The Key: Planted or Not? Impact?

[ACJL]

It's certainly obvious to anyone with even a casual interest in current events that police are perfectly capable of lying or planting evidence.

Despite that, burning the body of a victim in an outside fire for at least 3.5 hours and plant these cremains in another person's burn pit is unprecedented. What you are talking about is cops planting a tiny plastic bag with a bit of drugs on a crime scene. A bullet and a key are comparable to this, but burned cremains or an entire vehicle?

LE has a clear motive to lie in this matter, if they even know the truth.

And what would that motive be?

Or perhaps the LE placed the key there as part of a deliberate plan in collusion with one or more others to incriminate SA.

In other words, you really have no idea how it got there. You have that in common with LE.

KK rhetorically admitted the key was planted, suggesting to the jury something along the lines 'even if the key was planted that does not bear on the other evidence'.

Actually he didn't admit that at all. He said the key shouldn't matter in deciding whether Avery is innocent or guilty. It's one piece of evidence in a sea of evidence. A piece of evidence that the cops didn't even need to convict this man. The defense wanted to focus on the key, cause if they could convince the jury the key was fishy, then the rest would easily follow. It was probably their best evidence. So Kratz just said dont focus on the key, look at all the rest. He then went to the blood iirc, to remind the jury how proving that was planted ended up.

 

[proudfootz]

Despite that, burning the body of a victim in an outside fire for at least 3.5 hours and plant these cremains in another person's burn pit is unprecedented.

We don't know this happened. The fact is we don't know where the body might have been burned.

What you are talking about is cops planting a tiny plastic bag with a bit of drugs on a crime scene. A bullet and a key are comparable to this, but burned cremains or an entire vehicle?

There were buckets found thought to have been used to move the cremains. There's no reason to suppose SA planted them oat his own residence.

The fact remains, any tampering with evidence in an investigation throws the whole project in doubt.

And what would that motive be?

Look up any of the hundreds of cases where LE officials 'stand behind their officers' and perhaps it will become clear that institutions tend to become defensive when criticized.

In other words, you really have no idea how it got there. You have that in common with LE.

That is exactly the problem. Why the key should suddenly appear after several searches is dubious at best.

Actually he didn't admit that at all.

"Let's assume Mr. Strang's theory is correct [that the key was planted], that these cops aren't trying to plant an innocent person, but trying to make sure that a guilty person is found guilty. Well, can't you then, with that argument, set the key aside?"

He said the key shouldn't matter in deciding whether Avery is innocent or guilty.

KK is wrong - it does matter if police deceive. That obscures the truth, which is important.

It's one piece of evidence in a sea of evidence. A piece of evidence that the cops didn't even need to convict this man. The defense wanted to focus on the key, cause if they could convince the jury the key was fishy, then the rest would easily follow. It was probably their best evidence. So Kratz just said dont focus on the key, look at all the rest. He then went to the blood iirc, to remind the jury how proving that was planted ended up.

BBM

It does follow - which is why KK wants to make it seem like only a small lie, a white lie.

Once the jury realizes the investigators cannot be trusted, the whole case should have been thrown out.

 

[ACJL]

We don't know this happened. The fact is we don't know where the body might have been burned.

We don't know what happened?

The evidence points to only one location. There wasn't even a several hour-long fire seen anywhere else except for the place where she was last seen alive.

There were buckets found thought to have been used to move the cremains. There's no reason to suppose SA planted them oat his own residence.

Bones were moved. The defense and prosecution both agree on this. Moving does not equal planting. Avery hid the larger bones in the Janda burn barrel, among the already burned animal bones in there.

The fact remains, any tampering with evidence in an investigation throws the whole project in doubt.

Yes, we can doubt all evidence once one piece of it has been proven to have been tampered with. For the past 12-13 years nobody has succeeded in doing that.

Look up any of the hundreds of cases where LE officials 'stand behind their officers' and perhaps it will become clear that institutions tend to become defensive when criticized.

