Moira Demos: "Social media offered a diversity of what people could engage with. There is a reddit crowd who are investigating the crime itself, there are people really invested in reform in a global sense, so it really offers a diverse way of engaging."

---

This post is in response to the recent misinformation campaign started, or intensified, by Ken Kratz who says LR and MD knowingly omitted key evidence from the documentary that points to Avery's guilt.

My intent is to demonstrate that Laura and Moira did not manipulate the audience one bit. IMO they accomplished exactly what they set out to do - inspire interest in the case and in the judicial system. Of all places this is true here on TTM.

---

In this post:

• I start off by going back in time to examine the legal battle between Kratz and Ricciardi (2006 - 2007) when Kratz filed a subpoena to acquire her footage. IMO this is partly why Kratz is so irked by the success of the documentary ... he tried to stop it and failed.

• I examine Avery's Request for a Change of Venue, Strang and Buting's Motion to Limit Public Disclosure, and finally their Motion to Exclude Manitowoc County. The three documents tell quite the story. In this section I will be expanding on the role Kratz, Pagel, Petersen and the media played in shifting the public's perception of Avery.

• I then go over some major exclusions concerning the remains - significant pieces of evidence omitted from the documentary that Kratz never seems to bring up.

• I finish by having some fun speculating about Zellner's upcoming role in the case.

---

I have included a large number of screenshots in this post.

• Links followed by a ¹ will lead to a photo / screenshot

• Links followed by a ² will lead to a full document from stevenaverycase.org

• Links followed by a ³ will lead to a separate reddit post / website.

---

Master Manipulators or Conduits of Justice?

---

Clearly not every single viewer walked away believing Avery is innocent. Some apparently watched the documentary and walked away thinking Brendan was guilty.

Granted, yes, many thought them innocent, but IMO that is not the primary reason the documentary became so popular. It was simply a compelling documentary that served as a catalyst for in depth analysis / discussion.

It doesn't matter where you start, if you look into the case files, every witness, every motion, every little bit is worse than what we saw in the documentary.

In an interview with Jane Clayson³ (NPR's On Point) Demos tells us she and Laura knew from early on they had something special on their hands which would stir up questions and emotions. She recounts how her and Laura would have people over to their house to watch the first two episodes as a 'rough cut screening'. After the screening their guests kept them up till 2:00 a.m asking questions about the case.

---

The first two episodes were unlike anything I had ever seen.¹ They serve as a two hour introduction largely retrospective in tone while the remaining episodes attempt to offer an accurate depiction of events as they unfold, a verite style if you will.

By the end of the documentary LR and MD made us all feel as though we had experienced the 2007 trials in some small way.

IMO the documentary caused a shift in consciousness in many viewers. We felt an unease we could not pin down - we had to become more aware to find the source.

In the interview linked above (Clayson, NPR) LR states she was shocked when Netflix told her how many people binged the documentary. She recalls telling them she "hoped people who binged it would go back and watch it a second time in case they missed anything."

Well, we did more than that.

---

Skip to the Top

---

Moira Demos (19:00)³ - "Once it's released into a world with social media it takes on a life of it's own ... Social media offered forums and communities and a diversity of what people could engage with. There is a reddit crowd who are investigating the crime itself, there are people really invested in reform in a global sense, so it really offers a diverse way of engaging."

---

This is what is driving Kratz insane. He doesn't want people watching the documentary let alone reading the case files and posting about them on social media. He doesn't want everyone to know where to find the source material that actually discredits many of his claims.

An informed audience is the exact opposite of what Kratz is hoping for. For his misinformation campaign to succeed Kratz is depending on the ignorance of his audience. Please don't take my use of the word ignorance to mean a lack of intelligence, I have been researching the case files for over a year now and remain ignorant about many aspects of the case.

---

Ms. Information

---

For instance, in a recent Dr. Phil episode Kratz suggested blood was found in Avery's garage in the exact spot luminol reacted with bleach.

