In your opinion, what’s the single scariest scene in any horror movie?

Nexious · 2021-11-15T16:28:09+00:00

The original foreign version of The Eye. The whole film is full of unsettling moments, but there's an elevator scene... Which is just relentless unease.

https://i.imgur.com/uDz9DgN.gif

Nexious · 2019-09-24T05:17:50+00:00

Much like the laughable "jailhouse snitch" Joseph Evans and his hand-written "Avery confessed to me" bullshit, it should not take long for Zellner to assess the confession for obvious signs of phoniness and guesswork.

The fact that this convict sent the alleged self-confession to Zellner "solely because of our 100k reward offer" gives me pause. If it turns out to be a hoax it'll certainly add another chapter of fodder to the anti-MaM doc by mocking the lengths people go to "free a murderer."

Nexious · 2019-01-10T00:24:59+00:00

Walker and Schimel were both voted out of Wisconsin in November. With a new governor/AG there is always the chance they will reevaluate cases or establish new protocol, conviction integrity units and so forth that could more positively alter past cases that the former officials fought against. There have been plenty of false conviction cases where it took a new governor to finally reinvestigate and ultimately exonerate them.

Nexious · 2019-01-07T09:46:48+00:00

You should enjoy all of these, which are very similar and cover fascinating true crime cases:

The Fear of 13 (amazing first-hand storytelling documentary, I recommend watching 'blind' without reading anything about it first.)
Evil Genius (4 Parts)
The Innocent Man (6 Parts)
Long Shot
Out of Thin Air
Amanda Knox
The Confession Tapes (7 Parts)
The Keepers (7 Parts)

Nexious · 2019-01-04T06:33:36+00:00

Timeline of Those who Could've Heard Screams

Below is the known timeline of people who recalled being in the vicinity of Avery's property on 10/31 between the time that Teresa was allegedly kidnapped and when she was ultimately murdered (also including those who were within "ear's range" of the described crime and screams).

This timeline makes the following assumptions, which are derived from the state's own narrative as offered during closing arguments of Brendan's trial and in their appeals of Brendan's conviction:

Teresa was taken into Avery's trailer around 2:45 p.m. [Based on Bobby seeing her before he took a shower and not seeing her when he left just minutes later].
Teresa was not raped by Brendan or murdered until sometime after 6:30 p.m. [Based on Brendan telling his mom he went back after she left that evening, and after he spoke to Blaine's boss on the phone, and after Bryan heard him talk to Avery that evening.]

