The Empire Strikes Back

Death Star from StarWars
pic of Nancy Grace in partial provile

Nancy Grace

Ken Kratz responded to my email last night requesting a full list of the excluded evidence.
Letter from Ken Kratz

Letter from Ken Kratz listing “excluded” evidence

And here is the text of that email so it’s hopefully a little easier to read:

Examples for you to consider:
1. Avery’s past incident with a cat was not “goofing around”.  He soaked his cat in gasoline or oil, and put it on a fire to watch it suffer.
2.  Avery targeted Teresa.  On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.”  OnOct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel.  She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously).  Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister’s) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming.
3. Teresa’s phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery’s door, burned in his barrel.  Why did the documentary not tell the viewers the contents of her purse were in his burn barrel, just north of the front door of his trailer?
4.  While in prison, Avery told another inmate of his intent to build a “torture chamber” so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released.  He even drew a diagram.  Another  inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to “burn it”…heat destroys DNA.
5. The victim’s bones in the firepit were “intertwined” with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn, as described by Dassey.  That WAS where her bones were burned!  Suggesting that some human bones found elsewhere (never identified as Teresa’s) were from this murder was NEVER established.
6.  Also found in the fire pit was Teresa’s tooth (ID’d through dental records), a rivet from the “Daisy Fuentes” jeans she was wearing that day, and the tools used by Avery to chop up her bones during the fire.
7.  Phone records show 3 calls from Avery to Teresa’s cell phone on Oct 31.  One at 2:24, and one at 2:35–both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn’t know it him…both placed before she arrives.  Then one last call at 4:35 pm, without the *67 feature.  Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up (his original defense), so tries to establish the alibi call after she’s already been there, hence the 4:35 call.  She will never answer of course, so he doesn’t need the *67 feature for that last call.
8. Avery’s DNA (not blood) was on the victim’s hood latch (under her hood in her hidden SUV).  The SUV was at the crime lab since 11/5…how did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car?  Do the cops have a vial of Avery’s sweat to “plant” under the hood?
9. Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery’s rifle, which was in a police evidence locker since 11/6…if the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from HIS gun?  This rifle, hanging over Aver’s bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa’s DNA on it.  The bullet had to be fired BEFORE 11/5—did the cops borrow his gun, fire a bullet, recover the bullet before planting the SUV, then hang on to the bullet for 4 months in case they need to plant it 4 months later???
There is more of course.  But I’m not a DA anymore.  I have no duty to show what nonsense the “planting” defense is, or why the documentary makers didn’t provide these uncontested facts to the audience.  You see, these facts are inconsistent with the claim that these men were framed—you don’t want to muddy up a perfectly good conspiracy movie with what actually happened, and certainly not provide the audience with the EVIDENCE the jury considered to reject that claim.
Finally, I engaged in deplorable behavior, sending suggestive text messages to a crime victim in Oct 2009.  I reported myself to the OLR.  My law license was thereafter suspended for 4 months.  I have withstood a boat-load of other consequences as a result of that behavior, including loss of my prosecution career.  However, I’ve enjoyed sobriety from prescription drug use for over 5 years now, and refuse to be defined by that dark time of my life.  All of this occurred years after the Avery case was concluded…I’m unclear why the defense-created documentary chose to include this unpleasantness in this movie, especially if the filmmakers had no agenda to cast me as a villain.  I am not a victim in that whole texting scandal—then again, it’s exceedingly unfair to use that to characterize me as morally unfit.
To identify Lt. Lenk, Sgt. Colburn and myself as being “responsible” for the framing and knowing false murder conviction of Steven Avery is irresponsible, and inconsistent with a consideration of all the evidence presented.  Netflix should either provide an opportunity for rebuttal, or alert the viewers that this series was produced by and FOR the defense of Steven Avery, and contains only the opinion and theory of the defense team.
Thanks for your consideration.
On Jan 4, 2016 6:17 PM, <whatdauno@gmail.com> wrote:
HI Ken,
There was a redditor who had posted an email that you’d sent to him with several points that had been left out of the series.  Unfortunately, that post has been deleted.  You had earlier sent me a partial list of some of those points, but not all.  I was wondering, therefore, whether you would be kind enough to send me that information, and any other information you feel is pertinent so I can post it on my blog.
Kind regards,
Daniel Luke

