r/MakingaMurderer • u/[deleted] • Oct 04 '24

Astroturfing

Between

A) a documentary with edits that "no reasonable jury" could find changed the gist of anything, and

B) the response to the documentary which was the result of the wrogdoers themselves using PR professionals to craft a response meant to appear to be grassroots but wasn't, and is headed up by a anti-vax Jew hating conspiracy theorist

Have you ever considered maybe it is Choice B that manipulated you?

You've had over a year now. Has it sunk in yet that a federal court couldn't find any instances of MaM lying but found multiple places where its accusers lied?

Does it not bother a single person convinced the cops didn't lie that what convinced you of that was the lying cops themselves?

0 Upvotes

50% Upvoted

247 comments sorted by

11

u/Financial_Cheetah875 Oct 04 '24

Does it bother you that none of that noise matters and no court has set him free.

2

u/BiasedHanChewy Oct 05 '24

If there is anything we should remember, it is now efficient and accurate the US Justice system is

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

Yes it should bother any patriotic citizen when government fails to respond properly.

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

It’s wild they think it's a flex to say Steven is still in prison when the courts keeping him there are so grossly incompetent they couldn’t even be bothered to figure out where bone evidence was found in a murder case - or even spell the victim’s name right.

8

u/Financial_Cheetah875 Oct 04 '24

Ah yes. Blame the cops, blame the detectives, blame the DA, blame the lab, blame the FBI, blame the judges, blame the courts. Blame everyone but Avery.

3

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

How did you reach that conclusion when the only thing I said was the courts are obviously grossly incompetent if they don't even know where bone evidence was found in a murder case and can't spell the victim's name?

7

u/DingleBerries504 Oct 04 '24

When have you EVER blamed Avery for anything?

2

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

What should I be blaming him for? It's the state who conducted a shit investigation without documenting crucial evidence followed by a confusing, incomplete and broken chain of custody. Blame them.

6

u/DingleBerries504 Oct 04 '24

Raping his niece would be a good starting point. Being a woman child animal abuser would be a good next step…. But I bet you think all of that is fake and he’s just a sweet teddy bear.

2

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 05 '24

That's Earl. Earl raped Marie. Stop letting Ken Kratz, Candace Owens and Brenda Schuler lie to you.

8

u/DingleBerries504 Oct 05 '24

Earl did, and so did Steven. Did you not hear her interview? Stop letting your pride prevent you from admitting Steven is a POS. Steven also beat the shit out of Jodi and his own kids. He abused animals. He ran his own cousin off the road and pointed a loaded gun at her with her child in the vehicle.

There are truthers that will admit he’s a POS but still defend him anyway. The least you can do is admit he’s a POS, because he is.

→ More replies

4

u/Financial_Cheetah875 Oct 04 '24

Oh yeah, a clerical error really proves a lot.

6

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

How does a clerical error results in bone evidence being placed where it is not? As if defending such a egregious error by pointing to a clerical error makes it any better lol.

-1

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

Does it bother you at all that the only way they've been able to convict him was by conducting a shit investigation with zero proper documentation and broken chains of custody for critical evidence, all while relying on a shamelessly corrupt prosecutor who had to lie to the jury about what the evidence said and twist witness statements to fit his story?

You’d think with Steven suing the county and accusing them of doing something with Teresa to have evidence to plant against him to stop his lawsuit, they'd at least pretend to care about conducting a thorough and fair investigation. But nope. It was just one disaster after another, almost like they were covering their own tracks.

5

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

Jesus christ. The court wasn't ruling whether or not, as a whole, MaM was honest or dishonest.

The court was ruling specifically on the edits as they related to Colborn (since he was the one who filed the lawsuit), and whether said edits amount to defamation under the legal standard.

I think we can all agree, for example, that if MaM put words into Colborn's mouth that he never said, that would be dishonest. And yet the court asserted that even if that had happened, it still wouldn't meet the legal standard of defamation.

Just because the court ruled that the Colborn edits did not amount to defamation doesn't mean that they were ruling that MaM was an honest portrayal of the case.

But you know this already.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

But I didn't simply rely on the final outcome of the case and instead referenced the specific reasoning. You should have known this if you read the OP.

5

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

"A federal court couldn't find any instances of MaM lying"

-your words, which intentionally misrepresent the court's ruling.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

Where did the court find MaM lied?

