Well, yes, those are not the two terms that are actually used here, but those are the concepts.

Fraud in the factum is an inducement to where the deceived party is not properly apprised of the consequences of the transaction - that is what the Court based its ruling on.

Fraud in the inducement is where the party is deceived by trickery.

In law school, the professor used the case of Moran v. State of Michigan: Defendant, a doctor, told the female patient, he had to insert an instrument in her vagina from behind as part of the check up. She consented not knowing the instrument was his penis.

Although the patient literally consented to having an instrument inserted, she did so not fully being apprised of the consequences (that she was consenting to sex). That is fraud in the factum.

Another doctor, in another case, told the patient she had an otherwise terminal disease which could only be cured if she had sex with an individual that carried the antidote. Surprise! The doctor was one of these few individuals that carried the antidote. She consented to sex.

This was fraud in the inducement as trickery was used to obtain the consent.


In our case, we can see that Dassey was mislead as to the consequences (according to the majority opinion). As also discussed, the scope of review was very, very limited by statute. As they state, if this was a de novo review, there would be a number of troubling issues to explore - but such were not before the Court in this review.

Accordingly, I do not know if the analysis of the tactics was truncated for that reason, or if it was a matter of not opening a can of worms when a clear ground for ruling was otherwise present. I don't have the time to read the decision more carefully, so I can't tell you. But I can tell you that I am not interested enough to find the time right now.

The underlying ruling was upheld, and I agreed with the opinion which was up for review.

So for now, that is good enough for me. I will wait to see what happens next.

Thank you for another enlightening post!

Oski, I understand the difference between those two concepts. I think what truthers are accusing the police of is different than f.i.t.i but whatever.

The more important point I was making in my post was this.

Can someone point out to me how he was given unreasonable consequences to confessing?

Kathleen Zellner refutes 12 talking points from Ken Kratz - why is it that people trying to make a case for Steven Avery's supposed guilt have to lie?

One example:

“When [Scott] B. called Steven Avery on Thursday, November 3rd to ask about his appointment with Teresa, Avery said she’s never shown up.” - Ken Kratz

When in fac:

Steven Avery never spoke with Teresa’s roommate, Scott B. on November 3, 2005, or any other day. Law enforcement investigated these allegations and determined they were false.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TickTockMan...s_from_kratzs/

This seems a little misleading..

The person from auto trader claimed avery called them and complained that someone accused him of doing something to TH. It was inferred that that was one of TH friends. But the call probably never took place and avery was likely lying.

You may be right.

Is there any evidence from phone records that shows Steven likely ever contacted Auto Trader after Monday, October 31st?

The alleged call probably never took place.

And yes, what Ken Kratz said is very misleading, too.

I don't know if there are phone records that show it took place.

Kratz obviously thinks it happened, hence him writting it in his book and providing his reasons for thinking it happened IE: Racheal from auto traders interview. Whether it did or didn't happen isn't important its whether kratz is being misleading which he isnt here. He provides his reasons as to why he thinks it happened.

What is kratz being misleading about? Those examples are ridiculous. and not at all misleading. They are either trivial mistakes, or up for debate if they are wrong.

This is nothing like the misleading stuff in the doc which actually did attempt to misconstrue known facts, edit responses in interviews and leave the viewer to believe details that aren't true.

And here is an example of zellner being misleading..

Paraphrasing of course.

Kratz: SA left sweat dna on the hood latch

Zellner: there is no such thing as sweat dna..

This is misleading, kratz is clearly simplifying that the dna found on the hood latch was likely from SA sweat leaving skin particles on the hood latch. SHould he have to say all that in a sentence? The point is his dna was on the hood latch.

Kratz: This happened on the morning of x

Zellner: No it didn't, it happened in the afternoon

Who cares? The point is that it happened.

What Kratz wrote in his book was that Scott called Steven who allegedly denied Teresa was ever there.

If Kratz supported that story with an allegation that Steven called Auto Trader, that is even worse lie that at first it seemed.

Was Kratz on drugs when he wrote this silly book?

Mistaking morning for afternoon may be trivial, but Kratz is supposed to be talking about a legal case he's supposed to be an expert on.

Mistaking a man calling Steven for Steven calling a woman is almost as wrong as can be.

Dawn guessing a name is the opposite of being told a name.

Everything Kratz wrote about 'Towel-gate' is false - Kratz needs to stop making up things to decorate his story with.

Katz lies about Cat-gate.

Steven never denied having a burn pit - Kratz just lies again.

The alleged 'rape victim' Kratz refers to never claimed she was raped.

Kratz flat out lies again about swabs from the garage tested for blood.

Brendan never described the 'unforgettable smell' of burning human flesh.

Brendan never named where any murder occurred - each of several mutually contradicting suggestions have come up dry for evidence matching the fantastical scenarios from these coerced statements.

There's zero evidence Steven called to reschedule photo shoot of Barb's van.

Even if he doesn't remember what happened, he should have a fact checker if he's too lazy to try and piece the story together.

