quote:

---

Hidden in all this is the lead prosecutor who had to run for cover when it was discovered he was soliciting sex from a girl who had been beaten by her ex whom he was prosecuting.

Stuff like, "if you don't do _______, I'm going to let him walk."

That is despicable.

Someone like that...it would be nothing for them to frame someone for murder.

Ken Kratz is a disgusting human being.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are being intentionally obtuse to fit your narrative. I'm merely using common sense

---

I'm saying there are multiple plausible explanations.

---

quote:

---

You are saying that you are right and you know the heart and mind of a man you have never met and never talked to and that has never expressed a reason and that you and only you are 100% correct about their opinion. You have created your narrative and wedge everything into it whether you have any evidence supporting it or not.

---

quote:

---

Who is being obtuse?

---

quote:

---

No, you are saying you and only you are correct, that you and only you know his motive and his heart and that and random numbers you assign to the probability of different scenarios happening are the actual probabilities of it happening.

---

quote:

---

You are the person behind intentionally obtuse, while you claim everyone that doesn't share your opinion is there one that is being obtuse.

---

quote:

---

I always wonder about that Guitar..what does atm Ag think about the literally millions of people that have watched the documentary that aren't convinced of his guilt?

Surely he knows that a large cross-section of viewers have watched the same show, and have come away thinking he might be innocent..does he think he's smarter than every single one of them?

He's got to think that everyone else is being obtuse, and his viewpoint is the only correct one..takes a breathtaking amount of arrogance.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I always wonder about that Guitar..what does atm Ag think about the literally millions of people that have watched the documentary that aren't convinced of his guilt?

Surely he knows that a large cross-section of viewers have watched the same show, and have come away thinking he might be innocent..does he think he's smarter than every single one of them?

He's got to think that everyone else is being obtuse, and his viewpoint is the only correct one..takes a breathtaking amount of arrogance.

---

I too came away from the video also thinking he was innocent. It wasn't until afterwards, reading these threads, doing some more research on my own, etc. that I have come to the conclusion that Avery most likely did it and that the police also tried to frame him.

I welcome you or anybody else to poke holes in my theory with evidence. If you can point some evidence that rules my theory out, then I will admit that it is wrong.

---

Most people agree that the additional evidence left out of the documentary points to Avery's guilt, but that doesn't change the facts of extreme police and prosecutorial misconduct, and reasonable doubt still exists, even given all of the omitted evidence.

---

quote:

---

that's an interesting link, Soup.

I do find it odd that a woman who lived with a roommate wasn't reported missing for 3 days. Has that been explained?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

that's an interesting link, Soup.

I do find it odd that a woman who lived with a roommate wasn't reported missing for 3 days. Has that been explained?

---

My family asked that question over and over - and maybe we were just not paying attention when it was discussed. But is there any evidence that the roommate and ex-boyfriend were investigated/questioned? Usually, boyfriends/spouses are the first to be focused on.

---

quote:

---

Barely four months into the case, Kratz made at least seven statements to the press implicating Avery and/or Dassey in Halbach's murder, according to court records. By August, Manitowoc County Circuit Judge Patrick Willis rejected a motion filed by Avery's attorneys Jerome Buting and Dean Strang asking the judge to dismiss the charges against Avery because of inflammatory and highly prejudicial pretrial publicity. The judge from Manitowoc ruled there was no legal precedent for such "drastic" action.

"A defendant has a right to a fair trial, which means a trial in which guilt or innocence is determined only by evidence received in court and evidence only evaluated by a jury," said Ben Kempinen, University of Wisconsin Law School clinical professor of law and director of the Prosecution Project.

"To me, those press conferences would suggest a colorable violation of the (bar association) trial publicity rule. The risks of prejudice are magnified in smaller communities because of the pervasive nature of the publicity and the likelihood that virtually the entire community will have strong feelings about the case. The Avery case appeared to have captured the attention of the Fox Valley market ... and you cannot un-ring that bell."

---

quote:

---

Abbe Smith, director of the criminal defense and prisoner advocacy clinic at Georgetown University, said Kratz's opening declaration in his March 2, 2006 press conference exclaiming "we now have determined" and his continuing comments about Dassey supposedly hearing screams and running over to his uncle's trailer were highly improper behavior to say at a press briefing.

"It's unethical behavior with no legitimate purpose," Smith told USA TODAY NETWORK. "Prosecutors should err on the side of not inflaming the public. To prosecute a case in the media damages the legal system because you're prejudicing the jury process."

---

quote:

---

Randy Ritnour, a veteran former criminal prosecutor in Nebraska who has watched "Making a Murderer," said prosecutors in his state are keenly aware that they will be brought up for disciplinary measures by the state bar association if they violate the state's bar press guidelines regarding pretrial publicity. Discipline could consist of a public reprimand and be as harsh as a law license suspension, he said.

"There is absolutely no purpose for any of this stuff that Ken Kratz did," said Ritnour, who served two terms in two largely rural counties similar to Manitowoc and Calumet counties, from 2003 through 2010. "He likes and wants his name out there. He is definitely trying to get to the people who will then be in the jury pool. Even if Kratz loses (at trial), he still kind of wins anyway because he convicted Avery and Dassey in the court of public opinion."

---

quote:

---

Brent Turvey, a nationally recognized forensic scientist and criminal profiler in Alaska, said the crime scene evidence collected from inside of the Avery residence does not match up with Kratz's salacious and inflammatory press conference statements around the time of Dassey's arrest and purported confession to the pair of investigators.

