Prosecutor Ken Kratz

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
:clap:
Nice to see a reporter ask him a good question.... about the fingerprints.... what do you mean you don't know? LOL

Can't just dismiss it, it's pretty important.... Kratz: sure I can.

That pretty much sums up this case.
 
He's looking a bit worse for wear. Deservedly so.

Im trying to watch MaM again, but the bits with him in make my skin crawl and I am just fast forward anything to do with him.
 
[video=youtube;ceQDyP6DgiA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2m3s&v=ceQDyP6DgiA&app=desktop[/video]

Excuse the swearing and smoking in this video, but this woman does her homework and she is clearly gunning for Kratz BIGTIME! I am also including a link that show's Kratz's FB posts that she is talking about on here. I posted this link previously already as I caught the same slip up that she did...Kratz is OFFICIALLY losing it now folks.

Edit: **REALLY, REALLY sorry for the swearing...I would (bleep) out parts if I could, but other than her offensive language I think what she is saying is very important.

http://imgur.com/2d6kIRH







Kratz says she could have been killed as late as 11/ 9 ? Doesn't that disprove everything Brendan said in his ' confession' regarding 10/31 ? LOL @ Kratz . What the heck is this guy smoking ??
 
Note to Kratz, sometimes you can make things worse by opening your mouth. You should have stayed quiet from day one. Your ' defense' of yourself and your actions and your colleagues is really making you look MORE guilty of something. Know when to say when. Time to step aside and out of the limelight that you must crave. I'm sure all of the others involved cringe every time they see you've spoken.
 
Kratz says she could have been killed as late as 11/ 9 ? Doesn't that disprove everything Brendan said in his ' confession' regarding 10/31 ? LOL @ Kratz . What the heck is this guy smoking ??

So is he justifying here why the bones weren't found during the first 10,000 searches? And um.. big scary dogs can be taken by animal control for the duration of an investigation. No need to skip over something as important as a burn pit unless you are just looking for excuses.
 
Kratz email to Culhane, where in he states, and I quote:

I understand the frequency point on the MtDNA match--it's amazing, however, how much weight the public attributed to that finding locally, that "the FBI confirms that the human remains are that of the victims"! We were careful not to say that at all, but perceptions are what they are.

If you review page 6 of the SA's Motion to Compel Disclosure of potentially Exculpatory Evidence, you will see that he is referring to the FBI's mtDNA test results, as follows:

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences were obtained from the Q1 charred remains and the K1 buccal swab identified as coming from KH, the identified mother of TH. The mtDNA sequences obtained from Q1 and K1 are the same, with the exception of position 320. At this position, the presence of cytosine (C) was observed in the Q1 charred remains. In specimen K1, evidence both a cytosine (C) and a thymine (T) was characterized at position 320.

Due to the closely related sequences obtained from specimens Q1 and K1, TH cannot be excluded as the source of the charred remains.

... and the headlines blaring: "FBI Confirms Remains Those of TH."

As with other DNA evidence, it can only be used to exclude people from crimes, or in this case, exclude remains from belonging to a victim. Which is why, for example, in this ABA article, and while, regarding hair DNA testing, it reiterates this point, as quoted:

FBI officials say that, in cases involving mitochondrial DNA testing conducted by the lab, they always explain the differences between mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA to triers of fact and always make the limitations of mitochondria DNA testing perfectly clear.

"We always say it's maternally inherited and it's not unique to the individual," says Mark Wilson, the FBI's program manager for mitochondrial DNA analysis. "And we always tell them it cannot be used as a means of positive identification."

So, basically, Kratz, actually understanding the aforementioned relevant point, seemed to be quite pleased that the public believed the FBI results were affirmative.
 
Thanks for making that a bit clearer shadowraiths.... I have read a lot of discussion (mostly elsewhere) about the FBI's findings, and how it really doesn't positively ID the remains.

