Do you know Scumbag Kratz? We all know that Kratz is an alleged sexual predator. We also know that he likes to use his position and title to try and swoon his targets or find the vulnerable ones – which we know he targeted.
Redditor Classic_Griswald wrote up a piece on Scumbag Kratz and it shows just how vial this man really is.
Let’s look at Scumbag Kratz:
Products from Amazon.com
Price: $8.22Was: $16.99
Price: Out of stock
Price: $25.50Was: $30.00
I think one of the most interesting or ironic themes to this story, is really what happened with Kratz after the trial was over. You’d think it would have absolutely nothing to do with it, nor any relevance, and you’d be right, if Kratz wasn’t such an ass during Avery’s trial.
For instance if Kratz hadn’t suggest it was “absurd” that police officers ‘walked around with a vial of Mr. Avery’s sweat’ (No one actually asserted that specific claim).
Or how he thought people should immediately dismiss the idea that someone in the county might be trying to frame Avery because of pending litigation.
Kratz own words when dealing with his sexual impropriety case, seem to assert that nothing is done without some hidden motive or agenda. That professional actions are dictated by someone’s political benefit, that someone directed to a specific case is getting “fed” or ‘taken advantage of’, or ‘furthering someone’s political goals’. This is what he said to the reporter that as looking into his story.
So in other words, Ken thinks a conspiracy is possible, only when he is the target of an investigation. When it’s him chasing after someone else, trying to crucify them on faulty or non-existent information, he’s just doing his job.
The emails, even worse. You can see him participate directly in a cover up. Name drop, self aggrandizing, employing underhanded tactics, making condescending remarks, etc, etc, etc
This would be totally irrelevant if he hadn’t argued the amazingly moral and ethical shell which supposedly binds all members of the prosecution into a giant ball of goodness under god. The problem is we know that isn’t true. Any rational, critical thinker knows this isn’t true and at the very least there is the possibility that the system can be manipulated for the perversion of just a single or small group of malicious individuals. (As Kratz himself notes in his own case).
So anyone who is cognizant of such things, in charge of such a case, they might say (and do), “Yes, because of the conflict of interest, we are going to recuse MTSO in this case, bring in State Troopers and another prosecutor from ________, to lead the investigation. There will be under no circumstance any appearance of impropriety in this case. We understand and recognize the importance of impartiality in this case, and strive to ensure the public trust is not broken.”
Then of course, they’d actually do what they said. You know. It would be like not lying to the public. Which, would make you seem much more morally and ethical responsible, than simply lying and stating you are those things. In such a circumstance it would be quite easy to side with the prosecution.
On to the main topic:
related to the girl who claimed Kratz had forcible sex with her. This was acknowledged by the OLR, DOJ and Supreme Court in the disciplinary “deal” that ended up happening. It was not pursued criminally, because the victim/witness, had a prior criminal history, mental health issues. The prosecutor felt they wouldn’t be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
The irony here is palpable. Avery of course would be prosecuted, even though the story make no sense at all.
And, while Avery does have some prior violent history, as well as negative sexual history, if you look over Kratz files, you will see that numerous women came forward when his case caught media attention. Many claimed that he is known as a ‘dirtbag’, that he made certain woman feel sick after speaking with him, to the point they needed to shower. In fact, you see a pattern of behaviour, you see the same, absolute SAME actions over and over again in Kratz history. From these claims, it’s sated: He used his job to get girls, he preyed on crime victims, he would speak about kinky or weird sexual habits to women, and that he implied or directly threatened to take something away, or refuse some effort of the DA office, unless girls would continue some kind of sexual contact with him. But the key here, is it’s all either exactly the same, or similar. It all fits down to a very, very distinct pattern of behaviour. He even called himself ‘the Prize’ to more than one woman. It wasn’t a one time event, he actually used this consistently.
What is my point? Well, Kratz would have you believe Avery raped Teresa, then killed her because of that. But, there is no history of Avery just randomly attacking woman he was not involved with. Yes, he is violent. He has a violent history and threatening history with his family members. With people he’s directly related to, or involved in intimate relationships with. He does not have a history of attack random business acquaintances. In fact, that’s more along the lines of Kratz MO. Kratz specifically targeted people he was working with, or involved with because of work.