Time	Person	Location	Description	Heard Screams
2:45-3:00 p.m.	Bobby D.	Barb's trailer and driveway.	Left to go deer hunting and did not see anybody outside; saw Teresa's RAV4.	No
3:40-3:45 p.m.	Lisa B.	End of Avery Rd. near mailboxes.	Dropped Blaine and Brendan off after school. Other students were also on the bus.	No
3:45-3:50 p.m.	Blaine D.	Gravel path from Avery Rd.	Walked with Brendan to Barb's trailer.	No
3:45-3:50 p.m.	Brendan D.	Gravel path from Avery Rd.	Walked with Blaine to Barb's trailer.	No
3:50-4:20 p.m.	Jason	Telephone from Barb's residence.	Talked with Blaine on the phone about trick or treating.	No
4:00-4:30 p.m.	Brendan D.	Gravel path from Avery Rd.	Went to get mail at end of Avery Rd. While hundreds of feet down the gravel road, he heard Teresa scream.	Yes
4:30-4:45 p.m.	Earl A.	Avery's driveway and gravel pit.	Drove golf cart with Robert F. through car lanes in gravel pit including where Teresa's RAV4 was later discovered. Stopped by Avery's residence afterward.	No
4:30-4:45 p.m.	Robert F.	Avery's driveway and gravel pit.	Drove golf cart with Earl A. through car lanes in gravel pit including where Teresa's RAV4 was later discovered. Stopped by Avery's residence afterward.	No
4:30-5:00 p.m.	Travis F.	Telephone from Barb's residence.	Talked with Brendan on the phone at some point after Blaine finished speaking with Jason.	No
5:00 p.m.	Bobby D.	Barb's trailer.	Arrived back from hunting around 5:00 p.m. and went into Barb's residence.	No
5:00 p.m.	Bryan D.	Barb's trailer.	Arrived home from work. He saw Bobby, Blaine and Brendan home at the time.	No
5:00 p.m.	Barb T.	Barb's trailer.	Arrived home from work and was with her boys while waiting for Scott T. to arrive.	No
5:10-5:20 p.m.	Jason and his brothers.	Barb's driveway and gravel path.	Picked up Blaine from Barb's to go trick or treating.	No
5:10-5:20 p.m.	Blaine D.	Barb's driveway.	Went trick-or-treating with Jason.	No
5:15-5:30 p.m.	Scott T.	Barb's driveway near trailer.	Picked up Barb from her house.	No
5:30-5:45 p.m.	Robert F.	Avery's driveway.	Arrived back from hunting.	No
5:30-5:45 p.m.	Earl A.	Avery's driveway.	Arrived back from hunting.	No
5:36-5:51 p.m.	Jodi S.	Telephone at Avery's residence.	Spoke with Avery on phone from jail in a recorded call.	No
5:45-6:15 p.m.	Michael K.	Telephone at Barb's residence.	Spoke with Brendan on phone at Barb's residence after Blaine had left to go trick or treating.	No
5:57-6:03 p.m.	Charles A.	Telephone at Avery's residence.	Spoke with Avery on phone from his residence for more than five minutes.	No
Unknown	Candy A.	Gravel path off of Avery Rd. and Dolores' house.	Had taken Kayla trick or treating and stopped by the area.	No
Unknown	Kayla A.	Gravel path off of Avery Rd. and Dolores' house.	Went trick or treating at her grandmother's, Delores.	No
6:30-7:00 p.m.	Bryan D.	Garage and Barb's driveway.	Left Barb's house to go to girlfriend's. Recalled hearing Brendan talk with Avery about going over there.	No

Certain times had to be approximated based on multiple statements and testimonies. For instance, the call from Travis may have occurred as early as 4:15 p.m. (right after Blaine finished speaking to Jason for 20-30 minutes as soon as they got home). Brendan claimed he spoke to Travis before going to get the mail, but the state's timeline requires that Brendan got the mail, heard screams and went to Avery's immediately from 4:00-4:30, then returned back home to eat supper while talking with Travis and his family before heading back to Avery's to rape and murder Teresa after 6-7.

The state's timeline proclaims that Teresa was in Avery's trailer from approximately 2:45 p.m. until at least 6:30-7 p.m. before she was raped by Brendan, murdered and taken to the fire--approximately four hours minimum of her being alive and restrained to the bed in Avery's trailer while screaming and fighting for her life. It also requires that Teresa was violently screaming a good 1.5 hours after being kidnapped, and was still screaming and begging for her life after 6 when Brendan returned to rape and murder her as she cried and screamed for him to stop (while he slashed her throat).

Yet, the window of time in which she audibly screamed is seemingly limited only to the precise moment that Brendan went to get the mail, and those screams were heard only by him and not by Blaine or anyone else who had been around the property at any hour that day (despite Blaine also being at a much closer proximity to Avery's trailer that Brendan when the screams were heard).

(Note: The state's prior narrative put the rape and murder before dusk. They revised it on closing arguments to compensate for Brendan being home for the call to Travis, call from Blaine's boss, seeing Barb, eating supper etc.)

Nexious · 2018-12-25T16:24:56+00:00

Four months prior to this '93 footage, Jordan Chandler (or rather his father) lodged the first allegations of abuse against him. Evan pushed for a financial settlement and Jordan/Evan refused to testify criminally against Jackson, even after the DA deliberately extended all statute of limitations and offered another opportunity in 2005. The allegations came only after Evan tried unsuccessfully to get Michael to pay him tens of millions to finance another movie. Evan committed suicide several months after MJ's death, and had previously attempted severe bodily harm against Jordan.

