He is presenting facts as proof that don't prove anything, such as the *67 calls. Who cares about the *67 calls? There are perfectly reasonable, non shady reasons given for those calls. Why are they proof of murder especially in light of Steven's openness and cooperation for the events surrounding the appointment? She had an appointment to go over to the salvage yard, she was late, the appointment had been made in Barb's name because the car being sold was Barb's. Barb wasn't home and Steven took the appointment, something they had done several times before. Nothing shady about that nor is there any thing shady about asking for her in particular either, I frequently request people I have worked with before because I am more comfortable with someone I have already met. Steven was very open about making the appointment, when she came and when she left. So those calls mean nothing and as as facts are not proof of guilt. With that, it is irresponsible for Kratz to continue to portray them that way. The claim about her fearing Avery and the rumor about him coming to the door in a towel had been thrown out by the judge already as hearsay, so why would he try to continue to present this as a fact and proof of guilt? Because he is unethical.

If you think Steven murdered her because he is generally an unlikable person, as demonstrated by the fight with his cousin (the deputies wife who had been baiting him because they were feuding) and the cat incident, that by all means, believe it. But the facts that Kratz is presenting as proof of guilt are not proof of anything, so being left out of the documentary does not imply anything or carry any meaning at all. Kratz is doing his best to salvage his reputation and he hopes you believe his statements - and enough publications picked up his story and repeated verbatim that there is something to be said about the saying "if you said it often enough and loud enough, it will become true".

I gave you several links to support the fact that those claims are unfounded and misrepresentative, and all those links go to several credible publications that support the belief that that "damning evidence" left out of the documentary is nothing but more of the same poor behavior the DA demonstrated when he gave a very public, irresponsible and wild description of a murder prior to a trial where he stating that planting evidence by law enforcement does not matter.