The Crack in the Attorney General's Legal Foundation

---

As per usual, nothing new is revealed. Rather, instead of focusing on a single witness or hearing as I usually do, this post is meant to serve as more of a comprehensive summary of Avery's extraordinary experience with the Wisconsin Criminal Justice System.

---

 

 

 

The Rules of The Game

---

The deeper you dive into the available files the more you realize the case against Avery is non existent, at least in the true legal sense. To believe he is guilty of murdering Teresa Halbach beyond a reasonable doubt is to believe in an illogical and unreasonable narrative, one fueled by manipulated witnesses, a corrupt court and prosecutor and a bevy of planted / manufactured evidence.

it is clear that Avery's State and Constitutional rights were knowingly and maliciously violated by multiple Government Officials - all done with the intention of killing his civil lawsuit.

The due process Avery endured from 2005 - 2007 was akin to a rehearsed act, one carried out with the intention to create a legal shield behind which State Agents could knowingly deprive Avery of his most basic rights and freedoms without facing the threat of liability due to accusations of misconduct.'

Now, who in Winsconsin has the power to ensure employees of the State will not face a threat of liability from accusations of misconduct?

---

 

 

This post will focus on:

• The relevance of the 2003 email in relation to the validity of Peg Lautenschlager's conclusion in the Department of Justice Report.

• Detailing multiple procedural errors made by the Honorable Patrick Willis during the Pre Trial proceedings, Jury Trial proceedings and Deliberations.

---

 

 

 

Gregory Allen - A Procurer of Felix Felicis

---

Like many featured in the documentary, Gregory Allen has a secret. A big one. By July 1985 he already had a long history of using sexual violence in his attacks and was operating on an escalating basis in the Manitowoc area, so much so that the Manitowoc City police assigned daily surveillance to him. As design fate would have it, right before Mrs. Bersnteen was assaulted the officers assigned to surveil Allen were called to investigate other crimes.

The same day that Mr. Allen assaulted Mrs. Bersnteen, Mr. Avery was arrested and illegally held without access to a phone or legal representation. He was eventually prosecuted by Dennis Vogel and found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 32 years in prison. All of the actions executed by Kocourek and Vogel at this time reveal a clear agenda - they acted intentionally to convict Avery of the sexual assault they knew was committed by Gregory Allen, a violent criminal who was allowed to continue his reign of terror.

---

There is even speculation as to whether Gregory Allen was ordered to assault Penny Bernsteen that day in 1985 all to provide Kocourek with the opportunity to railroad Avery in retaliation for running Sandra Morris of the road. If this is the case, is it really that much of a stretch to suggest they would have ordered Teresa's murder to create another opportunity?

When it comes to suggesting the attack on Penny was orchestrated I am not quite there yet, however I am desperate to learn much more about Gregory Allen. Why was he steadily overlooked for so long? Was he related to Vogel, Kusche or one of the boys? Or did he know something about a member of the club?

All Allen had to do was peep in one of their windows at the right time and he might very well have seen something that would give him enough leverage to force Manitowoc Officials into ignoring his crimes.

---

 

 

 

For the Public Record: Griesbach and Rohrer

---

After enduring an 18 year wrongful conviction wherein the State of Wisconsin again and again suppressed evidence favorable to Avery and his attorneys, he was finally exonerated - of course without ever having admitted guilt. This provided Avery with the opportunity to file a civil claim.

In the Documentary Michael Greisbach tells us that upon Steven's exoneration he called former Manitowoc Distric Attorney Dennis Vogel, who himself upon learning of Avery's exoneration quickly asked Griesbach if there was anything on Gregory Allen in his file on Steven Avery.

After that odd and insensitive comment Greisbach checked the file Vogel had mentioned and was enlightened about an unsettling connection between the former DA Dennis Vogel and Gregory Allen which raised some ethical concerns. Griesbach discovered that in August of 1983 Dennis Vogel was the prosecutor for a case where Gregory Allen had exposed himself and lunged at a woman on a beach. This attempted assault not only took place on the same beach but the same general area as the 1985 assault Steven was imprisoned for. Griesbach asserts this was enough evidence, in his mind, to show that Kocourek and Vogel knew (or had reason to know) that Allen, not Avery, was the assailant in 1985. This is yet another event that would eventually support Avery's claim of intentional misconduct leading to his wrongful conviction. (Thanks Griesbach.)

