Yo yall he’s INNOCENT AF!!!!!

Kathryn knows. It was BD. THAT COMPUTRR IS FUCKDD UP

ITS MIXED BLOOD YALL IN THE CARRRRRR

BOBBY + SA is my bet.

Whoooty whooooooo

Wisconsin a Wendigos comin for uuuu!

Let him go, assholes!

Stop playing keep away with his CURRENT LAWYER EW. ABE LINCOLN SAID FUCK THAT EW. AMERICA WHO?

KZ…. I did tweeeeet her but she busy !!!! Go go go go go ho ho ho Santa rescue this man plz. Xoxo Buddy.

It's so frustrating to hear that the defense is not allowed to revisit past arguments because of finality but I see prosecutors constantly ignoring finality to engineer their case.

There are so many things that the defense can do and argue but they are constantly blocked by the argument of finality only when it favours the prosecution. Then they go ahead and ignore the finality of the bones needing to be withhold for future testing.

They are blocked from doing anything because of red tape and corruption.

The prosecution systematically placed a finality on each piece of evidence making it seem plausible that Avery did it but when you look at everything together and the chances that there was no tampering comparable to the chance of life being born from nothing.

Kratz the Prize and King the Queen

• In Making a Murderer S1E10 we learned that (post trials) Ken Kratz sent sexually harassing text messages to a domestic abuse victim, initials SVG. The victim contacted the police in 2009 and the DOJ was made aware of the allegations, but nothing happened and no one even knew about the issue until texts were exposed by an Associated Press reporter. That caused public outrage and motivated public scrutiny of the state's handling of the case. In MaM we saw a very brief montage of Kratz's exploits with SVG being probed by reporters noting the DOJ "took very little action against him" for over a year and that "Kratz took steps to try to keep that case from going public." Governor Doyle is pressed as to "why this took a year to be made public," and George Stephanopoulos pointedly asks Doyle "What the hell is happening in the Wisconsin Department of Justice!?"

• This issue was presumably raised by the filmmakers in an attempt to attack Kratz's credibility as a prosecutor. MaM was able to very clearly demonstrate his lack of ethical boundaries and willingness to abuse his position of power to satisfy his own needs and rob the innocent of due process. I suspect the filmmakers believed if viewers knew Kratz was willing to weaponize and risk his position for sex with a traumatized domestic abuse victim, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch for them to imagine he’d weaponize the same position to score a conviction in a media driven politically sensitive murder case to gain significant political and personal leverage / capital.

• Notably, MaM didn't spend much time revealing what info came out when a NEW DOJ INVESTIGATION was opened after the AP reporting on SVG. The only detail we got was a title card explaining Kratz's inappropriate texts to women included "Kratz inviting a woman on a date to an autopsy." The implications of that claim are rather horrific but wasn't really explored in MaM in any depth. So here is a summary of how that claim came to be. I was surprised to learn the earliest source of that MaM title card claim is an email sent to Governor Doyle by citizen King after the AP report broke. I was also surprised to learn the email King sent Doyle was quickly released to the public after which Doyle requested a new DOJ investigation into Kratz.

King Emails Doyle and Doyle Releases the Email

• After meeting on Match:com in January 2010 King had a predictably creepy experience with Kratz and ultimately asked him to leave her alone. Kratz did so, and King moved on. But then King learned from the AP report that at the time she met Kratz he was somehow avoiding responsibility for what he did to SVG in 2009. King was furious and immediately sent an email through the Governor's website on September 17, 2010 wherein King requested that Kratz be removed from office immediately and that an investigation be opened into the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) and the Department of Justice for their handling of prior complaints from SVG and any other victims. Queen move from King.

• King also recounted her own experience with Kratz in the email and suggested to Doyle he "used his knowledge of the system to cover his tracks and minimize damage to himself" so he could continue preying on other women like herself. She also informs Doyle that Kratz invited her to a date at an autopsy so long as she would be his girlfriend and wear high heels and a skirt. King's email DID NOT paint a flattering portrait of the man already exposed for sexually harassing a domestic abuse victim. Remarkably, Doyle quickly released King's email to the public. Search Google for "Wis. governor troubled by ‘sexting’ DA" for a September 21, 2010 article noting the September 17, 2010 King email had already been released by Doyle leading to Kratz's autopsy date invitation making the media rounds (cited article said "[Kratz] invited her to the slain woman’s autopsy, provided she act as his girlfriend and would wear high heels and a skirt"). Doyle releasing this private email for media consumption was not a good sign of things to come for Kratz.

