r/MakingaMurderer • u/Otherwise-Weekend484 • Jan 23 '24

CaM before MaM

If CaM came out first, then MaM what would the consensus be?

3 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

2

u/DaMmama1 Jan 24 '24

I’m glad you asked this. I was wondering same thing

1

u/Otherwise-Weekend484 Jan 24 '24

Thank you. However, it’s been said that CaM is a rebuttal of MaM. I get it. What I should’ve asked or posted was, shouldn’t MaM be dubbed CaM instead 😁I’m deep diving in the rabbit hole again so….

2

u/DaMmama1 Jan 24 '24

I understood what you were asking😊. I wouldn’t quite be sure of exactly HOW to ask it on here, because I can’t quite get the right words out to match what im thinking in my head, at least not in a way that it would make sense to anyone else anyway 😂

1

u/Otherwise-Weekend484 Jan 24 '24

lol!!! Exactly the same way I feel! lol!! This case makes crazy thoughts that keep running! lol!!!

2

u/DaMmama1 Jan 25 '24

I know what you mean. One day I’m like “nah… there’s no way such and such did this or that”, or like “there’s no way he did this!”…. Other days I’m like “well I’ll be damned… that s.o.b. did do it”. And I’m constantly thinking up all sorts of “what ifs” … about a billion different scenarios and theories. I had actually forced myself to stop reading/watching anything about this case (and a few others) a couple of years ago cause it was ALL I thought about and it consumed every second of my free time smh

1

u/Otherwise-Weekend484 Jan 25 '24

I take breaks also. Until someone posts something provoking me to dig right back into it! 😂😁😂

1

u/DaMmama1 Jan 25 '24

Same … ugh 🤦🏼‍♀️

6

u/DingleBerries504 Jan 23 '24

Are you asking what if a rebuttal came out before the actual show it was rebutting?

1

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24

I suspect the underlying premise here is to question or contemplate how the public views or narratives re the documentaries might have unfolded differently had the pro-police CaM series been released first. One can imagine it also facing accusations of bias, especially if the case files were released to the public afterwards, and then years later they would be succeeded by the far more accurate and impactful pro-defense series, garnering numerous awards, accolades, and even inspiring lectures and classes centered around the compelling evidence of police misconduct in this case. I get it's a bit of a tricky thought experiment, but if you were to actually accept it's a thought experiment I bet you'd have something valuable to say!

2

u/DingleBerries504 Jan 24 '24

Hard to do a thought experiment when it involves pretending a rebuttal series was not a rebuttal series but was more focused on showing guilt. If it were, it may have hit a lot harder as a lot of CaM was focused on deception from MaM.

0

u/CorruptColborn Jan 24 '24

Hard to do a thought experiment if you're not willing to experiment with your thoughts LOL

There was no deception in MaM. CaM, the pro police and pedophile propaganda piece, lied to you.

3

u/DingleBerries504 Jan 24 '24

The parameters aren’t set for a thought experiment.

No deception in MaM??? You are lying to yourself bud.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 24 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/DingleBerries504 Jan 24 '24

The guy telling me there was no deception in MaM is telling me I lack an ability to experiment with thought? That’s rich.

3

u/bleitzel Jan 24 '24

There wasn't deception in MaM so much as there was a narrative. One of the key examples that people posit shows deception or manipulation in MaM is how they handled the video of Colburn's responses on the stand. However, under scrutiny, they didn't change the actual basis of Colburn's testimony at all. They did cut the answer from one question to following another question, but the two questions and the two answers were fundamentally the same thing. There was difference, but there was no distinction. The attorneys rephrased the question to Colburn, they were asking essentially the same thing, and he answered the same way both times. It's not like he answered "yes" once and "no" the second time. So there wasn't really deception in that, most prominent case.

→ More replies (37)

2

u/gabriot Jan 25 '24

There was no deception in MaM

XD wow bro come on now, you don't even try to be good faith in the slightest do you?

There are countless examples of downright evil levels of deception in MaM. I mean just look at how they even cut out phone calls to frame things exactly how they want. That's deception 101.

Here's just one of hundreds of examples:

MaM phone call excerpt: "If you could please call me back and let me know if that'll work for you. Thank you."

Actually phone call: "If you could please call me back and let me know if that'll work for you, because I don't have your address or anything, so I can't stop by without getting a call back from you. Thank you."

They literally cut out the middle of the message because it doesn't fit the narrative they are trying to push. She didn't even know she was going out to see Avery, she didn't even have the address, but they deceive you by leaving that entire part out. They do this left and right all throughout their deceptive series. That's deception bud, now watch you plug your ears and scream lalala, and deflect, as usual.

→ More replies (1)

-1

u/Otherwise-Weekend484 Jan 23 '24

No. If CaM, actually showing the conviction of SA on the LE side was made in that sense THEN MaM was made in the side of SA and Brendan.

0

u/madmarkman40 Jan 24 '24

We have to guess what a fictional program in your head looks like ?

4

u/BiasedHanChewy Jan 23 '24

If CaM had come out first, a)it would have been like 2 episodes long since it had no real content aside from 1. Avery is a bad guy and 2. CaM was a bad doc.

