A great Reddit Post by Temptedious
Kathleen Zellner: “I have not read a single article, social media post, or book from a ‘guilter’ that is not riddled with factual inaccuracies, legal misperceptions, or profound ignorance.“
The title quote was taken from an interview Zellner gave to Ferak, which he included in his book “Wrecking Crew” on Page 250 (paperback edition). Throughout the book (but mostly in the final chapters) Ferak permeates his writing with quotes from his interview of Zellner. The entire quote from page 250 is as follows:
Kathleen Zellner: I couldn’t care less about the opinions of those who think I am trying to free a murderer. All of the individuals I have exonerated were believed to be guilty until they walked out of the prison gates. I have not read a single article, social media post, or book from a ‘guilter’ that is not riddled with factual inaccuracies, legal misperceptions, or profound ignorance. The Achilles heel of this group is their leader. A discredited and disgraced prosecutor whose unethical behavior has exceeded anything my legal experts have encountered in any other post-conviction case in the country.
I agree with Zellner. Most if not all arguments by those who believe Steven guilty can be successfully refuted after a brief examination into the facts/law of the case. Below I will examine and attempt to refute three common examples of what I view to be fallacious or faulty arguments from state defenders.
- Torture porn and Bobby’s motive
- Lack of bone and presence of wood in the bullet.
- Uncharged and unproven allegations from Steven Avery’s past.
Examining Common Fallacious Arguments Relating to the Avery CaseBobby’s motive
State Defender Argument:
- Bobby Dassey having viewed images of torture, rape and death is irrelevant to determining whether he had a motive or the intent to commit violent or sexual crimes against Teresa Halbach.
Counter Argument:
- The most direct evidence that this argument is faulty comes from the state’s own filing. Shortly after the suspected burial site at Kuss road was discovered on November 7 something prompted the state to file an affidavit seeking warrants for Avery’s personal computer. The state wanted to search Steven’s computer for “images of torture and death” because they believed images of torture and death were “relevant to the issues of intent, motive or Steven Avery’s plan to commit violent or sexual crimes against Teresa Halbach.” Case closed.
- Of course now that Zellner has exposed the content of Bobby’s computer the state has changed their position, claiming Bobby viewing such depraved images only qualifies as being “distasteful.” This is a prime example of bad faith inconsistent argument for the state to argue images of torture and death are relevant to motive if found on Avery’s computer only then to flip flop and argue such images are irrelevant to determining motive when found on Bobby’s computer.
- Considering the state’s theory involves Teresa being restrained, tortured, raped, murdered and mutilated, of course it’s relevant to consider Bobby was viewing images of young women being restrained, tortured, raped, murdered and mutilated.
A .22 with Unlimited Velocity
State defender argument:
- The lack of bone fragments and presence of wood and paint embedded in the bullet (item FL) is not inconsistent with the bullet having caused Teresa’s death. The bullet could have struck a wooden object after it entered and exited Teresa’s skull, or before. It’s also possible the bullet entered and exited Teresa’s body without hitting bone.
Counter argument:
- First, let’s examine the argument in the context of the state’s testimony at trial. On cross examination state Medical Examiner Dr. Jentzen said it was his opinion that “the bullet had passed through the brain” (TT:3/2:64).
- Zellner’s ballistics expert told her if item FL had actually gone into and out of Teresa’s skull there would be minute fragments of bone embedded in the lead of the bullet (Haag affidavit). This is why Zellner had her trace expert examine item FL (via multiple methods) for the presence of bone (Dr. Palenik affidavit). No bone was detected on item FL, and thus Zellner has successfully demonstrated the state expert testified falsely to the jury about the method by which Teresa’s DNA ended up on the bullet. Instead of bone, Zellner found wood, suggesting the bullet struck a “manufacutred wood product,” and certainly not a human skull. Case closed. But…
- Even if we assume the bullet passed through Teresa’s body without striking bone we STILL run into a problem – the presence of wood in the lead and the eventual location of the bullet. As far as I know a .22 would not have unlimited velocity or energy. If the .22 somehow managed to pass through Teresa’s body (very unlikely) there’s no way it would retain enough velocity to then strike a wooden object with sufficient force to embed wood in the lead of the bullet, only for the bullet to somehow find its way under the air compressor (without causing any blow back on the gun, or blood spatter / misting on the garage floor / items in the garage). No matter how you cut it the presence of wood embedded in the bullet presents a massive problem for the state and supports Zellner’s argument that Teresa’s DNA was planted on the bullet (which would explain a whole lot).