I don't think this is relevant unless tampering is proven.

That is exactly the problem. Why the key should suddenly appear after several searches is dubious at best.

Only the second thorough search really, and the very first time the record cabinet was actually moved.

"Let's assume Mr. Strang's theory is correct [that the key was planted], that these cops aren't trying to plant an innocent person, but trying to make sure that a guilty person is found guilty. Well, can't you then, with that argument, set the key aside?"

That's like a what if scenario. Hypothetically speaking. He is not admitting here that the key is planted. He is using Strang's words against him to once again remind the jury that we are here to determine whether Avery is guilty or not. That's my take on it at least.

I'm not saying I'm a fan of his closing arguments btw, but imo they're far from as wrong as some people make them out to be.

 

[proudfootz]

KK wants people to think it's no big deal if evidence is planted to frame SA. I'm just not susceptible to that sort of corruption.

 

[ACJL]

KK wants people to think it's no big deal if evidence is planted to frame SA. I'm just not susceptible to that sort of corruption.

Not at all. He is merely illustrating, what he thinks is, the absurdity of the planting evidence analysis. He was in no way admitting the key was planted, nor is he saying it's not a big deal.

He also said that if you're willing to believe SA was framed by the cops, you should also consider the cops murdered TH. Strang said LE wouldn't frame an innocent man, though. If LE killed TH, they would know SA was innocent. I think that's what Kratz was trying to convey to the jury. And that's where the quote you posted earlier fits in:

"Let's assume Mr. Strang's theory is correct [that the key was planted], that these cops aren't trying to plant an innocent person, but trying to make sure that a guilty person is found guilty. Well, can't you then, with that argument, set the key aside?"

The defense never made the claim that LE murdered TH though, so Kratz was kinda overstating here I think.

 

[proudfootz]

Until a murder is solved, I'm willing to suppose any human being might have committed the crime. LE is staffed by human beings, with all the frailties we are heir to. Cops kill people, lawyers kill people, priests kill people, nuns kill people, doctors, nurses, and so on ad infinitum. No profession or calling is immune to human passions.

There is nothing absurd about the planting of evidence by law enforcement, as we both know it happens.

Even if cops believe they person they are trying to frame is guilty, I can't set aside the fact as Kratz suggests. Because cops are human beings, and their beliefs can sometimes be wrong.

There is zero justification for planting evidence. It is corruption, pure and simple.

 

[ACJL]

I'm willing to suppose any human being might have committed the crime.

What are your reasons for thinking Steven Avery could've committed this crime?

There is nothing absurd about the planting of evidence by law enforcement, as we both know it happens

I would disagree entirely here because I can't compare the planting of a tiny bag with a bit of drugs to the burning and planting of a body and an entire vehicle with trace evidence of Avery and TH in it.

Even if cops believe they person they are trying to frame is guilty, I can't set aside the fact as Kratz suggests. Because cops are human beings, and their beliefs can sometimes be wrong.

Again, Kratz is telling the jury to set aside the alleged planting of the key because:

1. LE murdered TH
2. LE planted evidence
3. Strang said LE would not plant evidence on innocent suspect

He is asking the jury to set the key aside after mentioning the above three points. He is basically saying that Strang's argument doesn't make sense because Strang said LE doesn't frame an innocent man, then Kratz said that if you think they planted evidence you should also think they killed her. If they killed her, they would know SA was innocent, thus not plant evidence on his soil.

There is zero justification for planting evidence. It is corruption, pure and simple.

True, and Kratz would agree I'm sure.

 

[CoolJ]

What are your reasons for thinking Steven Avery could've committed this crime?



I would disagree entirely here because I can't compare the planting of a tiny bag with a bit of drugs to the burning and planting of a body and an entire vehicle with trace evidence of Avery and TH in it.



