Prosecutor Ken Kratz

[ZOOL]

Thanks for the info! I knew he had his license suspended and quite frankly I'm surprised that it was reinstated. Harassing colleagues is bad enough, harassing women that have already been subjected to abuse is beyond the pale. He was in charge of protecting the public from the men that preyed on these women...and then acted as a predator himself. The fact that he is still able to practice law is unbelievable to me.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

If SA's sentence is vacated, KK could be looking at either a financial obligation, or some serious jail time. :jail:

 

[missy1974]

If SA's sentence is vacated, KK could be looking at either a financial obligation, or some serious jail time. :jail:

Unfortunately, I doubt it.... he would have some sort of protection because it was part of his job, unless it can be proven that he falsified something, or right out lied, and that's not easy to do. Although.... I wonder how many emails are out there that no one has seen yet? ;-)

 

[ksterling3408]

At the very least, I would think somehow he could be sued in civil court. I want to sue him myself just for being disgusting and annoying as hell.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say I suspect that, if he were to ever end up in jail, it might not be as comfy as his $350,000 house[emoji14]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

I will not be surprised if the Kratz show scheduled for May is cancelled. By the looks of it, not many tickets have been sold.

http://www.ticketmaster.com/avery-g...rd-illinois-05-19-2016/event/04005081954A2B98

*** the greyed out area in the middle (where it says balcony overhang) looks like all the tickets are sold there, but I don't think they were available tickets to begin with, they have been greyed out since they went on sale.

If it's not cancelled, and you plan on going.... it looks like there will be lots of good seats left :giggle:

 

[missy1974]

I will not be surprised if the Kratz show scheduled for May is cancelled. By the looks of it, not many tickets have been sold.

http://www.ticketmaster.com/avery-g...rd-illinois-05-19-2016/event/04005081954A2B98

*** the greyed out area in the middle (where it says balcony overhang) looks like all the tickets are sold there, but I don't think they were available tickets to begin with, they have been greyed out since they went on sale.

If it's not cancelled, and you plan on going.... it looks like there will be lots of good seats left :giggle:

And it's been cancelled :giggle:

 

[Jaiddie]

And it's been cancelled :giggle:

:laughcry::lol::clap:

 

[Limaes]

There is always the book after Zellner and the horse she rode in on hightails it outta town.

Will definitely be purchasing a copy! [emoji1]

 

[ZOOL]

Zellner = "turgid palaver"

 

[dexter75]

What does this have to do with Kratz?

There is always the book after Zellner and the horse she rode in on hightails it outta town.

Will definitely be purchasing a copy! [emoji1]

 

[dexter75]

Probably should move this to Zellners thread

Zellner = "turgid palaver"

 

[Limaes]

What does this have to do with Kratz?

I was referring to Kratz' book, that probably won't be released until this latest circus is over.

 

[ZOOL]

Probably should move this to Zellners thread

I agree.

 

[Jaiddie]

An interview back in January that Kratz did for Yahoo News Live:

At 7:53 on the video, the reporter asks Kratz if he was concerned that the Juror, Richard Mahler, stated that one of his fellow jurors were openly basing some of their verdict on the Dassey confession that Kratz read out in that horrific press conference. Kratz's response? IMO, his response to her question here proves absolutely that he planned that press conference with the sole purpose of tainting the jury pool rather than giving the public any actual facts about the case. He replies,

"Not at all...in fact we WANT our jurors to be regular citizens. We WANT them to watch the news. We WANT them to hear about things beforehand...you don't want jurors that are absolutely individuals that only put their heads in the sand. The question is not whether they heard something before they came to the jury room. Everybody was asked that question and, virtually everybodyheard something about one or both of those prosecutions."

[video=youtube;nqJxhn7Jrhc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJxhn7Jrhc&app=desktop[/video]

Well, I would say Mission accomplished, KK, your jurors knew ABSOLUTELY what you wanted them to hear beforehand, and it seems like it did the trick.:liar:



"

 

[ksterling3408]

I agree.

We're talking Kratz so I think a comment on Zellner here is appropriate as I'm pretty sure one of her priorities is going after KK. But hey, Zool, if you want to start a Zellner thread I'm in!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[ksterling3408]

An interview back in January that Kratz did for Yahoo News Live:

At 7:53 on the video, the reporter asks Kratz if he was concerned that the Juror, Richard Mahler, stated that one of his fellow jurors were openly basing some of their verdict on the Dassey confession that Kratz read out in that horrific press conference. Kratz's response? IMO, his response to her question here proves absolutely that he planned that press conference with the sole purpose of tainting the jury pool rather than giving the public any actual facts about the case. He replies,

"Not at all...in fact we WANT our jurors to be regular citizens. We WANT them to watch the news. We WANT them to hear about things beforehand...you don't want jurors that are absolutely individuals that only put their heads in the sand. The question is not whether they heard something before they came to the jury room. Everybody was asked that question and, virtually everybodyheard something about one or both of those prosecutions."