However a quick look at the case files will show us Kratz was lying and he knew it.

Ken Kratz - Closing Statement (Page 97)²

KK: We have heard about just to the left and just to the back of this tractor a large area that lit up or glowed very brightly. Mr. Ertl testified about that, that the two things that light up, it wasn't blood,but it was, in fact, bleach.

Right here we have Kratz admitting blood was not detected.

Ertle did testify about the luminol lighting up, however he did not say it lit up brightly, as it would with bleach. He said it lit up with a faint glow.¹

Kratz can lie to himself all he wants, but the truth has already been laid out for all to see: No blood was detected. No blood of Teresa's anywhere other than the RAV. No blood or latent blood in Avery's trailer or in his garage or around his fire pit.

---

Kratz spewing these obvious lies proves that, despite what he says, he clearly does fear Kathleen Zellner. True, he is not currently involved with the case, however that was true of Vogel in 2003 and he still ended up a named defendant in Avery's lawsuit. I'm sure Kratz has an idea of what is coming his way.¹

Kratz is liable if Avery is exonerated - plain and simple. Misinformation is his last hope. I am sure he thinks he is making progress, although in my mind he is only deluding himself at this point.

---

Ricciardi and Kratz - The Original Battle

---

Kratz was certainly aware of the duo back in 2005.

As Laura says in this interview³, "There were some special challenges we faced. We wrote to then special prosecutor Ken Kratz and did not get a reply, but then two months later he filed a subpoena to acquire our footage."

So courteous of him.

---

Here we see in Ricciardi's reply to the Kratz she recounts¹ that during her time in Manitowoc, she (as many journalists did) reviewed the contents of Avery's 1985 case file. Ricciardi shot 50 minutes of footage, including all of the exhibits from the 1985 trial.

Here is the full document - Ricciardi's Reply in Support of her Motion to Squash the Subpoena.² In it Ricciardi states in November of 2005 she began researching Steven Avery's criminal history, including his wrongful conviction. Ricciardi says Avery's wrongful conviction is a significant aspect of her project, which as we know was eventually named Making A Murderer.

---

In my mind it was a culmination of Ricciardi's time spent with the defense / Avery family as well as her clear interest in Avery's 1985 wrongful conviction that motivated Kratz to file a subpoena in the interest of acquiring her footage.

His official reasoning was that Ricciardi's tapes may be helpful to his case¹, and that she appears to be working as an 'investigative arm' of Steven Avery's defense team.

This was a lie, and again, Kratz damn well knew it.

In a separate filing we are told that Ricciardi submitted an affidavit to the Court which included the letter she emailed to Kratz.¹ In the email Ricciardi said her intent was to "provide viewers with an inside look at the evolution of the Wisconsin criminal justice system over the past two plus decades." Kratz was invited to participate in the film as Ricciardi wanted to include the perspectives of all parties.

---

In an attempt to squash the subpoena Ricciardi, Demos and Synthesis Films ended up being represented by Robert J. Dvorak.¹

Thankfully they also had the support of the Silha Centre for the Study of Media Ethics and Law. They fought and won. Willis ruled¹ that Kratz had no reason to believe Ricciardi held any 'discovery information'. He granted the motion to squash the subpoena.

Kratz failed. He didn't get Ricciardi's footage. 10 years later Making A Murderer came out.

---

I can imagine after the documentary aired Kratz was probably screaming, sweating, red in the face while he expressed his frustration to whoever would listen. "Don't look at me! I tried to stop this back in 2006!"

I'm positive Kratz has convinced himself the fallout from the documentary does not rest on his shoulders.

---

Calculated Moves

---

Despite a few roadblocks Avery's civil lawsuit was essentially squashed and the depositions (scheduled for Nov 10 + 15) were canceled. Avery was arrested on November 9 for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was charged with Teresa's murder on November 15 even though the partial profile from the tibia had not been developed at that point. Meaning (technically) Avery was charged with Teresa's murder before anyone knew if she was dead.