Again, Kratz is telling the jury to set aside the alleged planting of the key because:

1. LE murdered TH
2. LE planted evidence
3. Strang said LE would not plant evidence on innocent suspect

He is asking the jury to set the key aside after mentioning the above three points. He is basically saying that Strang's argument doesn't make sense because Strang said LE doesn't frame an innocent man, then Kratz said that if you think they planted evidence you should also think they killed her. If they killed her, they would know SA was innocent, thus not plant evidence on his soil.



True, and Kratz would agree I'm sure.

Strang was wrong on that point. 100% wrong. I am sure he knows it as I am sure he knows of the possible motivations authorities in WI would have had to frame SA yet AGAIN.

So, either Strang was trying not to rock the boat with jury by suggesting the almost unbelievable (truth is stranger than fiction) or he was acting as an agent of the state in the same way Kachinsky undeniably was...

The fact of the matter is the key was clearly planted. The story of how it was found was clearly fabricated. It cannot be ignored. LE planting evidence in and of itself leads to reasonable doubt now matter how you slice it and no matter what the rest of the evidence is.

 

[ACJL]

So do you think it more likely that Strang was in on it rather than Steven Avery, a man with no alibi, plenty of opportunity, and a rich history of violence against women, is guilty and Strang failed simply because of that?

The fact of the matter is the key was clearly planted.

And that's why nobody in 10+ years managed to prove it was.

The story of how it was found was clearly fabricated. It cannot be ignored.

It can't be proven either.

LE planting evidence in and of itself leads to reasonable doubt now matter how you slice it and no matter what the rest of the evidence is.

It was never proven LE planted evidence.

 

[proudfootz]

Strang was wrong on that point. 100% wrong. I am sure he knows it as I am sure he knows of the possible motivations authorities in WI would have had to frame SA yet AGAIN.

So, either Strang was trying not to rock the boat with jury by suggesting the almost unbelievable (truth is stranger than fiction) or he was acting as an agent of the state in the same way Kachinsky undeniably was...

The fact of the matter is the key was clearly planted. The story of how it was found was clearly fabricated. It cannot be ignored. LE planting evidence in and of itself leads to reasonable doubt now matter how you slice it and no matter what the rest of the evidence is.

BBM

I certainly have reasonable doubt about the allegations against SA and BD. IMO the case has more holes than bears scrutiny, and the key is only one of many sketchy elements in relation to the prosecution. I have the impression that Strang's suggestions about the key were strong, which is why I think Kratz had to take the jury believing it into account. That's the significance of KK's rhetoric about 'even if it's true the key was planted what about...?'

All MOO

 

[CoolJ]

So do you think it more likely that Strang was in on it rather than Steven Avery, a man with no alibi, plenty of opportunity, and a rich history of violence against women, is guilty and Strang failed simply because of that?



And that's why nobody in 10+ years managed to prove it was.



It can't be proven either.



It was never proven LE planted evidence.

Yes I understand your arguments..... it wasnt proven. Yada yada

Let me ask you this..... what is more important .... the truth or what can be proven in a court of law?

ETA - I would also disagree when you say the planting of the key can’t be proven. I believe it has been proven by Zellners testing but hasn’t been presented to the courts yet.
However, with today’s decision to send the CD Brady violation back to circuit, we are going to be seeing a lot of movement on this case this summer. I will eat my hats if Zellner doesn’t get at the very least an evidentiary hearing from this.

And I have have of hats.

And you know what happens when she gets the evidentiary hearing.

 

[proudfootz]

What are your reasons for thinking Steven Avery could've committed this crime?

For one, he was - like dozens of others - an acquaintance of TH.

I would disagree entirely here because I can't compare the planting of a tiny bag with a bit of drugs to the burning and planting of a body and an entire vehicle with trace evidence of Avery and TH in it.

Cops plant other things besides 'tiny' bags of drugs, but also blood, bullet casings, weapons, et cetera.

Cops have been recorded even moving the body of a murder victim!

Video Shows Boyle Heights Teen Shot by Cops Was Dragged From Scene

There's nothing absurd about moving a vehicle from one location to another. It has wheels.

