The Kratz book

[missy1974]

--------------------Day 13 of the Trial Feb 28-------------------------

Rivets and grommets appear to be one and the same, there are a few more instances of the word grommet appearing on this day, but I think they all mean rivet.

ya know... I may be wrong. I was thinking rivets and grommets were the same, but maybe not. The rivets were found with a magnet IIRC. I will have to do some more investigating LOL Either way, Karinna has a good point.... they were NOT part of the trial/evidence, and there has to be a reason for that? I know they found lots of metal pieces in the fire pit.

 

[Saul Vesalot]

ya know... I may be wrong. I was thinking rivets and grommets were the same, but maybe not. The rivets were found with a magnet IIRC. I will have to do some more investigating LOL Either way, Karinna has a good point.... they were NOT part of the trial/evidence, and there has to be a reason for that? I know they found lots of metal pieces in the fire pit.

I don't know. That is interesting. The trial transcript says the grommets/rivets were uncovered via sifting/straining. So maybe it was something else?

I wonder why they weren't used at trial....If you look through the CASO...you'll see a lot of effort went into confirming that Teresa owned Daisy Fuentes jeans.
Maybe the problem was that Jodi said that they had burned clothes in the fire pit before. Though she said she never owned and Daisy Fuentes jeans, maybe the argument could be too easily made that she was mistaken or someone else burned DF jeans there. Or maybe they weren't considered to be super strong evidence and they'd distract from other stuff.

 

[Saul Vesalot]

BBM.

They go on to discuss the everlasting 'cat incident' which is, of course, irrelevant. He admits it is irrelevant, which makes you wonder why he brings it up at all. Oh yeah! To make SA out to be the sort of guy who should be in jail regardless of whether he is actually guilty of the crime he is charged with.

He discusses the "irrelevant" cat incident on page 28 and 29 of his book.
In a book so short, he dedicates approximately 1 percent of this book to something he doesn't think matters.

 

[dexter75]

He discusses the "irrelevant" cat incident on page 28 and 29 of his book.
In a book so short, he dedicates approximately 1 percent of this book to something he doesn't think matters.

Lmbo!!!
God he's brilliant...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

ya know... I may be wrong. I was thinking rivets and grommets were the same, but maybe not. The rivets were found with a magnet IIRC. I will have to do some more investigating LOL Either way, Karinna has a good point.... they were NOT part of the trial/evidence, and there has to be a reason for that? I know they found lots of metal pieces in the fire pit.

Of course there was a reason. They probably burned 20 old ripped up tarps over the years...or old jeans. Who knows?? They're ole rednecks and burn everything! Jodi, most likely under the influence. Not the best memory and not Kratz best witness.
JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

ya know... I may be wrong. I was thinking rivets and grommets were the same, but maybe not. The rivets were found with a magnet IIRC. I will have to do some more investigating LOL Either way, Karinna has a good point.... they were NOT part of the trial/evidence, and there has to be a reason for that? I know they found lots of metal pieces in the fire pit.

Oh no...the grommets..thats HUGE!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

Yep...all about the context of it all my friend.
Kratz is great at taking things out of context.
JMO

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

Let me get this straight...

A self proclaimed narcissistic sex addict lawyer is character assassinating two LBGT women (one who is a lawyer herself), who made the film MaM, correct?

Seems to me there might just be some underpinnings to this. Seems to me, they just might not have been interested in Mr. KK...

Guess the pickup line..Hey ladies, are you the kind of girls that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA? Nope, sorry we are in a long term relationship with each other. Must have infuriated him being the ladies man he is...LMAO.

JMHO, of course.

Not just a ladies man.
In his head , " he is the prize "

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

I just watched this whole video. Based on what I know KK definitely lied or stretched the truth. KK says that it wasn't the 6th search when the key was found but the 1st "thorough" search and the other times were "targeted" searches for certain items. I call BS on that. KK also says that Steven told his brother that TH didn't show up and that Steven called Auto Trader on 11/3 to say TH didn't show up. Is that true? I just think KK is such a liar and was hoping the guys interviewing him would have followed up better. It is like they were one-sided like they accuse the filmmakers of being. KK also completely minimizes his "sexting". He coerced sex which is so much more than just sexting. He just makes my skin crawl but I was hoping he would be honest about the evidence. I also don't agree that the family told BD not to plea in order to help Steven. How about they told him not to plea because they believed he was innocent? Just some thoughts I had when listening to this and wanted to reach out to see what some of you think. I don't post often but this case and a couple other cases I follow as much as I can.

