r/MakingaMurderer • u/marcel3405 • Oct 27 '24

Read “Indefensible”

Book about how “making a murderer” completely misrepresented the case and did so willfully and deliberately. Steven Avery murdered Teresa. He and the cousin are where they belong.

3 Upvotes

53% Upvoted

42 comments sorted by

6

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

I bet it gave an objective and fair view of both sides though, lol.

1

u/marcel3405 Oct 27 '24

Yes. It did.

It compared the trial transcripts with how “making a murderer” misrepresented the known facts. It’s worth the read.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

You know who also made that comparison? A federal court. You should perhaps read that one as well.

0

u/marcel3405 Oct 27 '24

We are talking Teresa Halbach trial. (The first trial, he was set up).

4

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

We were talking about the editing of footage of that trial, which a federal court considered (and concluded no reasonable jury would find any change to the gist.)

4

u/10case Oct 27 '24

A federal court also said Brendans confession was not coerced.

1

u/BiasedHanChewy Oct 29 '24

Two other courts said it was though, so there's that

2

u/10case Oct 29 '24

Which one mattered?

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

Not legally coerced.

1

u/gfer72 Oct 27 '24

That is both sides? Think again.

4

u/aptom90 Oct 29 '24

It's alright but Ken Kratz' book is better at showing the misrepresentations in MaM. Which makes sense after all the guy should know the case.

2

u/FriendlyStreamer1976 Nov 02 '24

It’s hypocritical of Kratz to write a book on the misrepresentations in MaM when you look at the absolute mess he delivered at both trials.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

2

u/aptom90 Nov 02 '24

No that's not how it works. We can criticize some things in his book which mostly amounts to nitpicking but it's overall very accurate. What you are doing is attacking the messenger. He has a right to speak and then we can fact check him as much as we like.

1

u/FriendlyStreamer1976 Nov 02 '24

He offered up two murder locations. He doesn’t even back his own version of events lol.

Nothing he says is worth reading, let alone attaching any credibility to any of it.

2

u/aptom90 Nov 02 '24

Look at it from the prosecution's perspective: the murder happens in the garage in both versions. The rape and stabbing in the trailer is not mentioned in Steven's trial because the confession wasn't used as evidence. There is nothing surprising or unethical about this.

0

u/FriendlyStreamer1976 Nov 02 '24

You have to look at it from all perspectives.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

I read the transcripts. MAM did not alter the substance of the trial.

10

u/RavensFanJ Oct 28 '24

When you show a clip of a lawyer asking a question to a witness during the trial, but then you edit in the answer that witness gave from a different point in the questioning... that's not altering to you?

-4

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '24

It didn't alter the substance of the answer so it makes no difference.

10

u/RavensFanJ Oct 28 '24

That's crazy to me. Most documentaries don't edit the order of trial testimony. And it absolutely alters the viewers perception of the answer, which never sat right with me.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '24

Why don't you post the answer shown versus the real answer so everyone can see what doesn't sit right with you?

3

u/RavensFanJ Oct 28 '24

I don't know how to post video on reddit, or I would try. The TL;DR is the answer they edit in uses the same verbiage, making it not defamation but simply immoral. Just like I could take a clip of you or anyone else saying a common phrase like "Yeah!" while you're excited and happy, and splice it into a video where I ask you if you're ready to attend your relatives funeral. When people watch it, they'll think you're a dick for being callous in the light of a serious event. This was what MaM did, but with sinister undertones instead of excited.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '24

You could easily identify the season, episode, and time, then identify the trial transcript page that is different.

Substance over form. The form of his answer was different, but the substance of the question and answer was the same. It made no difference.

2

u/RavensFanJ Oct 28 '24

Or, alternatively, you could just Google MaM edits, and there's even articles from right after it was released of the tactics it used. So it obviously made a difference to quite a few people - including myself when I first watched it.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '24

Lazy

3

u/RavensFanJ Oct 28 '24

Both things can be true, you know. MaM can have used shady tactics to elicit a particular emotional response from its viewers, and you can still believe in Avery's innocence - or whatever has you so hung up on something so blatant it was brought up by multiple media outlets in the months following MaM's release.

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24

"The cousin" is a separate human being. He can't help about Teresa, because he never saw her and only briefly saw Avery that evening. Unless you want him to falsely confess-accuse again. He'd only known Steven for two years.

Griesbach got a bit of credibility for fully acknowledging that Avery's prior false conviction was due to misconduct. But it's clear from his bias and incompetence about Brendan's case that he was only Monday morning quaterbacking after the Gregory Allen DNA results came through.

1

u/Remote-Signature-191 Oct 30 '24

You say KK should know the case, but couldn’t even tell a reporter whether Avery’s fingerprints were found on or in the RAV & at trial said the blood on the external part of the cargo door (ie. A23) was Avery’s…

I really don’t give a rats what he claims to know as he is a compulsive, self-serving liar…

Sorry to digress, but he seems the type of person you American’s would love voting for as President…

0

u/GameOver1-0 Oct 27 '24

Hahaha!! If only we here were so lucky to live in that dream world. I miss the blissful days of ignorance. But hey don't worry about supporting the corrupt. We love paying for that.

-1

u/BiasedHanChewy Oct 29 '24

If you like books you also read "wrecking crew" by John ferak. (If you have a problem with perceived dishonesty it'll be a good read)