed accomplices who confessed and falsely implicated the defendants.

WOW~~~~

And of course, as Judge Kozinski has noted, the great majority of similar cases are never detected, and the defendants, if they are innocent, are never exonerated.

Our best hope for avoiding tragic mistakes is to present all the evidence that matters the first time around. (What a novel idea!!!)

https://thecrimereport.org/2017/07/14/how-concealing-key-evidence-convicts-the-innocent/?utm_content=buffer848ec&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

BigCityAccountant said:

This is an interesting read...

Concealing exculpatory evidence is not a rare problem. In 2013, then-Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals wrote that “There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land,” because courts have defined “materiality” so narrowly that prosecutors rarely if ever have to face consequences if they hide evidence that favors defendants.

The National Registry of Exonerations(which I founded) lists 2,061 innocent defendants who were convicted of crimes in the United States and later exonerated, from 1989 on, including 802 who were convicted of murder. In half of the murder exonerations (398/802) the prosecution concealed exculpatory evidence at trial, including 17 cases with innocent murder defendants who pled guilty, 57 with defendants who falsely confessed, and 91 with supposed accomplices who confessed and falsely implicated the defendants.

WOW~~~~

And of course, as Judge Kozinski has noted, the great majority of similar cases are never detected, and the defendants, if they are innocent, are never exonerated.

Our best hope for avoiding tragic mistakes is to present all the evidence that matters the first time around. (What a novel idea!!!)

https://thecrimereport.org/2017/07/14/how-concealing-key-evidence-convicts-the-innocent/?utm_content=buffer848ec&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Click to expand...

Thank you, BCA! ( A great read indeed )
Blows my frickin mind!
HOW can a HUMAN BEING be so vile to another?
This just makes me wonder that much more... how often is it all just a numbers game?? Prosecuting such cases.
We need more Zellners in this world for sure..
Imho


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I'll just drop this here for a lack of other places to post it.

Looks like a certain prosecutor is becoming unhinged.



Someone else also posted that they wanted him to explain how the DNA got on the bullet. Good Question.

BigCityAccountant said:

I'll just drop this here for a lack of other places to post it.

Looks like a certain prosecutor is becoming unhinged.

Someone else also posted that they wanted him to explain how the DNA got on the bullet. Good Question.

Click to expand...

Yep. It kinda does doesn't it??

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

dexter75 said:

Yep. It kinda does doesn't it??

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Sounds like he left himself some wiggle room. You might say plausible deniability.

My guess is he is arguing that she was shot with that bullet, but that wasn't the coup-de-gras, the headshot that allegedly killed her. It was used WHILE killing her, it just wasn't necessarily the one that finished the job. That would explain why the testing shows it didn't go through the skull AND why it had her DNA on it AND how it was still valid as evidence.*

But that is threading a needle and introducing information that wasn't there in trial. He is committing himself to a more specific narrative than before. And it highlights the question of "where are the other bullets?" This is an old question, but not one the prosecution ever formally addressed, as far as I can recall. So while his wriggling may solve one problem, it might just open him up to another/other problem/s. He's really stupid for talking about the bullet either way. He is attempting damage control but doing it poorly, and getting things down in writing that he may regret later.


*Even if it turns out that Halbach was killed some other way, Kratz could conceivably argue the bullet still played a role.
For Example:
"Maybe she was killed with a tire iron, but FIRST Avery incapacitated her with that bullet."

We already know Steven Avery was the last person to have seen her alive.
We know Avery said she arrived at 2:31 and that she stayed for 5~10 minutes.
She was never seen again after her appointment with Avery.
Her phone went off at 2:41 and was never accessed again.
It went off in the vicinity of the Avery Salvage Yard
Her car was found on the Avery property, further indicating she never left.
Her bones, teeth, part of her clothes and electronics were found on the Avery Salvage Yard

All this suggests she never left the ASY and she is no longer alive. Then when we look at the ASY residents, particularly the person who last saw her alive, and we see:

he had opportunity
he had no alibi
he took his day off from 11 o'clock in the morning and never returned to work that day. He explained he left work for the appointment with TH, but that lasted only 5~10 minutes. Should he not have returned to work!? He never gave any explanation for why he did not return.
He gave multiple different accounts of his appointment with TH.
He gave multiple different accounts of his bonfire and burn barrel night with Brendan.

Odd coincidences for someone who supposedly had nothing to do with all this. If we actually investigate him and his property any further, we find:

A .22 caliber rifle that was later determined as the murder weapon
A .22 caliber lead bullet that was forensically matched to that murder weapon
DNA of the victim on that .22 caliber lead bullet that was forensically matched to the murder weapon
Skull fragments of the victim with entrance defects and no exit defects.
The .22 caliber rifle that was determined as the murder weapon did not have the power to actually fire a bullet through a skull. It thus could not have created exit defects.
Lead was embedded in the skull and particularly the entrance defects. Avery had lead bullets.
A reddish-brown stain few feet away from the bullet with DNA that lit up with luminol, that was a "red fluid" before it became a reddish-brown stain.
Brendan making a drawing of the garage, and without any coercion by cops he draws Teresa and her blood at the same spot where the reddish-brown stain was found.

Do we really need the bullet that killed her? And don't we already have it? It was melted and got embedded in her skull...

We don't need 'the bullet that killed TH' - we don't know that she died of a gunshot wound.

We do have the statements from KK which are inconsistent with the facts.