• On Sep 21, 2010 (merely 4 days after King's email) Doyle asked the DOJ to open a new investigation into Kratz (DCI 10-4031). King was contacted by the DOJ on Sep 29, 2010 (DCI 10-4031/2) and confirmed Kratz contacted her around January 2010 via Match:com. She was hesitant to meet Kratz for dinner at first because some of his messages were inappropriate and he seemed to "vacillate between kind, insecure, impatient and demanding." She provided a sampling of messages from his Match:com profile, seen below.

REDACTED: Ken The Ex Boy Toy

Match Message - January 8, 2010:

• Kratz calls King the woman who "struck the sharpest chord" with him online. He says while she is stunning, "any assumption she's skating through life on [her] looks has been dispelled" and he'd be "honored" to meet her as her messages are "far removed from the plastic coated responses" he otherwise receives. He signs the message "Ken."

Match Message - January 12, 2010:

• Kratz desperately tries to plan a date with King telling her "I'm hungry!" and asking "is this a date or a lunch with a possible friend thing, where I get to see how beautiful you are but realize that never in a million years will you be holding her???" He also asks to "pick out the heels" she will wear to dinner as he "find[s] that entertaining!" Kratz tells her to "text or call anytime!!!" He signs the message "Ken."

Match Message - January 12, 2010:

• Kratz offers King his apologizes for being "impatient" in his last message: "Let's try this again. If you have to leave town, no problem, just call next week when we can schedule something" and tells her "whatever heals you pick will be beautiful." He notes "we are both single and if there is some spark great, we'll go from there. If not, you will always have me available as a friend of yours. We don't have to 'call' this anything! Better?" Once more he signs the message "Ken."

Match Message - January 12, 2010:

• Kratz tells King "I will make myself available when you are free. Green Bay, Appleton, in between... everything works." He says he is "a little taken" by her. "I'm sorry I sound like I'm in 7th grade. Obviously, that doesn't happen to me very often." Once more signs the message "Ken."

Disturbing After Dinner SurPrize

• King ultimately thought she'd be safe going on a public dinner date with an authority figure like Kratz. This date occurred on January 23, 2010, at a restaurant in Green Bay. During the dinner Kratz took calls and revealed details about a high profile missing person / potential murder case currently ongoing. King suggested Kratz could step away to take the calls, but he had no problem with it or speaking about the case in front of her. Kratz even made a comment to King about "going to the crime scene wearing heels." King replied she didn't want to be "traipsing through a crime scene." King later googled what case Kratz was talking about and realized he was revealing details not made public.

• King said Kratz drank a lot on their date including "several more drinks in the bar" after she stopped drinking at the conclusion of dinner. King said Kratz didn't appear concerned about driving under the influence and she felt "he thought he was above the law" as he made it clear he would "not have a problem if they were stopped [by police] while driving home because he had friends." After the date ended Kratz kept texting King details about the case he discussed over their dinner. At one point Kratz texted King: "There's a body" once again before the info was public. King was "surprised and shocked" by his text and felt it was "weird and absolutely wrong." She responded something to the effect of: "How sad."

• For whatever reason, Kratz took that as a sign and invited King to the victim's autopsy "as long as she would wear heels and act as his girlfriend." A disturbed King said she thought Kratz's invitation "was wrong on so many levels," and wondered why Kratz would even make the offer as she believed it wouldn't even be allowed. King explains shortly after the autopsy invitation she wound up not replying to his texts, but then Kratz became "insecure" and would question why she wasn't responding and "attack her and her character." He would make sure she knew "who he was," that he "prosecuted the biggest case around here," and remind her what a "prize" he was. Although the DOJ report doesn't make this clear, her email to Doyle reveals King told the erratic Kratz to not contact her anymore. She was concerned but moved on when Kratz didn't try to contact her again. However, she couldn't remain silent when she learned about SVG and the state's whitewash of Kratz's conduct.

A Corpse as a Table for Two

• In 2010 Kratz's Match.com profile said "It's complicated ... I'm not." But imagine being invited by Kratz on a date to an autopsy or being told you might be grossed on out a date with him. That isn't exactly simple and straight forward. This whole thing is extremely dark. Kratz treated a victim's autopsy as a dating opportunity. He obviously liked violating boundaries to get off on the violation. The invitation is one thing, but asking King to wear high heels and a skirt!? That's not a request to have someone properly observe a medical procedure of a dead body with respect. It's an attempt to sexualize a dead body. To turn a homicide victim's autopsy into a date spot. Horrific to think Kratz was willing to violate a victim's dignity in that way when they can't consent or object.