One more thing. Is there really a first movie made by making a murderer filmmakers that was shown at Columbia Film Festival?

Great to read your post, Bethlamb16😊
So how many minor searches of that rinky dink TRAILER did LE really need to do???
Seriously Kratz??

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Karinna]

Legal experts blast Avery prosecutor's conduct
(quote)
"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.
http://www.postcrescent.com/story/n...-pretrial-behavior-called-unethical/78630248/

 

[BigCityAccountant]

ya know... I may be wrong. I was thinking rivets and grommets were the same, but maybe not. The rivets were found with a magnet IIRC. I will have to do some more investigating LOL Either way, Karinna has a good point.... they were NOT part of the trial/evidence, and there has to be a reason for that? I know they found lots of metal pieces in the fire pit.

.
So, sorry I've been so busy lately! Just taking a few minutes out today to read a bit and catch up. Yes, I do agree Karinna does make an excellent point!

However, I will say this. Anytime we've ever had a campfire at our cabin, there have been multiple people who have thrown their pop cans in the fire. What I find very interesting about the burn pit, is there is no pop can tops found. I'm definitely not an expect, but I thought I had read that those were made of steel and not aluminum. If that is the case, I wonder if there should have been some found.

Missy I am sending prayers your way for a speedy recovery for your family member.

 

[proudfootz]

.
So, sorry I've been so busy lately! Just taking a few minutes out today to read a bit and catch up. Yes, I do agree Karinna does make an excellent point!

However, I will say this. Anytime we've ever had a campfire at our cabin, there have been multiple people who have thrown their pop cans in the fire. What I find very interesting about the burn pit, is there is no pop can tops found. I'm definitely not an expect, but I thought I had read that those were made of steel and not aluminum. If that is the case, I wonder if there should have been some found.

Missy I am sending prayers your way for a speedy recovery for your family member.

BBM

Now it's possible a bonfire might melt bullets, but lead will not evaporate.

What became of the 10 or so bullets supposedly in the body allegedly burned at this location?

 

[Saul Vesalot]

BBM

Now it's possible a bonfire might melt bullets, but lead will not evaporate.

What became of the 10 or so bullets supposedly in the body allegedly burned at this location?

The crazy thing is, I would not be shocked even a little if "shooting things that are on fire" was a past time on the Avery property. It is quite possible there was a lot of lead there. A competent police force might have been able to find it. I still think there might be bones in that pit they didn't find. And bones elsewhere for that matter.

 

[dexter75]

So in accordance/pertaining to Kratz Video RE: MAM

I'm seeing posts here on the forum stating with what seems to be certainty that Lenk was no where near Avery s vial of blood, or the clerks office where the blood was stored. Is this True? Where can I find this information other than from Kratz's mouth?
Thanks

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[Saul Vesalot]

So in accordance/pertaining to Kratz Video RE: MAM

I'm seeing posts here on the forum stating with what seems to be certainty that Lenk was no where near Avery s vial of blood, or the clerks office where the blood was stored. Is this True? Where can I find this information other than from Kratz's mouth?
Thanks

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Does this image help?
Unless I'm confused, this seems to be a big old envelope with a label that include "Blood Standard Steven Avery"
This was prepped by Lenk.

In his book, Kratz waves his hands and says the scrapings and hairs were stored separately.

Looking closer at the form shown in the episode, it clearly relates to the "transmittal of hairs and fingernail scrapings," which were stored separately, only there is no mention of the blood vial

[sic]

"The vial was never touched by Lenk"

-------------------page 55 of Kratz's book------------------

He seems to be relying explicitly on the form in the episode alone to prove Lenk was nowhere near the vial. This envelope was prepped by Lenk and mentions the scrapings, hair, and blood of Steven Avery and blood of PB.