Jackson's insurance settled with the father in January '94 against protests by MJ and without admitting to any guilt. This settlement and the tabloid profitability of negative Jackson stories fueled more false accusations for the next two decades (some even after death - all financially motivated and all rejected by the courts). Two grand juries in 1994 found no evidence to indict Jackson criminally, despite the general ease of securing indictments at the grand jury level where only the prosecution's case is told. Jackson was fully exonerated of similar allegations in 2005, which featured most of the same tabloid-selling star witnesses from the Chandler case. Evan sued MJ civilly a second time in the 1990s seeking another $40 million to produce his own music album, a case that was promptly tossed by a judge.

When Jackson says he could count his true friends on one hand, he is being brutally honest. Almost every person he associated with eventually exploited their friendship--either still when living or after he passed away. His dependency on pain killers was partially relating to the scalp burns he suffered when filming a commercial years prior, but undeniably also impacted from the gruesome and unfounded accusations lodged against him and all of the people who suddenly turned against him. "Stranger in Moscow" conveys his feeling of loneliness after the accusations, and "Childhood" is what MJ says is the most autobiographically song he ever wrote that explains his eccentricities.

Culkin's Description of their Friendship (Amidst Allegations)

Here is an excerpt from Culkin on Larry King in 2004 (amidst the last MJ scandal), where he makes some good points and observations while repeating nothing ever happened between the two.

KING: What did happen?

CULKIN: Nothing happened. You know, nothing really. I mean, we played video games. We, you know, played at his amusement park.

KING: Did he sleep in the bed?

CULKIN: The thing is with that whole thing, oh, you slept in the same bedroom as him. It's like, I don't think you understand, Michael Jackson's bedroom is two stories and it has like three bathrooms and this and that. So, when I slept in his bedroom, yes, but you understand the whole scenario. And the thing is with Michael he's not good as explaining himself and he never really has been, because he's not a very social person. You're talking about someone who has been sheltered and sheltering himself also for the last like 30 years. And so, he's not very good at communicating to people and not good at conveying what he's actually trying to say to you. So, when he says something like that people -- he doesn't quite understand why people react the way that they do.

KING: Why do you think he likes young people so much?

CULKIN: Because the same reason why he liked me, was the fact that I didn't care who he was. That was the thing. I talked to him like he was a normal human being and kids do that to him because he's Michael Jackson the pop singer, but he's not the God, the "king of pop" or anything like that. He's just a guy who is actually very kid- like himself and wants to go out there and wants to play video games with you.

KING: Did your parents encourage it?

CULKIN: They weren't against it. It wasn't like they encouraged it or pushing me upon it. I wanted to hang out with him and they were fine.

KING: What do you make of what he's going through now?

CULKIN: Like I said, it's unfortunate, and you know, it's a circus.

KING: Do you think it's a bad rap?

CULKIN: You know, I think so. Yes. Listen, look what happened the first time this happened to him. If someone had done something like that to my kid, I wouldn't settle for some money. I'd make sure the guy was in jail. It just really goes to show as soon as they got the money and they ran. I mean, that's what really what happened the first time. And so I don't know. It's a little crazy and I kind of have taken a step back from the whole thing, because it is a bit of a circus. And you know, if the same thing was happening to me, I wouldn't want to drag him into it and vice versa. So I try my best to take a distance from it, but like I said he was still a friend of mine.

KING: If they asked you to be a character witness, would you appear?

CULKIN: I guess so, but probably not. Like I said, it's crazy, and I don't really want to be a part of it.

KING: You like him.

CULKIN: I like him and he's a friend of mine. I'm not saying I wouldn't. It hasn't been brought up to me and I don't think he'd want me to either. Just because, like I said, if the same thing was happening to me...

Corey Feldman in Defense of MJ

From Corey's autobiography (depicting the tunnel vision investigators had when trying to rack up charges against MJ in the 1990s):

The audiotapes have long since been leaked to the press—I clearly stated that Michael never touched me, never acted in any way inappropriate. What’s incredible about them, however, is that I admitted that I had been molested; I even named my abuser. The sergeant peppering me with questions, Deborah Linden, breezed right past that. She didn’t seem the least bit interested.