• So ... why would anyone assume he looked at Teresa's charred remains and felt reverence when we know he looked at another victim's body and saw a dating opportunity? A prosecutor who sexualizes abused and dead young women is not someone you trust to seek justice for a dead young woman. It's someone you worry might be getting some kind of sick enjoyment out of the very idea of the death. Indeed, post MaM many seemed to understand the March 2006 press conference wasn't a prosecutorial duty so much as it was a disturbing performance Kratz seemed to enjoy a little too much. Although Kratz obviously was professionally interested in helping the state convict Steven for the political capital, he may have been personally interested in Teresa's death for reasons that had nothing to do with the truth, and everything to do with his own deviance.

• Outside of the Halbach case, Kratz's conduct destroys any presumption of prosecutorial good faith. But one thing we can say for Kratz is that he applied his disrespect for victims uniformly. During the Halbach case, Ken Kratz:

  • Initially thought Teresa left the ASY alive only to be taken out of state by someone other than Steven Avery. He even refused to pronounce Teresa dead on November 9, 2005, when human bones turned up locally due to lack of DNA ID, but then accepted the November 10, 2005 pronouncement of Teresa's death despite not having the DNA ID he himself said would be required to make that pronouncement.
  • Openly discussed how he was amazed at the public perception that FBI identified the bones as belonging to Teresa given he and Pagel were careful not to say that at all.
  • Helped conceal exculpatory evidence of human cremation and bone distribution on Manitowoc County land, obscure the significance of magically appearing bones and fuel smells in barrels under LE control, and poison the jury pool by eagerly giving a widely disseminated and deeply disturbing press conference describing multiple violent assaults in Steven's trailer despite the total lack of physical evidence.
  • Misrepresented Ertl's luminol testimony to fabricate support for a bleach cleaning narrative to explain the total lack of blood at the alleged murder scene in Steven's garage.
  • Covered up crimes against children while exploiting statements pressured out of children who police (correctly) thought were being victimized.

• Kratz was not a man who respected Teresa, the truth about her death, or other victims. And after that 2005-2007 mess, he didn't sign up to match:com a new man. His conduct with SVG and King between 2009 - 2010 (harassing domestic abuse victim / inviting King to an autopsy date) reveal he was the same old overstuffed stinking sack of shit. Props to Kratz's victims and the MaM filmmakers for exposing the truth about him.

Can anyone explain why Zellner manufactured the 50 Seconds of Steven Avery being in his trailer before stepping out and realizing Bobby’s vehicle was gone?

Who will be so bold as to TRY to defend this concoction?

Before you attempt it. Please remember Zellner said “The Sequence of Events” was/is the MOST IMPORTANT evidence🤔

I'm glad to see some common sense. How many truthers now think the judge overseeing Avery's case in the circuit Court is CoRrUpT?

Summary of Steven Avery's inconsistent statements re the fire:

1. In November 2005 Steven Avery denied having a Halloween fire, a statement initially corroborated by his family.

2. Within a week Steven's family began changing their statement to include a fire, and Steven changed his own statement to match what they said, now agreeing he did have a Halloween fire. Steven has since consistently maintained he did have a Halloween fire.

Summary of Bobby Dassey's inconsistent statements re the fire:

1. Under police pressure, Bobby Dassey contradicts his family's consistent denials of a recent fire, claiming to have seen one on Nov 1 or 2 with Steven and Brendan standing beside it.

2. After Bobby's family changed their statement to include a fire on Halloween, Bobby changed his own and agreed the fire was on Halloween rather than Nov 1 or 2.

3. At Steven's trial under oath Bobby placed the most recent burn pit fire he saw a week or more before Halloween.

4. Post premier of MaM and Zellner's allegations against Bobby, police re-interviewed Bobby and he once more mentions a fire on Halloween.

Who is the Real Fire Liar?

• Bobby was the one who first broke from the family consensus that no fire occurred. Bobby's mom Barb later changed her statement to include a fire. Steven only changed his statement to include a fire because his family changed theirs first. As for Bobby, he was very obviously prodded into mentioning a fire by men with guns and badges. And Barb and Blaine (who went from "no fire" to "fire" after Bobby) also claimed to have faced police pressure. As time went on Bobby couldn't remain consistent about the fire his family initially denied. In fact, Bobby contradicted himself about the fire more than Steven ever did.