Again, Kratz is telling the jury to set aside the alleged planting of the key because:

1. LE murdered TH
2. LE planted evidence
3. Strang said LE would not plant evidence on innocent suspect

He is asking the jury to set the key aside after mentioning the above three points. He is basically saying that Strang's argument doesn't make sense because Strang said LE doesn't frame an innocent man, then Kratz said that if you think they planted evidence you should also think they killed her. If they killed her, they would know SA was innocent, thus not plant evidence on his soil.

Again, I think you are mistaken.

IMO, Strang tries to put the most generous 'motive' on the LE, since so many people -even people who get to sit on juries - have a bias in favor of police.

If Kratz chooses to misrepresent Strang's argument, that is simply another issue. I'm just going by KK's literal argument as he made it is that it doesn't matter if LE planted evidence.

True, and Kratz would agree I'm sure.

KK should have said so in his closing argument instead of telling jurors that it "shouldn't matter whether or not that key was planted".

 

[ACJL]

Yes I understand your arguments..... it wasnt proven. Yada yada

Let me ask you this..... what is more important .... the truth or what can be proven in a court of law?

If the truth can't be proven you have to wonder if it's the truth.

ETA - I would also disagree when you say the planting of the key can’t be proven. I believe it has been proven by Zellners testing but hasn’t been presented to the courts yet.

I never said it can't be proven. I said it hasn't.

Her test is flawed. She doesn't use the same record cabinet, and she doesn't replicate exactly what happened.

However, with today’s decision to send the CD Brady violation back to circuit, we are going to be seeing a lot of movement on this case this summer. I will eat my hats if Zellner doesn’t get at the very least an evidentiary hearing from this.

Tbh I hope she gets an evidentiary hearing.

And you know what happens when she gets the evidentiary hearing.

Yes, Steven Avery himself will most likely take the stand. Can't wait for that to happen.

 

[ACJL]

For one, he was - like dozens of others - an acquaintance of TH.

Anything else?

Cops plant other things besides 'tiny' bags of drugs, but also blood, bullet casings, weapons, et cetera.

Cops have been recorded even moving the body of a murder victim!

Video Shows Boyle Heights Teen Shot by Cops Was Dragged From Scene

There's nothing absurd about moving a vehicle from one location to another. It has wheels.

That's some sick stuff about the boy's body moved some feet. But it's no evidence something like that happened in Manitowoc in 2005, and it surely isn't evidence that the cops burned TH's body and dumped the cremains in SA's burn pit and burn barrel and her electronics, burned in separate fire, in another burn barrel.

Planting a vehicle is absurd and a huge risk.

Again, I think you are mistaken.

IMO, Strang tries to put the most generous 'motive' on the LE, since so many people -even people who get to sit on juries - have a bias in favor of police.

KK should have said so in his closing argument instead of telling jurors that it "shouldn't matter whether or not that key was planted".

As you said earlier planted evidence is wrong in every sense of the word and I'm sure any attorney would agree. Kratz too. You did not "prove" my interpretation is wrong. It seems you just prefer to consider an interpretation that makes Kratz look bad.

KK should have said so in his closing argument instead of telling jurors that it "shouldn't matter whether or not that key was planted".

Again you are quoting the sentence out of context.

But when you go down one layer, when you scrape one layer of this manure off of the topsoil, which is what it is, you scrape one layer, you will realize that the cops had to kill her. The cops had to be involved in killing Teresa Halbach. You have got to be willing to say that. You have got to make that leap. Because of this question right there, where did they get the key.

Let's assume Mr. Strang's theory is correct, that these cops aren't trying to plant an innocent person, but trying to make sure that a guilty person is found guilty. Well, can't you then, with that argument, set the key aside? Do you have the ability, as a jury, to set that key aside, if in fact it doesn't matter whether or not Mr. Avery is guilty or not guilty in this analysis? Can you set that aside and decide is there enough other evidence, or is the key the only thing that points to Mr. Avery?