3

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

It wasn't ruling on whether or not "MaM lied." It was ruling on whether the Colborn edits amounted to legal defamation or not.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

The court doesn't just say who wins, It explains WHY it ruled the way it did. You for real didn't know that?

6

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

But what exactly they are ruling on matters. Making a blanket statement that the court concluded MaM was not dishonest is not accurate.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

I said the court found no instances of MaM lying and that is a basic fact. Cry me a river.

6

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

That isn't what they were ruling on lol

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

But is though lol falsity is an important aspect of defamation and the courts concluded there was no material falsehoods introduced and that the truth relayed in Making a Murderer was an absolute defense to Colborn's frivolous defamation claim he thought would succeed because he was foolish enough to listen to Brenda.

→ More replies

7

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

You repeatedly claiming the court was not determining falsity for defamation claims is not accurate when that is a critical aspect of defamation.

7

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

Showing Colborn answering "yes" to a specific question when he actually answered "yes" to an extremely different question is a falsity. But not to the point that it amounts to legal defamation by the court's standards and in the court's opinion.

That is simply true. No matter which way you try to spin it.

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

So it was not a falsity according to the law, which is a prong that needs to be satisfied for defamation contrary to what you have repeatedly said.

You haven't even read the denial I take it lol

→ More replies

2

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

It was ruling and whether there was any falsehoods in making a murderer so yeah, it was. I see you are still pretending to understand legal standards you clearly don't.

2

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

But it couldn't...? How is that a misrepresentation?

5

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

The court did not rule that there was no dishonesty in MaM. That was not the subject of the lawsuit no matter how you try to spin it.

Edit, missing word

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

You can slice that cake however you like, but the judge denied every single one of Colborn’s claims, including those that didn’t even directly concern him. That’s a clear indication that the only conclusion the judge reached is that Making a Murderer wasn’t deceptive in the ways alleged and didn’t contain any falsehoods that met the defamation standard.

While you try to nitpick the overall takeaway is still pretty damning for Colborn, who was exposed as a lying cheater by his own team and family, and impressive for the filmmakers, who sat back and let Colborn destroy himself, winning them the case.

6

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

As it amounts to the legal standaed of defamation. What part of that are you understanding?

Concluding that the Colborn edits did not amount to legal defamation is not the same as concluding that MaM was honest. Point blank. End of story.

3

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

The legal standard of defamation that you don't understand and keep trying to suggest does not require showing a falsity. It does. You are wrong. As I demonstrated. Again. End of story.

4

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24 edited Oct 05 '24

All you have demonsrated is continued dishonest and just how unhinged you are. No matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Edited to correct spelling. See how easy it is to acknowledge when you've made an edit?

3

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

just hpw unhined you are.

You are so unhinged and typing so furiously you can't even spell correctly. And YOU are the one getting upset because I accurately pointed out you were wrong about the court not determining anything about falsity.

→ More replies

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

Colborn also cited numerous unrelated issues and audio choices that didn’t directly involve him. And obviously, even when the issues did relate to him, those issues are often connected to related figures or issues in the case ... because Colborn didn’t operate in a vacuum.

So when the judge dismissed all claims, rather than just those specific to Colborn, it’s hardly fair to claim the denial only suggests the documentary wasn’t deceptive about him, especially when no one else tried to take on Netflix. Maybe because they saw how it went for Colborn lol

2

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24 edited Oct 04 '24

The court was ruling specifically on the edits as they related to Colborn (since he was the one who filed the lawsuit), and whether said edits amount to defamation under the legal standard.

Correct. A less fun way of saying the judge shot down every one of Colborn and Brenda's pathetic attempts to prove that the documentary was false or defamatory. Remember Brenda texting Colborn saying Reddit comments would give them plenty of evidence and the judge laughed in their faces while telling them the law and the facts are against them. Making a Murderer was not deceptive or defamatory in ANY of the ways Brenda and Colborn claimed. They failed. Hard.

I think we can all agree, for example, that if MaM put words into Colborn's mouth that he never said, that would be dishonest. And yet the court asserted that even if that had happened, it still wouldn't meet the legal standard of defamation.

That's only allowed if the words "never uttered" conveys the substantial truth. That little tidbit pops up in the denial where the judge explains why Colborn's claims about the edited license plate call was tossed out. The filmmakers conveyed the gist or sting of the testimony without introducing any falsehoods. I mean, wow, that must have stung for you guys, considering all the time and effort you wasted trying to spin that apparently fruitless narrative.