So it is now apparent that Ken kratz has at least one big media ally, Nancy Grace, and I’m sure others are to follow in the coming days and weeks.  Ken Kratz was on Nancy Grace’s show last night, and all the two wanted to talk about was the “excluded” evidence.  I don’t have a clip of that show, but you can get a general sense of Nancy’s frame on this by listening to this interview.
What hypocrisy.  They’re making the same error that they’re accusing the film maker’s of making.  My view of course, is that you have to talk about all of the evidence whether it fits your pet theory or not.  By the way, if any of you out there watched the show, did you notice the subtle shift in Ken’s tone?  Whereas before he described the excluded evidence as comprising “eighty to ninety percent” of all the evidence, last night on Nancy Grace he described the evidence that was presented as “just a fraction”.  Let’s see which rhetoric he sticks with as he becomes the next Monica Lewinsky and he’s on TV all the time.  Maybe his handlers proffered a little advice, or maybe he’s been reading this blog.  Who knows?
You might have also noticed that Ken Kratz goes by something of a double standard.  In his email to me he wrote:

But I’m not a DA anymore.  I have no duty to show what nonsense the “planting” defense is, or why the documentary makers didn’t provide these uncontested facts to the audience.

 
No duty, that is, unless Nancy Grace wants you on her show to lend a sympathetic ear before a nationwide audience of millions of viewers?  No duty unless you’re peddling all of your excluded “evidence”, some of which includes hearsay of a man opening a door with a towel.  The duty still extends to what Kratz so urgently wants us to know, the excluded evidence, as he calls it, and he seems quite willing to talk about that all day long to viewers of Nancy Grace but that duty seems to abruptly end whenever we want our questions answered about, oh, say, why there was no physical evidence in the garage or trailer.  Nothing to see there folks!
 
Prosecutors in the US have enormous power, and when they are wrong or unethical they are virtually immune from consequences.  Most have win records in the mid to high nineties, and even when it emerges that they imprison the wrong person, they generally fight as hard as they can, with the inexhaustible resources of the state backing them, to impede a just and rightful outcome.  Given what I’ve seen of Kratz, I’m guessing his win rate was approaching ninety-nine percent.
 
One trick in their big bag of tricks to ensure success rates which are probably about what they were in Soviet courts during the era of communism, is to “stack” charges.  Prosecutors love long lists because they work.  Abetted often by the police, and in fact, the very nature of American law which offers virtually no substantive protections (but plenty of procedural ones) they are often quite creative in how they cobble together a rap sheet.  If you were a person who wasn’t familiar with how courts work, you could be forgiven for thinking that a person with ten charges was a bad person.  That’s by design.  One or two, a reasonable person might be inclined toward indifference, but TEN.  Jesus, even if they aren’t all true, at least a few must be, one would naturally reason.  So the prosecutor almost always gets his conviction.  Everyone who works in court knows this is how it goes down.
 
So I see the list of the excluded evidence in this light.  That is not a dismissal, however.  I strongly believe that we need to look at it in good faith and with open eyes.  I think Ken Kratz deserves to be heard out, and I’m well aware that the film makers, after spending a combined total of twenty years on this (ten for each one), wouldn’t have had much of a story if Avery’s guilt was obvious.  It’s not like I don’t realize that they too might have ulterior motives. Riches lie in the ambiguity.  What I don’t like about what I’ve seen so far from either camp, is the willingness to discuss the points brought up by the other side.  If Avery and Dassey are guilty, we all, (well, many of us) owe Ken Kratz an apology and a thank you.  I would certainly owe Ryan Hillegas an apology.  If he is not guilty, we really need to do whatever we can do to set him free.
 

I also believe that Nancy Grace has her own motives.  As there are riches in ambiguity, there are also in divisiveness.  She can gain and hold an audience by being the contrarian.  Or, maybe her reputation is on the line because she covered this story ten years ago and came down on the prosecutions side (as I understand).  During her show last night, she never once talked about the lack of physical evidence, the way the trial was handled or anything else but Ken Kratz’s “excluded” evidence.  And people are accusing me of skating on thin ice? Wow. 

 
I must go shower now and eat some lunch.  I hope to be back in the afternoon at some time to post about the “excluded” evidence, and to ask about the evidence that Ken Kratz seems to want us to ignore or forget about.  We’re going to get to the bottom of this, Ken, whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not.