Due to the above connection between Allen and Vogel being exposed the Manitowoc District Attorney requested the Wisconsin Attorney General investigate the 1985 prosecution of Steven Avery. Shortly after the request the Wisconsin Attorney General (Peg Lautenschlager) ordered the Wisconsin Department of Justice to investigate the handling of Avery's 1985 prosecution.

---

 

 

 

The Attorney General's Conclusion

---

On December 17, 2003, three months after the investigation began, the Attorney General claimed that Manitowoc County Officials did not engage in any intentional misconduct that would have resulted in Avery's unwarranted incarceration.

The conclusion is clearly bullshit, and Peg obviously knew it. Lautenschlager was the queen protecting her remaining pawns from harm - protecting members of Law Enforcement and the State from a slew of civil claims and possible exonerations.

Considering the above, one would expect the content of the DOJ Report to be whitewashed. Nope. What we end up with is a DOJ Report and an Attorney General's conclusion that are completely at odds with one another.

Having read the report it is obvious (to me) that any reasonable individual would conclude that not only did members of Manitowoc County behave unethically in 1985, they behaved in full awareness of the illegality of their actions.

Lautenschlager couldn't have that type of thing exposed on her watch, however, and so she turned a blind eye to the injustice Avery had endured in the hopes of saving many State jobs along with millions of dollars in settlement money.

From a business perspective it might seem as though Lautenschlager made a smart move. however all she really did was put a band-aid on a wound already festering out of control.

Sooner or later the wound would expose it's ugly self.

---

 

 

 

Deposing the Department of Justice: Exposing the Wound

---

One year after the Attorney General cleared Manitowoc of all ethical violations Avery and his civil attorney's filed a lawsuit for 36 million dollars naming Manitowoc County, Thomas Kocourek and Dennis Vogel as the defendants.

The lawsuit directly contradicted the Attorney General's conclusion and alleged that the named defendants did indeed act intentionally and unethically during Avery's 1985 prosecution.

Wisconsin Department of Justice Special Agents Amy Lehmann and Debra Strauss were both subpoenaed and deposed regarding the Attorney General ordered investigation into Steven Avery's 1985 case.

Upon completion of their investigation into Manitowoc's prosecution of Avery they sent an email to the Wisconsin AG lawyer's office wherein they state 'it appears you were correct, there was no real investigation done. They [MTSO] had a suspect and were going to make it work. Troubling to us is the lack of paperwork.'

However, it is not the responsibility of the DOJ to file charges. The DOJ investigates and the Attorney General is the one to review and decide whether or not criminal charges are warranted, much like CASO investigated the Halbach murder and Kratz was the one to conclude criminal charges should be leveled against Avery.

The Special Agents from the DOJ were no doubt well aware of what they had uncovered, and from what we see in episode 1 of the documentary it seems clear they accurately relayed their findings to the Attorney General - yet no criminal charges were filed against members of Manitowoc County.

---

 

 

 

 

Exposing Rohrer, Greisbach and Kusche

---

The lawsuit would have ruffled quite a few feathers. Once the subpoenas were sent out the strategy set in motion by Avery's attorneys would have become public knowledge.

This strategy is hinted at by who Avery had subpoenaed. Consider the list starting at the bottom:

• Current and former members of Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department (Djvorak, Colborn, Lenk, Petersen, Kocourek - all denied any wrongdoing, Kocourek did so via his official answer to Avery's lawsuit.)

• The current and former Manitowoc County District Attorney (Rohrer, Vogel - both denied any wrongdoing, again, Vogel did so via his official answer to Avery's lawsuit.)

• The special agents from the Department of Justice who investigated Manitowoc's actions from 1985. (Lehmann, Strauss - both essentially confirm that the prosecution was intentional.)

• ???

The only one missing from this chain of four in the Attorney General herself. Imagine how that deposition might have gone:

Kelly: Mrs. Lautenschlager, you were the one who ordered the Department of Justice to investigate the handling of Steven Avery's 1985 case?

Lautenschlager: That's correct.

Kelly: Special Agents Lehmann and Strauss of the Wisconsin Department of Justice were assigned to conduct the investigation?