Looks to me like Kratz was trying to pull a switcheroo, attack the show, ignore other things that demonstrate the show's point. Besides, the storage of the evidence was laughable. They had no control over who had access and who didn't. And access wasn't logged.

 

[proudfootz]

To put the best spin on this, perhaps KK's memory of the case has been impaired by his years of drug abuse.

 

[Bethlamb16]

Is anyone aware of a "first" making a murderer movie presented at Columbia Festival? KK makes a big deal about this and that you can't find it anywhere now. I tried googling it but couldn't find it. I am curious as he makes it sound like the first movie was more accurate.

 

[Saul Vesalot]

Is anyone aware of a "first" making a murderer movie presented at Columbia Festival? KK makes a big deal about this and that you can't find it anywhere now. I tried googling it but couldn't find it. I am curious as he makes it sound like the first movie was more accurate.

If it was only view-able in that one place, I don't know how Kratz could possibly know how accurate it truly is. I doubt he went to a film festival to watch it, so any knowledge he has would be second hand at best. And by now we know that Kratz's definition of truth is a bit...unique. And I wouldn't be surprised if there WAS an early different cut. They filmed something like 700 hours of footage. There are 7 different "cuts" of the movie Blade Runner out there and there isn't anywhere near as much footage.

I can look into it some if you want, but I don't think this claim really means much or could go much of anywhere if the film isn't accessible to us.

To put the best spin on this, perhaps KK's memory of the case has been impaired by his years of drug abuse.

Yes, it is telling that best case scenario is this book was written by a drug addled sex criminal as opposed to an intentionally dishonest drug addled sex criminal.

 

[dexter75]

To put the best spin on this, perhaps KK's memory of the case has been impaired by his years of drug abuse.

Ya think?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[proudfootz]

BBM.

I haven't watched the whole thing yet, but there is some interesting byplay early on.

Comedy hosts make jokes about addiction (KK known drug and 'sex' addict).

KK quotes Mark Twain about how it's easier to fool people than it is to later convince them they've been fooled (apparently not a genuine quote from Twain - irony abounds!). KK is trying to pin this on the documentary, when instead it fits in very well with his own performance in the salacious 'news conference' that tainted the jury pool with the so-called 'confession' cobbled together from Brendan's coerced statements salted with facts fed to him by his interrogators.

They go on to discuss the everlasting 'cat incident' which is, of course, irrelevant. He admits it is irrelevant, which makes you wonder why he brings it up at all. Oh yeah! To make SA out to be the sort of guy who should be in jail regardless of whether he is actually guilty of the crime he is charged with.

KK then asserts the sex and drug crimes he has himself committed came 'years after' the Avery case.

According to this document KK admits he was abusing drugs as early as the Avery case:

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

And according to this article some of KK's sexual predation goes back to at least 5 or six years before the murder of TH:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/lo...cle_3a5b3666-5951-11e0-96d1-001cc4c002e0.html

Looks like KK is either genuinely out of touch with reality, or is simply someone who cannot tell the truth even when he knows others know he is lying.

Next up - allegations Steven was planning on building a 'torture chamber' (another one of KK's own fantasies). Another non-fact taking up space where reality should be. Along with utterly unsubstantiated allegations Steven planned on abducting, raping, and killing people. Perhaps this is more psychological projection from KK? Who knows? But it seems more descriptive of KK than anyone else in this scenario.

Steven is not a Boy Scout? No one claims he is.

Ten minutes in, and it's time for me to clock out.

Only so much BS from KK I can take. Seen enough to know KK is either a lunatic or a liar, because what he is trying to sell does not accord with established facts.

MOO

Who does KK think he is fooling with outrageous lies that anyone can fact check and learn are completely false claims?

The sexual abuse predates the Avery trial and the drug abuse he admits begins as early as the Avery trial.

I suppose there are still folks gullible enough to fall for his chicanery, and KK probably relishes the power to fool them.

Just MOO