So, the “Making a Murderer” prosecutor sends an email raising points and evidence he says the Netflix show ignored. Interesting.
As we said, we assumed without deciding that the whole thing was a frame up job. We’re open minded and not committed. We have no dog in this particular fight.
But still, let’s take a look at the Kratz rebuttal:
1. Avery’s past incident with a cat was not “goofing around”. He soaked his cat in gasoline or oil, and put it on a fire to watch it suffer.
Well, animal abuse of this nature is highly disturbing and, we agree, properly associated with homicidal tendencies. Was this evidence introduced at Avery’s trial? We don’t know. What was the evidence that such an incident occurred? We don’t know that either.
Accordingly, we give no weight to this “reason” one way or the other.
2. Avery targeted Teresa. On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send “that same girl who was here last time.” On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel. She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously). Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister’s) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming.
We’ll assume that these facts were established. On that assumption, we think this is strong evidence in Mr. Kratz’s favor.
3. Teresa’s phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery’s door, burned in his barrel. Why did the documentary not tell the viewers the contents of her purse were in his burn barrel, just north of the front door of his trailer?
One problem that really must be addressed once the prospect of police-planted evidence is in play is that the word “found” cannot be used credibly unless and until the issue of planted evidence has been resolved favorably to the police. We thus conclude two things from this “reason”: a) it does not support Kratz’s position in the slightest; and b) it undermines confidence in Mr. Kratz’s reasoning ability and/or intellectual honesty. Or just his basic honesty.
4. While in prison, Avery told another inmate of his intent to build a “torture chamber” so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released. He even drew a diagram. Another inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to “burn it”…heat destroys DNA.
This is jail house snitch information. It is worthless, as proof of what it purports to prove; it is valuable in establishing that its propounder has no regard for the quality of evidence upon which he bases his conclusions. Citing this as a “reason” counts heavily against Mr. Kratz’s contentions.
5. The victim’s bones in the firepit were “intertwined” with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn, as described by Dassey. That WAS where her bones were burned! Suggesting that some human bones found elsewhere (never identified as Teresa’s) were from this murder was NEVER established.
This is strained conjecture, regardless of whether some “expert” offered this opinion. Again, this undermines confidence in Mr. Kratz’s reasoning ability, honesty, etc.
6. Also found in the fire pit was Teresa’s tooth (ID’d through dental records), a rivet from the “Daisy Fuentes” jeans she was wearing that day, and the tools used by Avery to chop up her bones during the fire.
See discussion of the use of the word “found”, above.
7. Phone records show 3 calls from Avery to Teresa’s cell phone on Oct 31. One at 2:24, and one at 2:35–both calls Avery uses the *67 feature so Teresa doesn’t know it him…both placed before she arrives. Then one last call at 4:35 pm, without the *67 feature. Avery first believes he can simply say she never showed up (his original defense), so tries to establish the alibi call after she’s already been there, hence the 4:35 call. She will never answer of course, so he doesn’t need the *67 feature for that last call.
We’ll assume these facts were established. This is extremely incriminating evidence and strongly favors Mr. Kratz’s position, as does #2, above.
8. Avery’s DNA (not blood) was on the victim’s hood latch (under her hood in her hidden SUV). The SUV was at the crime lab since 11/5…how did his DNA get under the hood if Avery never touched her car? Do the cops have a vial of Avery’s sweat to “plant” under the hood?
Leaving the word “found” out of the argument doesn’t change the nature of the contention. Same objection as before.
9. Ballistics said the bullet found in the garage was fired by Avery’s rifle, which was in a police evidence locker since 11/6…if the cops planted the bullet, how did they get one fired from HIS gun? This rifle, hanging over Aver’s bed, is the source of the bullet found in the garage, with Teresa’s DNA on it. The bullet had to be fired BEFORE 11/5—did the cops borrow his gun, fire a bullet, recover the bullet before planting the SUV, then hang on to the bullet for 4 months in case they need to plant it 4 months later???
Using 3 question marks suggests poor reasoning and writing skills. “Found” is the operative word once again. “Police evidence locker”? Please. Same objection.
So, out of 9 reasons there are 2 that we think by themselves, and assuming these are undisputed and established facts, strongly suggest Avery’s guilt. Beyond a reasonable doubt? If we were on the jury we think it would be a close call, but from the outside we believe it’s a jury question.
If the defense has some explanation for this evidence – that is, “reasons” 2 and 7 – we’d like to hear it.
Update: Can you believe this shit?