Ken Kratz does have a bitch voice. Hasn't he been found to have been harassing women, and diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder?

Northern Wisconsin in winter = suicide.

john_matrix wrote:

Ken Kratz does have a bitch voice. Hasn't he been found to have been harassing women, and diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder?

Northern Wisconsin in winter = suicide.

Yea, he was forced to resign in 2010 following a sexting scandal in which he sent abusive, sexually coervive text messages to the ex-gf of a defendant he was prosecuting for domestic violence. A couple other girls came forward stating similar allegations and he settled that suit in 2013.

I don't think she's necessarily worthy of automatic trust, so I don't necessarily believe anything she says, but I think it does at least cast doubt on all of the stuff that was presented so convincingly in the series.

Also: how terrible is this interview?! The pacing is bad, the wrong camera is frequently used, the questions are crap way too scripted...just terrible.

My wife and i just finished it. She was a lawyer in Brazil before moving here (Can't practice here due to the different legal system)

We both agreed, while very one sided, there was still a LOT of fuckery involved in this case.

Is he guilty of murder? No idea. Wouldn't shock me. The the entire family seems to be bunch of drunken, child molesting, woman abusing, weirdos according to various reports about them.

My problem was how  jacked up the whole trial was. It was just handled poorly from the start.

Why the the Manatowoc SD show up first when they had a pending suit against them and conflict of interest?
Why did they allow the jury to hear Brendon's confession, redact it,  then not get a new jury? You don't forget all that shit he said and scratch it from memory.
Why were no other suspects allowed in the case?
where the hell was all of the blood??? Maybe they killed her somewhere else?
They went back to investigate the same crime scene like four times in a four month span, while not securing the scene or keeping all the family off the property?

So many more things that are just messed up. It was not handled properly.

What to do at this point? Could you even do a re-trial? Finding a jury...that would be crazy hard. At the very least, a federal investigation?

LordZed wrote:

What to do at this point? Could you even do a re-trial? Finding a jury...that would be crazy hard. At the very least, a federal investigation?

I don't think anything will be done. The FBI was originally involved, they can't admit the FBI fucked up, that would really be admitting systemic problems.

ikbrown wrote:

What troubled me even more than Steven’s case, was Brendan’s. The ‘questioning’ of Brendan by the two detectives digging for a confession was practically unwatchable at times. You could tell that he was having trouble coming up with answers and that he seemed to be guessing at what the detectives wanted to hear, and he had zero understanding of the impact his statements would have on his future. His first appointed lawyer sickened me in his handling of the case as well. There also seems to be a serious lack of evidence confirming Brendan’s horror story confession and I haven’t been able to find any more in a quick search online. In that case, I have a hard time understanding how the jury met the threshold of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

while i'm not 100% certain of steven's involvement, i am completely positive brendan is the poster child for a legal system absolutely screwing someone from the police to the DA to the public defender. incompetence and corruption on full display. his original attorney was a real life version of william h. macy's character in fargo in ever way.  that rat bastard and the investigator he hired should be slaughtered.

kornfeld wrote:

The whole sexting scandal had no place in it. I kept having the feeling throughout the documentary that it was way too biased, and as soon as that part came up, I knew that we were not being told the whole story. If Avery was for sure innocent, we don't need to hear about that sleazeball DA and his weird texting habits.

i disagree. kratz wasn't just texting a girl he met at a bar, he was harassing a victim he was supposed to be helping to prosecute a domestic violence case. it proves that his moral character is at pile of shit status.  morality and character are extremely important qualities of a DA in prosecuting a case.

kornfeld wrote:

cjaama wrote:

[

kornfeld wrote:

The whole sexting scandal had no place in it. I kept having the feeling throughout the documentary that it was way too biased, and as soon as that part came up, I knew that we were not being told the whole story. If Avery was for sure innocent, we don't need to hear about that sleazeball DA and his weird texting habits.

i disagree. kratz wasn't just texting a girl he met at a bar, he was harassing a victim he was supposed to be helping to prosecute a domestic violence case. it proves that his moral character is at pile of shit status.  morality and character are extremely important qualities of a DA in prosecuting a case.

Which is more relevant to demonstrating Avery's innocence: evidence showing Avery was innocent, or evidence showing Kratz was a sleazeball?

Kratz could have raped and murdered that woman he was sexting with, and it wouldn't have any bearing on whether or not Avery killed Halbach.

kratz's moral character and whether avery committed the crime are mutually exclusive. that's obvious.
however, kratz was the prosecutor who clearly intended to pollute the jury pool by holding several pre-trial press conferences, inaccurately describing brendan's testimony.  the press aired this on the nightly news to a small population from which a jury was selected and an unfair trial was the result.  if kratz is willing to breach this code of conduct, he is likely to been complicit in other improper conduct in prosecuting a case, which might not be as readily obvious.  his sexual harassment of someone he was elected to attempt to protect is further evidence of his lack of character and a tendency for misconduct.

LordZed wrote:

The the entire family seems to be bunch of drunken, child molesting, woman abusing, weirdos according to various reports about them.

My problem was how  jacked up the whole trial was. It was just handled poorly from the start.

Yep.  My partner is from the same area (Manitowoc, not Mishicot where the Avery family is from, but the same county).  Documentary is heavily one-sided, and really, this Avery trial has similarities to OJ Simpson - in that he most likely did it, but a corrupt prosecution fucked up a bunch of stuff in rushing the case through.  Difference is, Avery is poor white trash, and Simpson had money and a fancy defense team.

The whole Netflix documentary thing has been a tiresome talking point around various Wisconsin forums and FB feeds.  Actually was kind of glad it wasn't showing up here...

kornfeld wrote:

Let me put it a different way.  Suppose Kratz *didn't* sext with someone he was elected to attempt to protect, and he was always on the up and up with every single other case he worked. Would that fact have any bearing on the guilt or innocence of the crimes that Avery was accused of in the Halbach case?

The documentary was about Avery's guilt or innocence, not Kratz's.  Much of the police/DA/etc misconduct is relevant because it gave us motive for why they may have done what they did, or given us opportune times for them to do what they were accused of doing. Those pieces are relevant to the story. The sexting part was none of this, it was just saying Kratz was a bad guy.

when i read "sexting with" i interpret that as two willing and engaging participants. kratz was sexually harassing the three women and had his law license suspended as a result.  i don't mean to argue semantics, but i just want to make sure we're clear this girl was victimized.

it was evident in the texts they showed that he was attempting to use his power and position to win over this victim.  what i gained from reading those texts was a sense of his character.  he was obviously power-hungry and this was a career case which he would do anything he could to win and garner more power.

the purpose of the documentary was to show avery and brendan got a raw deal from corrupt investigators and corrupt prosecutors.  for reasons mentioned, i believe it was worth mentioning as it supports corruption in the prosecutors.

i can see where you're coming from, i just disagree.

Alec Baldwins just interviewed the filmmakers in his latest podcast episode.  Good listen.

Tons of articles out about how the series left out important info bla bla bla.  Who cares.  Hopefully we can all agree Kratz is a skidmark, and his whole team are lousy human beings.  At least with Steven there is room for doubt.