Even if they couldn't get any DNA, I had really thought the likelyhood of it being anyone else was slim, unfortunately.... TH was not the only young lady that died that week (and if you look online for photo's, they even looked similar) And now I hear about this other case where Dr. Eisenberg mistakenly (maybe?) ID'd burned remains as fetal remains with "some" adult bones. (I have looked and can't really find much more on this case)

So now it's hard not to look at the testing and wonder about it all.

Kratz was more than happy to just "go with it" as far as the media reporting Pagel saying the FBI positively ID'd the remains.
 
http://www.************.au/interview-with-ken-kratz/

Interview with Kratz. I have not listened to it... and to be honest, probably will not.

As Ken reminded me when we spoke, those of us watching in our armchairs at home “You didn’t have to have the meetings with [Teresa’s family]… where I told them what happened to their little girl.”

I wonder if he told them that he couldn't prove his theory.

ETA: hmmm apparently I can't link that site LOL It was posted today, so I'm sure it will pop up on other sites now.
 
Listening to the interview now incredulous! He's changing the story once again, it seems. At the 9:00 mark, ""You have to believe these police officers are going to find a 25 year old photographer...kill her and CHOP HER UP, THEN BURN HER". Then at 35:35 in, ""the rape, murder and dismemberment of this girl".

10 years ago when this was all going on, there was no accusations of any chopping up or dismemberment, now all of a sudden there are. Just like the slit throat is now just a scratch. Also SA was found NOT GUILTY of mutilation of a corpse, so can Kratz legally now accuse him of this since a court of law said he didn't do it? Same goes for the rape charge. The rape charge was dropped back then because they did not have the evidence to back their claims up. I would think that is possibly slander or something.

Am I wrong in thinking that Kratz is just giving Zellner a lot more ammo in these interviews he is doing? :thinking:
 
Continued from my previous post:

Where the heck was this dismemberment supposed to have taken place? Chopping someone up would leave A LOT of blood, I would think and there was no DNA or blood from TH found except on the bullet fragment and some in the RAV4 (clearly not enough for a dismemberment though). I just keep getting more confused with each interview he does! :confused:
 
I don't know why he is saying she was dismembered now. I know there were cut marks on the pelvic bones found in the quarry. But I also know that the defense made the point during cross with Dr. Eisenberg that the bones found in the barrel were bones from all over the body. Not from one limb, for example, which would have been the case if she was dismembered and that part was burned in the barrel. As for him being held accountable for his remarks.... he is no longer working for the County (remember he resigned after being caught being a pervert) so I'm guessing he can say whatever he wants.
 
http://www.convolutedbrian.com/ken-kratz-scandal-links.html

If you listen to the third link on there (Ryan Foley Interview of Ken Kratz) you can hear an un-edited version, of what I believe to be, the true face of KK, IMO. This differs GREATLY from the public persona that Kratz tries to portray. This interview was first on an article on the Post Crescent website but then was shortly after then taken down again. This interview pertains to Kratz's sexting scandal before it first came out, btw.

Edit: included more information.
 
Just wanted to clarify that much more documents have been uploaded to the page in my previous post. Looks to be the documents from Kratz's DOJ investigation, and all information can now be read through, looks like in its entirety. I must say, he is even worse than what I previously thought, smh.
 
Just wanted to clarify that much more documents have been uploaded to the page in my previous post. Looks to be the documents from Kratz's DOJ investigation, and all information can now be read through, looks like in its entirety. I must say, he is even worse than what I previously thought, smh.

omg I was just reading these and thought I would come see if they were here yet. Have you read any yet? I am on part 3 and I'm disgusted. I am even more convinced that the theory he put forward was one of his own fantasies. Reading how he described his exploits to other women also makes me wonder just how much he 'enjoyed' that news conference... being able to say all that and having the camera's on him.. ugggh.

oh and... these incidents go back before TH. These were not all incidents after the trial.
 