No one from Manitowoc County or the State of Wisconsin was held responsible for what happened to Avery from 1985 - 2003.³

Indeed even though the potential for liability largely evaporated I don't imagine any relief was enjoyed. In my mind Avery getting his settlement would have only motivated Kocourek, Vogel and the boys to take further 'curative action' if you will.

They needed to provide Kratz with another opportunity (via Brendan) to misinform and manipulate the public. This was done, of course, in the interest of contaminating the jury pool.

---

• As we know from the documentary it was in late February 2006 when Steven used his settlement money to hire Strang and Buting.

• On March 1, 2006 at 3:24 p.m Avery is put into administrative seg without access to a phone. This is the same day Brendan offers a 'confession' to Wiegert and Fassbender. Later that same day, around 8:30 p.m Avery is released from seg and is able to contact DS and JB who inform him of Brendan's arrest.¹ (Full Post)³

• Then we have the famous March 2, 2006 press conference where Kratz presents the public and potential members of the jury with a dark and disturbed picture of Teresa's last moments. Kratz used Brendan to destroy Avery's presumption of innocence and to poison the minds of potential jurors.

---

Shortly after March 2, 2006 DS and JB said, "Alright, enough of this shit."

On March 8, 2006 the defense filed a motion asking the Court to limit public disclosure¹ of information / opinion about this ongoing case. (Full document)²

The motion largely focuses on the actions of Kratz and Pagel.

---

Motion to Limit Public Disclosure

---

Before I expand on the Motion to Limit Public Disclosure I would like to draw your attention to this screenshot.¹ It is an email from the defense to Willis. In it we see Avery wanted a change of venue, but also wanted to have a jury picked from Manitowoc County. This was up to Avery and DS and JB followed his direction.

---

Now, back to the Motion to Limit Public Disclosure.

In the motion we see that Strang tells Willis this case has provided the state with multiple opportunities "to disseminate information to the media and, thereby, to the public." Strang says "the Court has inherent authority to enter such an order, which will operate only on lawyers, their agents, and court personnel, not on the media."

---

Judge Willis denied Avery's Motion to Limit Public Disclosure on May 3, 2006.

---

The Long Con

---

Funnily enough soon after Avery's request to limit public disclosure is denied the acting Sheriff of Manitowoc County (Petersen) decides he should take advantage of the ruling and publicly disclose information about Avery's past via the media.

Petersen sat down for an interview with a Fox affiliate working out of Green Bay. It was a two segment interview which aired on May 10 and May 11, 2006. That is only 7 days after Willis denied Avery's motion to limit public disclosure.

This is the interview where Petersen says it would have been easier to kill Avery than it would have been to frame him. A comment that seems to imply simply because Avery is alive, he is guilty.

---

There is much more to that interview, however. Remember the interview in question was given at a time when the defense had already made clear they wanted a jury from Manitowoc County to hear the case.

Strang asserts Petersen's actions demonstrate a clear attempt to undermine Avery's wish to have an impartial jury pulled from Manitowoc County.

---

In the same interview Petersen also brought up Avery's animal cruelty charge, saying "the first time I ran into him was with the burning cat."¹ Petersen then goes on to say Avery "could be a con man, who knows?"¹

These are highly inappropriate and inflammatory things to say. Again, as Dean says this was an intentional attack on Avery's constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury drawn from Manitowoc County.

---

See what happened? Petersen's interview aired 7 days after Willis denies Avery's request to limit public disclosure. The Motion to Limit Public Disclosure focused mainly on Kratz and Pagel's comments from November 2005 - March 2006.

So Kratz and Pagel took a break from going on T.V and talking about the case ... then out of the blue Petersen decides to give an interview about the Avery case and brings up his prior convictions.