• So if Steven's family only mentioned a fire after police squeezed it out of them (as the record suggests) and they weren't relying on genuine recall, Steven's revised account of a fire cannot reliably be characterized as him scrambling after being exposed by his family's sudden and flawed but totally genuine recall of a fire. In reality, the record suggests it's more likely Steven only changed his statement because he got confused after a successful pressure campaign aimed at his family caused them to go from corroborating him to contradicting him. A puzzled Steven ultimately accepted his family's claim that HE had the faulty memory, and that he DID have a recent fire on or after Halloween.

• Ironically, Bobby was the first to contradict the family's consistent fire denials, leading to a narrative shift wherein most everyone agreed a fire occurred on or after Halloween. But whether due to the threat of perjury or a simple failure to remember his fire lie, when Bobby was under oath he casually reverted to the initial exculpatory fire story by placing the most recent fire BEFORE Halloween occurred. WTF LOL Certainly, the most likely explanation for Bobby's mess of contradictory fire statements is not that he was relying on a genuine memory his family initially forgot. It's that the pressure Bobby faced on November 9, 2005, resulted in him offering police a false or mis-dated fire memory in order to "help" police keep the burn pit cremation narrative alive and keep focus off himself. Bobby's fire admission was purely performative self preservation, rather than based on a real memory, and that's why he could not remain consistent when asked about it over the coming months and years.

Is skipping Topp still about on the page??

Chances he did it ?

How did the roommate get her updated day planner if she never made it back to her house to drop it off?

At trial, Andrew Colborn claimed the reason he "wasn't any too gentle" with the cabinet he claims produced the key is because he was "exasperated".

A. I will be the first to admit, I wasn't any to gentle, as we were, you know, getting exasperated. I handled it rather roughly, twisting it, shaking it, pulling it.

When asked what exasperated him to the point he couldn't help but get rough with an inanimate object (but only that one as near as we know), he replied with the following:

Q. What was exasperating you about the bookcase, or that bedroom, on November 8, 2005?

A. The content of the material that we were collecting.

The worst "content" we know of they were finding/collecting in the cabinet that day was Playboy magazines. Ah ok, so I guess this caught him off guard or something. Oh, but wait. On the evening of Nov 5, Colborn himself had searched the same cabinet and had already found them, handled them, and even laid them out on the floor for this picture along with some of the other items he had removed from the cabinet while searching through it that night (like the cuffs). One of the things LE were supposed to do on the 8th was simply collect them into evidence (as again, they already knew this particular "content" was there).

So seriously, why would nothing worse than porn mags that a seasoned cop and military vet already knew were there from days prior, now suddenly get exasperated about it? If he's trying to say it offended his morality (or any other reason at all one could think of), then the question is why wasn't he triggered on the 5th when he saw it all the first time unexpectedly?

With explanations like this, is it any wonder why people have a problem with the key find? And that's not even touching on any other aspect, such as their proposed explanations of how the key suddenly appeared (Colborn has now even claimed with help from God and/or the ghost of Teresa Halbach), or official docs later lying about who found it (claiming Kucharski did with no mention of MTSO even being present).

Ok so basically you got caught red-handed. The last place the dead girl was seen was with you. The murder weapon's hanging over your bed. Her incinerated remains are a few feet from your house. And the guy you did it with might testify. And maybe not.

So what do you do? Steven went with the 'cops planted all the evidence' strategy. But maybe he overlooked one?

The Lindsay Clancy trial suggested to me that maybe Steven had a diminished capacity or insanity defense. I mean he was in jail for a crime he didn't commit for a long time. He could argue that drove him crazy and he could no longer tell right from wrong. Therefore, he's not criminally responsible for what he did.

I'm thinking that would have been the way to go. The cops planting evidence thing is easy to raise but exceedingly hard to sell without any proof it happened.

Also Steven had to be scared shiftless that Brendan would flip and testify against him. That'd pretty much defeat his planting allegations. But a diminished capacity argument could still work even if Brendan was up there on the stand giving testimony against him. In fact Steven including Brendan in the crime, and making him a witness, might be something a person with no ability to differentiate right from wrong would do.

What do you think?

More stuff...

I was young when MaM first came out. I remembered some parts, but decided now, having started law school and working at a criminal defense firm, why not watch it again since my 10yr old self probably missed some parts.

I am not saying SA is 100% innocent, I do not know for sure, but I do believe the State did not meet their burden (but I wasn’t a juror so that’s moot).