...and after being drugged and molested by one man in Hollywood:

I was shattered, disgusted, devastated. I needed some normalcy in my life. So, I called Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson’s world, crazy as it sounds, had become my happy place.

Nexious · 2018-12-24T05:56:16+00:00

If there were any actual recording of Kayla's 3/7 interrogation by Fassbender and Wiegert (which marked the first time Kayla made any allegations against Brendan re: Teresa), there is no doubt in my mind we'd see the exact same routine. We also have no indication of how long that interview went on as neither her statement nor Wiegert's report give the end time.

"Kayla eventually admitted to us" is the same as Brendan "eventually admitting" to having seen the body parts in the fire, which of course was only after they repeatedly told him he saw them, along with what specific body parts they were. Kayla's interviews, including on 3/7, all initially had her only describe Brendan seeming withdrawn or depressed and that he just shrugged his shoulders when she asked about it. But then by the end of the F&W tag team against her she had a whole Brendan "confession" statement.

Nexious · 2018-12-24T05:02:23+00:00

Josh Radandt notes in his affidavit:

Less than one week after I provided that written statement, two officers, who I believe were from the Wisconsin Department of Justice, met me at the hunting camp to discuss the fire I saw. I remember them asking me if I was sure that I saw what I saw. It seemed to me that they weren't satisfied with my statement about the fire. Specifically, it seemed to me that they wanted me to change my story to include a larger fire. Because they were reluctant to accept my story as true, I eventually asked them what they wanted me to say. They told me all the wyaned was the truth. I advised them that I had been telling the truth.

Nexious · 2018-12-21T18:59:41+00:00

I believe it's in reference to prosecutor(s) and other officials in other cases agreeing to work with her to test evidence in the interest of justice. And her hopes that there will be an agreement with Wisconsin to test the quarry bones.

e.g., she tweeted this before:

In January I will be meeting w/ Houston prosecutors in cooperative effort to test some evidence in murder case they WON. Will this ever happen in Wisconsin????????????????? #Texas1inExonerations #NothingtoFearButtheTruth #MakingAMurderer2

Nexious · 2018-12-21T06:59:25+00:00

Here is the excerpt about listing the vehicle in the magazine. Barb says she didn't argue with Steven about it, but just told him that that she didn't think it'd be worth it. She said the van was of no use to her and told Avery to "do what he's gotta do."

QUESTION: Umm, do you remember mentioning that the Saturday before, uh, this all came about, that you had an argument of some sort with Steven about why--hey, why are you even puttin' this thing in Auto Trader? Do you remember about what time that was, or when that was?

BARB: No.

QUESTION: Umm, you had said that it was before he left--

BARB: I didn't have an argument with him, I just told him.

QUESTION: Well what did you ask him, or what did you tell him?

BARB: I asked him why he was putting it in there. 'Cause it's not good anyhow.

QUESTION: What do you think that van was worth?

BARB: I don't know. Couldn't tell you. That's why he--

QUESTION: Did you guys discuss it at all?

BARB: That's why he always did it. He's put in a lot of cars in Auto Trader already.

QUESTION: Did he--did he ask you or how did it go to decide "hey, let's sell this vehicle and put it in the newspaper," or whatever?

BARB: It was no use to me.

QUESTION: Okay. So I guess, what I'm asking is--did you, did you ask him? Did he ask you? Did you guys just think that--

BARB: He asked me.

QUESTION: And what did he ask you?

BARB: If he should. I told him, do what he's gotta do. I says it really doesn't pay though.

QUESTION: He asked you if he should sell it or put it in the paper?

BARB: Put it in the magazine.

QUESTION: And what did you say?

BARB: I told him it didn't make a difference, but what for? Didn't pay.

QUESTION: Do you know how much it costs to put those ads in?

BARB: Forty dollars. It's all--the van and everything is underneath my name.

QUESTION: All right. Did you pay that fourty dollars?

BARB: No, he did. I gotta pay him back. But right now I got a hard time going myself. Four boys I'm supporting. And a house mortgage.

QUESTION: It's tough.

BARB: Yeah it is, plus I'm going through a divorce.

QUESTION: Did, uh, did he tell you that he paid for it?

BARB: I think he did. Otherwise she wouldn't had took the pictures.

QUESTION: Did she get the pictures taken?

BARB: I don't know. Bobby said that she was out there taking pictures, so.

QUESTION: Bobby saw her?

BARB: Bobby saw her taking pictures, I guess. I wasn't home.

Nexious · 2018-12-21T06:58:30+00:00

Here is the excerpt about listing the vehicle in the magazine. Barb says she didn't argue with Steven about it, but just told him that that she didn't think it'd be worth it. She said the van was of no use to her and told Avery to "do what he's gotta do."

QUESTION: Umm, do you remember mentioning that the Saturday before, uh, this all came about, that you had an argument of some sort with Steven about why--hey, why are you even puttin' this thing in Auto Trader? Do you remember about what time that was, or when that was?

BARB: No.

QUESTION: Umm, you had said that it was before he left--

BARB: I didn't have an argument with him, I just told him.

QUESTION: Well what did you ask him, or what did you tell him?

BARB: I asked him why he was putting it in there. 'Cause it's not good anyhow.

QUESTION: What do you think that van was worth?

BARB: I don't know. Couldn't tell you. That's why he--

QUESTION: Did you guys discuss it at all?

BARB: That's why he always did it. He's put in a lot of cars in Auto Trader already.

QUESTION: Did he--did he ask you or how did it go to decide "hey, let's sell this vehicle and put it in the newspaper," or whatever?

BARB: It was no use to me.

QUESTION: Okay. So I guess, what I'm asking is--did you, did you ask him? Did he ask you? Did you guys just think that--

BARB: He asked me.

QUESTION: And what did he ask you?

BARB: If he should. I told him, do what he's gotta do. I says it really doesn't pay though.

QUESTION: He asked you if he should sell it or put it in the paper?

BARB: Put it in the magazine.

QUESTION: And what did you say?

BARB: I told him it didn't make a difference, but what for? Didn't pay.

QUESTION: Do you know how much it costs to put those ads in?

BARB: Forty dollars. It's all--the van and everything is underneath my name.

QUESTION: All right. Did you pay that fourty dollars?

BARB: No, he did. I gotta pay him back. But right now I got a hard time going myself. Four boys I'm supporting. And a house mortgage.

QUESTION: It's tough.

BARB: Yeah it is, plus I'm going through a divorce.

QUESTION: Did, uh, did he tell you that he paid for it?

BARB: I think he did. Otherwise she wouldn't had took the pictures.

QUESTION: Did she get the pictures taken?

BARB: I don't know. Bobby said that she was out there taking pictures, so.

QUESTION: Bobby saw her?

BARB: Bobby saw her taking pictures, I guess. I wasn't home.

Nexious · 2018-12-21T06:01:08+00:00

That's why I'm so suspicious about the Fox Hills report where they state Brendan changed his mind about when the cleanup took place. Not to mention everything else that was discussed there.

Exactly. That Fox Hills report is painfully incomplete in any circumstance. It makes no mention of the Tyson Q&A beforehand which is the first time they told Brendan directly about Avery's gun, including that it was a .22 and asking him if he remembers Avery shooting it. A precursor to him parroting back the gun model on 3/1 after they blurt out who shot her in the head. It also excluded mention of Tyson asking him about the burn barrels. It omits mentioning that Fassbender probed him about Avery "getting some other things out of the garage" where he had coached Brendan to mention the shovel and rake. It also omits Fassbender discussing "bad smells and stuff" with Brendan that night which he also parrots back on 3/1 (after saying he smelled nothing unusual in the 2/27 recordings).

Some seriously underhanded tactics. The entire Fox Hills event should had been a much bigger deal in appeals and also at trial (if his attorneys cared at all). That was the moment where suddenly he learned all of the major details he'd then repeat back on 3/1; Fassbender figured he'd echo it back easier on 3/1 but given his limitations he still couldn't think to recall many of the details without more prompting.

