Ken Kratz Is A Big, Fat Liar

man in towel

Ken Kratz was back on television last night.  It doesn’t seem like he’s ever going to let go of the the nonsense that Steven Avery opened the door in a towel.  Oh, did anyone notice that Kratz added in the detail that it was a “small” towel?  It’s just been a towel all along until last night when it suddenly became a “small” towel.  Kratz has a knack for pushing toward the total obliteration of truth one tiny little lie at a time.  I’ve tried to make the case before that it’s a pattern with him that I’ve noticed.  His most notorious example of this was when he went around telling everyone that the “hood latch” DNA of Steven Avery came from “sweat”.  He ridiculed everyone who expressed doubts about any single element in his constructed “mountain” of evidence against Steven Avery by exclaiming:

Now that Mr. Avery’s DNA was found on that particular key I was left to question whether or not people would have me believe that not only are they carrying around keys for Teresa’s vehicle but they’re also carrying around vials of Mr. Avery’s DNA with them, whether it’s perspiration or whatever, that’s absurd.

Where did Kratz come up with the idea that the DNA found on the hood latch was from sweat?  This is a lie that Kratz repeated over and over and over again until someone finally pointed out that sweat contains no DNA, and then he finally stopped saying it because it made him look like the lying fool that he is.  This is one of many, many examples of Kratz making up lies.  Are they big gigantic obvious lies?  No.  Steven’s DNA was found on the hood latch (how it got there is another matter though).

But Kratz’s fallacious sweat DNA was meant to serve a purpose, at least in Kratz’s convoluted and sick mind. You see, Kratz knew that the vial of blood talked about at trial and shown repeatedly in Making A Murder was causing doubts to grow about whether the blood in Teresa Halbach’s RAV4 really came from the cut on Steven Avery’s finger as the authorities claimed.  No problem for a big fat liar like Kratz though!  Simply switch the source of the DNA from blood to sweat.  In other words, Kratz wasn’t just guessing it was sweat, or simply making a basic mistake that a person without medical or biological training would make.  He consciously made up a lie to downplay the significance of the blood while at the same time bolstering the credibility of the totality of DNA evidence.  Remember too that he spoke the lie with all of the seduction that a person in his position of high authority possessed.  A chief prosecutor!  The human embodiment of the state!  He spoke the lie convincingly, as if he knew what he was saying should not be challenged, or even could be challenged.  But we now know that he made it up, and the fact that we know this now is something we cannot ignore because it has implications about how Ken Kratz’s mind works, his value system, his trustworthiness, the validity of his penance over the misdeeds he is known to have committed in the past.  Oh, it would be derelict of me not to mention that Kratz has never apologized for his lies.

When we catch Kratz in another lie, we have to cast him back, in our minds, to the same man he was when he used his power and status to coerce sexual favors from vulnerable, young, victims of abuse.  We should scold Dateline NBC for having him on the show and for helping him to promote his book.  We should scold Nancy Grace for aiding and abetting a man who shows many of the characteristics that a sociopath would show, and we should do so because Kratz is still telling lies that they have let go unchallenged.  We need to hold our media accountable in this case particularly because two men are serving life sentences. If they get this wrong, they have fucked up two lives, one being that of a mentally delayed child.  That is not excusable. When Dateline, with all of its researchers and resources does nothing but throw softballs to someone as sketchy and notorious as Ken Kratz, it’s time we demand more from our “news”.

I personally happen to believe that people can change if they try.  I do not actually believe it is fair to continue to indefinitely castigate someone for past misdeeds.  I know the many, many mistakes I have made, and I think, if we’re being honest, we would all wish that people look at our worst moments with a modicum of compassion and understanding.  I would extend that to Kratz, but, unfortunately, he’s still actively causing harm.  He hasn’t changed.  Even if he truly believes that Avery is guilty, it is NEVER okay for him to lie to the public about the details of this case given how incredibly strained our trust in him already is.

I should like to repeat this one more time: Kratz lied about BOTH the towel AND the blood. And he lied about a lot of other things too. And he did so in a capital murder case.  And he did so despite not having any medical background or training to base what he was espousing on fact, knowledge or experience.  Most tragically, he got away with it when it counted which was at trial.  He’s a damn good liar, and if you don’t watch him, he’ll use one of his trademark elisions to deceive you.  If you are not aware of who and what he is, you will not notice it any more than you will notice the sleight of hand a magician will employ to perform a magic trick.