Yes, I already explained why kratz thinks this happened. It is because according to an employee at auto trader SA called to complain that someone was blaming him for TH going missing. Did this person actually call SA? Who knows, kratz has more information than us and so far whenever pressed for additional information I have found that he is able to back up his assertions.



Sure but that aspect of the case is not important. It doesn't matter what time of day this happened and given this is her top 12, its a pretty weak thing to bring up. Just imagine if I were nitting over zellner getting a date or time wrong as a list of top 12 things she "lied" about.

That isn't what happened though, According to kratz avery called auto trader and told them someone was calling him complaining to him about TH.

She didn't guess a name, she was told a name according to her and she testified to this in court.

Nope, kratz wrote nothing about the towell incident that was false. He is just repeating what TH employees told him.

No he didnt, SA had conflicting stories about the cat but he did say he threw the cat in the fire twice and furthermore.. Who gives a **** if it was once or twice?

This is up for debate.

Yes she did, I posted her testimony in here and you responded to it so unless you didn't read it you know she said he raped her.

Elaborate please.

Not sure on this one, or where it came from.. Id need more information.



Yes he did, he even drew pictures where it took place that included the exact spot that tested positive during luminol testing and the exact location where the bullet was found with TH dna on it.

There is indeed evidence he called to reschedule a photo shoot. An employee from auto trade claims he did. That is evidence.

He does seem to remember what happened, all these examples are trivial and not important.

And I have shown why it would appear Kratz is 180 degrees wrong.

I agree this is a relatively minor thing if you were recounting the story in a bar. But the guy is writing a book which probably should have been fact checked.

The phone records should be able to show if this happened. Is there any record of this call, either?

"Dawn P., the AutoTrader employee who took Steven Avery’s call on October 31, 2005, informed law enforcement that she guessed at the contact name for the appointment when she typed “B. Janda” because the caller was difficult to understand, not that he told her the appointment was for “B. Janda.” There is no evidence that Steven Avery told Dawn P. that the contact name for the appointment was “B. Janda.” TT:2/13:60-63."

"Mr. Kratz’s assertions are false. There is no evidence that 1) this incident occurred on October 10, 2005; 2) Ms. Halbach thought it was “creepy”; and 3) she told coworkers that she did not want to return. No one reported that Ms. Halbach did not want to go back to the Avery property. TT:2/13/60-63. Another AutoTrader employee, Rachel H., told investigators that Ms. Halbach was not uncomfortable going to the Avery property to take photos and that Mr. Avery was harmless."

"Kratz’s assertion that Steven Avery threw the cat into the fire is false. In fact, there is only evidence that someone else threw the cat into the fire. Further, the trial judge ruled this evidence inadmissible because it has “zero probative value.” Motion to Allow the Introduction of Other Acts Evidence pg. 3-4."

"Steven Avery, when asked if any of the garbage in the salvage yard pit was burned “in burn barrels or open pits,” replied: “Not in the pit, no.” Steven Avery readily admitted that there were burning barrels in the residential areas on the Avery property and that the last time he used his burning barrel was about two weeks earlier when he burned regular garbage. Clearly, Mr. Kratz is mischaracterizing Mr. Avery’s statement. The Averys did not burn garbage in the business or salvage yard areas of the property; they did, however, burn garbage near their homes. Marinette County Interview 11/6/05."

"These allegations were investigated by the Calumet County Sheriff’s Department in 2004 after they were reported by the girl’s mother. The complaint was unfounded because the alleged victim denied any sexual contact with Steven. The only credible investigation declared that these allegations were unfounded. According to Mr. Kratz, the alleged victim agreed to cooperate with prosecutors after Mr. Avery’s detention. This is a misstatement. The alleged victim did cooperate, i.e., agree to be interviewed, with investigators when the allegations were investigated in 2004. While cooperating with the investigation at that time, the alleged victim denied any sexual contact with Mr. Avery and the investigators concluded that the allegations were unfounded."

"Here, Kratz conflates three sets of evidence collected from Steven Avery’s garage: ten swabs from stains on the garage floor taken on November 6, 2005, and sixteen chunks of concrete from the garage floor jackhammered on March 1, 2006, and numerous swabs from the concrete floor of the garage collected on October 4, 2006. There is no evidence that suggests, as does Mr. Kratz, that swabs from the jackhammered chunks were analyzed for the presence of blood. Mr. Avery’s DNA was identified on one of those swabs and Ms. Halbach’s DNA was not identified on any of the swabs. The ten swabs taken on November 6 were sent to the crime lab, where nine of them tested positive for the presence of blood. Further, six of those swabs yielded Steven Avery’s DNA profile. Mr. Kratz’s assertion that the stains on the garage floor tested inconclusive for the presence of blood is false. Mr. Avery’s blood was present in the garage in sufficient quantity to yield his DNA profile. None of Ms. Halbach’s blood was detected in the garage. If Ms. Halbach was shot in the head in the garage, her blood would be detectable in the garage. If Mr. Avery had sufficiently cleaned the garage so as to destroy every trace of Ms. Halbach’s DNA, he would have cleaned up his own blood. STATE 5244-46; 5648. In fact, the State’s DNA analyst, Sherry Culhane, testified consistently with this analysis. TT:2/26:112-115."