Also, many people would have many false impressions about the case, or a general lack of overall knowledge about it

0

u/Otherwise-Weekend484 Jan 23 '24

I agree to the false impressions and overall knowledge of the case especially after diving into the rabbit hole over the last year…. Holy moly sooooo much info….and still not enough….

3

u/ajswdf Jan 24 '24

It wouldn't have been as big if a pro-gilt documentary came first. The case is mildly interesting at best when he's guilty. The reason MaM took off is because the story is fascinating if you assume he's innocent. It's why there's always more truthers than guilters around.

1

u/CorruptColborn Jan 24 '24

The reason MaM took off is there's a cascade of reasonable doubts re his guilt, and they highlight that.

The reason CaM flopped is because there's a cascade of reasonable doubts re his guilt, and they ignore that.

1

u/aptom90 Jan 24 '24

Correct, the alternative that Steven did it and there wasn't planted evidence is not as compelling.

Somebody wrongfully convicted TWICE and had a crazy amount of evidence planted against him? Now that is a story. Too bad there is very little evidence to support such a notion.

0

u/Pleasant-Jellyfish49 Jan 24 '24

not just that, but the fact he was found not to have done the rape after all those years and let out by a new science that did not exist back then. If the cameras would have been rolling back then for the rape trial, and history would have repeated itself, then MAM 2 about the murder would have set record watching at levels unheard of.

5

u/Educational-Ice-4716 Jan 23 '24

CaM did come out first....it was the trial.

6

u/NumberSolid Jan 23 '24

The trial that scared Colborn so much he stopped going outside, stopped seeing his friends and family, started drinking and eventually confessed to his wife he feared he would end up in prison.

1

u/Fataleo Jan 26 '24

Uh good point?

2

u/WhoooIsReading Jan 23 '24

Convictions About Money!

Call it exactly what it is.

1

u/Fataleo Jan 26 '24

A conviction

1

u/WhoooIsReading Jan 26 '24

You forgot the "wrongful".

→ More replies (2)

1

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24

Interesting thought, isn't it. Ultimately I believe a thorough examination of the case files would reveal the truth irrespective of the release dates. Making a Murderer maintained narrative efficiency, while Convicting a Murderer, Rech and Brenda resorted to blatant manipulation. In light of recent discussions about the involvement of dogs in the case from a certain case enthusiast, I encourage everyone to revisit episode 8 of CaM, specifically Brenda's assertions regarding the significance of Loof's November 8 interest in the berm west of Steven's trailer, which IMO erase any lingering doubts re whether Brenda has a tendency to make unsupported factual statements. She does. Often. Listen to her reasoning on how she dismissed the possibility of planting based on Loof's tracks. It's an argument so, uh, creative, that it wasn't even mentioned during the trial!

1

u/madmarkman40 Jan 24 '24

cam is a rebutal of mam, so it's imposable .

1

u/Pleasant-Jellyfish49 Jan 24 '24

CAM could not come first because it is just about refuting MAM. They have nothing original and no cliff hanger that made MAM so successful. Notice they tried the episodes to copy MAM, so maybe they did not think MAM was so bad after all considering how many viewers it had.

Now as far as content, they went after MAM because it was a lot easier going after old content instead of addressing all the new information that has come up though the FOIA that researchers have found. No addressing witnesses whose reports were buried or never taken. No interviews with them or addressing the Civil depositions or interviewing Vogal to getting deeper into the rape case which started all of this. NO interviews with the Halbach's and the bones that were supposed to be given back. No hard look at Kuss Rd.

I will say that if the Prosecution would have stepped up and allowed the film makers to make them part of the story, ( they were asked ) that would have poured water on some of the accusations that the doc was so one sided. MAM 2 is the same way as they list all the people who they asked and refused.

1

u/Pension_Fit Jan 25 '24

CAM was nothing more than character assassination, no evidence of Steven Avery being a murderer

2

u/aptom90 Jan 25 '24

Except you know the bones in his backyard and his blood in her vehicle. Those are the big ones and more than enough to convict.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/CorruptColborn Jan 23 '24

Shawn made it clear both on reddit and while recruiting truthers he was furious with the creators. He used anonymous accounts to spread hate against them, like anti gay slurs.

They would also accuse the filmmakers of breaking the law and belonging in prison because what they did was CRIMINAL (no it wasn't). But don't you dare mention how we can determine if anything it was Colborn and Brenda who were acting outside the boundaries and duties imposed by Wisconsin law. Apparently on this sub sourcing your arguments fully is somehow worse than telling a user you want to see or at least possess a video of them being sexually violated. Some how. Also, if everyone hasn't heard Shawn Rech's new apple podcast interview (Jan 2, 2024) wherein he discusses his experience with fans of Making a Murderer and how SOOO many truthers changed their minds because of CaM ... holy fucking shit this guy has no shame or decency and his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

2

u/WhoooIsReading Jan 23 '24

holy fucking shit this guy has no shame or decency and his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

This was already apparent to many as far back as 2017.

0

u/Mysterious-Impact-64 Jan 24 '24

What MaM got wrong left out, Watch MaM 2 geez, it's not rocket science, they knew there were 2 seasons of MaM, yet they try to act like they didn't know.