This is serious misconduct. Thankfully it didn't go unanswered.

---

Shortly after Petersen's interview with Fox aired DS and JB filed a motion to exclude Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department¹ from being involved in Avery's trial / being allowed in the jury room.

The Motion to Exclude focuses heavily on Petersen's interview as well as the the fact that it occurred so soon after their motion to limit public disclosure was denied.

Motion to Exclude (Full document)² :

On March 8, 2006 Avery filed a motion for an order limiting public disclosure. on May 3, 2006, the Court denied Avery's motion. In that same hearing, through counsel, Avery again stated his preference for a Manitowoc County jury. on May 10 and 11, 2006, Fox 11 News in Green Bay, WLUK, broadcast a two-part special report. Sheriff Kenneth Peterson appeared on camera, spoke on camera/ and had other statements attributed to him by the reporter.

A strong sanction is necessary to deter such misconduct by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, or by other law enforcement agencies, in the future.

---

The Motion was actually granted.

Due to Petersen's words / actions Manitowoc County was excluded.

---

The End Game: Inadmissible Evidence

---

• On March 2, 2006 Kratz tells the media and the public his dark and disturbed fantasy of Teresa's death.

• On March 8, 2006 DS and JB file a Motion to Limit Public Disclosure.

• On May 3, 2006 Willis denies the motion.

• On May 10 and May 11, 2006, Fox news in Green Bay airs the interview with Petersen where he tells everyone about Avery burning a cat and his opinion that Avery is a con man who might kill again if he is released.

• On June 1, 2006 DS and JB file a Motion to Exclude Manitowoc County. The Motion relies heavily on the May 10 - 11 broadcast and Petersen's interview. The Motion is granted. Due to Petersen's words Manitowoc County is excluded.

(At this point Kratz figures if he is going to do try this ... it might as well be now.)

• On June 9, 2006 Kratz files his Motion to Introduce Other Acts of Evidence. ²

This motion ^ is filled with irrelevant details from Avery's past, and of course, Kratz mentions the cat. Funnily enough in the motion Kratz himself contradicts the official story and says Avery did not burn the cat,¹ but it was apparently his idea.

• See Also: Evidence left out of the Documentary According to Ken Kratz - The Cat and the Torture Chamber³

Kratz filed this Motion to Introduce Other Acts of Evidence in an attempt to provide the jury with Avery's motive for Teresa's murder. Get this - Kratz said acts committed by Avery in the past considered along side the manner of Teresa's death demonstrated a culmination of his progression towards violent crime. Thus evidence of Avery's past acts should be admitted as evidence of motive for the jury to consider.

Thankfully Willis disagreed. The 'evidence' from Avery's past was ruled inadmissible by the Court, meaning the jury was not to hear any of it.

That ruling didn't really matter, however. Recall Petersen already gave his interview publicly disclosing details of the very same (now inadmissible) horrific event from Avery's past.

---

After Avery was arrested LE knew they needed 'dirt' from his past to back up their false perception of him as deranged. I'm sure MTSO was only too happy to use that animal cruelty charge to get as much shock out of it as they could.

This article¹ makes it seem as though the animal cruelty story was indeed planted by LE to disrupt the public's perception of Avery as a man wronged by the system. A relative of Avery's says "When they brought out the fact that he lit a cat on fire, I think that's when people started to turn against him."

---

Manipulating Public Opinion

---

IMO shifting public perception was an absolutely crucial aspect of this whole thing. Once Avery was behind bars members of MTSO were desperate to recover their pre 2003 reputation ... and I mean desperate.

Sometime back in 2006 -2007 Laura and Moira managed to get a sit down interview with Robert Hermann,then Under Sheriff of Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department.

He looks very shifty, but setting the asthetics aside, his interview is certainly worth mentioning. IMO it demonstrates exactly what MTSO was hoping would happen, or at least we see, via Hermann's words, exactly what MTSO wanted people to think about Avery and Teresa.