"In his May 13, 2006, interrogation, Brendan said only that the fire smelled “real bad.” Before, when asked if he could smell burning body parts, Brendan told Fassbender and Wiegert that he could not. Brendan does not describe “the horrible smell of a burning body.”"

"The magic bullets were magically found during a search on March 1, 2006, after Brendan’s confession. However, law enforcement had previously searched the garage 5 times between November 5 and 12, 2005. Mr. Kratz is correct in saying that law enforcement would not have found the damaged bullet if not for the March 1, 2006 coerced statements of Mr. Dassey. Most importantly, Brendan’s statements about where the murder occurred are entirely inconsistent. Brendan first described shooting Ms. Halbach outside the garage, then inside the vehicle in the garage, and, finally on the garage floor (only after being told about the shell casings in the garage). The Seventh Circuit Opinion stated that there were clear efforts by the interrogators “to have Dassey move all of the events to the garage, as no forensic evidence was found in Avery’s trailer.” (Dassey v. Dittman)"

I'm curious about this claim that Brendan drew a map of the interior of the garage and indicated on the map exactly where the magic bullet was found.

"Investigators concluded that Steven Avery did not report call AutoTrader between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. on November 3. (STATE 5509-5514)."

Repeated false statements from the former prosecutor involving a case like this deserves to be fact checked. Clearly Kratz doesn't much respect the memory of Teresa to be so sloppy and careless making a mockery of justice.

You're just repeating what zellner said dude. That is just circular.

Lets take one example.. The relative of averys who claimed he raped her. Zellner is saying she didn't claim this. Thats false, her interview has been posted in this thread. I will grab it for you again. one sec.

http://imgur.com/a/o1GwA

"he forced me to have sex with him"

"I didn't want to"

etc.. She goes into detail about it too.

I can go over some of the others in more detail but they are all either up for debate, wrong or misleading. Every one of them. None of them are legitimate criticisms of kratz version of events.

You are just repeating what Kratz said.

It's no good accusing me of making a circular argument when you are yourself doing the exact same thing.

The reason I copied what Zellner said was that your post made it sound like you had no idea what she wrote. Just trying to help you out!

None of which refutes the evidence that at the time this accusation was made the whole thing was dismissed because the alleged victim denied the whole thing.

This is just wrong - several of the things Kratz wrote are just wrong, misleading, or irrelevant.

Zellner is just pointing out legitimate criticisms of Kratz's false claims.

Lets pretend for a second she denied having sex with him, but later said he raped her.. You don't think its misleading to leave out the later part? It would also be important to note that this girl DID say she was scared and that avery threatened to hurt her if she told anyone.

Zellner is intentionally trying to mislead people to think that 1) The victim never claimed avery raped her. and 2) The victim was not telling people what happened out of fear of avery.

Once again, zellner is woried about arbitrary details and not the more important part of the story. That someone is claiming in great detail how this man raped her when she was a kid and told her she and her family would be hurt if she ever said anything.

No I am not repeating what kratz said and furthermore that wouldn't necessarily be circular. The only reason why what you're doing is circular is because i am speciifcally saying that zellner is wrong and to show me shes not you're just showing me what she said again.

Think that if you want I guess. I know its hard to come down from your religious fantasies that avery is an innocent man because youve been fooled by a clever piece of propaganda.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think the framing of Steven isn't coming apart at the seams.

The so-called 'confession' cops put in Brendan's mouth has been recognized as such by two key appeals courts. Just like I recognized when I read the transcripts.

So there's no 'religion' involved, no being fooled, and no 'clever propaganda'.

Hahahaha!

Yes, you are 'saying' Kratz is correct by either denying Kratz wrote what he wrote, that manifestly false claims are really true, or that Kratz's reliance on utterly false claims in his book is 'trivial'.

I have no reason to put any faith in Ken Kratz, a disgraced drug addict with known mental health problems who lost his job because he was sexually preying on vulnerable women.

This is false. The ruling was on whether or not BD didn't understand his consequences for confessing, not whether or not his confession was "put in his mouth". There have been several judges before them that have disagreed with this ruling and it will be appealed successfully. Would you like to place a side bet on this?

"Based on its review of the record, the court acknowledges significant doubts as to the reliability of Dassey’s confession. Crucial details evolved through repeated leading and suggestive questioning and generally stopped changing only after the investigators, in some manner, indicated to Dassey that he finally gave the answer they were looking for."

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lega...nd%20Order.pdf

This is what I was arguing before Duffin handed down his ruling, and before the 7th District court affirmed Duffin 'in all respects'.

Although I have confidence that the Duffin ruling should be upheld, it's hard to tell what will happen. I recall being disappointed in appeals court rulings in the past.

So you're unwilling or unable to moot an opinion re whose argument is more compelling, despite the truth being easy to defend & invigorating too, gotcha.
I'll comfortably dismiss any potential advocacy comments you may potentially make re Avery & Dassey, so.