Prosecutor Ken Kratz

[dexter75]

Another random thought: wouldn't you just love to see KK vs. KZ as opposing counsel in a court room? IMO, she would eviscerate him. LOL.

I'd PAY to see that!

 

[Limaes]

Personally, I don't think anyone should be making money off this case, but I think there needs to be a side put forward by the Prosecution considering MaM was pure defense.

 

[CoolJ]

Personally, I don't think anyone should be making money off this case, but I think there needs to be a side put forward by the Prosecution considering MaM was pure defense.

Kratz already made sure everyone in the state was well aware of his fairytale version of TH's murder ... BEFORE THE TRIAL even started. I am sure you recall.

And I am sure this novel just repeats the same sick and twisted scenario Kratz dreamed up to corrupt the jury pool.

It is the same fairytale Kratz and his disciples have been spewing all over the media and Internet message boards since January.

I see Nancy Grace wrote the forward, which just reinforces my point.

 

[Limaes]

If you really do believe that is the reason he was convicted, then that is your opinion.

You're either unaware or avoid the fact that SA's own sister publically called him out for what he did to her son and that she hated him. She wasn't screaming coercion by the cops then was she? I wonder if the juries in both trials took that into account.

The Prosecution team was given a pasting by MaM. Only fair they have the opportunity to defend themselves.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[CoolJ]

If you really do believe that is the reason he was convicted, then that is your opinion.

You're either unaware or avoid the fact that SA's own sister publically called him out for what he did to her son and that she hated him. She wasn't screaming coercion by the cops then was she? I wonder if the juries in both trials took that into account.

The Prosecution team was given a pasting by MaM. Only fair they have the opportunity to defend themselves.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

Must be KK's opinion too or else he wouldn't have done it. Do you really think that is not EXACTLY what he was doing with those press conferences?

SA's sister believed the fairytale at the time. Any reasonable person at that time would make the assumption that what those in authority tell you is the truth. That is the way it is supposed to be.... compassionate people with integrity in positions of authority.

But not so much anymore. People are waking up to the character of the folks we place in those positions. Times are a changin my friend...

 

[Limaes]

Yes of course it was KK's opinion too, he was the actual Prosecutor.

BJ was believing BD because of what he told her. She knows her brother and what he was capable of. I don't think she had to be brainwashed to believe SA was guilty. I did feel sympathy for her initially because it must have been devastating to learn what she did, her family did not support her and she did express wanting to have been able to save Teresa. That disappeared when she was attacking the victim's family though.

Unfortunately there are corrupt people in positions of authority, I just don't see how corruption from LE played a part in the conviction.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

 

[IDK]

Yes of course it was KK's opinion too, he was the actual Prosecutor.

BJ was believing BD because of what he told her. She knows her brother and what he was capable of. I don't think she had to be brainwashed to believe SA was guilty. I did feel sympathy for her initially because it must have been devastating to learn what she did, her family did not support her and she did express wanting to have been able to save Teresa. That disappeared when she was attacking the victim's family though.

Unfortunately there are corrupt people in positions of authority, I just don't see how corruption from LE played a part in the conviction.

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk

1) Truth is , you can project all you want, but you have no idea what was going through Barb's mind. Very presumptuous, IMO.

2) I guess you and I have completely different definitions of police corruption. I'll go with the Wikipedia definition:Police corruption is a form of police misconduct in which law enforcement officers break their social contract and abuse their power for personal or departmental gain. This type of corruption can involve only one officer, or it can involve a group of officers in a coordinated effort.
3) So what was their misconduct? Evidence tampering, failure to investigate alternate suspects, the coerced confession of Brendan Dassey. Seems like a textbook case, IMO!

 

[IDK]

Personally, I don't think anyone should be making money off this case, but I think there needs to be a side put forward by the Prosecution considering MaM was pure defense.

Hmmm....but didn't the prosecution get to tell their side of the story during the court cases?

 

[Limaes]

1) Truth is , you can project all you want, but you have no idea what was going through Barb's mind. Very presumptuous, IMO.

2) I guess you and I have completely different definitions of police corruption. I'll go with the Wikipedia definition:Police corruption is a form of police misconduct in which law enforcement officers break their social contract and abuse their power for personal or departmental gain. This type of corruption can involve only one officer, or it can involve a group of officers in a coordinated effort.
3) So what was their misconduct? Evidence tampering, failure to investigate alternate suspects, the coerced confession of Brendan Dassey. Seems like a textbook case, IMO!

1) Truth is, that is what she said. No presumption at all.

2) The definition of Police corruption/misconduct is not the issue. Proof is.

3) Examples of what would constitute Police corruption/misconduct is not the issue either. Proof is and until evidence has been provided, they're just unfounded allegations.

 

[Limaes]

Hmmm....but didn't the prosecution get to tell their side of the story during the court cases?

Not to a worldwide audience that came along 10 years after the event.

 

[Karinna]

Not to a worldwide audience that came along 10 years after the event.

I'm not sure about a world wide audience and what kind of reach the Netflix series has had in that regard?
If people are that interested in deciphering the case and forming an opinion of their own, they can always obtain all the info. via the internet just like we do on WS.
The MAM series wasn't made to prove SA's innocence or guilt and they have stated that.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I'm not sure about a world wide audience and what kind of reach the Netflix series has had in that regard?
If people are that interested in deciphering the case and forming an opinion of their own, they can always obtain all the info. via the internet just like we do on WS.
The MAM series wasn't made to prove SA's innocence or guilt and they have stated that.

