Besides on top of that, avery's niece was underage so its rape even if it was consensual by definition.

NVM, apparently legal age of consent is 16 in wisconsin.

I am just repeating what Kratz's victim told investigators.

I trust her version of events more than I do yours.

sod·om·y
ˈsädəmē/
noun
noun: sodomy

sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.

Again, you are either stupid or lying. Maybe both.

"She said Kratz held her hands behind her back... Kratz also 'clamped her mouth shut to swallow' with his hands... [The victim] stated that Kratz was very strong."

Looks like you can't read, or like to lie. Maybe both.

"he [Kratz, the District Attorney] told her he knew everything about her, and if she did not listen to him he could 'get her jammed up.' "

That is a threat - what did he want her to do to avoid Kratz acting on his threat?

"he instructed her to give him a 'blow job,' and she did "

Why?

Because she was afraid of what Kratz would do, she was scared by his threat: "He can be a very intimidating man."

Again, all in the victim's statement which you left out, by mistake or on purpose.

True, in this interview with one of Kratz's victims only one victim is interviewed.


You are wrong, as anyone who comprehends English can see for themselves.


You are a sad and sick little man.

Actually, since you are claiming there are significant differences between what I wrote and the original, it is up to you to prove your claim.

Don't try any word games about 'logic' because you won't fool anyone.

I provided a link so readers could see I was accurate.


This is what you are asking me to do.

I say if you want it done, do it yourself.


I linked to the original so people could check to see if I was being accurate.

As I have shown, in every instance I was correct and you were either wrong or telling a lie.

You don't do your cause any favors by engaging in a blatant cover up regarding the testimony of one of Kratz's victims.

Too bad you didn't read the statement: Kratz threatened to 'jam her up' if she didn't listen to him, then he instructed her to perform a sex act. She complied because she was scared of him, afraid of what he'd do.

You either did not read the statement or are lying again.

Performing a sex act under threat is rape. If she wanted to have sex with him, he wouldn't need to threaten her.

Holding someone's hands behind their back is restraining them using his strength to force her to do what he demanded under threat.

Do you really not understand English?

above is what you said, vs what she said.

First you said this This isnt what he said. He said he would jam her up if she didn't listen to him. He didn't say he would jam her up if she didn't do what he said.

Then you said But what actually happened was he held her hands behind her back during a blowjob. A blowjob that she didn't resist. If the blowjob was consensual or if he thought it was consensual, this act was clearly not to restrain her. She wasn't trying to stop.

The etymology of the word sodomy is from sodom and gomorrah from the bible, I have never heard anyone use that word to describe a blowjob. But apparently people do so whatever. Its more common usage is for anal sex, so youd excuse my ignorance on that matter surely.

You also said multiple people accused him of rape. This appears to be untrue. You seem to be back peddling on that one a bit. Are you now admitting you made a mistake or are you saying there is someone else claiming he raped them in some other statement?

Kratz threatens woman, demands sex, she complies out of fear, Kratz restrains her during sex act (holding her hands behind her back), she lives in fear of another attack from Kratz.

Everything I related is what the victim said.

Now you're trying your folk-etymology trying to tell people sodomy means something other than the English definition.

"Derp! I thought it meant something else."

If you are trying to say Kratz threatening his victim is no big deal, and everything done under threat is consensual, then why make a fuss about supposed threats made by Steven?

Threats are OK according to you, submitting to sex under threat is consent according to you, restraining someone during sex is normal anyway, and according to you women are liars and can't be trusted.

Your defense of Kratz works just as well as a defense for Steven.

You're going to keep strawmanning everything I say so there is no point. Enjoy your afternoon.

Fraleyight has realized his position is indefensible.

Rather than simply admit what Kratz did to this poor woman is wrong, pretends to be offended.

You mean besides the 4 times I called it wrong itt?

I should have been more clear - admits forcing a woman to submit to sex is rape.

The argument wasn't if forcing a women to submit to sex is rape, the argument was if that is what she is saying happened. But you already know that, this conversation isn't productive for either of us.

You are comparing a convicted felon with a prosecutor. Ridiculous.

How is that ridiculous? You are again, making assumptions about me that I have never said. I imagine you are implying that I think Kratz should NOT BE held to a higher moral standard? Even though I have never said that.

Clearly, the amount of evidence avery committed rape exceedes the amount of evidence kratz did and that was my whole point in that post.

I guess if we're going to go by the standard that everyone gets to commit one free rape, the on the record Kratz 'wins'.

However, there are some who think public servants must not abuse their authority even if they are lost in the haze of drug addiction.

In my view on the 'character issue' it is a draw - both Steven and Kratz have rape accusations against them.

I don't care that much about either one individually.

I care more that a prosecutor went on tv and implicated a private individual with completely unsubstantiated and highly conflicting evidence. There was no public safety reason.

