Not sure why a prosecutor, or an ex-prosecutor in this case, would talk to morons at TMZ, there are a few interesting comments, especially this -

'I believe there to be 80% to 90% of the physical evidence, the forensic evidence, that ties Steven Avery to this murder have never been presented in this documentary.'

I wonder what this refers to?

http://fox6now.com/2016/01/04/ken-kr...-is-developed/

PS,

I have just checked out all the Dean Strang stuff that i can, but have noticed 2 stark differences in strang and buting.

Strang is very measured and was asked what about kratz now?
Strang responded, he is practicing law etc etc.

BUTING is like hard core about Kratz and how big of an ahole he is. Are there any reasons for this ? Does strang still have to work with kratz? I would think no since they are competitors? Perhaps he did a lot of cases before and respect him? Just an odd point


Recent tweeter post from BUting

Kratz wasn't even honest in his own Supreme Court discipline case. See paragraphs 34-48, 64-67. https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/...yDocument.pdf?
Jerome Buting ‏@JButing Jan 1
Disgraced prosecutor Kratz is trying to rehab public image with more false stmts to media. But he has no credibility or character.

can't be bothered addressing the rest of your post, but you should read this at least:

buting is on twitter. strang is on television.

Problem is if one thing was conspired against him there is a chance everything else was. We already know from the previous case that the local sheriff/DA were in cahoots and the fact hat a ton of other officers couldn't find a key but magically a key with SA DNA and no DNA from TH was found by 2 sheriffs who were first of all NOT supposed to be working the investigation and second already involved in the previous case. Once we understand that there is some fraud I could see other fraud happening in most of the other instances. Even if SA did do it, the fact that evidence was tampered with, that sheriffs who had no business being involved in the case were involved, and that there are too many small details to count that are fishy that I can't see SA being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

While it seems like it would take a massive conspiracy for this to happen, guess what happened in the first case, a massive ****ing conspiracy put the guy in jail for 18 years. To say it can't happen again in a **** hole town is lunacy. The fact that the state DA saw no corruption in the previous case points to me that there is something wrong with the local and state government that should clearly be investigated.

Again, I'm not sure if SA did it. He clearly could have. With that being said, there is too much crap that is questionable to try him. The story doesn't make sense. The motives make no sense. The investigation was tampered with, not once but many times. The fact that the story the prosecutor presented hardly fits the evidence is again a huge red flag in how SA could be found guilty.

Now if a neutral 3rd party with no link to the previous case found all the evidence and performed the investigation I would be clearly on the side that SA is guilty. Since that isn't the case and since there are too many issues with the investigation and the justice system in the state, I can't convict him. Obviously there is additional information that I never heard but even if there is a little doubt I think you shouldn't be able to convict someone, in this case there is a TON of doubt when it comes to just about everything. Nothing is clear cut and almost everything is questionable.

I didn't think the first rape conviction was so much corruption as much as thorough incompetence.

As for motive, I'm not sure why people are so hung up on it. Plenty of sociopaths rape and murder people with seemingly no motive.

Also, there was a trial that lasted something like two months. There was a huge amount of evidence presented which we don't know about. Taking everything this film says without hearing the other side and being convinced this verdict is wrong seems a little silly to me.

LOL yeah, great point. However, I am not surprised that Kenny "The Prize" Kratz spoke with the morons at TMZ.

Such as?

It was clearly more than incompetence.

1) Ignore other possible defendants completely including the actual guy who did it who the local sheriffs/cops were FOLLOWING at the time except for the day he raped the girl on the water.
2) Draw a picture of SA with his picture. Seriously wtf is that.
3) Ignore all of the alibis.
4) NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
4) Mention that you believe it is SA that did it because it sounds like him despite no evidence by the older lady who didn't like SA.
5) The DA who went after the actual person a year before the supposed SA incident with a very similar crime to what SA was convicted of. As mentioned, there aren't many of these crimes in the area so it's not like it could be ignored/easily forgotten.
6) The sheriff not investigating further the call from the other county about the actual rapist when they said they "had their guy." And THEN finally reporting and documenting it the day AFTER SA get's released.

LOL at this just being incompetence. This is clearly a ton more than that in the county.

That sketch tho. Its almost comical. Its too bad he didn't have a mohawk in the mugshot.

Vast conspiracy is one or two people.

If you're going to casually add his blood in the car as if it's evidence, explain why the seal was broken and there was a hole in the top of the test tube.

(Re: the rape)

How anyone can argue otherwise is beyond me.

The scene where the hatred for the Averys in general was revealed was enlightening. Something to the effect of "let's cut down this one branch family tree." This hatred was used to justify each and every lie and injustice and the good ol' boys see themselves as beyond reproach. And in the law's eyes, they are.

Incompetence? Gimme a break.

I have no idea. Do we have access to the trial records? It must be thousands of pages worth of reading, I'd guess.