- Zellner has posed the following questions about the bullet fragment, item FL:
- “Explain the trajectory of the bullet that resulted in wood and paint being embedded in FL, but not bone?”
- “Explain how FL got red paint on it by being shot through Teresa’s skull and landing on the garage floor without any evidence of having ricocheted off any items that were painted red?”
- “Explain why FL has no garage dust on it even though the concrete in the garage was jackhammered and all other items in the garage were covered in dust as the crime scene photographs illustrate?”
Past Acts and Allegations
State Defender Argument:
- An examination of Steven Avery’s past reveals him to be an extremely violent and depraved criminal which is relevant when determining his motive for Teresa’s death. The documentary totally avoided discussing Steven’s criminal past in order to mislead viewers.
Counter Argument:
- It’s not uncommon for state defenders to claim Steven is a violent rapist even though the only sexual assault Avery has been charged and convicted of was the one committed by Gregory Allen. Further, although Steven was charged with the sexual assault of Teresa, the charge was eventually dropped by the state due to a lack of evidence. Case closed. Just as a matter of fact, it’s not accurate to describe Steven Avery as a violent rapist and doing so qualifies as a blatant attempt to inflame discussion and poison the well.
- Uncharged and unproven allegations of assault by Steven can be found in the CASO Report, but we know some CASO reports have been falsified. At least one witness has told Zellner they never made statements that were attributed to them in the CASO (Metz affidavit). Even more troubling, according to Barb Tadych CASO investigator WIEGERT and officer BALDWIN tried to coerce her into saying Avery molested her (Amended Supplement to the Motion to Reconsider – Exhibit 1). This is an extremely significant allegation by Barb, because as it so happens most or all of the uncharged allegations against Avery found in the CASO were reported by who again? Yup – WIEGERT and BALDWIN. Conclusion: If Barb is telling the truth, and Wiegert and Baldwin were going so far as to coerce witnesses into making false allegations of sexual misconduct against Steven, then such reports are worthless in terms of their probative value.
- As to the claim the filmmakers omitted damaging information about Steven’s past, I would wholeheartedly disagree. The filmmakers included in the documentary every single crime Steven had been charged with prior to his wrongful imprisonment in 1985, including his burglary charge, animal cruelty charge, and reckless endangerment charge. What the filmmakers avoided doing (rightfully so IMO) was including any uncharged or unproven allegation against Steven in the doc (such as the uncharged and unproven allegation that Steven raped Earl’s daughter MA). The filmmakers presumably agreed with the trial court judge who ruled such uncharged allegations were “clearly inadmissible, had zero probative value and would be highly prejudicial” (Gershman affidavit). Given this ruling by the trial court IMO it’s not at all fair to suggest the filmmakers were trying to mislead viewers by excluding inadmissible, unproven and highly prejudicial information from the doc.
- Steven Avery has already suffered enough due to false allegations of rape, leading to nearly two decades of wrongful imprisonment. As such, IMO Steven, just as much as anyone else (or perhaps even more than the common man) deserves to enjoy a presumption of innocence and not be vilified based on uncharged or unproven allegations (especially when officers are alleged to have engaged in coercion to have witnesses make false claims of sexual misconduct against Steven).
The Avery Case and Ken Kratz: A Lesson in Logical Fallacies and Improper Arguments
It is not uncommon in any debate or discussion to find those who engage with fallacious arguments in order to derail or inflame the conversation. This case is no different. Kratz in specific is known for engaging with improper arguments, such as when he repeatedly tried to assert facts that had not been testified to by his witnesses (otherwise known as “the prosecutor testifying.”) It happened over and over, with Bobby, Riddle, Ertl, and Fassbender. Here is perhaps the most egregious example, found during a contentious end to Fassbender’s testimony (TT:2/16:221):
Buting: None of those exhibits ever show that Teresa was inside the trailer, do they?
