The Faulty Chain of Kratz’s Logic
By now, I hope, even apologists for serial sexual harasser, Ken Kratz, realize that his continual insistence in the significance of Steven Avery having once allegedly opened the door wearing nothing but a towel is laughable.
Except that it isn’t. See, Kratz’s woodpile of “excluded evidence”, is actually a chain of logic leading to a particular conclusion. It’s important that it be seen this way because if you can destroy one link, the entire chain breaks, and Ken Kratz’s argument all but evaporates. We are obliged, therefore, to take the opening the door in a towel claim very seriously because it sets up what follows in Ken Kratz’s theory.
To recap, this is Ken Kratz’s theory:
- Steven Avery opens his front door in a towel (allegedly)
- Teresa Halbach becomes wary of Steven Avery because he opened the door in a towel
- Steven Avery must now cleverly lure Teresa Halbach to Avery Salvage by using *67, giving a fake name, and someone else’s phone number
If Steven Avery had never opened the door in a towel, Teresa Halbach would never have become wary of him, and there would never have been any need to use *67, a fake name, or someone else’s address.
There is also a flaw of reasoning that I want to point out in this theory. For all that Kratz claims to make the remotest amount of sense, Steven Avery would had to have been aware of Teresa Halbach’s wariness. What proof is there that he had such awareness? Well, according to Ken Kratz’s circular logic, the very fact that he used *67! No evidence is ever put forward other than Steven Avery’s use of *67 that he had knowledge that Teresa Halbach feared him in any way. But if you stop and think about it, how could he have known?
Well, you might say he could have known, ipso facto, he opened the door in a towel. Unfortunately, this is yet again another example of circular reasoning, and one which is undermined by how Teresa Halbach herself is reported to have interpreted the event.
Manitowoc County Circuit Judge Patrick Willis would not allow Dawn Pliszka, an Auto Trader receptionist at the time, to testify about one of Halbach’s previous encounters with Avery.
“She had stated to me that he had come out in a towel,’’ Pliszka said while the jury was outside of the courtroom. “I just said, ‘Really?’ and then she said, ‘Yeah,’ and laughed and said kinda ‘Ew.’’’
There is nothing there to suggest that Teresa became wary of Steven Avery for any reason. She simply responded the way you’d expect any twenty-five-year-old woman to respond when seeing a flabby middle aged man of forty three with his shirt off.
I’m sorry people, but once again none of this makes a single drop of sense. And I implore all readers to tell me what I’ve gotten wrong here: If Steven Avery was trying to “lure” Teresa Halbach to the Avery Salvage yard, as Ken Kratz claims, why would he have called her at all? I mean, what if she had answered the phone? She might have done that, right? No way Steven Avery could have known whether she would or wouldn’t have, right? So, if Steven Avery were truly trying to “lure” Teresa Halbach to the property, the surest way for him to blow this brilliant plan was for him to call her. Twice!
Ken Kratz’s theory also requires us to believe that Steven Avery’s supposed measures to lure Teresa Halbach to the property were successful. Again, this is impossible to believe. She’d been to the property on at least fourteen prior occasions (people keep saying only five, but fourteen is the number reported in People magazine). It’s where the Avery’s lived, including Steven. If the trickery that Kratz alleges were actually afoot, she would have been rather dense to have been fooled by it. She had to have know that there was more than reasonable expectation that she was going to run into Steven.
Wikipedia entry on Circular Reasoning