---

Making A Murder - Episode 3

Robert Hermann: If you look at this case, if, uh -- Mr. Avery is convicted of it, I guess -- you know -- you can look at the other side of that where if he wouldn't have been released, we'd, you know -- Miss Halbach would still most likely be here.

---

Sickening right? He is trying to suggest if Avery was still wrongfully imprisoned Teresa would still be alive. I suppose I agree with that, but not in the way in which he meant it.

Still, no Hermann, you don't get to make it seem like Avery's 1985 wrongful conviction was a good thing and that he should never have been released.

---

Making A Murderer: Major Exclusions

---

I don't know how to rate the evidence that was left out, all I know is what was excluded is just as horrifying as what was included.

IMO the most under reported pieces of evidence in the documentary would be the remains¹ or the RAV.¹However seeing as how I have done multiple posts on the RAV I will focus on the remains and just list a few relevant RAV4 posts here:

• Buting Sets a Trap. Remiker takes the Bait.³

• Using the Power of Prayer to Locate a Mystical Rav.³

• Ken Kratz: "Ask Yourselves, is that a Green SUV? I will argue no, that's not a green SUV."³

---

The Remains of Teresa Halbach

---

Teresa disappeared on October 31, 2005.

On November 5, 2005 after the RAV is found by God the Avery property is taken over by CASO, MTSO and the DOJ.

According to Kratz and many others, Avery's dog wouldn't let anyone go near the fire pit for three days.

It isn't until November 8 that the remains were found in Avery's burn pit, which was initially examined by Jost (MTSO), Sippel (CASO) and Sturdivant (DOJ).

---

Preliminary Examination - Attorney Loy cross examines Tom Sturdivant (Page 96)²

STURDIVANT: I don't know who actually discovered that piece of material, but there was a red flag there and Deputy Jost pointed that out to me.

LOY: And Deputy Jost, again, he was from Manitowoc County?

STURDIVANT: I believe so.

---

Sturdivant says he doesn't know who discovered the first fragment, but he knows Jost pointed it out to him.

However we have access to Jost's report where he himself admits to discovering the first bone fragment.¹

---

Deputy Jost and Josh Radandt

---

On November 8, 2005 while feeding the German Shepherd tied up behind Avery's garage Deputy Jost says his attention was directed to the burn pit. Minutes later Jost remembered someone mentioning to him that Joshua Radandt¹ had checked on his hunting trailers on Monday evening. Jost recalls hearing that while Radandt drove from the cul-de-sac on Kuss road to his hunting camp¹ he says he saw a large fire burning near Steven Avery's property.

For the record: the path that Radandt took (on October 31, 2005) is the exact same path where Loof would eventually track Teresa's scent (on November 7, 2005).

---

On November 8, 2005 as Jost thought of Radandt's statement he began to "piece all of this information together" and thought the burn pit "if not already looked at should be checked."

Jost and Sippel simply walk up and examine the burn pit. Jost discovers what he says is a 'vertebrae bone'. He reports finding several other items that appear to be bones. He even says one fragment appears to be in the shape of a skull.

His report¹ is very poorly written, and IMO obviously false.

We are supposed to believe that after days of nothing being found out of nowhere on November 8th Jost remembers JR's statement and decides someone might as well search the burn pit ... and what d'ya know? Bones are found.

Then, as we all know by now, without following widely established protocols CASO, MTSO and DOJ all took part in unceremoniously shoveling the remains out of the pit and onto a sifter before they were bagged, tagged and left in a box to await further examination by Leslie Eisenberg

---

Human Bones of an Adult Female

---

Below I dive a bit deeper into the Preliminary Hearing which took place on December 12, 2005.

This would be the very first time Eisenberg was asked in court how she was able to determine the bones found in Avery's burn pit were that of an adult human female.