Well, if this was a CSI case, one of those cases on TV where sometimes that key, or sometimes one little piece of evidence like that may decide the guilt or innocence, it would make a difference. But that key, in the big picture, in the big scheme of things here, means very little. All right.

Now, I'm telling you that not because I don't want you to consider it, not because I think that it's not important, or not because the credibility of these officers is in question to the State at all. What I am suggesting, though, is that if you buy Mr. Strang's argument, if you buy Mr. Strang's argument that they were trying to make sure that a guilty person was found guilty, then assigning accountability to the murder for Teresa Halbach, shouldn't matter whether or not that key was planted. In other words, it shouldn't matter to the Halbach family. You shouldn't be punishing the police officers, in other words, the other officers that were involved in this investigation, if you come to that conclusion.

 

[proudfootz]

That's some sick stuff about the boy's body moved some feet. But it's no evidence something like that happened in Manitowoc in 2005, and it surely isn't evidence that the cops burned TH's body and dumped the cremains in SA's burn pit and burn barrel and her electronics, burned in separate fire, in another burn barrel.

Planting a vehicle is absurd and a huge risk.

Sure, it's a risk. Planting a weapon is a risk, moving a body is a risk. But there's nothing absurd about planting evidence because it happens.

'Absurd' would be someone claiming humans don't do risky things from time to time.

As you said earlier planted evidence is wrong in every sense of the word and I'm sure any attorney would agree. Kratz too. You did not "prove" my interpretation is wrong. It seems you just prefer to consider an interpretation that makes Kratz look bad.

KK said it 'shouldn't matter whether or not the key was planted'.

Nothing you have said changes the actual transcript of his words or the literal meaning of the words he used.

Again you are quoting the sentence out of context.

Yes, I am quoting Kratz, and you are not.

There is no context in which LE planting evidence 'shouldn't matter'.

MOO

 

[ACJL]

Sure, it's a risk. Planting a weapon is a risk, moving a body is a risk. But there's nothing absurd about planting evidence because it happens.

'Absurd' would be someone claiming humans don't do risky things from time to time.

I never made any claim anywhere that evidence planting itself is absurd. I already acknowledged that some things "can" be planted. It seems you think that because one small thing can be planted, anything can be planted. It's as if you're not making any distinction between a plastic drug bag, or an entire vehicle, or the burning of a body outside somewhere and moving it to someone's property.

How many things did the cops plant in all those articles combined btw?

Again, even if a cop once planted car before, planted blood in it, and burned the body of the victim and planted it in someones backyard, that's zero evidence this happened to Avery.

KK said it 'shouldn't matter whether or not the key was planted'.

Nothing you have said changes the actual transcript of his words or the literal meaning of the words he used.

You continue to quote just a tiny bit of his closing arguments, thereby taking it out of context. You keep hammering about a select few words in his arguments that get a different meaning when the entire closing argument is taken into account.

Kratz did say the jury had to be willing to think the cops were involved in TH's death. It's right up in the part I quoted.
Strang did say that the cops wouldn't frame a man who they thought was innocent.
Kratz was referring to Strang in the exact same sentence that you copy/pasted just a tiny fraction from.
The above combined means Kratz meant that the cops didn't plant a key, or anything at all, just by going with Strang's closings.

Yes, I am quoting Kratz, and you are not.

There is no context in which LE planting evidence 'shouldn't matter'.

I actually did just copy/paste his closing arguments, so I quoted him. You were also quoting a bit of it, but not in the context in which it was used. You didn't even use the entire sentence, but just a tiny bit of a sentence. You always conveniently left out anything that showed the context in which it was used. That says everything about what you're trying to claim.

Again you did not prove anything I said was wrong. Kratz is an attorney and should not and would not publicly approve planting. And he didn't. Simple as.

 

[proudfootz]

I never made any claim anywhere that evidence planting itself is absurd. I already acknowledged that some things "can" be planted. It seems you think that because one small thing can be planted, anything can be planted. It's as if you're not making any distinction between a plastic drug bag, or an entire vehicle, or the burning of a body outside somewhere and moving it to someone's property.