It’s seems stupid to have to go over this, but apparently it IS necessary because the likes of a major American television show with millions of viewers had Kratz on yet again, and once again, Kratz was salivating to peddle his book (full of lies).  They were not ready for Kratz when he said that Avery opened the door in a small towel, but if they had been, they could have pummeled him on not only the fact that he was yet again lying about the towel (as he’s been doing for a long, long time), but also on the new, added “fact” that it was a “small” towel.  It seems like a small detail to obsess over, but I want to show why it actually isn’t.

Okay, for a bit of a diversion.  Someone once said that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.  Whether this statement is true or not, I don’t know, but I’ve heard it repeated enough times that I believe it to be true.  Just kidding.  Anyway, that someone was Hitler’s propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels.  I guess the ONLY protection one might have against this weakness in human neurology is the simple awareness that one is susceptible if one is not aware of the weakness.  But even with this awareness, it’s probably still easy to be fooled since it is by now axiomatic that the easiest people to fool are those who think they can never be fooled.  Right?  So maybe it also helps to dwell a little bit on the fact  that there are total assholes out there, (like Ken Kratz and Joseph Goebbels) hard as it is to believe if you happen to be an ordinary person, that are not only eager to exploit this weakness for personal gain, but are quite skillful in doing so.

As far as the towel goes, there is no evidence at all that Steven Avery opened the door for Teresa Halbach in a towel, and if he did, there is simply no way to tie that to a plot by Steven Avery, long in the making, according to Ken Kratz, to murder Teresa Halbach.  Yes, this is what Ken Kratz said he believed last night on television.  According to Kratz’s theory, Steven Avery had been carefully planning the murder of Teresa Halbach for the ENTIRE time he was in prison for sexually assaulting Penny Berenstein (which we all know he didn’t do, of course).  That was twenty years!  How opening the door in a towel figured into this, or how inviting his nephew inside the house after he had wandered by to deliver mail (or any number of other scenarios you might entertain based on what you heard Dassey say as he was being interviewed by Fassbender and Wiegert) figured into these carefully laid schemes wasn’t explained.  And of course the crack correspondents from NBC Dateline didn’t bother to ask Kratz to explain, so, once again, the weary task has fallen to me.

What did happen concerning the rumor of Steven Avery opening the door in a towel is that one of Teresa’s friends or co-workers reported that Teresa Halbach had said Steven Avery had opened the door for her once wearing a towel.  Once, that is, of the five times, minimum, Teresa went to Steven’s property to photograph vehicles.  Teresa, tragically, is not around to verify whether this actually happened, or, if it did, whether she thought Steven Avery was trying to be deliberately untoward or salacious. Even if Steven did open the door in a towel, and even if Teresa were grossed out by it, no one has ever claimed that Teresa’s own interpretation of this event was that Steven Avery was trying to be sexually provocative.

So, it’s bad enough that Kratz keeps repeating this lie as if it were just something we should all by now accept, but to make matters worse, Kratz embellishes his original lie when he has discovered there is a way to inject it with a little more oomph!  Do you see the pattern? If the DNA on the hood latch wasn’t enough to fully counter the impression made by the blood vial, Kratz thought nothing of giving it a little oomph by insisting it came from sweat which would point up the absurdity of the insinuations of framing as it would be absurd to imagine men carrying around “vials of perspiration”.  In kind, if Kratz feels that the idea of someone answering the door in a towel doesn’t create the necessary impression of wanton lasciviousness, the towel suddenly undergoes the same transformation that the vial underwent: it becomes a small towel.  All the while, clever old Kratz is squirming with self-satisfaction at the deception he’s gotten away with.  Who would think to challenge him on the towel, much less whether the towel was small or not?  Who would think to challenge him on whether there is any such thing as “sweat” DNA?  He fooled me the first time.  I didn’t know there wasn’t any such thing as sweat DNA.  It sounded credible to me.  I had assumed that it was actual evidence, or that he’d heard it in private conversation with one of the DNA experts he had worked with while putting together his case against Avery.  The possibility that he was a chronic, pathological liar never occurred to me.  But once I figured it out, the entire personage of Ken Kratz began to take on more verisimilitude to the actual person perhaps in the same way a deep and abiding truth is revealed to someone while on a vision quest under the influence of ayahuasca.