Although it may have "won" a conviction, it also hurt the perception of the validity of the conviction. The prosecution was boxed into the narrative of rape/sexual assault when there was zero evidence that even occurred -- something the jury concurred.

It made everything look ridiculous how there was not a single piece of DNA of the victim in the entire house. Outlandish in light of alleged hours of assault.

What may have really happened is that he shot her outside and buried her outside, all in a matter of minutes. Instead, there was a narrative of tying the victim to the bed, having a soda, cutting her hair, watching tv, BD raping her etc.

Now, the jury may have recognized that she wasn't ever in the house and still found him guilty. Just because the prosecution got the theory wrong of what happened doesn't mean a murderer gets to go free. It does leave open "reasonable doubt" and makes one question everything. Which is why it is important for the prosecution to distinguish between fact and conjecture. Which is perfectly ok!

The prosecution of Scott Peterson said they were not certain specifically how his wife was murdered. They presented enough evidence to show that he did "something" which was more than ample evidence for the jury to feel confident in their guilty verdict.

Jurors, unless there is an accusation of racism or illegal conduct, don't have to provide their reasons for voting guilty. They don't have to take to the press. They are absolutely allowed to make their decision purely on hunches and body language.

So you're going to say how ridiculous I am then quote the post where I am asking for clarification and change the subject to something I wasn't even talking about? How ridiculous.

I am sorry. I don't even care that much about the individuals. I care about the system that could envelope any of us. You seem invested in SA being guilty and just can't realize that many of us are discussing larger issues that should interest everyone.

Like if it is ok for a 16-year old to waive his right to have an attorney present without consulting with anyone. Or should his appointed defense attorney let him continue meeting with the police without him present. We don't allow 16-years olds to smoke cigarettes but I guess we allow them to incriminate themselves to rape and murder without consulting an attorney or parent.

Yes, the problems revealed in the convictions of Brendan Dassey and Steven Avery are systematic.

Corruption from top to bottom with little concern for justice for victims, or public safety in making sure to apprehend the true malefactor, or justice for the persons put on trial for their lives.

Its pretty standard for kids to be interviewed without an attorney present, his mom said this was ok. The doc I watched about the slendermen kids, they were interviewed by police without an attorney present. I don't hear any outrage over them.

Also, what do you mean not consulting a parent? His mom was there. She was asked if she wanted to go into the room and said she didn't want to. The police didn't know BD was involved in the murder when they met with him the time you're referring to either. They thought he witnessed stuff avery did based on the two conversations they had with BD just before that and BD and his mom were both coorperating. So they assumed it would just be getting what he already told them on video.

This brings up another interesting question actually. How much of BD confession is coerced? He admitted to seeing body parts, admitted to helping SA clean up the body, and burn the body days before the confession. He didn't recant in those days. Why not?

Here for example is his feb 27th interview. He admits to seeing body parts, and helping steven burn her body.

http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-co...Feb27_text.pdf

So from feb 27th to march 1st he has two days to recant his confession but doesn't. The detectives move BD and his mom to a hotel because there is rumors of intimidation from the family. And at this point they think he is a witness to a murder or at least a witness to someone cleaning up the body after. He doesn't recant any of this until the march 1st interview when he has now implicated himself in the crime.

Since the police first started trying to suborn perjury from Brendan on November 6 2005, it's pretty clear they had zero interest in what he actually saw and only wanted him to say something that would implicate Steven because that was who they wanted to pin a crime on.

The truth was the furthest thing from their minds.

Expecting this poor sheltered kid to outwit the cops and take control of the situation is asking a bit much.

It's too bad there doesn't seem to be anyone interested in finding Teresa when she was a missing person, and no one genuinely interested in discovering what the witnesses had to say. Like the 1985 case it looks like a full court press to get Steven by hook or by crook.

Here's what Brendan's mother Barb has to say about the railroading:

This is from the hearing to suppress BD confession. This is from barbs testimony in that hearing.

She believed BD at the very least saw something in the fire. Here is a few more things she said.

So, on feb 27th BD says he sees SA burn a body. He doesn't recant. Everyone believes him (including his mom) He and his mom are coorperating with police then two days and 3 interviews later BD implicates himself in the crime and all of the sudden everything was coerced Including the two prior interviews where he said SA was burning a body.

Its also clear that BD mom didn't think anyone was being forced to do anything based on the above earlier testimony. Of course after BD is convicted everyones a pos but SA and BD.

As we know, from the very first interview with Brendan police are trying to get him to tell lies to implicate Steven. That's just a stone cold fact.

The cops have zero credibility.

As Barb makes clear, cops lied to her about Brendan coaching sessions and even tried to get her to lie about Steven, too.

So at what point was BD telling the truth and at what point did he tell his mom "hey, I made a mistake. I didn't mean to tell them I saw a body because I didn't" in those two days? The answer is: never. He didn't recant anything until he implemented himself. Why did he recant? I have a theory. Upcoming in my next post.