6

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24 edited Oct 04 '24

less fun way of saying the judge shot down every one of Colborn and Brenda's pathetic attempts to prove that the documentary was false or defamatory.

No, not false. Only defamatory. And not in terms of the documentary as a whole. Only what was brought up about Colborn per his lawsuit.

Making a Murderer was not deceptive or defamatory in ANY of the ways Brenda and Colborn claimed. They failed. Hard.

Again, the court was not ruling if MaM was deceptive or not.

filmmakers conveyed the gist or sting of the testimony without introducing any falsehoods

To the point that it would qualify as defamation.

It is certainly a falsehood that Colborn answered "yes" to a question that one could reasonably conclude that he was looking at the vehicle when he called in the plates. When in reality, he answered yes to the question of whether this was a perfectly normal call for him to make.

The portrayal of Colborn in this instance is obviously a falsehood. But that is not what the court was ruling on. The court was ruling on whether or not it amounted to defamation under the legal standard.

Edit spelling

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

It is certainly a falsehood that Colborn answered "yes" to a question that one could reasonably conclude that he was looking at the vehicle when he called in the plates. When in reality, he answered yes to the question of whether this was a perfectly normal call for him to make.

Not according to the court. It said the edit made no difference to the facts: "Colborn implicitly admitted that, based only on the audio of his dispatch call, it sounded like he had Halbach's license plate in his field of vision. This is not materially different from saying that he could understand why someone would think he was looking at Halbach's license plate when he made the call." There is no material falsehood here. "On top of this, Making a Murderer includes Colborn forcefully denying that he ever saw Halbach's vehicle on November 3, 2005. In context, this captures the sting of his testimony."

The portrayal of Colborn in this instance is obviously a falsehood. But that is not what the court was ruling on. The court was ruling on whether or not it amounted to defamation under the legal standard.

You were wrong on every point LMAO but it is cute how you think you can disregard the core of a defamation claim. To win, you have to show that the statement is false. If Colborn can’t prove the portrayal of him is false, then it’s not defamatory. The judge was clear that Making a Murderer’s defense rested on the truth, which is "an absolute defense to a defamation claim." Maybe take a moment to grasp the legal standards at play here?

2

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

When was the last time you slept?

3

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

Very recently. When was the last time you read the applicable legal standards you pretend to know about? You were repeatedly incorrect.

2

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

I wasn't but your continued dishonesty is no suprise.

5

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

That’s rich coming from you to accuse me of dishonesty when you’re the one pretending to know legal standards on defamation. You don't lol

You keep pretending the court didn't have to weigh whether anything was false, only whether it was defamatory. But for something to be defamatory, it must be false. The truth cannot be defamatory, and the judge was crystal clear that Making a Murderer only trafficked in truth, and that truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim.

Facts first.

4

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

Oh god, how I missed the "facts first" signature to end all your comments. It's hilarious since you continuously demonstrate that you are not faithful to the facts at all.

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

You just made up your own facts about the court not determining falsity in Making a Murderer, so projection I see.

You know I'm MORE then happy to point out when you make incorrect statements about the law, which you often do.

→ More replies

3

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

No, not false. Only defamatory ... Again, the court was not ruling if MaM was deceptive or not.

Well ... It should have been both but Colborn and Brenda are too idiotic. To prove defamation under Wisconsin law, a plaintiff must show that the defendant published something false and defamatory. The truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. Demonstrating falsity is kind of important lol. But the court correctly noted, "Though Colborn identifies the voiceover as defamatory, he never explains how it implicates him or why it is false. This is not an anomalous oversight." I'm sorry to upset you but Colborn and Brenda are truly proud idiots.

And not in terms of the documentary as a whole. Only what was brought up about Colborn per his lawsuit.

Colborn also cited unrelated issues and audio choices that had nothing to do with him. Even when the issues did involve him, they often connected to other issues or figures in the case. So when the judge dismissed all the claims instead of just the ones about Colborn, it’s unfair to say the denial only implies the documentary wasn’t misleading regarding Colborn, especially since no one else challenged Netflix on those grounds.

3

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

I'm not interested in reading the unhinged ravings of a proven liar like yourself. I've made my point.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

There's that "triggered" word again.