I mean, if I ask you to visualize someone opening the door in a towel, I have very little guarantee that you will visualize something sexually provocative.  A towel worn around the waist actually conceals more skin than an ordinary pair of shorts, right?  Would it mean anything, then, if Steven Avery had opened the door in a pair of shorts?  But if I ask you to visualize someone opening the door in a small towel, well, that changes everything, doesn’t it?  Are your genitals visible?  Is the towel about to fall off?  This is the image Kratz wants to make sure you have in your head.

If a person isn’t understood to be a chronic liar, then one is at great pains (as I am here) to go through each fucking lie and exaggeration and explain why it matters.  And I’m fully well aware that it is tedious.  But I’m hoping that the work that I do here will eventually help people to understand that Kratz is a liar, and once that is understood, nothing he says will be believed.  I’ll put it another way even:  If I go to my grave known only for challenging and hopefully correcting Kratz’s lie about Steven Avery answering the door in a small towel, I will not consider my life to have been lived in vain.  Kratz, since I know you read this, I want you to know I’m wise to you motherfucker.  But you probably already knew that.

Share

7 comments

  • I think it should be remembered that we are forced to take the word of Sherry Culhane and Ken Kratz about the veracity of the DNA samples. That should terrify anyone. We don’t know if “the sweat dna” profile or sample is real. We have don’t know if the samples are actually FROM the places they claim they are from. We don’t know if Sherry manipulated the results. Even the FBI lab stated in their report “We received swab #x PURPORTED to be from the hood-latch.” They repeated this wording for each swab they received. The FBI made sure that they were not seen as making any confirmation about where the samples actually came from. Were they suspicious? Maybe, but it could also be standard procedure. Mark Lebaue (sp?) from the FBI also was extremely careful in his “verbiage” during the trial to avoid making any claims about of the provenance of samples.

    Also regarding Sherry’s credibility, she famously contaminated one sample (then used a loophole in the science/ethical procedural rules to over-ride any concerns that may have arisen from that failure). She and Kk made exaggerated claims on the DNA from the bones by saying that they were definitely from TH, when the test really said that they merely couldn’t rule out TH as the donor.

    Additionally, Culhane and her lab have had multiple violations over the years during inspections (mostly for messiness, improper storage of chemicals, etc. minor violations but enough to give an idea of the lab as being haphazard). She was also personally reprimanded for something that I can’t recall at the moment. I would like to provide a link for those docs, but it has been months since I last read them and I no longer know where I saw them.

    So, I remain skeptical about many of the claims made about the DNA.

    • Forgot one more important thing from those inspection reports of Sherry’s lab – they criticized the DNA lab for being open to the rest of the facility. It is/was unsecured or isolated which, the inspector pointed out, is highly irresponsible due to the possibility of anyone just walking in and tampering with the samples or contaminating them. That is a huge deal, as it could call into question the quality or veracity ANY testing carried out in that lab, not just Avery’s.

  • I don’t believe anything Kratz says. Not ONE word. He has lied or manipulated situations so many times I’ve lost count. it all comes back to the choices he made pre-trial, during trial, and as the years have passed. And lets be honest, does anyone REALLY think he became pervy after the Dassey trial? Just woke up one day and thought, wow this is how I’ll start acting. I don’t believe it. I believe he has been the same person we see today long before October 2005.

    Choices that cost him everything. And yet, he is still as arrogant and manipulative as ever. Another fact we must accept. He wants to be the asshole in the room. He wants everyone around him to know he’s a perv. Otherwise. like you wrote, he would change it.

    The thing he has changed multiple are his theories on this and still nothing works because he is wrong. Dateline did indeed throw softballs. I doubt he would have agreed to any tough questions.

    Still, I’m at a loss as to why Dateline did this episode at all. So Kratz could plug his shitty book that revealed nothing new? So Fassbender could deny what he and Wiegert clearly did to a child? I think we have to look a bit deeper into where this idea originated. Maybe at Schimel’s office? These two clowns don’t work for the state of WI anymore, so there is a layer of deniability and at least one layer of separation. This keeps the states ridiculous story going without any obvious connection.

    Dateline didn’t take 5 minutes to really dive into the heart of the matter- The Civil Suit.