Fassbender: No.
Buting: Thank you. That’s all I have.
Kratz: That’s evidence that Bobby provided; isn’t that right?
Fassbender: That’s correct.
Kratz: That’s all I have. Thank you, Judge.
Buting: I object, move to strike the question and the answer because it’s not the testimony. Bobby Dassey never said he saw her in the trailer.
THE COURT: I’m going to sustain the objection. I think it’s beyond the scope of redirect. Witness is excused.
Of course, Kratz would try and falsely claim Bobby said Teresa was in the trailer because he had no legitimate evidence/testimony placing Teresa in the trailer. Luckily Willis sustained Buting’s objection and prevented Kratz from questioning Fassbender any further. Watching this moment in season 1 was infuriating. Even Buting had to take a moment to collect himself before strongly voicing his objection.
So with that option out, during closing arguments what did Kratz rely on to support his argument that Teresa had been in Steven’s trailer? Oh yes – the Auto Trader magazine and bill of sale. Pathetic.Closing Thoughts: The evidence in this case supports a framing theory more than it supports the state’s theory.
Ken Kratz is a corrupt POS who has continued to spread lies via the media and engage in constant character assassination of Steven, repeatedly spreading downright false or even unproven allegations he knew had been declared as indamissible and highly prejudicial by the court. He is a proud liar, an experienced cheat and an irredeemable creep.
It has been my experience researching this case that any argument for Steven’s guilt is easily explained away. Even very early on I knew there was no way in hell Teresa was killed in the trailer or garage, and years later NOTHING I’ve read has changed my mind in that. Every piece of evidence used against Steven inspires reasonable doubt, be it the RAV, the blood, the hood latch DNA, the key, the bones or the bullet. Of course to a casual viewer such evidence would appear incriminating. On closer inspection it’s clear the evidence is not legitimate, and therein lies the problem. With such flawed evidence any argument that Steven is guilty isn’t going to be very convincing and will require use of obfuscation, misrepresentations, omissions, and appeals to authority.
Despite what some say, the case against Steven was never a strong one. To illustrate how pathetic the case against Steven truly was, I’ll finish with this – At one point Steven Avery was charged with 5 felony crimes relating to Teresa’s death: kidnapping, false imprisonment, sexual assault, murder and mutilation. If Kratz had a slam dunk open and shut case one would expect a conviction on all of the above listed felony charges he filed against Steven. But that’s not what happened, is it? No.
- Before the trial even began Kratz was forced to drop the kidnapping and sexual assault charges due to a lack of evidence.
- After the trial concluded (but before deliberations began) the judge dismissed the false imprisonment charge (ruling there was no evidence introduced during the trial that would allow a jury to reach a decision beyond a reasonable doubt).
- Finally, during the deliberations the jury rejected the mutilation charge and convicted on the murder charge.
So out of 5 felony charges filed against Steven relating to Teresa’s death the state was only able to gain a conviction on one (and even that might have been due to jury tampering or the months of highly inflammatory and prejudicial pre trial publicity). This was never a slam dunk case and anyone who says otherwise is either uniformed or being intellectually dishonest.
In conclusion: Zellner makes an excellent point when she points out the state and its defenders have been placed in the unenviable position of defending a highly questionable narrative of the crime fashioned by a disgraced and corrupt former prosecutor Ken Kratz. I certainly wouldn’t want to defend his grossly unethical prosecution of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey. Whether state defenders like it or not, Kratz is the face of this case. If the case crumbles Kratz will be among the first to be tossed under the bus, and likely would be the first-named defendant in a federal civil lawsuit filed by Zellner, as she very clearly believes Kratz deprived Avery of his right to due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and that his actions pre-trial, during and even post-trial qualifies as a continued hindrance or obstruction to the due course of justice in violation of the federal obstruction clause of 42 U.S.C § 1985(2).