---

Direct Examination of Leslie Eisenberg by Attorney Kratz - Prelim (page 112)²

EISENBERG: When I opened the box containing all the material I first examined on November 10th, there were many fragments of human bones, some as small or smaller than the size of a nickel, other fragments perhaps as long as 4 or 5 inches.

KRATZ: Dr. Eisenberg, are you able, based upon your training, experience, education, and to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, identify those remains as being either male or female?

EISENBERG: Yes, I have been able to make a determination of sex.

KRATZ: And what is that determination?

EISENBERG: That determination is that the fragmentary human remains presented to me for examination are those of an adult female.

---

Cross Examination of Leslie Eisenberg by Attorney Loy - Prelim (page 123)²

LOY: Okay. Now, you are able to offer an opinion that these remains came from an adult female; is that right?

EISENBERG: That is correct, sir.

LOY: And how did you come to that conclusion? What is it about them?

ATTORNEY KRATZ: Judge, I'm going to -- well --

THE COURT: She can explain how she came to her conclusion.

ATTORNEY KRATZ: That's fine.

EISENBERG: There are, as forensic anthropologists, certain landmarks and certain shapes, what we call morphology, that differ between male and female skeletons.

---

Eisenberg goes on to explain which landmarks she found that were indicative of sex - the orbital bones / brow ridges - the bones found just above the eye sockets. She found both orbits. She says as this was a preliminary examination she may find more indicators of sex in the future.

Shocker. She was right. By the time the jury trial came around Leslie is able to provide much more than just the orbital bones to support her opinion.

---

I found this next excerpt particularly revealing...

Direct Examination of Leslie Eisenberg - Jury Trial (Page 139)²

EISENBERG: We recovered the left nasal bone. We also have the entire, or virtually the entire, right cheekbone, as well as a portion of the left cheekbone, and a portion of bone that begins in the cheekbone area and continues over and above the left op -- the opening for the left ear. And -- and I must say, if I can add, that, um, in burn situations like this one, it is sometimes unusual to find the -- the facial structures because they are thin and easily damaged. And the fact that we have these bones and they are as recognizable as they are, to me is -- is, in part, a testament to the recovery that occurred at the scene.

---

Whelp ... that ^ was a load of bullshit my friends.

In a fire that destroyed 70% of bone mass this many delicate facial fragments survived? Facial fragments that allowed Eisenberg to make a determination between male and female? I don't think so.

Leslie attempts to suggest the presence of this many facial fragments are a testament to how the recovery occurred at the scene, implying it was carefully done. This is odd, as under cross examination Leslie admits she "knows little or nothing about how the recovery was undertaken."¹ After all she wasn't even called to the scene.

Quite frankly, without her having been at the scene or having seen pictures of the bones in situ how on earth would Eisenberg know whether or not the bones were damaged in the recovery process?

---

Leslie is correct about one thing - it is odd that this many facial fragments were found. However IMO she is completely incorrect to imply this is due to a careful recovery process. Again, they used shovels and sifting material. They were not careful.

She knew the facial fragments were going to raise suspicion. She admits on direct that in a case like this it is unusual to find the facial structures because they are thin and easily damaged.

---

Now consider the TTM post that Zellner Tweeted³, or at least consider the last line of the post:

It almost seems as though someone was able to pick and choose which bones would be found, depending on which bones would be most helpful to determining age and gender. No way this was luck.

Call me crazy, but IMO that last line was an important factor in Zellner deciding to tweet out the post. There is a hidden meaning in there somewhere.

In all seriousness ... Did someone sift through a pile of cremated remains knowing they could only take a certain amount of bones? Where are the rest of the remains? The missing 70%? Why were they not able to plant the entire, or most of the skelton in the burn pit?

It is remarkable that 70% of the bones and 29 teeth are missing yet many, many delicate facial fragments were found. I can't let it go.