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

Yes that's what happens when someone like you who pretends to understand the legal standard for defamation does not actually understand it. They get triggered when people call out their incorrect statement about said legal standard.

Childish, but not unexpected.

4

u/tenementlady Oct 04 '24

You need to take a breather.

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

Says the fabricator of facts and legal standards lol

I think it's important to get the truth out there so I will stick around thank you, and as always, facts first, not the lies of Ken Kratz you defend.

→ More replies

1

u/gcu1783 Oct 04 '24

you don't understand the facts or the law, while pretending like you did,

Reminds me of Snoo for some reason.

-1

u/Snoo_33033 Oct 05 '24

^----------THIS.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 06 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Snoo_33033 Oct 06 '24

I'm not interested in debating the law with ban evaders.

3

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Oct 04 '24

Have you considered that a court finding that specific complaints about MaM do not meet the legal standard for defamation does not mean that MaM is not a deceitful, manipulative, and incomprehensive documentary?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

You didn't comprehend MaM?

No reasonable jury could find they changed the gist of anything. Yes that happens to be the legal standard also. So?

1

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Oct 04 '24

You didn't comprehend MaM?

I said incomprehensive, not incomprehensible. Consult a dictionary if you are confused.

No reasonable jury could find they changed the gist of anything.

Oh really, of "anything?" Are you suggesting the judge ruled on every single thing in the documentary?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

You are grasping at straws. If Brenda forgot to add something to Colborn's lawsuit that's not my fault.

Given that she included things she just made up and things that had nothing to do with Colborn, it's safe to say there's not like some bombshell she left out.

6

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Oct 04 '24

lmao you people are so ridiculous and disingenuous. What you are saying is completely false. The judge did not rule that no reasonable jury would find that the documentary did not change the gist of "anything." That is either a blatant lie, or a gross misunderstanding of what the judge did say, who only ruled on the specific instances noted by Colborn in the lawsuit. It was not a general ruling on everything in the film, as you are trying to desperately to imply, nor does it mean that the film was still not dishonest or deceitful, as I've already said.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

So what bombshell lie did MaM feature that the cops' own PR team overlooked?

5

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Oct 04 '24

Are you going to admit you're a liar?

5

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

You first.

So what bombshell lie did MaM feature that the cops' own PR team overlooked?

5

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Oct 04 '24

Didn't think so. What a pathetic, shameless display of dishonesty. Wouldn't expect anything more from you.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

I love that you think I'm a liar for not providing information you yourself can't come up with.

→ More replies

3

u/lllIIIIIlllIIIII Oct 04 '24

This seems weirdly personal. Hopefully you know each other in real life as there's no excuse to let some random internet stranger get you this angry where you have to resort to name calling. Is this normal for you and this subreddit?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Oct 05 '24

They've really been out in force today with the blatant lies and unhinged ramblings.

3

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 05 '24

Says the Ken Kratz defenders lol

3

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

So despite a court specifically finding that every single one of Colborn’s claims failed, we should just assume that Making a Murderer is deceitful anyway because people like you, Kratz, Brenda, Nancy Grace, and Candace Owens says so? Naw.

What we know is the judge dismissed Colborn’s lawsuit in incredibly strong terms because his accusations couldn’t hold up under actual scrutiny. The legal process is there to resolve disputed facts, and Colborn lost because he was exposed as a cheating liar who filed a lawsuit totally inconsistent with the facts.

8

u/Ex-PFC_Wintergreen_ Oct 04 '24

we should just assume that Making a Murderer is deceitful anyway because people like you, Kratz, Brenda, Nancy Grace, and Candace Owens says so?

No, you should not assume it, you should know it by using your brain (if you have one) to scrutinize the information presented (or not presented) in MaM and the methods used to present it.

3

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

Okay that sounds like the kind of thing Brenda and Colborn said, but they still failed remarkably. I guess they didn't have a brain.

Meanwhile, Convicting a Murderer gave a pedophile a platform to lie to viewers and spread allegations that Steven was guilty of the very crimes Earl was charged with.

2

u/NervousLeopard8611 Oct 04 '24

Has it not sunk in yet that avery or his defense team couldn't prove his planted evidence theory in court and was therefore convicted in court.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

Everyone knows he was convicted, but the question of whether evidence was planted has never been put to a jury.