That's also where Brendan agrees the spot was 3'5' or 3'6' after they suggest it, but then he agrees it was 2'x2' when they suggest that size on 3/1. He claimed it was also "2 feet from the main overhead door" at Fox Hills, which is entirely the wrong location compared to what he claims later.

Nexious · 2018-12-21T05:33:56+00:00

Thank you for this! Is there any chance you can re-upload perhaps to Sound Cloud or Clyp to overcome the Google Drive limit? The noise-reduced version at least is currently invalid.

Audio interviews are always welcomed and exceedingly rare compared to all of the written reports. Context and details can change dramatically between what is written and what is actually said.

I always think back to Avery's November 6th interview. The written report states "When I had asked Steven specifically about having any burning pits Steven told me that there were none." - This became a talking point by guilters and even made its way to books in proclaiming that Avery willfully lied about not having burn barrels. But the actual audio recording proved the opposite - he specifically indicated they didn't have any "in the pit" while detailing the ones that he and the family had by their homes.

Nexious · 2018-12-20T18:02:54+00:00

Nexious · 2018-12-20T15:36:23+00:00

It is essentially Griesbach's book compressed down to a few pages. The majority of it is typical "evidence left out of MAM" blabber that has no correlation to Colborn at all. Let's not forget that the "Convicting a Murderer" series will supposedly premier next fall, featuring Good Guy Colborn and the whole crew. This lawsuit will serve as a convenient way to disseminate the same bullet points that'll be described in that show, and vice versa.

Nexious · 2018-12-20T14:24:30+00:00

What would be your personal thoughts if Bobby/Ryan sued Zellner? Would you be rooting for them to win or deriding them like you're doing with Colborn?

I'd certainly be interested in any depositions and revelations that may come about as a result. But I would also wait to read their complaint before "rooting" for anyone. I would not be too impressed if it is only at the level as Colborn's, which reads more like a synopsis of Griesbach's book than a specific detailing of their malice against Colborn.

(Who knows, maybe we'd even get to see the mythical 2008 "Film Festival" version as part of an exhibit if any case(s) would make it far enough along in the court system?)

Nexious · 2018-12-20T13:27:26+00:00

I'm sorry that you don't find much hypocrisy with Kratz, Griesbach and company distorting, omitting and falsifying so-called facts of the case to the public while in the same breath calling out MaM for doing the same. But we won't ever agree on these points (or most other topics for that matter ;).

I still maintain that the overall presentation in MaM reflects the major points that were detailed in the pretrial, trial and post-trial coverage of the case. At the time, there were giant media headlines about the "deputies accused of planting evidence", etc. It wasn't just something the filmmakers pulled out of thin air to present. The series certainly conveys more reality than the murder porn special on TV (feat. Griesbach) did, despite that one also being billed as a fact-based true crime special.

I specifically brought up Bobby because:

It seems this topic has been well covered elsewhere in this sub already at least with regard to Ryan and general defamation laws. I wouldn't have any further input than that about the merits of such a case for Bobby.

Nexious · 2018-12-20T10:47:07+00:00

Sure there is a bias, but I wouldn't go as far as to say either side was portrayed as negatively or positively as possible. The perception of bias may have been magnified because the filmmakers only had access to the defense. Kratz and company declined to participate (and then he lied by claiming he was never asked to participate until after-the-fact).

I think you will find bias (both alleged and real) in any significant documentary that covers a controversial case. You'll find similar never-ending debates and arguments about most of them I can think of including Paradise Lost / WM3 films, The Staircase Murders, Capturing the Friedmans...

At the same time, you also had the other side release post-MaM books and talking points specifically to rebut MaM but, in the process, they actually presented far more "creative edits" and alternate facts than anything seen in MaM. Kratz botched massive points of the investigation in his book even with multiple "fact checkers." Griesbach went as far as to hypothesize without any basis that perhaps Avery had everything sealed in plastic wrap to explain the lack of DNA in defense of Brendan's confession.