Lautenschlager: Correct.

Kelly: Is the exhibit you are holding now the same report that agents Lehmann and Strauss submitted to your office once the investigation was complete?

Lautenschlager: It is.

Kelly: Okay. Based on the content of exhibit 317, which was submitted to your office, how is it you came to the conclusion that no ethical violations had occured during the 1985 prosecution of Steven Avery?

Lautenschlager: We used alternative facts.

---

Okay, enough of my imagination, back to the reality of the situation.

---

 

 

 

Deposing Manitowoc County: The Climax

---

Making A Murderer - Epiosde 2 (Turning The Tables)

Kelly: Let me show you what's been marked as exhibit 124.

Rohrer: I'm familiar with the document. [Twitch]

Kelly: Okay. Who is Douglass Jones?

Rohrer: Assistant district attorney for Manitowoc County.

Walter Kelly: All right. What is this memo to your understanding?

Rohrer: It speaks for itself. He had a telephone conversation with Gene Kusche about the case.

---

By October 26, 2005 Mark Rohrer had already been deposed and questioned concerning the 1995 call and 2003 email. Of course we know he say he and Michael Greisbach passed everything they had over to the Attorney General's office, however the dates provided to support that claim do not add up.*

When Rohrer is confronted with the fact that this memo has come to light, he - after a few twitches - turns and catches the eye of his own attorney with a look that can only be described as an 'oh fuck they have it!' moment. His deposition is a very important event when considering Lautenschlager's role in this conspiracy. The theory being that Rohrer and Greisbach either withheld the email from the DOJ themselves - or they were ordered to do so by Peg.

Either way we are talking government cover up.

---

 

 

 

 

The Last Straw

---

Then, as we know, on October 26, 2005 Chief Deputy of Manitowoc County Eugene Kusche was deposed. At that time he was confronted with the infamous email which details his knowledge of the 1995 call as well as his statements directly implicating Lenk, Colborn and Kocourek in the crime of withholding exculpatory information.

Thanks to Kusche, this was the moment the named defendants knew they were going to be torn to shreds once in front of a judge and jury.

It is always worth noting that the very same day that Kusche implicated TK, JL and AC, Kocourek's attorneys contacted the Honorable Judge Aldeman, the Justice presiding over the case and argued that TK should not have to answer certain questions in his upcoming deposition on November 10, 2005. Judge Aldeman disagreed and ordered Kocourek to answer all questions asked of him in the depositions - as per usual the issue of admissibility would be ruled on at a later date. Kocourek was slowly driven insane knowing he would have to answer every question asked of him.

[Teresa Halbach dissapears on October 31, 2005,] a mere five days after Kusche's disaster of a deposition and Kocourek's panicked attempt to be granted immunity from certain questions. Luckily for Kocourek, Vogel and Lautenschlager Avery was arrested on November 9, 2005 for being a felon in possession of a fire arm.

This arrest effectively destroyed Avery's ability to continue his crusade of exposing corruption in the Wisconsin Criminal Justice System.

---

 

 

 

 

Exposing the Crack

---

One question we need answered - did anyone from the Department of Justice or Attorney General's Office know about the 1995 call or the content of the 2003 email prior to the investigation into Manitowoc's prosecution of Avery?

If the email had been turned over during the DOJ investigation Lautenschlager would have had no choice but to conclude that members of Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department intentionally suppressed information that may have lead to Avery's exoneration in 1995 or shortly thereafter.

During his deposition Kusche confirms to Avery's lawyers he has no reason to believe the 2003 email misrepresented the content of the phone call between him and Douglas Jones, meaning the actions of Kocourek, Lenk and Colborn as described by Kusche in the email could be relied upon as a factual account of events. That is critical.

It is not too much of stretch to believe, in my mind, that the Wisconsin Attorney Generals office and Manitiwoc County District Attorney's office may have been actively working together to suppress information from the email, that, if exposed, would have dramatically bolstered Mr. Avery's claim that his rights were violated by intentional misconduct.

This would be a government cover-up of epic proportions. One about to be exposed by none other than Steven Avery.

---

 

 

 

Dismantling The Foundation

---

It is worth noting once more that the claims in Mr. Avery's civil lawsuit directly contradict the conclusion of the Attorney General, who stated there was no proof of intentional misconduct.

No Evidence of Intentional Misconduct / Ethical Violations

• First, not only were there numerous ethical violations, there was a plethora of evidence suggesting that multiple members of MTSO laced their actions towards Mr. Avery with purpose and malice. From 1985 to 1995 State officials were intentionally withholding any all information that would have been favorable to Avery or his legal counsel.

Failure to Investigate / Mistaken Witness Identification

• Second, Gregory Allen's 1985 victim was clearly manipulated by members of MTSO into identifying Avery as her attacker. This was not a case of mistaken witness identity, as is so heavily relied upon by the Attorney General's conclusion. Also, it is clear they did not investigate Allen. To the contrary, we now know Vogel even attempted to provide Gregory Allen with an Alibi for the 1985 assault.

---

Avery's lawsuit dealt a terrible blow to the State of Wisconsin. He and his attorney's were slowly but surely on the way to proving in court that the conclusion of the Attorney General was invalid and the matter should be open for investigation once more.

Had Peg concluded Manitowoc behaved unethically in the first place she would have essentially been admitting that anyone who had been, number 1, arrested in Manitowoc, and number 2, convicted by Vogel should have their case re-investigated by an outside party.

Who knows how many lawsuits that would have resulted in.

So, in 2003, as the theory goes, a cover up was orchestrated by the Wisconsin Attorney General.

I for one refuse to believe the timing of Teresa's death was simply a coincidence that benefited the named defendants and at the same time destroyed Avery's credibility and claim to 36 million dollars.

---

 

 

 

 

The Threat of Liability

---

Willis - Pre Trial

THE COURT: All right. I mean, I -- to leave open the possibility that it would be alleged that either Lenk or Colborn were involved, the -- I mean, the argument would be that somehow because they were employees of the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department, and the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department was being sued by Mr. Avery for a claim that is, near as I understand it, was covered by insurance, I don't know what the limits on the policy might have been.

---

IMO The claims in Avery's lawsuit would not be covered by insurance.

In his lawsuit Avery had requested 18 million dollars in complementary (regular) damages and an additional 18 million dollars punitive (deterrent) damages.

It is highly unlikely any insurance policy would have been available in 1985 and would have included the potential of protection from a lawsuit in which the defendant is alleging he had been* knowingly *wrongfully imprisoned. When damages are leveled against a defendant it is often the case, if applicable, that the punitive damages must be paid directly out of pocket. Again, Avery requested 18 million in punitive damages.

Further, any insurance the named defendants could have claimed would have to come from a policy that was active in 1985, the time of the alleged misconduct. That is an important point.

---

 

 

 

The Potential for Motive

---

Dean Strang Cross Examines Colborn

DS: Did you have any concern that you would be added as a defendant in that lawsuit?

AC: I don't know if concern is the correct word, I know I expressed that I didn't have any knowledge of that case. I wasn't a Manitowoc County resident at that time.

DS: My question, though, was whether you had concern, the thought crossed your mind, that you might be added as a defendant in that civil lawsuit?

AC: Yes, the thought crossed my mind that I might be added as the defendant.

---

i. Lenk and Colborn.

Lenk and Colborn, who did not work with MTSO in 1985, were originally not considered liable at the time the lawsuit was filed. However Kusche, Kocourek's right hand man at the time, admitted in his own deposition that Lenk and Colborn intentionally withheld exculpatory information that may have lead to Avery's release 8 years earlier than his eventual exoneration in 2003.

Officers Colborn and Lenk had reason to believe they were both going to be added as named defendants in Avery's lawsuit, and thus they had a motive to create an opportunity to frame Avery.

---

ii. Kocourek and Vogel

Mr. Avery asserts the named defendants were expecting additional multi million dollar civil claims to be filed against them in relation to their actions from 1985 to 2003. Kocourek and Vogel certainly had a motive for the murder of Teresa Halbach. Of course the intention was to create an opportunity to provide officers with enough cause to arrest Avery in the hopes of stopping the upcoming depositions.

---

iii. Lautenschlager

Mr. Avery asserts his lawsuit would have provided legal grounds for multiple additional lawsuits to be filed against the named defendants, Manitowoc County and possibly even the acting Attorney General, Peg Lautenschlager, as the Attorney General had intentionally buried egregious amounts of intentional misconduct in order to prevent the flood of lawsuits that would have resulted if the claim filed by Mr. Avery was successful. The public outrage resulting from Avery's civil suit was going to shake the very foundation of the Judicial System.

Things were going to change. The Attorney General did not want that much change this quickly, and so she intentionally suppressed evidence of multiple criminal acts by members of Law Enforcement. This act of suppression was at risk of being exposed by Avery's lawsuit. Thus the Attorney General also had a motive to ensure an opportunity was created in order to frame Avery and stop the civil suit.

---

 

 

 

Teresa Halbach - 'Choose the highest bidder, was my answer.'

---

With all the evidence we have, we still cannot conclusively say Teresa was murdered or even that the bones found in Avery's pit belonged to her. That is an uncomfortable fact Kratz tried to cover up in his opening statement .. he is later contradicted by his own witness.

The evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the charge of murder in the first degree.

Unfortunately that is neither here nor there. One thing we know - Teresa disappeared. After that Avery was arrested just in time to stop Kocourek's deposition. This was, as we know on the 9th of November, after the RAV was planted, the property locked down for an extraordinary amount of time and evidence mysteriously started appearing in places already searched.

At this point Peg is able to rest. She now passes the baton to Willis, who ensured her not to worry - he would take care of everything.

---

 

 

 

Violations of Mr. Avery's Due Process (2005-2007)

---

Under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, neither the federal government nor state governments may deprive any person 'of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'

In reviewing the case files it is easy to see that investigative and judicial misconduct occurred to the extent that it impeded Avery's ability to receive a fair trial. The Honorable Patrick Willis made multiple procedural errors during the Pre Trial proceedings, Jury Trial proceedings and deliberations.

When considered in tandem the errors listed below are, IMO, of sufficient gravity to warrant reversal of Mr. Avery's conviction.

---

Here are a few, IMO, reversible errors.

First:

• The Court's failure to suppress the fruits of the November 5 warrant. A grievous procedural error on the part of the court that unjustly provided the State with a plethora of tainted evidence.

Willis ruled the Court was initially inclined to conclude that the defendant's motion did constitute a substantial preliminary showing that false statements had been and intentionally included in the affidavit. The Court acknowledged that Pam locating the RAV was an important aspect for the issuance of the warrant. However Judge Willis ultimately refrained from granting the motion to suppress as, according the Court, the defense did not adequately show that Patricia Sturm and her daughter were acting as agents of the State.

---

Second:

• The Court's decision to increase bail and deny Avery a property bond based on 'the degree of violence' as described in the unsubstantiated allegations found in the amended criminal complaint, which was immediately followed by the Court's decision to deny Mr. Avery a preliminary hearing for the uncorroborated charges filed in the amended criminal complaint.

When all arguments had been presented Willis not only allowed the introduction of 3 additional felony offenses without a preliminary hearing, he used those 3 additional uncorroborated charges as reason to raise Avery's bail and deny him a property bond, something he had previously ruled would suffice.

The logic here is incredibly flawed. The 3 additional charges of sexual assault, false imprisonment and kidnapping were added based on nothing more than Dassey's words and The Court's discretion.

No evidence has ever existed to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in relation to the charges of first-degree sexual assault, kidnapping and false imprisonment, all brought forth in the amended complaint. Indeed, even though the bullet fragments were collected at this point, Willi's ruling takes place before the test results came back. The vast majority of the information included in the amended complaint had essentially been disproven by the evidence collected by MTSO, CASO, and the DOJ.

Willis decides that apparently Brendan's statement is extremely significant and the evidence supporting it so overwhelming that he rules the additional felony charges be filed without a preliminary hearing and then not only increases bail but changes his mind about the possibility of Avery being released on a property bond.

The Court failing to order a preliminary hearing for three additional charges is one thing, but for the court to use those very same charges that were added without the benefit of preliminary hearing to justify a slew of rulings unfavorable to the defense is quite clearly, in my mind, a reversible error.

---

 

 

 

Less Harmful Errors

---

• The Courts failure to grant Avery his motion for fair forensic testing.

Kratz argues again and again that there is no authority that would allow Willis to grant such and such a motion. He often relies on this, always letting Willis know there is no precedent to support Avery's many requests. Willis apparently does not realize he has the power to set precedents by making a ruling in opposition to the current legal standard.

When you stop and think about it, why is it not protocol to always have the testing process recorded? I think we can all theorize a fairly upsetting answer to that. If the State was truly interested in uncovering the truth video recording equipment would be in every lab tracking every piece of evidence. Clearly, at least in this case, the State was not interested in uncovering the truth, they were only interested in securing a conviction.

---

• The Court erred in granting the State their Third Party Liability (Denny) Motion.

STRANG: I can't tender a motive for one of these other people to have done this, but the State can't tender a motive for Steven Avery to have done it. So it seems to me surprisingly odd that the defense, which bears no burden, is in the position here of having to jump hurdles that the State doesn't have to jump.

---

• The Court's erred in excluding evidence that Mr. Avery was entitled to have admitted via the testimony of the Manitowoc County Coroner.

Concerning the banning of the coroner, Willis sided with the prosecution, claiming that he didn't see any 'probative value' in letting her testify and that it had 'much more potential to mislead the jury.' Willis went on to say that he couldn't see how, if the coroner had investigated the crime scene, this would had made the investigation 'any less biased' than without her services.

This is one of the most blatantly obvious signs, IMO, that Willis is useless as a judge. The bone evidence should not have been admissible.

---

• The Court erred by failing to provide the jury with a curative instruction concerning the pre trial publicity in the case.

Cases are meant to be tried in court, based on evidence, not in the press. Kratz intentionally engaged with the public in ways meant to prejudice potential jury members and publicly condemn Avery and Brendan essentially destroying what little presumption of innocence they possessed. The only argument Kratz has to defend himself is to argue that any reasonable prosecutor would have done what he did.

The real issue of course arose when Willis refused to give a curative instruction to the jury considering what they knew about the media's role in this. We see in the documentary that Kratz basically says to Willis, 'If you give the jury a curative instruction unfavorable to the state at this time then we might include Dassey in this case just to make that curative instruction invalid.'

Kratz thinks it is his court room.

---

• The Court's allowance of improper arguments by Ken Kratz, Thomas Fallon and Norm Gahn.

During trial, particularly opening and closing statements, a prosecutor’s use of certain argument may constitute prosecutorial misconduct. For example:

1) A prosecutor may not assert facts not in evidence, as Kratz did when he implied that Avery's DNA was found in item A23 (Swab of exterior cargo door handle) Human DNA detected.

Jerry Buting - Closing Statement

ATTORNEY BUTING: I don't know if you recall, but I do, in the opening statements, these nice Power Point presentations that Mr. Kratz has prepared, one of them he puts up there in his opening statement and he shows this tailgate. Puts up a nice PowerPoint slide showing the rear of the vehicle like this. And he's going through where Mr. Avery's blood, DNA, was found on Teresa Halbach's vehicle. And he's got one of his nice slick arrows pointing right here at the tailgate with a circle.

BUTING: I see that and I think, my gosh, I have been working on this case for months, did I miss that; how could I miss that the client's blood is supposedly on the back tailgate. Well, when I looked more carefully, and as we heard from Sherry Culhane, he was wrong. There was no blood of Mr. Avery ever found on the rear of that vehicle on the tailgate. Now, Mr. Kratz is human, we all make mistakes; I have certainly made plenty here. But that's a pretty big mistake.

---

2) A prosecutor may not misstate the law without taking measures to correct it.

KRATZ: Reasonable doubts are for innocent people.

---

3) A prosecutor may not knowingly elicit false testimony without taking measures to correct it.

Kratz did this multiples times ... again and again and again. There are too many examples to note.

---

• The Court erred in seating at least one juror with a known bias.

Even though Strang and Buting used all available preemptive strikes, two members of the jury had direct familiar connections to members of Manitowoc County. You know, the same county he was suing. It was absolutely improper for Willis to allow even one juror to be seated who had reason to manifest an impermeable bias towards Mr. Avery.

---

• Finally, the Court erred in illegally removing a deliberating juror.

There are strict rules which regulate ex parte communication with judges – that is, a juror's communication with a judge must be in the presence of all counsel. This especially applies during deliberations.

Mahler was being threatened. Maybe not with a knife or gun, but he knew what was happening.

He relayed his concerns to Willis, who instead of alerting Strang and Buting or declaring a mistrial, decided to illegally remove Mahler, the juror who had been threatened, while allowing the juror who did the threatening to remain in deliberations to further sway people to vote guilty.

---

That is a just a quick list off of the top of my head - look at everything Willis did to help push things along.

Willis was apparently only there to secure the conviction while denying the defense any opportunity to even suggest the investigation had not uncovered the truth.

---

Then we have Kratz, Fassbender, Wiegert, Culhane and members of Manitowoc. All take part in witness manipulation, introduction of false / manufactured evidence / Brady violations. Manipulated documents / contradictory reports and of course blatant disregard displayed for widely established protocols both on the field and in the lab.

What else?

• The press conference was a direct violation of the ethics rules on pretrial publicity. His statements led to 'undue prejudicial effect.' The only argument to the contrary is Kratz' own assertion that any reasonable lawyer would have done what he did. IMO his actions were intentional and reprehensible. His actions amount to an unbelievable amount of 'Pre Trial Prosecutorial Misconduct' demonstrating a complete disregard for the core principles at the foundation of our judicial system.

• The fact that Strang had to ask Kratz for an explanation as to why a random gentleman was in a jail cell with Steven Avery when there was apparently no cause for his arrest. And why he kept hounding Steven with questions / asking him to basically confess.

• Hidden pings. Loof's scent. Doctored phone records. Second cell phones.

• The 'sweat' DNA which was swabbed off the latch on April 3rd, and presumably deposited on the 31st of October or shortly thereafter. However it is widely accepted that touch DNA transferred to a surface by sweat will degrade rather quickly, sometimes within only 4 weeks time. The hood latch swab (taken 4 MONTHS after it would have had to have been deposited) somehow produced a full profile for Avery.)

• Sherry knew it wasn't blood on the bullet. So she couldn't say it was blood. She said it was nucleated cells. Kratz was an idiot and got too attached to the 'sweaty' aspect of the story. Instead of widely spreading that SA DNA is on the hood latch ... he says sweat DNA. He didn't do a presumptive test so he didn't know if it was a small amount of blood DNA or Epithelial DNA. Wonder why he went with 'sweat' DNA. Because it fit his sick story.

• Ryan's 22 calls. Pam's contact with Pagel. The Blue / Green issue.

• The eight unidentified fingerprints that were found on the RAV in some very incriminating locations.

• The bones at the quarry. The bones in the burn barrel. The burns in the burn pit... Not a single one was photographed or measured / gridded in its original position on the property. This does not add up... at all. Everyone knew this was going to be a high profile case. Everyone knew Steven had expressed his belief that LE was setting him up. Under those circumstances, wouldn't you expect everyone to put in extra effort to create a case supported by evidence that was collected in an appropriate manner? Who the hell in their right mind decided not to take a single photo? If he was guilty, why not follow every protocol by the book to ensure no questions could be raised, with any veracity, about the quality of the investigation?

• Item AJ and AK (Swab of license plates) Human Male DNA detected. Levels insufficient for DNA/STR typing. No profile recorded.

• Evidence Item CX - Blood by the bones in the quarry that did not come from Avery Teresa or Brendan. This is the strongest evidence there is that they didn't bother investigating anyone else. There should have been testing on all of her known male associates to exclude them as sources of blood found near the possible crime scene. It might not be the killer's blood or have anything to do with the case, but if it matched someone she knew, that would be incriminating for that person. It's something investigators should without a doubt have checked and for some reason they didn't.

• The defense also had to contend with State lawmakers pushing to reintroduce the death penalty during the lead up to the trial. Funnily enough the charges that would be required to "qualify" for the death penalty were the charges that Steven was facing.

• And Brendan. I barely mentioned Brendan at all.

---

Okay. Brain is sore. Must stop.

---

All I am saying is clearly Avery should never have been convicted. Every step they took was to create a legal shield behind which State Agents could knowingly deprive Avery of his most basic rights and freedoms. In any honest appellate court his conviction would have already been overturned.

Everyone working for the State had the Attorney General on their side. They could do whatever they wanted without facing the threat of liability due to accusations of misconduct. And boy did they.

Now the world is watching. Hopefully that will change things.