 

Share

20 comments

  • Donnie Wahllberg quote I love the comments on my "Making A Murderer" post. Lots of open minds. Lots of great points. Lots of ANGER!!! ha ha!
    And one very consistent theme with some of the people who "think" they "agree" or "disagree" with my blog: you clearly have only read the heading.
    When you state that I am "right" or "wrong" in my opinion- you clearly miss the point of the piece. Because my opinion about Avery's guilt in the case, is really an afterthought. I am mainly raising questions, in the piece. Questions about people's emotional reaction to the case- a case with questions of similar "suspect" police work to the O.J. case. I know most of you would like to avoid these similarities, and avoid the O.J comparison completely, but if you believe that Steven Avery's case should be thrown out (which I never said that I disagree with), or you believe that he was set up (which is possible, but still doesn't explain or show one ounce of concern for the victim) then shouldn't you have had the same reaction in the O.J. case? A case where the blood evidence, and a certain cop, were 100% proven to be corrupted? In fact- the EDTA blood testing methods were the same in both cases. But O.J.'s test results revealed that the blood in his house was planted. That combined with Mark Fuhrman (of all people) jumping over the wall without a warrant, should have gotten that case thrown out too. But most people didn't want to hear that in the O.J. trial. They just wanted him to fry- regardless of someone like Mark Fuhrman being the key witness and finder of evidence.
    The EDTA test in The Avery case suggested the blood was NOT planted.
    So, if we believe in corruption in the Avery trial- shouldn't we have taken a similar stand in The O.J. trial?
    Yet how many people did?
    Most people were appalled when O.J. was acquitted, and most of those very same people are appalled that Avery was convicted.
    Given the circumstances, and similarities, in both cases… Why the double standard?
    That is the question my post raises.
    That is a fair question.
    If you are not addressing that, then you clearly did not read the post, or you'd rather just avoid the topic.
    Was it a question of race?
    Or were we simply not given enough facts, by the series producers, to properly judge who Steven Avery really is?
    If you are not addressing that, then you are probably just angry and looking for a fight- or being a martyr!!!!!
    ha ha ha!
    O.J. Bloody glove = Avery RAV4 key.
    O.J. Blood in Bronco = Avery Blood in RAV4.
    We wanted justice for Nicole Brown, yet most people seem to not give a damn about Ms Halbach. They all want justice for the most likely (planted evidence or not) suspect- Steven Avery.
    My how times have changed.
    PS- I'd love to see how people would react if Avery burned that cat alive today. They'd probably sign a petition to give him the death penalty, instead of signing one to free him for possibly burning a woman.

  • I think it's possible that Brendan's stepbrother and Stepdad could have seen an attractive woman at Steven's trailer, waited for her at the Quarry instead of going "hunting" and raped her. Then decided to kill her to prevent her from testifying. The 2 figured they could blame it on Steven and no one would have to know what they did. They don't seem like the kind of guys that would think ahead logically to realizing that would cost them any kind of money. In fact they might have been jealous of Steven getting so much attention and money and wanted to see him be the black sheep of the family again.

  • I suppose anything is possible, but I do not feel that anyone else is the Avery family is a strong suspect. The money that Steven Avery might have been able to win in a lawsuit would, in my opinion, work against the theory that family members were involved. They stood to gain, not to lose. Now, if Steven Avery had won the 36 million, and he refused to share it with his family members, his family might have had a motive.

  • Do you not think Averys brothers or family are a prime suspect? They could have motive? Rights to Avery business and land and jealousy of money from lawsuit etc… Or just easy play to cover up a mess they got in. Maybe things went to far with Bobby and Scott and Steve was their cover up they knew the cops would seal the deal . I understand Ryan looked shady but I think there are other people to also look into.

  • Yes, possibly, but I'm not convinced. Conspiracy theories usually work against the principle of Occam's Razor. If you don't need to resort to a conspiracy to explain this crime, the better off you are, and so far, my explanation avoids a conspiracy theory. But I very well could be wrong.

  • At this point, it's safe to assume malfeasance anytime Lenk was around.

  • The bullet was found on the property, swabbed with DNA, then dropped back in the garage. Lenk, the officer who found the key, was also there at the garage the day they searched t.

  • It's all BS except the ballistics. Like to understand how gun/bullet/dna was faked. Everything else is noise.

  • There is nothing in any of these points hasn't either been discredited or proven untrue.

  • Anonymous, who are you directing your comments to?

  • Most of the people that tell him to stop and go home know him and are not objectifying him like you. Think long and hard about this. Due to his record it is very easy for Dan to go back to prison. Also, I think Ken seemed very sincere in his letters to Dan. Sounds like he is working his 12 steps by being so forthright.

  • I'm so glad he wrote you back. The information in the bulk of the email doesn't grab my attention near as much his final words at the end:

    "There is more of course. But I'm not a DA anymore. I have no duty to show what nonsense the "planting" defense is, or why the documentary makers didn't provide these uncontested facts to the audience. You see, these facts are inconsistent with the claim that these men were framed—you don't want to muddy up a perfectly good conspiracy movie with what actually happened, and certainly not provide the audience with the EVIDENCE the jury considered to reject that claim.
    Finally, I engaged in deplorable behavior, sending suggestive text messages to a crime victim in Oct 2009. I reported myself to the OLR. My law license was thereafter suspended for 4 months. I have withstood a boat-load of other consequences as a result of that behavior, including loss of my prosecution career. However, I've enjoyed sobriety from prescription drug use for over 5 years now, and refuse to be defined by that dark time of my life. All of this occurred years after the Avery case was concluded…I'm unclear why the defense-created documentary chose to include this unpleasantness in this movie, especially if the filmmakers had no agenda to cast me as a villain. I am not a victim in that whole texting scandal—then again, it's exceedingly unfair to use that to characterize me as morally unfit."

    So, as he's not the D.A. anymore, why the involvement? Was he elected spokesperson for the evil empire? I don't think he's doing the state of Wisconsin any favors by doubling down.

    I also don't think he's doing himself or his sobriety any favors by choosing to insert himself snack dab in the middle of the drama when he is no longer D.A. He just can't stop himself from talking and writing. It seems like an invisible force is compelling him. I've said from the beginning that for Ken, the ego is strong with this one.

    He is not involved today because of his job, we know that. My theory is that he is involved because of his ego and his narcissistic personality disorder. The transcripts from the Supreme Court discipline case against Ken Kratz reveal that it wasn't just a one-time incident, as Ken (in his email above) would like us to believe. Here are the transcripts, which are a matter of public record, by the way. Paragraphs 34-48 and 64-67 ought to do it:

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

    All of this activity that Ken has embroiled himself in lately continues to prove the filmmakers point. The criminal justice system is built to get convictions, not truth. If Ken is motivated to discover the truth, he wouldn't be putting up so many deflections. He wouldn't have tried to get the film subpeona-ed. He wouldn't have run away to Superior, WI to start a new life for himself after the discipline case if he were as hardly guilty as he would like us to believe.

    I've had enough of this Ken Kratz guy. He's just a distraction and getting in the way of discovering the true murderer. He cannot accept that he's screwed up and that the truth is coming to light and that he will be facing some sort of judicial review again. If his case really is going to stand, why is he so defensive? He should cool his jets in that case and know that it'll be alright.

    But it's not. He's on the wrong side of history and is acting like a cornered wild animal.

    I've read every single post and comment on here and I think you are on the money. No one would be after you if you weren't narrowing in on something. Keep it up!!

    P.s. Thanks for helping my imagination with the Star Wars metaphor. ;)

  • I am a female and would be scared to go to a salvage yard. They look like dead bodies are hidden in there. A lot of dead Energy. I am really sorry Teresa is gone.

  • From: http://chippewa.com/news/victim-s-cousin-tells-of-finding-vehicle-in-avery-salvage/article_fb32d5b4-4569-53de-bb0c-c6e2beccd56e.html

    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.’’’

    Willis said he could not allow the testimony because the date wasn’t clear and few details were known about the alleged encounter.

    But Pliszka did testify before the jury that Avery called her on Oct. 31, 2005, to request the photographer who had been out to the property previously. Schuster said she talked to Halbach by phone around 11 a.m. that day to tell her of the appointment at the Avery property.

    That Teresa Halbach feared Steve Avery, or was afraid of going to the Avery Farm were things that Mr Kratz and the Prosecution made up based solely on nonsense and conjecture.

  • Like what.

  • Where can you find a report where it's discredited

  • That's too bad because many of the other points are not hear say

  • "Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel. She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously)."

    This was discredited. Teresa Halbach had told a coworker about Avery answering the door in a bath towel and they laughed about it. I like how Ken Kratz calls these "uncontested facts."

  • I'm not even going to read all this. Already the first few points are heresay and things that have been discredited. Ken Kratz has no credibility at all.