I can't explain it. I have no idea. But you also have no explanation for how her burned body ending up in his front yard after he had a massive bonfire in that exact spot immediately after her presumed time of death other than to suggest that someone is framing him with no direct evidence of that. I guess it's possible that police framed him and risked their entire lives to get him even though they knew he was a cause celebre of the Wisconsin Innocence Project and would have massive legal support if it wasn't an absolutely open and shut case. But that scenario seems really far fetched to me.

does anyone actually doubt the key was tampered with and planted?

once you grant that, additional stuff being planted (e.g. bones) is of course a mere fraction as outlandish as it would be otherwise.

There is evidence that he was being framed, whether he was guilty or not.

I don't think the cops murdered her, but it's not impossible. More likely they found a body, perhaps already burned, and set about framing SA, whether or not he was guilty.

Some guy in a Reddit thread claims all those vials have holes in the lids, if true, then its not suspicious imo

haven't heard any explanations about the broken seal

Sure, I don't don't that. But it is important to know that the evidence of tampering or planting evidence is not evidence of innocence. The good news is, in theory at least, Mr Avery does not need to prove his innocence.

Under normal circumstances, I could see this as being true. But given WHO is suspected of having planted it, the motive for doing so, the fact that he was not supposed to be there in the first place, the six (SIX!) searches prior that revealed nothing, AND (unrelated but still relevant) the fact that her DNA was not on the key, it does start become evidence of innocence. Think about how much chance needs to be involved for all this to be questionable AND on top of that this guy is a murderer after all?

Near absolute 0% he committed this crime.

But that also requires that: no evidence comes to light of the "real killer," that the cops are willing to risk spending years in prison if they were to get caught, that no other evidence or leaks of the conspiracy come to light, etc. I mean, you honestly think cops are going to find a burned body and think immediately upon finding a cremated body, "Hey, I know! Let's move these charred remains to Steven Avery's place whom the best lawyers in Wisconsin via the Innocence Project have his back and dump them in his front yard, b/c he had this massive bonfire last night immediately after the time she was killed. We can then just say our super duper prayers that the real killer doesn't come to light since we have no idea who actually killed her because we're only an hour into this case. Yeah, Bob, that's an awesome idea! I mean, this is so solid, what could go wrong?"

That's the scenario you imagine? I think the entire county is a bunch of redneck morons who couldn't find their own *******s with both hands, but that's just a bit much to fathom.

The question then becomes why did they or would they conspire to get SA? Why plant the key in his room? Why delete the voice mails? Why get involved in the case at all? Despite the "plethora" of evidence pointing to SA whether it be planted or not, there seems to be a ton of questions about everything involved in the case. We wouldn't have nearly as many questions if the 2 sheriffs never got involved in investigation, would we. Their involvement is a huge problem.

Once they open the door with planting the key, I really have no idea to the lengths they would go to frame the guy.

From the first case, despite gross negligence by the entire sheriff's department and the DA, literally nothing happened. There was no accountability for their actions and likely will never be. We haven't heard about an investigation into the DA/sheriffs involving the latter case, have we? We already know they are willing to conspire with a slow kid to get SA as well.

This just isn't correct, I will give it to you that near 0% chance the murder was committed in the way that the prosecution described it, but SA is still the odds on favorite of being the murderer. The simplest explanation is that SA murdered her in some other manner and the police planted evidence to try to secure a conviction. Although there is still a wide range of possibilities that he is innocent as well, but no one is more likely than SA with the fact presented to this point. Since this is gambling website I'd go:

SA -110
ex BF +200
Tadych's +300
Police +600
Random +500

This is actually a super strong point. In order pull this off, the cops had to have known who actually did this. I used to consider that perhaps the cops caught a lucky break and discovered the car with her body in the back (yes, YOU Colburn) and realized they could potentially blame this on SA making a whole lot of problems go away. But you're right, it's way more likely that the entire thing was arranged by the 4-6 main players for the County so they ensure no repeat of the first incident.

This would likely depend on the language contained in the county's insurance policy(ies). More likely than not the insurance companies were defending SA's lawsuit under a reservation of rights, which in layman's terms means the ins. cos. were defending the county on their dime, paying for the county's lawyers, etc., but reserved the right to withdraw paying for the defense at a later time and reserved the right not to pay a judgment if it turned out the actions engaged in by the county weren't covered under the insurance policies.

I can get into it further, but it's relatively boring unless you're an insurance coverage lawyer, and even then, it's still boring.

Practically speaking, a lot of these cases typically settle before they are ever tried and the insurance company most often foots a significant portion (or all) of the settlement for a variety of reasons.

I'd have to say that SA having committed this murder is actually the most complex of answers given the facts presented in the documentary. I think its more like

ANYONE other than SA: - 15,000
SA: + 14,500