    • Great comment. I’m at a loss too as to why they did the piece for all of the reasons you stated. I think they just know that there is a tremendous amount of pent up interest in this case, and no one is doing any serious investigative work, so they just stepped in to fill a void knowing it would be an easy pay day. I will make the comment that I watch Dateline a lot, and I usually don’t have much trouble with their reporting. But that’s because most of the cases they feature are cut and dry. What I mean is, they usually know the outcome in advance. Someone killed someone years ago, an investigation was done, and someone went on trial as the killer. In this format, I believe they do a decent job of telling a story. But this case is different because you have Ken Kratz exerting his influence, and they’re just not prepared for someone like Ken Kratz. This is also an ongoing case, and the the outcome so far has been extremely murky, and I don’t think they’re accustomed do wading into this level of ongoing ambiguity. I’m sure their legal team has advised them to wait around for Kathleen Zellner before going after Ryan Hillegas or Scott Bloedorn, or anyone else. And this brings up another pet peeve of mine. Why should anyone wait around for Kathleen Zellner? How is it that we’ve allowed her to have a complete stranglehold on this matter, so much so that if you go around asking questions, as I have, people tell you to hush and be patient for Zellner. Well, I was patient for Zellner for over a year, and now my patience has ended.

  • Skin cells are usually found in perspiration and DNA is found in skin cells.

    • Oh so true! Now we just need to figure out why Steven Avery had such sweaty palms when it was 50° (Fahrenheit), on 10/31/2005 in Manitowoc, Wisconsin Any guesses about that? Maybe he was wearing gloves? Oh wait, if he had been wearing gloves he wouldn’t have left any sweat DNA unless you thinking his hands had been so sweaty that the sweat had soaked through the gloves? And if he HAD left “sweat” DNA, I wonder why only there and nowhere else? And while we’re on the topic, don’t you think it a BIT odd that he didn’t leave his fingerprint(s) along with his DNA? We also have to assume that other people had opened Teresa’s car hood at some point, maybe to change the oil? So we should have expected to find more than one person’s DNA on the hood latch, right? But it was only Steven Avery’s DNA for some very odd reason.

      • THANK YOU JESUS, finally someone with some sense is actually having the balls to highlight all the lies, manipulation, & bullshit that Kratz is talking. I don’t know why I am just now coming across your blogs sir, but you are a genius…The way you have taken every scenario and actually investigated it to determine the truth instead of just throwing out a bunch of opinions and hoping one sticks , or constantly flip flopping back and forth to appease whoever reads your articles & challenges you.. is truly refreshing…This case has truly bothered me since I watched the documentary on Netflix, I 100% believe he is innocent, however I also believe the ex boyfriend was involved & that Kratz absolutely knew that but due to the lawsuit Avery had against the county ,that Kratz, along with law enforcement, decided to make sure Avery would go down for this. I am no expert, but how in the hell there can be no fingerprints but Avery’s blood n the car, & that it took them 9 days to “find” that key in his house after those police officers,who were never supposed to be involved in the evidence collection were literally there during every search of the property & the only ones who found anything pointing to Avery’s so called guilt…was more than enough alone for me to have been unable to vote him guilty of this and live with myself afterwards. & What those idiot detectives did to Dassey was disgustingly heartless & neglegent..My heart broke for that kid. I actually can’t even see how anyone who heard ALL the TRUE FACTS of this case, & watched the documentary, could ever think anything other than Avery is innocent. I completely agree with you and I really pray that what your doing by researching and investigating this in the interest of TRUE JUSTICE helps somehow to make any positive difference in Avery’s conviction. So glad I came across your blogs so that I can keep up with what your findings are & any future changes in this case. & Just FYI…What you said to the couple you were interviewing about why they were so reluctant to talk to you on camera & why ,if they feel he is truly innocent won’t they stand up for what’s just & right …To try somehow to make a difference..Even if it’s just so their voice can be heard..Was truly inspiring..I really don’t understand why it seems like damn near everyone in that county is so scared to use their constitutional right to FREE SPEECH…it makes me wonder exactly how corrupt that police Dept actually is. Anyway, I’ll stop my ranting. Just wanted to let you know I’m on board with what your doin & I appreciate your work. Wishing you continued support & blessings!!????????