Yes, I have been reading them too, and am totally repulsed and shocked! How was he not disbarred??? The parts where he tells how he likes his women submissive and wants to know if she minds others WATCHING???? I have been thinking of him as something of a joke up to this point (to a certain extent), but now he is in a whole other realm!
 
Reading through these reports, imnsho, this man purposefully put forth his position as DA, to set up a power imbalance.

Moreover, he repeatedly noted that he was chairman of the Crime Victims Rights Board, to support his claim that he was pro-victim. His chronic behavior, however, indicates otherwise.

That is, imnsho, he fits the profile of the sort of predators who place themselves in situations that will bring them in contact with their preferred victim type. In this case, crime victims.

One thing that is especially troubling, for lack of a better descriptor, is that this man prosecuted cases involving sex crimes against minors.

Take for example, the so-called "Hilbert Sex Ring." I was unable to find much on that case but what I did find, and as bad as it was, it doesn't really meet the criteria for a sex ring. I would argue that [that] characterization, once again, came from the man's sex obsessed mind.

Then there's the allegation from the DOJ part 3 record, where he inappropriately questioned a 17 year old who was the victim of a registered sex offender.

As for other questionable behaviors?

There is, of course, his lurid murder fantasy press release regarding Ms. Halbach's death. And while she obviously wasn't a minor when she died, she appears to be fairly small in stature and this man repeatedly slipped up and referred to her as a "little girl."

Then there is the incident where he invited his date to attend the autopsy of a crime victim, as long as she wears heels. This is not only creepy but quite inappropriate. While the victim may be dead, that he would want to bring a "date" to gawk at her autopsy... as if it's some form of morbid entertainment, is nothing short of appalling.

Such grossly inappropriate behavior also provides a glimpse into this man's psyche.

Notably, not once, in the aforementioned instances, does this man's behavior indicate in any way whatsoever, that he is truly a victim's rights advocate.

That aside, the irony in this whole mess, imnsho, is you have one sexual predator prosecuting another sexual predator (i.e., SA). Extremely ironic, imho.

P.s. and fyi, it appears he is still up to his same old crap. I did a search for the nym he used on match.com and found a profile on a "casual sex" site where he mentions BDSM & his high heels fetish, which is not dissimilar to the claim in DOJ report 3. At first I wasn't sure it was him bc the listed location is West Bend, WI, and from the DOJ report, he apparently lives in Appleton, WI. As it turns out, his law office is located in West Bend, so I'm more than sure it is his ad.
 
I have been waiting for you to comment shadowraiths!!!

I read these last night before going to bed and I knew some of it from the bits and pieces we have seen over the last few months, and I already felt "icky" about Kratz. Seeing the similarities between some conversations that these women recall and the narrative that Kratz has been spewing seems more than coincidental IMO I can only imagine how much he enjoyed or enjoys saying these things over and over again in public but in the context of SA doing it to TH.

Also... with the argument that SA went from being a sexual predator to a murder.... what does that say about Kratz? should we expect him to be a murderer too?

I don't know... this has all just left me with a creepy feeling. Kratz using his position and his influence within the system is just so wrong on so many levels, along with using the "I'm an advocate for victims", it's disgusting.

Oh and also.... him speaking openly about an investigation, inviting a woman to an autoposy, and even a crime scene, bragging about being able to drink and drive and it being okay because of who he is? c'mon... how can this guy still be a practising lawyer?

All JMO.
 
This just makes me dislike him even more. He minimizes the situation, and obviously feels entitled.

Loved the email where he proposes a resolution to the dispute or disagreement with DOJ (page 32). :rolleyes:

pAge 8 of 35...

Start at "I assume" ... Sounds like some sort of threat to me... " i want to hear you ask me....." Like daring..

image.png
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
1,497
Total visitors
1,587

Forum statistics

Threads
606,719
Messages
18,209,386
Members
233,943
Latest member
FindIreneFlemingWAState
Back
Top