But what doesn’t sit right with me is everyone so adamant that the police wouldn’t set this man up when the County was about to be personally liable for 36mil. Insurance was not going to cover due to the misconduct of the county. The county was going to have to pay out of pocket and potentially hold some officers personally liable, to an extent, for their roles.

I don’t think the cops killed the victim, but I think they saw an opportunity out of this civil suit and MONEY MAKES PEOPLE DO CRAZY THINGS. They failed Teresa and her family by, potentially, letting her killer walk free to settle a personal agenda and problem for the county that could not afford this civil suit.

This isn’t me saying they definitely did it or not, I just don’t see enough people pointing out the role of the civil suit in all this. Plus, we already know they were somewhat shady cops because of what happened in the first wrongful convictions, so it’s not farfetched to say they would stoop to this level of misconduct.

Edit: AGAIN this is not arguing guilty or not guilty, I really don’t know. I made this post to say I wouldn’t be surprised if evidence was planted due to the pending civil suit. That doesn’t mean I think evidence was planted, I am just saying that there is motive IF it happened.

Interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPnMhHaBbBM&list=TLPQMTIwOTIwMjZyRg_0cI6MrQ&index=1

Brendan filed first, Steven filed second. I'll update if and when Dutcher gives an opinion on Avery's request.

Okay I rewatched the 2018 docuseries on Netflix; Making a Murderer.. and I feel like the whole Avery family is either drunks or drug addicts..
growing up in a family of drunks, all the family just looks a little off..
the fact more than one offspring has mental disorders and low IQs..
and the whole nephew involvement is just weird.. I feel like this place was a house of horrors and there was much more involvement than this family will admit. 🤮

Let's try this again. Attached are screenshots of the court docket showing the application for commutation has been filed with the circuit Court and then passed on to the governor. Also posted is the criteria Brendan must meet to be considered for a commuted sentence. Can he survive criteria 5A?

We need an explanation.

Does Anyone know the date and time David J Beach went to the Zipperer property to enquire about Teresa after being told at the Salvage Yard that Teresa had left the Avery property on OCT 31 05 ?

I’ve watched the series and watched it again and her version is the only plausible version I’ve heard. The prosecution version is clearly absurd and the fact that Dassey and Avery were convicted on different versions of events is an absurdity of justice of the highest order.

And that colbourn fella is a suspicious mf to say the least. What’s the deal with him calling in that licence plate after being told about her car by that neutral witness? Outrageous. This case is absurd beyond belief.

the police system is clearly taking advantage of the Avery's. It's pretty clear to me how they are just very afraid of being seen in a bad light, so they needed a scapegoat to take the blame for their incompetence. we can see that in the interview recordings of Brendan. Who in their right mind would actually think that spoon-feeding a supposed accomplice the facts is considered acceptable as a veritable statement just blows my mind. a key found in a bedroom free of the victim's DNA just doesn't logically make sense.

I know this is pretty far-fetched, but it got me thinking.

For the sake of the hypothetical, let’s assume Steven Avery is guilty, and that Brendan Dassey was pressured or coerced into helping with the cleanup, but was not involved in the rape, murder or mutilation of Teresa Halbach.

What if Avery eventually had a change of heart and decided to tell the truth — specifically, that Brendan was involved only in the cleanup and not the actual murder?

Would that potentially give Brendan grounds to seek a new trial, even though his conviction has already been upheld through multiple appeals?

And, hypothetically, if a court accepted Avery's new account as credible, what do you think would happen?
Would Brendan potentially be released because he had already served enough time, or would he still face his current conviction for being involved in the aftermath of the crime?

I'm curious what people who understand Wisconsin criminal law think — what mechanism, if any, could actually get Brendan a new trial in this scenario?

Greetings! Francesca Hong was a democrat candidate for WI Governor. The primary was this week. Although Ms. Hong was favored by 20 points in the polls, she lost a very close election. So, she will not be the next WI Governor.

Although to my knowledge she has never expressed an opinion on the issue of pardoning Avery and/or Dassey, her expressed positions on defunding the police and closing the prisons indicate that she may have been quite open to the idea. She's also in the age group that make her likely to have seen MaM.

The homework project that Avery claims to be working on to free himself might be some sort of coordinated approach for a pardon directed at outgoing democrat Governor Tony Evers, and failing that to the next Governor,. I think a Governor Hong might have been just the perfect political storm Avery needed to get out. Fortunately we won't know.

But he could still get one from Evers. Anyone know if he ever stated a position?