---

Body Identification Testing

---

After Zellner filed her Post Conviction Motion she gave a press conference during which she said:

"You've got only 30% of the bones recovered. You have 29 of the teeth never recovered.The bones look like they were planted. The property was closed down. The coroner from Manitowoc was not allowed on the property and actually was not notified it was a murder -- that violates the Wisconsin statute."

"We're requesting to test dozens of items from the crime scene. The testing spans all the way from radio carbon-14 testing, DNA methylation, body identification testing.

---

It is also worth noting that in Zellner's PCM she asked to test the human possible human pelvis bones that were found in the burn pit outside the Avery property. She also asked to test a pair of panties found on the Avery property "to see if they belonged to the victim."

Very interesting, no?

---

Teresa Halbach: A Kitten on the Cat Walk

---

Here is what Manitowoc was hoping the story would be:

• A nice young woman goes missing. She was last seen at Steven Avery's. A week later her car is found. Days later cremains are found. Well then, of course there is no doubt that the cremains found on the Avery property are that of the missing woman ... right?

---

Kratz would tell you there is a 1 in a billion chance the bones don't belong to Teresa. I would tell you the odds are more like 1 in 8 000.

The investigation recovered only one bone with flesh on it.¹ What are the odds of that?

This is the bone which Leslie describes as "more typical of a non burn case."¹ She says in order for the tibia to look the way it does it must have been somewhat protected during the cremation process. As I have said before, it seems to me whoever burned the body had a watchful eye on the tibia, ensuring it did not get too damaged and could still be planted with some tissue remaining on the bone.

Sherry Culhane was able to get a 7 loci partial profile¹ off that one fleshy bone, item BZ, the tibia.

The 7 loci pulled from the tibia were consistent with Teresa's full profile which was presumably developed from the pap smear. However, most agencies would not even report a 7 loci match, even as a partial.

---

And the teeth ... this has always bothered me. In cases where a body has been burned beyond recognition investigators will often be able to identify the remains via dental records even without a DNA profile. Why not plant the teeth to ensure the body would be identified?

In this case something very odd happened - the one shattered tooth examined by the State's witness was not able to be identified as belonging to Teresa. The State expert testified that no dental fillings were found at all, no whole teeth, no crowns.¹

Dr. Simley tells the Court he has been doing this type of work since 1981 and the condition of the dental fragments found in Avery's burn pit are among the worst he's ever seen.](http://imgur.com/TIAG7To)

This is very upsetting. There is only one reason I can think of which would explain this whole 29 missing teeth situation. It was intentional.

---

The Purpose of Mutilation

---

Kratz says in his closing Statement, "There was a clear attempt to obscure the identity of an individual ... She didn't just jump into the fire ... That's important to the mutilation charge." (Page 127)²

I would argue in most cases mutilation of a body is done first and foremost to hide evidence of a crime, rather than to only obscure the identity of an individual.

However in this case it seems the opposite is true. Someone was trying to obscure the identity of an individual without trying very hard to hide evidence of the crime. Why would Avery go through all the trouble it takes to obscure the identity of the body but then start spreading bones all around his property while leaving a good amount in his own burn pit? That is very questionable.

IMO the bones were obviously planted. Whoever did the deed wanted the bones to be discovered. Whoever planted the bones knew an expert would look at them and say, "Yup, we have the remains of an adult human female around Teresa's age."

I can't help but think something is very wrong here.

There was not a positive DNA identification and no positive identification from comparing the dental remains to the dental records. If there was never enough evidence to prove this was Teresa's body IMO Avery should never have been charged with her murder.

---

Manufactured Evidence

---

So ... the investigation found enough remains to prove the bones were that of an adult female, but that was it. The investigation never actually confirmed the bones belonged to Teresa.

This leads to many wild theories. Did the pap smear belong to Teresa? Does the blood or any of the DNA found in the RAV belong to Teresa? Do the bones even belong to Teresa? Was Loof even tracking Teresa's scent?

