2007 TrialOriginal Investigation

Excerpts From Ken Petersen’s Preliminary Testimony in Avery Trial – Pt 1

Originally posted at Tick Tock Manitowoc on Reddit by MMonroe54

Next to “disingenuous” in the dictionary may be Ken Petersen’s picture. Can anyone determine what he is saying here, when asked about Steven Avery’s exoneration and the evidence that implicated Gregory Allen in the 1985 case?

He begins by saying “possibly” to Dean Strang’s question about Gregory Allan as Penny Beernsten’s sole attacker, and adds that he has doubt……but read for yourself this peculiar little exchange: (I’m surprised Dean Strang’s eyes didn’t roll right out of his head.)

Direct examination of Ken Petersen by Dean Strang:

Q. You participated after the arrest of Mr. Avery, personally, in that prosecution, as a witness in that trial?
A. Yes.
Q. Later, in 2003 to be specific, the claim that Mr. Avery had made in 1985, that he was innocent of those crimes, proved to be true?
A. Possibly.
Q. That is, the State made a motion to release him from prison?
A. Yes.
Q. After some DNA testing was done?
A. Yes.
Q. That motion was made by the State, by the District Attorney of Manitowoc County, after consulting with you?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Avery was released the day, or the day following the State’s motion to release him?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you say possibly, is there any question in your mind that Gregory Allen was identified by DNA evidence as the sole attacker of the woman at issue on the beach in 1985?
A. Yes, I would have doubts.
Q. I’m sorry?
A. I would have doubt.
Q. You have doubts about that?
A. Yes, I believe the DNA created reasonable doubt and enough to release Steve, but I don’t think that single hair was enough to convict Gregory Allen.
Q. Okay. Do you have doubts whether, in fact, Gregory Allen was the person who’s hair was tested?
A. No, I believe it was.
Q. You base your doubts on the reliability of DNA evidence?
A. No.
Q. That is, you accept the DNA evidence and that the Allen’s?
A. Yes.
Q. You have no reason to question or doubt the claims of the victim, the testimony of the victim in that case that one man, and one man only, attacked her in 1985 on the beach?
A. Yes.
Q. You do doubt that?
A. Oh, no. No.

What in the world? What IS Ken Petersen saying? He contradicts himself with every other answer. Why does he appear so protective of Gregory Allen, reluctant to accept his guilt, based on “that single hair”? He SAYS he believes there was reasonable doubt to free SA….he SAYS he believes the pubic hair belonged to Gregory Allen….he also SAYS he doesn’t think it was enough to convict him…..he SAYS he believes the DNA identified Gregory Allen…..he SAYS he believes the victim’s testimony that there was a lone attacker. What the heck? So where does his “doubt” lie?

Strang appeared confused — as well he might be. So should we all be.

More Ken Petersen testimony to come, and his complete black out concerning his own employees’ actions in the Halbach investigation …… coupled with a bridge possibly for sale……

Leave a Reply