Ken Kratz Laughs At Your Dumb Theory

Ken Kratz

If you think law enforcement framed Steven Avery, you’re wrong.  If you think the blood found in Teresa Halbach’s RAV4 came from the vial shown in Making A Murderer, you’re also wrong.  As you propound your theories, Ken Kratz laughs at you because he can just sit back and mock you for thinking there was a vast conspiracy afoot to frame Steven Avery, and guess what?  He’d be right.

I know that my theory that Ken Kratz planted all of the evidence seems ridiculous to many, but if you believe that Steven Avery is innocent, there is no way around it.  In fact, if Ken Kratz wasn’t the one who planted the blood evidence, I would almost go so far as to say that Steven Avery would have to be guilty of murder.  But that simply cannot be, and not because I don’t want it to be, but because it simply does not add up.  So we’re back to square one.

For the few of you who really read my posts, you may recall that there was a certain point at which I had speculated that Ken Kratz must have planted the blood evidence while the RAV4 was still on the salvage yard property, and before it had been brought in for evidence testing at the Wisconsin State Crime Lab in Madison.  But I had to quickly abandon that theory.  When Kratz initially arrived at the crime scene, there were simply too many people wandering around.  Besides that inconvenience, the doors to the RAV4 were locked.

And truth to tell, I was really, really at a loss at this point.  Look, it’s very easy to make any theory work so long as you keeping adding people to it, while also keeping the particulars vague.  It would have been very easy to fall back on the blood vial shown in Making A Murderer that got Jerry Buting so (understandably) excited.  The reason I didn’t do that, however, is because that vial of blood never seemed quite right to me from the very beginning as the source.

The test the FBI did for the preservative chemical is not something easily pushed aside, for one thing.  Even though there are ways to add doubt even to this, at a certain point the argument loses force.  Was the test flawed?  Was the FBI in on the conspiracy?  But the main reason I didn’t go with the law enforcement planting theory has to do with the fact that I simply reject the notion that entire law enforcement departments go around planting evidence.  At the very least, I thought it would be a good idea to examine other possibilities.

But if the blood had come from the vial, then the blood could very easily have been planted by law enforcement before the RAV4 was found on the Avery property.  In fact, that would had to have been the case.  And so it is, to this day, the theory of choice of many that this is essentially what happened.  To bolster this, there is the idea that Colborn had found the RAV4, or was directed to it while out on patrol, and we know this because of the call he made to verify the plate numbers.  

The main reason I didn’t go down this path for very far or for very long.  Police departments do not concoct elaborate plans to frame people for murder.  There might be a dirty cop here or there.  There are documented cases of this, but I’ve never once in my life heard of a big law enforcement conspiracy to frame someone.  If there was a law enforcement conspiracy to frame Steven Avery, this implies that it was known by all in area law enforcement that Steven Avery didn’t kill Teresa Halbach.  Further, this implies that no one on the police force had any interest whatsoever in finding out who was really her killer.  This is simply not believable.

Keep in mind that I am not really a booster for law enforcement.  I’ve been to prison.  There is no one who hates the system more than I do.  THere are few people who have been as vocal and outspoken about the system than I.  I regard law enforcement culture as a rearguard response to the sustained assault to the American masculine identity.  Let’s face it, the world can only accommodate so many metrosexuals.

But as long as your theory about who killed Teresa Halbach requires blood coming from the vial, there is no way to avoid the requirement that your theory also involve a vast conspiracy on the part of law enforcement

Let me ask you this question: has it ever occurred to you that there might have been a reason why Ken Kratz is always so quick to mock the “vast conspiracy on the part of law enforcement?”  Has it ever occurred to you that he might be right about that, and that Dean Strang and Jerry Buting got critical pieces of this bizarre puzzle wrong?

It is only when we abandon any theory involving the involvement of law enforcement that we really start to move in the direction of the plausible.  When I had to abandon my theory that Ken Kratz planted the blood in the RAV4 while it was still on the Avery property, I really had to admit that I was stumped.  But as I did more and more research, and I as I read and reread court transcripts, I discovered there was another way after all.

Bear in mind that I am keenly aware that the implications of Ken Kratz being the primary, if not the sole planter of evidence are also staggering.  I am also keenly aware that even advancing this theory dramatically reduces what little credibility I had to almost zero.  If there was no law enforcement collusion, the we have to assume that the first time Ken Kratz heard about the Toyota RAV4 was the on the day it was discovered, 11/05/05.

It would have been very difficult for anyone to plant evidence that without being detected by the numerous people who on Avery property that day.  It would have been noticed, for example, if Ken Kratz entered the RAV4.  Deputy Jason Orth was standing by taking very detailed notes, and it also would have been seen as a serious breech of protocol.

The only opportunity anyone would have had to plant evidence before the RAV4 had been thoroughly processed by crime lab techs, was between the time the RAV4 was dropped off in Madison at around midnight on 11/06/2005, and just a few hours after that.  It couldn’t have been done too much longer after this time because Ronald Groffy appeared at the crime lab later that day, and he is the one who took the pictures showing the blood around the ignition switch among other places.  

When is a theory not just another load of speculation?  I would argue when it begins to have the ability to predict events.  My theory that it was Ken Kratz who planted the blood predicted that Ken Kratz therefore had to be present at the crime lab in Madison.  Guess what?  Ken Kratz was at the crime lab in Madison!  That’s kind of a big deal, if I do say so.

Again, if this is correct, the implications are breathtaking and largely without precedent.  Ken Kratz is going around the country promoting his book on talk shows with viewerships in the tens of millions.  Imagine how humiliating it is going to be for members of the media to admit that they’d been duped by Ken Kratz.  It’s very difficult, in fact, that they’re ever going to be able to bring themselves to do it.

The audacity of someone to go around promoting a book on national television which is about the guilt of two men the author framed is out of bounds, but when you really think about it, what choice does the author really have?  Kathleens Zellner and the truth are out there.  They’re out there breathing down his neck, and this explains why Ken Kratz never misses an opportunity to make an appearance.  If he can muddle the water just enough, he must be hoping, maybe he stands a chance.



  • Oh I think when Zellner reveals what she has found out, it’s going to be very believable by a great many people. While Kratz does appeal to the Nancy Grace types, that world is shrieking, *cough* ahem, I meant shrinking. Kratz has been exposed for what he is. A Predator that got caught and never charged.

    Now there are many theories out there as to how all this happened. What ever folk believe, it’s clear that one or more people tampered with and outright planted evidence.

    • Thanks for your comment, John. I believe that the there are a lot of people who have the 40,000 foot view of things right: Steven Avery didn’t kill Teresa Halbach, and evidence was planted. Unfortunately, knowing this is never going to be enough because it isn’t specific. The question is whether someone can come up with a theory on this case that IS specific still holds up, and doesn’t rely on there being a wild conspiracy. Moreover, I would argue that an incorrect theory about Steven Avery’s innocence is hardly any better than an incorrect theory about his guilt. The integrity of ones alternative theory has to explain a lot of things, and it has to be sound. If it isn’t, then it’s easy for the naysayers to come along and pick it apart.