BBM

I know that the people behind MAM stated that but I don't believe them. JMO

 

[Karinna]

BBM

I know that the people behind MAM stated that but I don't believe them. JMO

Well that's your perogative but this is what was stated

(quote)
“This is a documentary – we’re documentary filmmakers,” Ricciardi said in defense of the project Sunday at the Television Critics Association winter tour in Pasadena, California.

“We’re not prosecutors, we’re not defense attorneys, we do not set out to convict or exonerate anyone,” she continued. “We set out to examine the criminal justice system and how it’s functioning today. It would have been impossible for us to include every piece of evidence submitted to the court. So we took our cues from the prosecution, what they thought was the most compelling evidence. That’s what we included.”

“Of course we left out evidence,” she added. “There would have been no other way of doing it. We were not putting on a trial, but a film. Of what was omitted, the question is: was it really significant? The secret is no.”
Ricciardi said in deciding to take on the documentary, she and Demos were interested in “finding out how someone who had been wrongly imprisoned, could find himself back in the system”.

“We absolutely have a point of view,” she added when prodded further. “When we set out to make this series, we chose Stephen Avery to be our main subject. The reason we chose him was his unique status as an American who had been failed by the system in 1985, and had been repeatedly failed for another 18 years.”
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/jan/17/making-a-murderer-netflix-steven-avery

 

[dexter75]

Personally, I don't think anyone should be making money off this case, but I think there needs to be a side put forward by the Prosecution considering MaM was pure defense.

Nice..I see the Foreword is by Nancy Grace:facepalm: She's been proven untruthful time and time again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/nancy-grace-lies-again-an_b_4959451.html



" But her reckless and inflammatory comments about the criminal justice system are dangerous.To the extent she slimes defendants, their lawyers, and the legal processes that protect the rights of persons accused of crimes, Grace is able to distort and manipulate what people think about the legal system and, as a consequence, erode the public’s confidence in a system that although not perfect, attempts in good faith to adjudicate guilt fairly and impartially. "

 

[dexter75]

Kratz already made sure everyone in the state was well aware of his fairytale version of TH's murder ... BEFORE THE TRIAL even started. I am sure you recall.

And I am sure this novel just repeats the same sick and twisted scenario Kratz dreamed up to corrupt the jury pool.

It is the same fairytale Kratz and his disciples have been spewing all over the media and Internet message boards since January.

I see Nancy Grace wrote the forward, which just reinforces my point.

EXACTLY, CoolJ
This article has MULTIPLE DOCUMENTED accounts where NG LIES..even in her days as prosecutor having BIG trouble in the courtroom. CLEARLY I can see she and Kratz being BFF'Suke:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/nancy-grace-lies-again-an_b_4959451.html


" Grace’s untruthful assertions regarding her personal life have been amply documented. Why Grace would fabricate so many things about the death of a man to whom she was engaged is astonishing. Grace claimed he was killed by a stranger (untrue, the killer was a co-worker); the killer brazenly denied involvement (untrue, the killer confessed the night he was arrested); the jury deliberated for three days before convicting (untrue, the jury took a few hours to find guilt); the DA asked her if she wanted the death penalty and in a moment of weakness she replied “No” (untrue, prosecutors asked for the death penalty but the jury imposed life because the defendant was retarded); and a string of appeals followed (untrue, the defendant never appealed). "

 

[IDK]

1) Truth is, that is what she said. No presumption at all.

2) The definition of Police corruption/misconduct is not the issue. Proof is.

3) Examples of what would constitute Police corruption/misconduct is not the issue either. Proof is and until evidence has been provided, they're just unfounded allegations.

I was responding to your statement: "She knows her brother and what he was capable of."
Classic example of presumption.

 

[IDK]

EXACTLY, CoolJ
This article has MULTIPLE DOCUMENTED accounts where NG LIES..even in her days as prosecutor having BIG trouble in the courtroom. CLEARLY I can see she and Kratz being BFF'Suke:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/nancy-grace-lies-again-an_b_4959451.html


" Grace’s untruthful assertions regarding her personal life have been amply documented. Why Grace would fabricate so many things about the death of a man to whom she was engaged is astonishing. Grace claimed he was killed by a stranger (untrue, the killer was a co-worker); the killer brazenly denied involvement (untrue, the killer confessed the night he was arrested); the jury deliberated for three days before convicting (untrue, the jury took a few hours to find guilt); the DA asked her if she wanted the death penalty and in a moment of weakness she replied “No” (untrue, prosecutors asked for the death penalty but the jury imposed life because the defendant was retarded); and a string of appeals followed (untrue, the defendant never appealed). "

Thanks for posting this Dexter! I had no idea NG lied about so many details. Really puts her credibility into question. IMO

 

[dexter75]

Thanks for posting this Dexter! I had no idea NG lied about so many details. Really puts her credibility into question. IMO

Absolutely😉
I use to watch her religiously..I always wondered why it seemed every time someone questioned her, she SHOUTED over them🙄
Not credible whatsoever IMO and factually based on many documents.
You know...just like Kratz..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[BigCityAccountant]

Hmmm....but didn't the prosecution get to tell their side of the story during the court cases?

:yeahthat:

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Well that's your perogative but this is what was stated


“We absolutely have a point of view,” she added when prodded further. “When we set out to make this series, we chose Stephen Avery to be our main subject. The reason we chose him was his unique status as an American who had been failed by the system in 1985, and had been repeatedly failed for another 18 years.”
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2016/jan/17/making-a-murderer-netflix-steven-avery

SBM

I can agree with this part. They have a point of view and it was that SA was framed by LE. To me that means their goal with MAM was to prove SA was not guilty JMO