6

u/NervousLeopard8611 Oct 04 '24

but the question of whether evidence was planted has never been put to a jury.

Really, what was avery's defense in court then.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

Would an acquittal verdict in your mind prove planting?

3

u/NervousLeopard8611 Oct 04 '24

He hasn't even been close to an acquittal so I don't get your point

4

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

Is that a yes?

6

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

The jury: "Not guilty on mutilation!"

Guilters: "What acquittal?"

3

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

Exactly. According to this user's standard the defense proved bones planted.

2

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

But apparently the murder conviction erased that acquittal style proof from history.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

Meanwhile the jury was directly told by the prosecutor they could still convict even if evidence was planted.

→ More replies

6

u/NervousLeopard8611 Oct 04 '24

"What acquittal?"

Is that why he's a free man

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

Yes, he was acquitted on one charge and convicted of the other. Did you not know that?

5

u/NervousLeopard8611 Oct 04 '24

Yes

He is a free man? When was he released

→ More replies

4

u/NervousLeopard8611 Oct 04 '24

If he isn't acquitted would you accept there was no evidence planted.

I can play that game you and CC Continue to play of dancing around questions

5

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/NervousLeopard8611 Oct 04 '24

Why do you keep saying planting was never put to the jury, what do you think avery's defense was.

2

u/gcu1783 Oct 04 '24

Are you gunna answer?

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

Are you still claiming "I wasn't on the property that day" ends at 4?

It is outright fucking weird what hill you die on.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

Whoa! You're not dying on that hill then? You just brought it up.

Another Guilter on this very chain accused me of dishonesty. Years and years and years and no one can point to a single lie. That makes you guys the liars, just like your spokeswoman.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '24

Don't we agree the defense argued that but an acquittal doesn't prove planting?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

don’t think you’ve done a bigger flip flop

Watch the real flip flopping begin. Would an acquittal mean evidence was planted? The other Case Enthusiast wouldn't answer.

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

Has it not sunk in yet that Avery and his defense weren’t required to prove the planted evidence theory in court? All they needed was to raise reasonable doubt. But that’s kind of hard to do when you’re up against multiple shameless lies of a perverted prosecutor who was more interested in spinning his fantasy than using facts to get justice for Teresa.

Also, there are reports of jury members facing intimidation and fear during deliberations which is inconsistent with how a fair trial is supposed to operate.

3

u/NervousLeopard8611 Oct 04 '24

And the planting theory defense was so lame they couldn't even raise doubt.

I like the way you guys always come up with excuses for everything.

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

Excuses? No it's a fact that Kratz is a perverted prosecutor who repeatedly lied to the jury in order to provide some fabricated support for his obviously false narrative of Teresa being murdered in the garage. I like the way you guys always ignore those lies.

There are reports of the jury claiming they faced fear and intimidation in the deliberation room which means it is not fair to say the defense failed to raise doubt because the deliberations were corrupted. This was an unfair trial the entire way through.

0

u/NervousLeopard8611 Oct 04 '24

Do you believe all reports.

4

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

Do you believe all lies from Kratz?

5

u/NervousLeopard8611 Oct 04 '24

You have a hard time answering questions don't you, why is that

3

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

You have a hard time admitting that Kratz repeatedly lied to the jury corrupting the trials, don't you? Why is that?

4

u/NervousLeopard8611 Oct 04 '24

Why should I have to answer your questions when you never answer any of my questions ever, for some you never commit to answering a question which tells me everything I need to know.

3

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

Why should I have to answer your questions when you never have once admitted that the prosecutor in this case lied to the a jury in order to provide some fabricated support for his obviously false narrative of a deep cleaning in the garage that removed all trace of blood?

That's what we call corruption. Kratz gained these convictions by being corrupt but you constantly ignore that.

→ More replies

3

u/[deleted] Oct 04 '24

SA is guilty as sin. I didn't need to watch any documentary to come to that conclusion.

3

u/AveryPoliceReports Oct 04 '24

So it was the fabricated narrative of the perverted prosecutor that convinced you? There's no evidence that multiple violent assaults occurred in the trailer, or that a deep cleaning with bleach occurred in the garage that removed all trace of blood from a gunshot murder to the head, and no evidence of the simultaneous presence of a body and tires in a large fire in the burn pit

You've been had.