[video=youtube;nqJxhn7Jrhc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJxhn7Jrhc&app=desktop[/video]

Well, I would say Mission accomplished, KK, your jurors knew ABSOLUTELY what you wanted them to hear beforehand, and it seems like it did the trick.:liar:



"

Excellent point, Jaiddie!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[missy1974]

I wonder if Kratz would feel the same way if those same juror's were discussing SA's wrongful conviction and the details, or discussed the small town rumours that swirled around about various Sheriff dept officers, because there have been many, and long before MaM came along and even before SA was exonerated. I'm going to go with ... NO, he would have a very different opinion IMO.

 

[ZOOL]

We're talking Kratz so I think a comment on Zellner here is appropriate as I'm pretty sure one of her priorities is going after KK. But hey, Zool, if you want to start a Zellner thread I'm in!

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Well ksterling ~ maybe we should start a thread on the Honorable Judge Willis too. He managed a number of debatable decisions -- such as this one allowing attorneys to mouth off in front of news cameras. :naughty:

 

[Jaiddie]

http://drdrew.com/2016/ddp222/

This is a podcast that Kratz did with Dr. Drew (very disappointed at Dr. Drew for his whole stance on these cases, as he seems to just buy into the prosecution's BS without doing any research for himself. ) I know many can not listen to his voice and BS, and I feel the same, but I make myself listen to as much as I can because the more KK opens his mouth, the bigger the hole he digs for himself. The first half of this podcast is KK explaining his drug abuse and how he became addicted because of the stress of the AVERY case, and the addiction is what led to his inappropriate and unethical behavior with domestic abuse victims (I guess we should ignore the fact that some of the allegations against Kratz occurred well before the Halbach murder and while SA was still in prison for the wrongful conviction).

The part where he starts speaking about the Avery/Dassey cases starts at 30:30. He also explains that he is planning to write, not one, but 3 books. One for Avery, one for Dassey, and one for Teresa. In the Dassey book, he plans to show that Brendan actually accepted a 15 year plea deal, but that his family put a stop to it. He assigns most of this blame to Brendan's mother and grandmother here. I also found it very interesting that he seems to openly admit to the fact that a false confession is what led to Dassy's conviction. When he refers to the confession on here, he does not refer to it as Brendan's "alleged" false confession, he actually uses the words himself, "Brendan Dassey's false confession". Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't statements such as what he says on this podcast be used in Brendan's conviction being overturned, if the very prosecution that led to the initial conviction is now admitting it was a false confession publicly?

 

[Limaes]

http://drdrew.com/2016/ddp222/

This is a podcast that Kratz did with Dr. Drew (very disappointed at Dr. Drew for his whole stance on these cases, as he seems to just buy into the prosecution's BS without doing any research for himself. ) I know many can not listen to his voice and BS, and I feel the same, but I make myself listen to as much as I can because the more KK opens his mouth, the bigger the hole he digs for himself. The first half of this podcast is KK explaining his drug abuse and how he became addicted because of the stress of the AVERY case, and the addiction is what led to his inappropriate and unethical behavior with domestic abuse victims (I guess we should ignore the fact that some of the allegations against Kratz occurred well before the Halbach murder and while SA was still in prison for the wrongful conviction).

The part where he starts speaking about the Avery/Dassey cases starts at 30:30. He also explains that he is planning to write, not one, but 3 books. One for Avery, one for Dassey, and one for Teresa. In the Dassey book, he plans to show that Brendan actually accepted a 15 year plea deal, but that his family put a stop to it. He assigns most of this blame to Brendan's mother and grandmother here. I also found it very interesting that he seems to openly admit to the fact that a false confession is what led to Dassy's conviction. When he refers to the confession on here, he does not refer to it as Brendan's "alleged" false confession, he actually uses the words himself, "Brendan Dassey's false confession". Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't statements such as what he says on this podcast be used in Brendan's conviction being overturned, if the very prosecution that led to the initial conviction is now admitting it was a false confession publicly?

I listened to that podcast and didn't hear him refer to them as the "false confession". Will listen to it again.

I thought it was interesting. He had a chance to give his own personal theory of what happened and it makes perfect sense.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[dexter75]

Wow! Does Kratz hold himself accountable for anything?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk