Red Mosquito

SA filed another appeal prior to his new lawyers coming on board. I think the invalid search warrant is interesting, and if it has the least bit of merit, why didn't they do this in the original trial?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/entertain ... peal-feat/


Also, an interview of his ex-fiancee (Jodi) for that bitch Nancy Grace's show is airing tonight. Sounds pretty bad for SA....

http://www.hlntv.com/shows/morning-expr ... -interview

I just watched the entire series in the span of about two days.

There are lots of things I want to comment on, but, having just read through this whole thread, I want to point out how disappointed I am that there hasn't been a discussion about how feminine Ken Kratz's voice is.

philpritchard wrote:I just watched the entire series in the span of about two days.

There are lots of things I want to comment on, but, having just read through this whole thread, I want to point out how disappointed I am that there hasn't been a discussion about how feminine Ken Kratz's voice is.

That's one thing Mrs Rangi kept commenting on whenever we heard him!

Rangi Guy wrote:

philpritchard wrote:I just watched the entire series in the span of about two days.

There are lots of things I want to comment on, but, having just read through this whole thread, I want to point out how disappointed I am that there hasn't been a discussion about how feminine Ken Kratz's voice is.

That's one thing Mrs Rangi kept commenting on whenever we heard him!

I was going to get my wife to come into the room and, without looking at the TV, describe the person who's talking. I think I may need to go ahead with this experiment.

Hilarious. Im actually surprised I didnt comment on it. it made me LOL the entire series. one of the reasons I kept entertained

I kept trying to decide if he was born a woman and was transgender.

Then, there's this - texts to female domestic violence victim, while he was prosecuting her ex-boyfriend -

It was nice talking with you! Feel free to text me (between 8 and 4) if you are bored. You have such potential. See ya. KEN (your favorite DA)

No text yet today? I’m feeling ignored. Are you even up yet?

The woman replied that she was ill and Kratz offered to bring her soup and a margarita — which she declined. At 11:30 a.m. on the same day the victim told Kratz she was ill,

I know this is wrong. I am such an honest guy, and straight shooter…but I have to know more about you… Are you the kind of girl that likes secret contact with an older married elected DA…the riskier the better?

Still wondering if I’m worth it? Can I help you answer any questions?

Why would such a successful, respected attorney be acting like he’s in 7th grade? Are you worried about me?

The victim then told Kratz that she would not lie and she was uncomfortable with his behavior, but Kratz persisted.

You should never lie to me! Obviously we have talents and this to offer that the other is intrigued by, or you would have called me creepy. You wanna accept.

On Oct. 21, 2009, Kratz began to verbally attack the domestic abuse victim when it became clear that she was not reciprocating.

It would go slow enough for Shannon’s case to get done. Remember it would be special enough to risk all

When the woman didn't respond, Kratz kept the texts coming by demeaning her and talking himself up.

Hey..Miss Communication, what’s the sticking point? Your low-self esteem and you fear you can’t play in my big sandbox?

You may look good at first glance, but women that are blonde, 6ft tall, legs and great bodies don’t like to be shown off or to please their men!

I’m the atty. I have the $350,000 house. I have the 6-figure career. You may be the tall, young, hot nymph, but I am the prize.

I would not expect you to be the other woman, I would want you to be so hot and treat me so well that you’d be THE woman! R U that good?

I don't think a $350,000 house is nearly as impressive as he wants it to sound.

philpritchard wrote:I don't think a $350,000 house is nearly as impressive as he wants it to sound.

in Wisconsin it is

Just finished the whole thing.

Great doc. Its a very intriguing story. I dont think those guys did it.

Based on what?

It's still very interesting to me that people see the obvious incompetence and corruption and translate it to: without a doubt they were innocent.

It makes my brain hurt that I agree with verb so much in this thread.

I have no idea if he did it. I think he's capable of killing her, but not capable of getting rid of all evidence except for the limited amount that was suspiciously found.

So, It's a conundrum

Could've easily killed her at a different location, then hauled her back to their property. Then there's very little evidence to get rid of.

If he killed her (on or off the proerty,) and went to the lengths that would have been necessary to cover it up given the lack of evidence found, then why would not use the crusher on his property to get rid of the car?

I think people are overestimating the "lengths he went to cover it up." If everything went down like the police said (even though that's a big "if"), then he: wore gloves but didn't check to see if he bled on her car; tried to burn the body but didn't dump the ashes someplace else, and if he did he didn't get them all; used his own gun but didn't destroy/get rid of it right afterwards; and killed her knowing he'd probably be the last person to see her alive. People act like he's a criminal mastermind, but if he did do it, he's just a fucking idiot.

verb_to_trust wrote:Based on what?

It's still very interesting to me that people see the obvious incompetence and corruption and translate it to: without a doubt they were innocent.

Well for Avery there is a lot to consider, i would think the lack of evidence in the trailer and garage first of all. Brendan's dna wasnt even found in those places.

Why would you think they did it? Because they were white trash?

Simple Torture wrote:It makes my brain hurt that I agree with verb so much in this thread.

numbers wrote:If he killed her (on or off the proerty,) and went to the lengths that would have been necessary to cover it up given the lack of evidence found, then why would not use the crusher on his property to get rid of the car?

I think the crusher argument is overblown. A crusher doesn't vaporize metal or something. There would still be a hunk of traceable murder victim Toyota on the property.

VinylGuy wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Based on what?

It's still very interesting to me that people see the obvious incompetence and corruption and translate it to: without a doubt they were innocent.

Well for Avery there is a lot to consider, i would think the lack of evidence in the trailer and garage first of all. Brendan's dna wasnt even found in those places.

Why would you think they did it? Because they were white trash?

I'm not saying they did it I'm saying if you take a firm position either way its coming from your own bias. There's certainly no hard evidence such as the DNA from the rape that exonerated him the first time around.

its not an innocent or guilty thing people should focus on; did the conviction make sense is the question it asks. I don't think anyone could look at the information and tainted sources of evidence and reasonably feel it was right to convict the guy for murder