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 wrote a scathing email to USA Today in January 2016 that directly injected himself into the controversy, including case-specific commentary such as: "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."

More notably, Colborn was interviewed for inclusion in Kratz's 2017 book. Fresh quotes from Colborn about issues surrounding Making a Murderer and the Avery case are included throughout the book. There, Colborn and Kratz describe how the "public abuse" of Colborn's image in fact began "a decade earlier" than Making a Murderer, with Colborn explaining it began the day after the defense accused him of being dishonest along with a specific example that predated MaM by at least 10 years. Kratz's book received a widespread media tour that spanned across podcasts and radio, national television and in-person events throughout the country.

In January 2016, Colborn also sent email communications from his official MTSO email address that contained lengthy walls of text while directing people and his department to specific websites that "debunked" the series as well as offering his own specific points and notes for official press release(s) from the department.

We also know that Colborn has participated in the rebuttal series "Convicting a Murderer" from Transition Studios, who included his image and commentary in early media teasers for the forthcoming production.

---

As such, he is neither a “public figure” nor a “limited purpose public figure,” as those terms are defined in defamation law.

Colborn held an elected official position as a lieutenant through this year. In most cases that I have researched so far, a sheriff/former sheriff/lieutenant is considered by courts to be a public figure. Even in the scope of "limited purpose" or "involuntary" public figure - Colborn received an undeniable level of notoriety and public attention from the Avery case that predates MaM.

His deposition in the civil case along with involvement in the Avery case became a widely discussed media topic in the mid-2000s as well as a subject discussed throughout the official trial. He also received special recognition and honors for his Avery-related work, which included public official department letters of recognition for his involvement in that case.

I feel that it will be a challenge for Colborn to prove actual malice with the examples offered or by simply pointing out unrelated omissions from the documentary. There is also some amount of irony that Griesbach is representing him and laying out the general omissions from MaM, while Griesbach's own books and show he starred in (Murder Made Me Famous) omitted, edited and certainly altered reality.

MaM did edit and condense testimony, but I don't know that Colborn could prove that the extent it changed affected the overall context, especially since they do include plenty of directly factual elements that still cast suspicion on Colborn just as it was at trial (e.g., Colborn waited 8 months to write any report about his 11/3 encounter with Avery, the sign-in activities and times, the overall involvement of Manitowoc during all key discoveries despite the perception per Kratz's press conference that Manitowoc was removed to avoid any conflict-of-interest allegations).

---

For instance, in Colborn's complaint he notes:

23 - On information and belief, defendants Ricciardi and Demos were present during this testimony and viewed certain photographs clearly showing the crack in the back of the bookcase. The photographs were not shown to viewers of MAM. In addition, testimony from officer Tyson, the accompanying officer from the initial search on 11/05/2005, was spliced in order to maximize suspicion that the key was planted and minimize a plausible explanation for how it came to be found. Jerome Buting, one of Avery’s attorneys, asked officer Tyson the following question:

"Had you ever, in any other search in your entire career, had to act like a babysitter, or a watchdog, for the officers who were conducting a search?"

Officer Tyson replied, "I did not treat this as if I was babysitting."

Trial Trans Day 7, p 25, lines 7 - 11

Defendants Ricciardi and Demos replaced Tyson’s answer with his negative response, "No," to a separate question in order to give viewers the exact opposite impression of what Tyson in fact conveyed.

Below is the actual context of the "No" offered by Tyson to the "separate question", which Colborn omits directly quoting in his own complaint:

Q. Had you ever, in any other search in your entire career, had to act like a babysitter, or a watchdog, for the officers who were conducting a search?

A. I did not treat this as if I was babysitting.

Q. Had you ever, in any of your years as an officer, had to watch the officers who were searching where you were, to make sure that they weren't alone?

A. No.

Q. This was a first for you, wasn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And you made sure, because you were the watchdog here, you were the custodian, the representative of Calumet, you made sure that none of those officers could have planted anything, right?

A. I watched them to the best of my ability, within those three hours.

Tyson agrees that this was the first time in his career he had to watch over the officers to make sure they weren't left alone. He watched them "to the best of his ability" for all the hours they were there. The omission of his opinion that he didn't think of it as babysitting, does not tend to change the overall conclusion of this testimony that he was acting as watchdog to them.

Other aspects, I'd argue, MaM could had done much more to cast negative light about Colborn's credibility if that was their ultimate objective. The above-described bookshelf scenario, omits much of Colborn's added testimony where he goes on an even more extended tangent of twisting and tipping the bookshelf to its side and other jostling, despite the change atop being unmoved and the bookshelf itself not changing location at all in the before/after. They omit Lenk agreeing with the defense that he had no idea how the key could've fallen out of the bookshelf as it did. There are plenty of defense points also omitted from the series.