A little validation from Moira Demos!!

Tweet sent by Making a Murderer filmmaker Moira Demos to Daniel Luke

Ken “The Trash Man” Kratz has become a media whore as we all know, popin’ trash for Nancy Grace and any other talk show bloviator who will listen, and basically leaving a greasy, rotten smelling, slippery trail of lies and nonsense in his wake.

But I have to give credit where credit is due, and despite Kratz’s avoirdupois he came out of the gate sprinting, hoping to soften his reputation, and also to convince people that Making A Murder was nothing but a hatchet piece that left out evidence that would have painted a much different picture had it been included.

For awhile I had a running dialog with Kratz, and urged him to think about reconsidering Avery’s guilt.  He would have none of it, and sent me several emails with bullet pointed lists of the “excluded evidence”, as he called it, that, he clearly thought, would convince anyone with a sound and fair mind that Avery was certainly guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I spent several days looking at his list of excluded evidence and thinking about each item very carefully.  By the end of this project, for every item of evidence Kratz claimed was excluded by the filmmakers, I had at least two to five counter points which, if you’d like, you can read: Part I and Part II

The tweet that I sent to Moira Demos was a reference to hearsay that Steven Avery had once opened the door for Teresa Halbach wearing only a towel.  Kratz is on record claiming that the filmmakers left out ninety percent of the evidence that would have made Steven Avery look guilty, (he eventually lowered that figure to just eighty percent, and then again to something like “the vast majority”, by the way).

So, if opening the door in a towel is part of the overwhelming volume of excluded evidence, and it’s so important that Ken “The Trash Man” Kratz felt it worthy of special mention for its potency to suggest guilt, what might we think of the remaining “excluded evidence” Katz is referring to?

Quite a bit if you were into Watching Nancy Grace or reading hastily written news articles from a week or so ago.  And as I mentioned, Kratz ran pretty far and pretty fast for a corpulent ex prosecutor before he found himself, for once, playing in the sandbox, to use his own boorish parlance, with the big kids. But then his past as an opioid addicted creepy Lathario, revealed in sexually harassing texts he made no scruple of sending to the victims of domestic violence it was his job to represent as district attorney, along with professional censure began catching up with him.

Having endeavored to trot out his excluded evidence before the world, Ken “The Trash Man” Kratz created more heat than light, and I think now that his dark, dark past has come to light, the influence that he briefly enjoyed is in the final stages of flaming out like shining from shook foil or fading fast like a wispy ember soaring o’er a chimney top, and flickering for an eye blink, then dimming to darkness even still in its ascent skyward on a black cold gusty night.

Having conserved her own energy by not joining the inevitable media circus inevitably sprung up in the sturm and drang surrounding her, and her mate’s seminal opus, Demos seems able to dispatch the perverse imp with one deft stroke.  One does not need an elephant gun to swat a fly after all.

So we are left to hope that Martin Luther King’s famous maxim, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice, or the lines ending  Gerard Manley Hopkin’s The Grandeur of God —

…And though the last lights off the Black West went; Oh morning at the brown brink eastward, springs –; Because the holy ghost over the bent; World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings

— will be made manifest as a new chapter is opened in this sordid saga


5 comments

  • I’m glad you took the question how it was meant and didn’t send it to the mental health page.

    I liked your answer.

    Kratz is a scum sucking slime ball and a disgrace to the legal system in my opinion. I saw a new interview he did yesterday and my first impression is that he has now hired a PR firm to fix the damage. I really hope that fix fails, I really do. The best way for that to fail is for this case to be blown out of the water.

    I’m still not 100% convinced that Avery is innocent (very close though) but from the first viewing it was obvious he did not have a fair trial and he deserved that as we all do.

  • Just playing the devils advocate here……

    Kratz fucked up big time and is now trying to redeem himself, just like you.

    Like you, does he not deserve a chance???

    • I thought so at first, too, but I no longer feel that’s the case. If he was tricked by Hillegas, that was one thing. A lot of people were including Avery’s own defense. But if knew or should have known that Avery was guilty, but decided to go after him anyway, that’s another matter altogether. I think Kratz knows that Avery is innocent because, despite being sort of slime ball, he’s still a really bright fellow.

      Right now what Kratz is doing is trying to protect the one significant thing he thinks he’s accomplished in life — the conviction of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey. I don’t fault him for talking about the evidence he says was “excluded” by the filmmakers, deliberately, I might add, to put Avery in a more favorable light than he deserved. I fault him for continuing to ignore all of the questions raised about all of the evidence that WAS included. I think it more than a little bit disingenuous to completely ignore massive gaps in your case and then go around talking about how Steven Avery MUST be guilty because he was said to have opened the door for Teresa Halbach wearing a towel.