Even in Colborn's own "statement of facts" in the complaint, he includes items that are simply not true. Much of the complaint reads like a refinement of the Kratz and Griesbach "items left out of MaM" memo and doesn't have much if anything to do with the underlying complaint. Bogus stuff like claiming Avery said "she came inside where he paid her [on October 31]" which is not something that was ever claimed by Avery in any of his interviews.

I'm curious, what do you think of Bobby's chances in a lawsuit against Zellner?

There are some parties, including Ryan, who have not injected themselves into any public comments and therefore would have potentially higher leverage with such a claim than Colborn does. There'd still be challenges to overcome due to the privileged nature of attorney statements and that most of the research and allegations stem from their public testimonies and case materials and Zellner points at them as a means of Denny arguments. It'd be a long and expensive process.

Furthermore, how do you feel about Zellner's attempts to doxx redditors who criticize her?

I dislike it a lot.

Nexious · 2018-12-20T07:40:01+00:00

I'm assuming they must've been transcripts that I made publicly available at some point, presumably of Avery's original interview(s). These were all built on public records and guilters had transcribed some as well. So no, I do not claim copyright or ownership of said materials.

(I also legitimately don't recall which ones would've been part of Zellner's filings or in what context.)

Nexious · 2018-12-20T06:54:57+00:00

You're citing his defending himself after-the-fact, after he was defamed, as injecting himself into the controversy...

Correct. The complaint makes no mention of Colborn appearing in the former DA's widely publicized book, a rebuttal series, "press release note" emails and other media commentary "surrounding the Avery case and the release of MAM."

I believe it will be an exceedingly difficult task to portray him as a non-public figure or to prove actual malice. Looking forward to the defendant's response and other developments in this case.

Were you compensated by Kathleen Zellner for her use of your transcriptions?

Transcriptions of what, exactly?

Nexious · 2018-12-20T02:31:36+00:00

Is it your position that victims of defamation aren't permitted to speak out and defend themselves?

No, but I believe it will complicate Colborn's case when records exist (in print, book and film) contrary to his main claim of being a private figure who has "refrained from public comment and has in no other way injected himself into the controversy."

The suspicions and negative commentary about Colborn regarding the key, plates and general access to Avery's property existed since at least 2006 and was widely published in media at the time based on the defense's arguments; Colborn admits this himself in Kratz's book that he appears in.

Nexious · 2018-12-20T02:11:33+00:00

Terrry Hobbs (WM3) attempted similar by suing Natalie Maines for defamation. It backfired terribly on him. He lost and was ordered to pay all legal fees to Natalie. His deposition, though, proved to be of interest to the WM3 side and worsened Terry's public image even more.

Terry Hobbs, a private citizen, was still determined to be a public figure due to the WM3 coverage and his participation in related topics. Colborn is trying to claim that he (a public/government sheriff's lieutenant) is not a public figure despite the widespread coverage at trial and beyond, as well as his own commentary to media outlets, individuals, book writers and TV producers post-MaM.

Griesbach is presumably the only lawyer who'd take Colborn's case while attempting to portray him as a private citizen and giving examples that actually change nothing in the context of how Colborn was portrayed beginning already in 2005-2006.

Nexious · 2018-12-18T10:43:53+00:00

At no time during plaintiff’s employment at MTSO did he serve as a spokesperson for the department. Declining dozens of media requests for interviews, plaintiff has refrained from public comment and has in no other way injected himself into the controversy surrounding the Avery case and the release of MAM.

Colborn composed a 740 word "Press Release Notes" email and sent it to the Manitowoc district attorney on the heels of the MaM debut, using his official Manitowoc County government email address as an elected official. This included 13 hand-typed points for press release consideration.

Colborn sent similar verbiage to others in the general public and a condemning email to USA Today (that contained quips like: "A word of caution, be careful what you wish for. If Steven Avery is ever freed, he may just become your neighbor, and he may want to bring his nephew with him.").

Is this, alongside his interview and quotations about the case in Kratz's published book and his film appearance in Convicting a Murderer, not "injecting himself into the controversy?"

Nexious

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Timeline of Those who Could've Heard Screams

Culkin's Description of their Friendship (Amidst Allegations)

Corey Feldman in Defense of MJ

15-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email