For good reason this debate will not die easily. but for the record IMO Teresa is not alive somewhere. I hope not anyway. Although I admit I run into multiple problems trying to theorize why they would need to use someone else's bones.

If these are not Teresa's remains I forsee only two possibilities:

• She is alive, or was on November 8, 2005.

Or,

• She was dead but they couldn't find her body in time and needed to improvise.

---

The remains were enormously under-covered in the documentary and the information omitted was not done to put Avery is a better light. The information omitted concerning the remains actually points to Avery's innocence.

IMO anyone who accuses the filmmakers of ethical violations is hoping their words will act as a red herring³ to distract from the more important themes presented in the documentary.

Clearly pieces of evidence were left out - LR and MD were dealing with a 30 year / 10 hour time frame. IMO the documentary did a fantastic job of capturing the energy of the town, the feelings in the Avery family, and the essence of the trial.

---

Kathleen Zellner: "Call me when you get better at your game."

---

Kathleen was asked in February of 2016³ why she feels compelled to file civil lawsuits in addition to overturning a verdict. She answered "Most criminal trials last about a week and there is a very superficial examination of the evidence. The pre-trial motions deal with constitutional violations. The reason a civil rights trial is so important is it dissects the criminal trial. The jury then becomes incredibly familiar with all of the evidence used to frame someone. Then we deal with the entire matter on a constitutional level."

---

Recall that Kratz was persistent in telling the jury, both in his opening and closing, that they were not to even consider the 1985 wrongful conviction or the 2004 civil lawsuit. They were there to consider the evidence as it related to criminal matters, not civil matters.

Thankfully the tables will turn once Zellner files Avery's civil lawsuit. If When she succeeds in exonerating Avery the civil claim filed on his behalf will no doubt be for a staggering amount of compensatory / punitive damages. Although we will get her Post Conviction Petition long before we see a copy of the Civil Lawsuit, we should eventually see a copy. Rest assured both the petition and the lawsuit will be jaw droppers.

The Petition:

• The petition will focus on conclusively proving Avery's innocence by detailing the new evidence / tests Zellner has collected / performed.

• Zellner's intent is to overturn Avery's conviction just as in 2003 - with irrefutable proof that he is innocent. Zellner has also said she will lay out the details of her own investigation into a third party.

The Lawsuit:

• Avery's civil claim, however, will mainly focus on the actions of the named defendants. Who did they have reason to believe was guilty? Who was ignored while Avery was targeted? What pieces of information or evidence were suppressed?

• Kratz, obviously, will be named in the lawsuit. I have to assume Pagel / Calumet County will also be named. In my wildest fantasy Zellner will also name Kocourek, Vogel, Wiegert, Fassbender, Petersen, Lenk, Colborn and Hermann in the lawsuit.

• Zellner will no doubt demand a jury trial (as Avery did in 2004).

---

Ken Kratz: Sexual Misconduct Accusations

---

Kratz is a sick human being - a serious threat to society. Thankfully it is clear Zellner can see Kratz for exactly what he is.

Newsweek.com published a fantastic interview with Zellner on the same day she filed her Post Conviction Motion. While Kratz is barely mentioned in the motion itself, he featured prominently in the Newsweek publication. It is titled, "SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ‘MAKING A MURDERER’ PROSECUTOR UNDERMINE CONVICTION, DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYS"³

Recall at one point Steven was facing six felony charges including Kidnapping, False Imprisonment and First Degree Sexual Assault.

In the body of the Newsweek publication Zellner reminds us, “They dismissed the sexual assault charges against Avery, there was absolutely no proof of it. When you see a fabrication of reality such as what was done in that press conference, you wonder where those ideas come from [and] what would motivate someone to make up such a graphic scenario.”

Zellner goes on to say, in her mind, the description Kratz gave at the press conference seems to be "The product of someone’s dark and disturbed fantasy."

---

I fucking love Zellner.

Tick Tock, Kratz. Tick Tock.