I have reason to treat accusations against Steven based on 'confessions' from kids because of how law enforcement coerced Brendan Dassey to accuse Steven of crimes.

IIRC I gave that very reason when I made the post you've been babbling out.

For some reason you chose not to notice I gave that reason.

I have no reason to doubt full grown women who have come forward to describe Kratz's actions.

You can define words any way you want.

Me, I will often prefer the way they are literally defined.

You can say that all you want.

But that is not what I was saying.

Learn the difference between stuff you made up and what literally happened.

People will be more willing to take you seriously.

Just thought I'd look back and see when I learned of rape allegations against Ken Kratz.

I started referring to it in early September 2016. I don't mention it in every post, but plenty often.

So it's most likely I read the DOJ documents around that time about how Kratz coerced, threatened, and used physical force to rape women who came to his attention in his capacity as an officer of the court.

One victim was crying and shaking all through the interview with DOJ investigators. Kratz had prosecuted the victim as DA for several minor offenses (shoplifting, disorderly conduct, etc) and after his divorce suddenly called the victim at her home. She explained how Kratz came to her home and made it clear he could 'jam her up' in court with legal troubles if she didn't cooperate with him. Kratz then used his physical strength to restrain her while he sodomized her. Kratz returned several more times to his victim's apartment, and she was so terrified of him that she would hide in the closet until he went away.

https://www.convolutedbrian.com/Supp...1102608019.pdf page 15/21

.

^^This.^^

It's incredible that he isn't in jail.

Sadly, folks on the inside of these institutions tend to protect one another. Doctors cover for doctors. Cops cover for cops. Politicians cover for politicians.

Easier to let him 'quit' than have all the publicity of a trial that ends in prison time.

I suspect lots of people knew of Kratz's habits. And I suspect Kratz could pull some people down with him if they didn't take it easy on him.

I've been mentioning these accusations against Kratz for nearly a year here, and since no one questioned it I assumed it was already well known.

The problem, which I don't think you still fully recognize, is that you are steadfast in SAs guilt. The people you are arguing are not saying (for the most part) that SA is innocent. They are saying that there are problems in the system that ended up convicting SA.

Avery is accused of rape by multiple women and multiple people substantiate the claim. Charges are not pursued because avery is on trial for murder and its not worth exposing the name of the girl who was raped= unfounded

kratz is accused of rape by afaict 1 person, charges are dismissed= hes guilty and should be in jail

Kind of amazed at the thought process tbh.

Oh really, he plead no contest to rape did he?

I won't have time to read the whole document posted by footz tonight but after skimming through it it does look pretty bad for kratz. I will have to read more.

Avery was a felon.

Kratz was a prosecutor.

Which one do you hold to a higher standard, or should that be inconsequential?

Probably would have been good to read the testimony of Kratz's victims before posting defenses of Kratz.

Better late than never!

A higher standard of reasonable doubt? Neither.

Obviously, a drug addicted and sex-crazed prosecutor should be given a lot of latitude because he wears a suit. Or something.

It is sort of interesting that accusing Steven of rape is so important when the fact is even if these accusations were not unfounded they do nothing to justify police the manufacturing evidence to convict Steven of murder.

It seems there is quite a lot more evidence with Kratz, like those text messages...

I don't know how much bearing that should have on the case. He was ordered to try SA and BD for murder. Just like the defense does anything to get a not-guilty verdict, the prosecution does everything they can (within the law.)

The one terrible thing he did was the press conference which completely cause the tide of public opinion to go against SA and made choosing an impartial jury almost impossible.

Well, we do know that Kratz is outstanding in his field!

Being suspended from the practice of law is an incredibly rare "distinction" for a prosecutor. Only 12 in 30 years. #CredibilityDestruction

http://imgur.com/a/iD4cB

Its really only important because it is absolutely fascinating that you and others will go to extreme lengths to deny it probably happened.

In terms of its relevance to the TH case, it becomes relevant in forum discussions like this because it shows what kind of person SA was and that the documentary portrayed him in an unreasonably favorable light.

Steven and Kratz both saved by reasonable doubt?

Why didn't you say so?

The text messages don't indicate he raped anyone as far as I can tell. Can you elaborate on why you think this is evidence of rape?

Kratz has 1 person accusing him of rape. Avery has 2 accusing him, and others who corroborate this happened.

Yep. If the existence of accusations is good evidence, then both Kratz and Steven could be rapists. It certainly is fascinating people try to minimize Kratz's crimes while shrieking about Steven's.

You seem to set great store in the project of trying to show that the documentary had some deficiencies. Most people in my experience have gone far beyond the documentary in their critiques of the case.

For instance I had to show a fellow like you something about the character of the DA - something that shows the scenario coerced from Brendan is remarkably similar to Ken Kratz's own rape fantasies.

You do know it doesn't matter if Steven was a rapist, a pimp, a drug pusher, or a District Attorney - none of that is relevant to whether he suddenly decided to murder some random person for no discernible reason. There is no reason for anyone to bring it up as if it were 'evidence'.

So I just read the ladies testimony about Kratz. Not sure if we should call what she claims he did rape, but its certainly wrong.

It doesn't matter how far beyond the doc you go. The doc has tainted your opinion and likely you will never be able to admit you were fooled.

SA's history does matter when evaluating the likelihood hed kill someone.

You are assuming I was 'fooled'.

It turns out I wasn't the least bit fooled, and I lived to teach you stuff about the case you had no idea of. But apparently even being embarrassed by your ignorance hasn't caused you to doubt your opinions based on your ignorance.

Even if any of the accusations were true, it has no relevance.

But as it is we are dealing with accusations, not established facts.

It doesn't matter if Steven was left-handed, voted Republican, or preferred strawberry to chocolate ice cream. Such irrelevancies might matter to you, but not to someone who can resist the emotional pull of these kind of fallacious 'character' attacks.

Forcing someone to submit to sodomy on the basis of threats and physical threats would seem to qualify in most civilized communities as rape.

If force and threats do not in your opinion constitute rape, how is it that Steven is supposedly guilty?

Maybe, as you say, it was wrong but hardly rape.

Voted republican, left handed, likes chocolate icecream

vs

assaulted women, raped women, threatened to kill women, tried to kill women

Are you seriously pretending these things are equivalent? I could see your point if we were talking about something like a drug charge, but we're not. We are talking about whether or not a man accused of a brutal murder has a history of violent sociopathic behavior.