Since I'm not even suggesting the whole law enforcement departments of two counties got together and burned TH's body I don't see why you feel the need to try and 'rebut' that strawman argument.

Let's stick to the key, the subject of this thread, and how sketchy the alleged 'finding' of this evidence is, how easily planting it could be, and how KK suggested in so many words that 'even if it was planted' we shouldn't care that the cops are that steeped in corruption and dishonesty.

How many things did the cops plant in all those articles combined btw?

The willingness of cops to frame people is the key thing here. No matter how someone tries to twist and turn that is the inescapable fact.

Again, even if a cop once planted car before, planted blood in it, and burned the body of the victim and planted it in someones backyard, that's zero evidence this happened to Avery.

Again, since I don't make that argument, there's no need for anyone to pretend to 'rebut' it.

You continue to quote just a tiny bit of his closing arguments, thereby taking it out of context. You keep hammering about a select few words in his arguments that get a different meaning when the entire closing argument is taken into account.

I keep accurately quoting KK, and the literal meaning of his actual words in the face of attempts to try and twist his remarks to the jury that the planting of evidence by corrupt and dishonest cops 'shouldn't matter'.

Kratz did say the jury had to be willing to think the cops were involved in TH's death. It's right up in the part I quoted.

I think we should be willing to consider that, too. Yet you claim it is 'absurd'. Why do you disagree with KK?

Strang did say that the cops wouldn't frame a man who they thought was innocent.

Yes, Strang was giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's really not important why cops dishonestly plant evidence, is it?

If the so-called 'evidence' is part of a dishonest effort to deceive prosecutors, jurors, and the general public then it is a big deal, and not something any honest person can 'set aside' as if it 'doesn't matter'.

Kratz was referring to Strang in the exact same sentence that you copy/pasted just a tiny fraction from.

Yes, I included the reference to Strang in the accurate quote I produced.

The above combined means Kratz meant that the cops didn't plant a key, or anything at all, just by going with Strang's closings.

There is no need to go by your 'interpretations' of KK - I provided KK's actual argument.

I actually did just copy/paste his closing arguments, so I quoted him. You were also quoting a bit of it, but not in the context in which it was used. You didn't even use the entire sentence, but just a tiny bit of a sentence. You always conveniently left out anything that showed the context in which it was used. That says everything about what you're trying to claim.

What says 'everything' is your repeated attempts to 'interpret' KK's argument rather than let his actual words and their literal meaning speak for themselves.

Again you did not prove anything I said was wrong. Kratz is an attorney and should not and would not publicly approve planting. And he didn't. Simple as.

He doesn't say he 'approves' - he says it doesn't matter of cops lie to the jury.

"Let's assume Mr. Strang's theory is correct, that these cops aren't trying to plant an innocent person, but trying to make sure that a guilty person is found guilty. Well, can't you then, with that argument, set the key aside?"

" What I am suggesting, though, is that if you buy Mr. Strang's argument, if you buy Mr. Strang's argument that they were trying to make sure that a guilty person was found guilty, then assigning accountability to the murder for Teresa Halbach, shouldn't matter whether or not that key was planted."

As a native speaker of the English language I fully understand what Kratz is saying and what it means.

KK is not saying the planting of evidence is 'absurd', he is saying no one should even care if cops frame the accused.

I, for one, am not inclined to accept such a disgusting and contemptible suggestion.

 

[ACJL]

Actually it’s not a straw man argument at all, if one believes the cops planted the evidence, one should consider they burned the body as well. And I also didn’t say anything about agencies coming together to burn her or whatever, just that someone must’ve burned her and that could’ve been a cop. We both talked about other sorts of evidence. You even shared a link to cops dragging a body. But sure, let’s go back to the key.

