_______________________________________________________________________________ Don't Forget: As an Affiliate, I Earn from Qualifying Purchases. If you click on any Amazon, Chewy, Walmart, or other links on my site and make a purchase through those companies, I may receive a small percentage of that sale at no extra cost to you. This helps me pay for the upkeep and maintenance of my site. You'll also notice advertisements on my site, which help contribute to the costs of running the site. _______________________________________________________________________________
Ken Kratz’s Press Conference
We all saw Ken Kratz’s press conference that he held after Steven Avery was charged with Teresa Halbach’s murder but after we were able to see all of the evidence the State brought forward, we were able to see that his press conference was a bullshit story that automatically made Steven Avery look like a monster in the eyes of the public.
How would you feel after you watched that press conference while it was happening? Wouldn’t you be pissed off at Steven Avery and want to go on a witch hunt for him? That’s exactly what Ken Kratz was hoping for by holding that press conference. He knew full well that what he was saying was absolutely bullshit – he played on the heartstrings of the residents of Manitowoc and the state of Wisconsin.
Redditor know justice talks about Ken Kratz’s press conference and how it affected peoples opinions about Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey. They wrote this up because people are still bringing up the fact that the documentary was one sided and was used to get the viewers on Steven’s side – (which is ok in my opinion) and knowjustice points out that 10 years before the documentary, Ken Kratz was spewing bullshit all over the news trying to get the viewers against Steven.
Several posters have repeatedly argued the filmmakers selectively edited the film. They are correct and I agree that at times, the edits were misleading.
Allow me to play devil’s advocate. While the people who find it extremely offensive the filmmakers failed to portray portions of the trial accurately and are concerned the editing led to viewer bias, I have yet to see anyone in this camp submit a post providing an equally critical analysis of Ken Kratz’ 2006 press conference following Brendan’s confession.
Asserting objectivity and honesty is a requisite qualification for a documentarian, I’m curious…what do you believe are the requisite qualifications for an officer of the court? Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules, Chapter 20(A) & (B) explain them. The regulations pertaining to an attorney’s conduct pertaining to ensuring every litigant is afforded the impartial administration of justice are unambiguous.
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/scrule/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=132538
If objectivity and honesty are minimum qualifications for a respectable filmmaker, an equally critical analysis of Kratz and others conduct is long past due. Their intentional and willful conduct not only misled the public and instilled bias, but unlike the filmmakers, their conduct actually resulted in serious and irreversible ramifications; tainting the objectivity of the potential pool of jurors. And according to Buting and Strang, that is exactly what happened.
My point, while agreeing the filmmakers selectively edited portions of the film, which may have resulted in a less than accurate portrayal of some of the events, the only damage resulting from their editing was widely divergent opinions about the case. Unlike the conduct of the numerous state actors involved in these cases, the filmmakers editing decisions resulted in little more than opposing viewpoints prompting impassioned public discourse.
Alternatively, I cannot find a logical, legally sound, and reasonable justification to explain Mr. Kratz’ motive and intent for his salacious press conference. IMO, the repeated unprofessional and negligent conduct of LE, Mr. Kratz, and other state actors essentially denied both parties the right to a fair trial (see Ricciuti v New York City Transit Authority, 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997)).
At the end of the day one must ask, what was more damaging; selective editing of a documentary ten years after the case or a pre-trial press conference in which the Special Prosecutor, while sitting with the sheriff in charge, knowingly, willfully, and intentionally presented the public with salacious details of an alleged crime scene both knew had no basis in reality. I think the answer is clear.
——————————————————————————————————–
If you watched Ken Kratz’s press conference and looked at the evidence and you still don’t think what he did was wrong, then you must be Ken Kratz or a family member of his because nobody in their right mind would think what he did was ok. He was wrong. It was disgusting.
I am hoping when Kathleen Zellner puts out all the evidence on the table, a lot of it will shine a bright light on the disgusting things Ken Kratz did that the public isn’t even aware of.
Oh yeah, in case you didn’t read it, here is a list of Pro-Steven Avery evidence that was left out Making A Murderer.
Thanks for reading!
-TID
theinspiringdad.com
[amazon asin=B004GNAT7Q&template=iframe image] [amazon asin=B01A67IHII&template=iframe image]
