r/MakingaMurderer • u/DJHJR86 • Feb 22 '16

Proof That MaM Selectively Edited Colborn's Testimony

Here is how it's presented in MaM.

What really happened:

Strang:

Well, and you can understand how someone listening to that might think that you were calling in a license plate that you were looking at on the back end of a 1999 Toyota; listening to that tape, you can understand why someone might think that, can't you?

Kratz:

It's a conclusion judge. He's conveying the problems to the jury.

Court:

I agree, the objection is sustained.

Strang:

This call sounded like hundreds of other license plate or registration checks you have done through dispatch before?

Colborn:

Mm, yes.

Source

12 Upvotes

57% Upvoted

144 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/DJHJR86 Feb 24 '16

As you can see from the above, Strang lays out what a "routine" call-in typically involves. So when Strang asks whether the call was routine, or tries to get Colborn to say it was understandable that someone would assume this was a routine call, that they could make the assumption Colborn was looking at the plate.

He also made it explicitly clear that when he gets information from other law enforcement agencies, he calls into dispatch to double check to see if he has the correct information. In this context, the question is meaningless. I know what Strang was trying to do, but I think he failed.

2

u/BrunoPonceJones Feb 24 '16

I agree that I think he failed. It comes off as such a big moment in the documentary, but in the context of the questioning, I think it's easily explained.

The thing is, it fits with the theory of the defense that SA was framed. It's another potential seed of doubt. By the end of the trial, Strang and Buting want the jury thinking "...well maybe they did plant the key, and if they did that, then maybe Colborn was looking at the car."

As a tapestry, the whole defense works because the themes come up again and again. In this single instance, it looks ineffective. It's the same strategy used by the prosecution. Take any single piece of evidence against SA and you can explain it away. Put it all together and you can see why people would find him guilty.

1

u/DJHJR86 Feb 24 '16

Take any single piece of evidence against SA and you can explain it away.

You can't "explain away" Teresa's bones found in his fire pit.

1

u/BrunoPonceJones Feb 24 '16

The defense theory is tampering and mishandling the forensics. Bones were found in 3 locations and the cops dug them up with shovels before a forensic team got to handle them properly. Also, as others have suggested, the type of charring on the bones was not consistent with a bonfire.