Accusations made against him in trial. There were 3 inmates who had done time with Avery while he was wrongfully incarcerated. Kratz motioned for statements from these 3 individuals to be admissible in Avery’s trial.
And again, we get this ironic mirror of the kind of evidence which seems perfectly fine to use against Avery, but would not even be acknowledged if Kratz was sitting in the same chair.
J.W. was the first inmate: Link to his appeals case here
He was incarcerated for Attempted Murder, supposedly claimed that Avery said he planed to abduct, rape, torture and kill women. And that Avery supposedly drew a diagram of it.
J.W. appealed his case because of expert testimony, that the court improperly struck testimony pertaining to his mental health.
So there is someone with a criminal history, metal illness, and who was currently incarcerated, probably due to receive benefit if they could testify against Avery. This meets the burden of reliable information to Kratz. Not if it was against him, but against Avery at least.
2nd Inmate: A.M. Claims Avery spoke of bondage and tying women to a wall. Avery spoke of dominance or anger towards women.
A.M. was in for murdering his mother’s boyfriend I believe. A relatively young kid when he went in to prison. Besides that I don’t think he had any mental illness, so on the Kratz-scale he’s not super unreliable.
The actual claims he makes against Avery however, Im not sure what to make of them. For Kratz, this is the type of thing he chose to speak about (BDSM / S&M) to victims of crime. It’s asserted, that he thought it was appropriate to speak about these kinds of things to dozens of women [from the statements made against him in his investigation]. So is this even a bad thing in Kratz eyes? I mean, it’s good enough to try and bring it into Avery’s trial, just don’t try to use it against Kratz.
Third inmate: D.L. I believe D.L. was there because he impersonated an officer. He supposedly stated that Avery claimed he would burn a body to get rid of it.
Of course, I could be wrong. It might be a different crime he was there on, I don’t have a full history on him. To note, in his appeals it states he did not knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily enter his guilty plea. So even though he’d be the most reliable using the Kratz-scale, it appears he is prone to involuntary actions when involved with the state.
WHOOPS!! I could have saved us this entire read, sorry guys. It states right here the probably reason it wasn’t included in the case:
None of the inmates offer corroboration of their statements. J.W. and A.M. evidently have not produced the alleged diagrams. None of the inmates reported these claims until after massive publicity about the state’s murder charge against Avery.
Well, that and I think it falls in with the character assassination clause, which wasn’t allowed in the trial. There is a better way to explain it, but Ill leave it at that.
Of course, none of that changes the facts that Kratz did pursue this information. That in Kratz professional opinion, this kind of information is worth presenting, it is supportive of a conviction, to eliminate reasonable doubt. Just ignore that the same kind of information in Kratz case was considered ultimately an insurmountable problem in proving anything. Otherwise you might be lead to believe the justice system views people differently.
EDIT: In the comments, me and another poster have been musing about how it seems like Kratz is projecting himself onto Avery. How in so many different areas, he tries to peg Avery as having his narcissistic personality. Avery just clearly doesn’t have that type of personality though. He might be a loose cannon, he might be a screw up, he might have issues, be violent, have boundary or control issues with his girlfriends, but he is not the type of person Kratz tried to make him out to be in press conferences and to the jury. If you read Kratz defend himself, refuse to admit any responsibility, and cover up his mess, that is the type of personality Kratz has.
Another poster reminded me of an interesting tidbit however, is that Kratz seems to be the one with the fantasies about tying women up in a room. (torture chamber?), documented in one of the cases against him, a victim says the following about Kratz:
He said the women have to listen to him or he hits them. Kratz spoke about a room he has where he ties women up.
Food for thought. Some people wanted to see Kratz on trial after all the revelations that came out after Avery’s trial. The thing is, we might have already seen Kratz on trial. In the form of Avery. He was prosecuting himself.
So, what do you think about Scumbag Kratz? I bet you didn’t know how much of a scumbag he really was, did you? Some of the things he did and said were just sickening.
Eventually Scumbag Kratz will get his day and we can all sit back and enjoy the show. I just hope they throw the book at him when it comes time for his day in court where he is being prosecuted.