What the Jury Didn’t See or Hear
Shortly before the Avery jury returned its verdict, Special Prosecutor Ken Kratz began a public relations campaign for the event of an acquittal.
He wanted the public to know that what he considered facts were not allowed at trial. The Post~Crescent, Appleton, WI, obliged his press release. In a news article dated 18 March, 2007(1), a series of so‑called suppressed evidence was listed. The list was inaccurate.
He claimed inconsistent statements made by Avery during investigations following the missing person report were important. Without knowing exactly what the statements were or the circumstances, it is difficult to determine whether these were normal inconsistencies or truly important. But, statements by Avery were allowed, so why is there an issue?
Kratz claims that Avery plotted a torture chamber while in prison. There is snitch testimony he wanted admitted. He has not publicized the dates of this supposed evidence. He had nothing beyond the words of jailhouse snitches.
Kratz also wanted to provide testimony about an action Avery made in 1985, when he forced the wife of a Manitowoc County Deputy of the road and pointed a firearm at her. He allowed her to leave when he found an infant in her car. Avery also readily admitted to the incident stating the reason was the victim had claimed he was naked in his yard. Besides the age of the behavior, this was not related to Kratz’s theory of the crime.
Was Kratz willing to have the victim of the 1985 sexual assault and the victim of the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s need to convict the wrong person testify about her experiences? Her opinion of Steven Avery would clash with the public relations efforts of Ken Kratz.(2) Her victimization by the Manitowoc County Sheriff’s Department would demonstrate the rush to judgment by law enforcement that was also apparent in the Halbach murder investigation.
An old investigation was reopened at the request of Special Prosecutor Kratz. This was an allegation of sexual assault of a relative. At the time of the original investigation, there was no physical evidence and the presumed victim (not the complainant) stated that it wasn’t so. Apparently, she did not appear distraught or frightened. Kratz wanted a different result.
Ken Kratz farmed this old allegation to the Brown County District Attorney, John Zakowski. Over a year after the original investigation, Brown County investigators convinced her that a crime took place. Zakowski claims that fright prevented her from providing statements that were wanted and needed by prosecutors. This does reflect the entrenched view in the criminal justice system that females are naturally frightened (and easily manipulated by Svengali type alpha males).
The reality is this is a case of misconduct by investigators and prosecutors. This type of behavior has occurred in before with terrible consequences.(3) And, there was a decision of the Brown County Prosecutor to not proceed.
Kratz also claimed that he could not use jail house interviews and conversations. But, Judge Patrick Willis ruled that the recorded telephone and visit conversations were allowable. If Kratz found nothing usable in these tapes, why is he whining that they could not be used when they were allowed?
Kratz opposed the facts about the wrongful imprisonment of Avery. He objected when DNA technician Sherry Culhane was questioned about her role in the that false incarceration when she used junk science to claim a hair found on Avery matched the hair of the victim.
The jury heard testimony from Avery family friends, and a nephew about the fires the night of 31 October, 2005. What the jury did not hear was this was consistent with statements made by Steven Avery. This was also consistent the Brendan Dassey unconfession. The purpose of having friends and family give testimony rather than police is that it appears that family and friends are testifying against the defendant. The jury did not hear that they were subpoenaed by the State and were obligated to testify. Except for one witnesses claim of ten‑foot high flames, there was nothing incriminating.
The jury did not hear about the Dassey confession and the behavior of his interrogators. The jury did hear some testimony that there was no evidence to tie Brendan Dassey to the crime or corroborate his confession. Kratz did not tell the jury that his public March 2006, diatribe against Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey was false.
Dr. Marc LaBeau, Unit Chief of the FBI Laboratory Chemistry Unit, did not tell the jury of the Florida Court of Appeals characterization of his work. The Court found that the burden of proof “requires more than [a] bald assertion by the expert that his deduction is premised upon well‑recognized scientific principles…”(4) The Court went on to accuse LeBeau of institutional bias and other flaws.
LeBeau seemed proud that the person he helped wrongfully convict pleaded guilty. He did not tell the jury that his victim was seventy years old and suffering from bladder cancer when he caved and did not want to spend any more prison time waiting for justice to take her time.
The jury was not allowed to hear testimony from the Manitowoc County Coroner, Deb Kakatsch. This would have demonstrated the alteration and obfuscation of the crime scene by investigators. The coroner was not informed of the situation by investigators and discovered the crime from television reports. When she contacted lead investigator, Mark Wiegert, she was put off.
She started to mobilize resources, however. These resources included experts from other counties. Wiegert continued to avoid her assistance. Eventually, the Manitowoc County Executive and Corporation Counsel ordered her off the case.
The result was loss of evidence that would have allowed a professional and proper investigation.
The Corporation Counsel, Steven Rollins, claimed the Coroner was ordered to not participate due to conflict of interest issues. But, nonetheless, certain Manitowoc County Sheriff’s deputies on officers were allowed to actively take part in investigations on the Avery Property. Wisconsin Special Agent Tom Fassbender and Calumet County Mark Wiegert both vehemently defended their decision to allow this glaring conflict of interest.
Given that the Coroner arranged for out of county experts to participate in the crime scene investigation, it would be a small step to allow the timely and professional help and place one of those individuals as the lead coroner. So, what was really behind this machination? Were the Corporation Counsel and County Executive responding to pressure from the Wisconsin Justice Department?
Come to think of it. This was something that not only the jury was not allowed to hear: it was something that was sequestered from the sight of all citizens.
in category Steven Avery
