Making a Murderer prosecutor Ken Kratz defends inconsistencies in first Australian interview

THE villain of true crime series Making a Murderer has stepped out of the shadows to tell his side of the story, and says there’s much more to come.

‘I’ve been getting a lot of death threats’

THE villain of the most-obsessed-over true crime series, Making a Murderer, has stepped out of the shadows to tell his side of the story, and says there’s much more to come.

Ken Kratz, the state prosecutor who successfully argued for Steven Avery to be jailed over the murder the Netflix series centres on, spoke to breakfast radio stars Kyle and Jackie O in his first Australian interview.

Taking questions from callers around the world, the demonised prosecutor addressed conspiracy theories, omitted evidence, a notorious blood vial the documentary focuses on, and accepting his role as the bad guy.

“I wasn’t portrayed all that terrifically; we’ll leave it at that,” Kratz told the KIIS FM show.

“It was something that certainly cast me as a villain; every good conspiracy movie needs a villain. I guess I filled that role, unfortunately.”

Having lost his position as district attorney after shameful sexting allegations, and receiving treatment for prescription drug abuse, sex addiction and a narcissistic personality the disorder, the former prosecutor has switched sides and now practises as a defence lawyer.

“There’s lots of flaws and improvement that can be made (in the criminal justice system) and any time you draw the attention with any kind of a case it’s really important. I’m a defence now, I’m on the other side, so, you know, I think this is terrific,” he said of the series.

Here’s what the disgraced former prosecutor had to say about some of the series’ more controversial points.

ON THE BLOOD VIAL

Like millions of Netflix fans and web sleuths, a caller who questioned Kratz about a “tampered-with” vial of Avery’s blood, presented as evidence in the defence case. The caller wanted to know how this crucial and potentially liberating piece of evidence was dismissed.

But Kratz dismissed this quickly.

“This I think is the most outrageous that the filmmakers did. They showed this vial of blood being found in the court’s office and they showed a needle hole that was in the top of the tube, and of course the doc and the attorneys, they made a big point about it,” he said.

“What happened though is that the nurse who put the blood into that tube was given a statement, was prepared to testify. She said, ‘I’m the one that put the hole in the tube’. How do you think the blood got in the tube? You had to put the needle in to put the blood in this vacuum type of tube.

“What’s important about this is the filmmakers knew this. They knew that that hole was not tampered with. They knew that it didn’t mean anything in the case, but the filmmakers still left it in. I believe that’s outrageous that you can’t lie to the general public that way.”

Kratz didn’t buy the blood vial evidence, or the key, presented by Steven Avery's defence lawyer Jerome Buting.

ON OMITTED EVIDENCE

Since Making a Murderer became available on Netflix, a mountain of omitted evidence has been dug up that wasn’t included in the film.

Obviously pleased about this, Kratz told listeners what he really thought about the filmmakers’ “selective” portrayal of the trial.

“This isn’t a documentary at all. It’s an advocacy piece that’s made by and for the Avery defence team. They left out a great deal of evidence, the evidence that the jury got to decide when they convicted Steven Avery,” he said.

“When you make a documentary, when you take 10 years to pick and choose the facts that you’re going to present, when you adapt clips to make somebody look a certain way, you can probably spoonfeed the audience to get them to believe just about anything you want.

“The problem with this whole thing is that if two different juries found these two men guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and they were given all of the evidence.”

Ken Kratz is still definitely not team Avery.

ON ‘DEATH THREATS’ AND HAVING HIS SAY

“I’m the only one so far from the prosecutor or police side that has come forward,” Kratz said.

“I think you may know that I’ve been getting lots of death threats and lots of really deplorable comments being made on my office phone and things like that, and that’s why people don’t come forward and defend these things.

“But I as the prosecutor said that’s OK, this is a murder victim, she deserves to have this particular case portrayed correctly, and if the filmmakers are going to leave evidence out, if they’re going to portray this in an unfair manner, it’s my responsibility then to stand up and say that.”

A SEQUEL IN THE WORKS?

Though viewers of the show are perplexed as to why Kratz would want to show his face in public again, let alone give interviews and invite further public attention, the most hated lawyer on the planet hinted at the idea of a follow-up series.

“We still get our opportunity; this is not going away any time soon,” he said.

“Whether it’s a book or our own documentary or something from the other side, I want you folks to kind of withhold your final ruling until we get to present all of the evidence that the jury got to see. Then you guys can have me back and then we can talk about it then.”