Whatever happened elsewhere is in no way evidence that it happened in Manitowoc in the week of 31 October 2005. And I never said anywhere that evidence planting is absurd. It’s an absurd thing to do, but it’s not absurd as in “no one would do it”. Very early in this discussion I already said, or suggested, or whatever, a key and a bullet are “plantable”. I never attempted to escape from this as you are suggesting, and despite you claiming I said it was absurd, I never did say that with regards to the key. Then again, there is no evidence that the key in this case is in fact planted. In fact there is zero evidence for it (and for all other evidence) and I doubt it will ever be proven planted. There is no evidence the cops had the key in their possession before they found it in the trailer, for example. The motive ascribed to them doing it, the 36 million dollars for example, is not very plausible either imo.

You started off by saying that Kratz admitted the key was planted. He never did such a thing. It appears you then changed your argument, or supplemented it to Kratz saying planting evidence, or a key at least, doesn’t matter.

Once again, you just keep posting a small bit of his entire closing argument. You are not accurately quoting him at all. His entire closing argument was several pages long and you're posting just 1% of it. There are many references to the key throughout and he even explains the cops spotless records and how the key wasn't planted, but hidden in the record cabinet and dropped on the ground. I will agree with you that if you look at just that piece that you have posted the most frequently, it can look like that is exactly what he meant. That's probably why you post just that part.

So I went to check the entire closing arguments and those of Dean Strang as well, and I shared you my summary of that before, but I’ll share it again:

• Strang basically said the cops planted evidence because they thought Avery was guilty (risky - this could result in the jury thinking Strang admits not all evidence was planted.)
  
• To this Ken Kratz replied that if the jury is willing to believe the cops planted evidence to make sure a guilty person is found guilty, then they must’ve been involved in her death as well. They couldn’t have planted all that without being involved somehow, he alleges.

It’s important to note that Kratz does not say, even though you earlier claimed he did, that the key was planted. He actually went to explain it wasn't planted. What he is saying is it shouldn’t matter if you believe the key was planted, in “assigning accountability to the murder of Teresa Halbach”. He does not concede it was in fact planted.

Even before he makes that argument, he shows the perfect records of the officers in question and explains how the key may have been hidden and dropped on the floor.

Before the piece that you’re so fond of quoting, he also says

“Let’s assume they never found the key. Let’s assume this key isn’t part of this case at all.”​

He then suggests, basically, that even if you believe the key may have been planted, because the cops believed he was guilty based on other evidence, your belief regarding the key shouldn’t change your verdict because of the other evidence, that wasn’t planted. Cops wouldn’t have that belief if they planted all the evidence.

Kratz knows that some of the jurors could have started to think that the key may have been planted. They have started to believe all sorts of things. This is directed to those who may have those thoughts that the key was planted. He can’t change all of their minds about the key, so he tells them their suspicions should not dictate their vote in deciding who is accountable for the murder of Teresa Halbach. His choice of words may not be great, but he is speaking spontaneously here. He did not mean the key was planted it doesn't matter.

And I highly doubt Strang was giving the cops “the benefit of the doubt”, lol. At a closing argument? How kind. This is all about convincing the jury. The only reason he said so is because he thought it would do a better job of convincing the jury than the lawsuit motive or the dislike motive. It’s a silly thing to say, because it could make the jury think that the cops didn’t plant all the evidence. If it was all planted, why would the cops think Avery was guilty?

 

[proudfootz]

You started off by saying that Kratz admitted the key was planted. He never did such a thing. It appears you then changed your argument, or supplemented it to Kratz saying planting evidence, or a key at least, doesn’t matter.

Snipped by me.

In my reply to Laura Mountford I wrote:

KK rhetorically admitted the key was planted, suggesting to the jury something along the lines 'even if the key was planted that does not bear on the other evidence'. You [Laura Mountford] are correct: "It casts a huge shadow over ALL other evidence."

I deliberately used the word rhetorically to modify the verb admitted as that was the most accurate description. I haven't changed my stance or my argument since then, as I continue to believe that if the key is planted it casts a shadow over the whole case, despite what Kratz would have us do - just 'set it aside'.