"Ken Kratz gives this false story," Turvey said. "It's pure fantasy. The entire theory comes from the fantasies of these police investigators (interviewing Dassey). The problem here is that (Kratz) gave false information, this whole sexual fantasy, talking about Teresa Halbach talking and begging and yelling when none of this had any forensic science to back it up.

"Why does this matter? Because you are not allowed to gin up the public and misrepresent the evidence when talking to the press, and the only reason you do that is when you and the police don't have a good case to begin with. Ken Kratz was trying this case in the press to disparage the defendants. What these judges should have done was put a gag order in place. There should have been some consequences from the Wisconsin Bar Association, and the judge who is seeing this nonsense go on should have put a stop to this. Nobody in this case wanted a fair trial."

As far as pretrial publicity, Marquis said there is a certain amount of information the public and press have a right to know. However, "a prosecutor has to be careful not be polluting the jury pool. Generally speaking, you don't try a case on the courthouse steps, you try them in front of the jury."

---

quote:

---

Winnebago County District Attorney Christian Gossett said he has never engaged in similar pretrial conduct as Kratz did in the Halbach murder case.

"We really don't even do press conferences," Gossett said. "I am always leery when prosecutors are trying to grab headlines in cases. We always avoid trying a case in front of the public through the press. We know to limit what we can say to what you are presenting in court and oftentimes you guys doing the story are there regardless and you hear (in court) what we say."

"As prosecutors, we are trained professionals. We should not be speculating and guessing," Gossett said. "Some of the things (Kratz) talked about did not come to fruition in front of the juries. If you go and make a statement that you can't prove, in hindsight, it might not connect the way you think. In retrospect, people will now look at that."

---

quote:

---

They're really an important issue because where the body was burned should have determined guilt or innocence alone, ignoring everything else, because if the jury believed or understood that this body was burned elsewhere then the fact that there were the majority of her bones were found in his burn pit should have proven that he was not the killer. Because nobody would burn a body somewhere else, gather up their bones and then go and dump them in their own backyard. That's ludicrous, right?

Now, the state argued that most of [the bones] were burned there, but they have no explanation never offered in either trial [an explanation] as to why, if, in fact, the body was burned right outside Mr. Avery's garage, why would any of the bones move? And why were only a few of them moved? Why would you find some of them that were clearly identified as her bones in a burn barrel over by Bobby Dassey's house, for instance? And why would there be human pelvis bones found a quarter-, a half-mile away in a burn gravel pit?


So the other thing that wasn't [addressed at trial] and the state really had no explanation for it [was]: If Avery was the killer and he burned the body behind his garage, why would he move just a few of them, and put them in his burn barrel, and a few of them and put them in some quarry a quarter-, half-mile away? You would think that if you're going to try and dispose of evidence, you're not going to leave the majority of it right outside your garage, right? They never offered anything to explain that, and, in fact, in my closing argument I challenged the prosecution to explain to this jury.

The fragments that were found in the barrel came from all over the body. They had a diagram of the skeleton. They came from the shoulder, the toe, the leg, the arm it was a complete mix. It was more consistent with what we thought had happened, which is that the body was burned elsewhere, scooped up into this barrel, dumped on Avery's property, most of it, but then some remained in the muck sort of just a mix of bone.

---

quote:

---

Police planted the key
Police planted the blood
Police planted the bullet
Police planted the car

---

quote:

---

Police planted the bones? What? No. That's crazy talk. That can't have happened.

---

quote:

---

He also says that most everyone believes she died on the 31st. Her voicemail was full on the 1st. But it was at 8am on the 2nd that someone accessed her voicemail and cleaned it out. But she wasn't reported as missing until the 3rd - a full 36 hours later.

No one has explained that. Unless you had incriminating voice mails on there, why would anyone clean out her voice mail? Especially before anyone other than the killer knew she was missing.

---

quote:

---

She had people looking for her before she was officially reported missing I think.

And I don't think anyone cleaned out her voicemail, did they? I think they just know that at some point it was full, then not full, then full again.

The voicemail thing never bothered me or struck me as something pointing to someone else. I'm fairly confident I could guess the PIN of my siblings, my parents and a couple of my best friends. I don't see accidentally deleting a voicemail as strange or out of the ordinary at all.

---

quote:

---

If I was concerned about someone and had started to piece together that no one had seen them for over a full day during the week, listening to their voicemail is definitely something I'd consider doing.

---

quote:

---

He also says that most everyone believes she died on the 31st. Her voicemail was full on the 1st. But it was at 8am on the 2nd that someone accessed her voicemail and cleaned it out. But she wasn't reported as missing until the 3rd - a full 36 hours later.

No one has explained that. Unless you had incriminating voice mails on there, why would anyone clean out her voice mail? Especially before anyone other than the killer knew she was missing.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

He also says that most everyone believes she died on the 31st. Her voicemail was full on the 1st. But it was at 8am on the 2nd that someone accessed her voicemail and cleaned it out. But she wasn't reported as missing until the 3rd - a full 36 hours later.

No one has explained that. Unless you had incriminating voice mails on there, why would anyone clean out her voice mail? Especially before anyone other than the killer knew she was missing.

---

Easiest explanation for me is that her phone had the voicemail password stored, so that the killer was able to delete any incriminating voicemails just by having access to her phone. I don't know if that possibility was ever investigated and I can't remember if it was mentioned in the documentary.

---