There is, in my opinion, no 'context' in which police manufacturing evidence, planting evidence, or flat out lying is acceptable in an investigation. Kratz might think so, and may have persuaded jurors to think so, and members of the public to think so.

Once again, you just keep posting a small bit of his entire closing argument. You are not accurately quoting him at all. His entire closing argument was several pages long and you're posting just 1% of it. There are many references to the key throughout and he even explains the cops spotless records and how the key wasn't planted, but hidden in the record cabinet and dropped on the ground. I will agree with you that if you look at just that piece that you have posted the most frequently, it can look like that is exactly what he meant. That's probably why you post just that part.

There is no need for me to quote or discuss any other parts of KK's argument with regard to this point.

So I went to check the entire closing arguments and those of Dean Strang as well, and I shared you my summary of that before, but I’ll share it again:

• Strang basically said the cops planted evidence because they thought Avery was guilty (risky - this could result in the jury thinking Strang admits not all evidence was planted.)
  
• To this Ken Kratz replied that if the jury is willing to believe the cops planted evidence to make sure a guilty person is found guilty, then they must’ve been involved in her death as well. They couldn’t have planted all that without being involved somehow, he alleges.

It’s important to note that Kratz does not say, even though you earlier claimed he did, that the key was planted. He actually went to explain it wasn't planted. What he is saying is it shouldn’t matter if you believe the key was planted, in “assigning accountability to the murder of Teresa Halbach”. He does not concede it was in fact planted.

Even before he makes that argument, he shows the perfect records of the officers in question and explains how the key may have been hidden and dropped on the floor.

Before the piece that you’re so fond of quoting, he also says

“Let’s assume they never found the key. Let’s assume this key isn’t part of this case at all.”​

He then suggests, basically, that even if you believe the key may have been planted, because the cops believed he was guilty based on other evidence, your belief regarding the key shouldn’t change your verdict because of the other evidence, that wasn’t planted. Cops wouldn’t have that belief if they planted all the evidence.

Kratz knows that some of the jurors could have started to think that the key may have been planted. They have started to believe all sorts of things. This is directed to those who may have those thoughts that the key was planted. He can’t change all of their minds about the key, so he tells them their suspicions should not dictate their vote in deciding who is accountable for the murder of Teresa Halbach. His choice of words may not be great, but he is speaking spontaneously here. He did not mean the key was planted it doesn't matter.

I agree, Kratz may have been trying to save his case from the possibility that Strang's argument about the key was persuasive. That is when KK says it shouldn't matter whether or not that key was planted, and that is what I was taking issue with from the start. IMO if jurors think LE planted evidence, they should acquit. There's no pretending it never happened, or that it makes no difference.

The only guide I have to what Kratz may have 'meant' is the words he chose. Set the key aside, if you think it was planted. It doesn't matter if the key was planted. Because reasons.

 

[entrustEd]

...I would disagree entirely here because I can't compare the planting of a tiny bag with a bit of drugs to the burning and planting of a body and an entire vehicle with trace evidence of Avery and TH in it...

Here's a motive for you.
The Manitowoc County Sheriff's office was in a storm due to SA's exoneration, for perverting justice and ignoring evidence. I'm sure it was already very embarrassing, and likely to result in loss of their jobs, and a heavy financial burden for the county. They were going to burn for it.

I no way do I imagine LE killed TH in this case, but I can totally understand the wheels were turning on how to make SA take the fall again, THEY HAD PRACTICE!!!

So if they found TH's RAV4, they could put a plan in action to save their jobs and reputations. They easily could have been watching SA given the scenario, or even had a camera on the yard, or had knowledge TH took pics for SA.

As much of a knave as SA is, him knowing DNA evidence was the reason for his release, how could he leave TH's bones outside his door? How could he put TH's license plates close to his trailer in another vehicle when they could have been thrown into a garbage can and lost forever.
I'll acknowledge it doesn't need to make sense in all aspects, psycho killers are not thinking or reasoning logically.