PDF Summary:Indefensible, by Michael Griesbach

In the aftermath of Teresa Halbach's 2005 murder, outrage sparked nationwide when Netflix's docu-series Making a Murderer alleged that Steven Avery was framed for her killing by the Manitowoc County police. But not everyone accepts Avery's innocence—in Indefensible, Michael Griesbach examines the case from the inside to present an alternative view.

A former district attorney in Manitowoc County, Griesbach dives deep into the investigation, examining key evidence like Halbach's Toyota RAV4 found on Avery's property and his DNA discovered inside. He delves into accusations of biased editing by the Netflix series and rebuts claims that police tampering led to Avery's conviction. Griesbach casts the case in a new light, challenging Making a Murderer's sensational portrayal.

(continued)...

Griesbach scrutinizes the defense's claim that evidence was manipulated, focusing specifically on the blood vial. He addresses the documentary's misleading overstatement regarding the importance of the vial's puncture. He underscores that the presence of a puncture mark is a common feature when replenishing blood vials and draws on expert testimony to counter the claims of tampering with the vial. He examines the compromised seal on the container's packaging, recognizing that it indeed raises questions about the contents' authenticity, but he emphasizes the lack of concrete evidence to substantiate claims of tampering.

Practical Tips

• You can enhance your critical thinking skills by practicing the analysis of everyday objects for potential alternate uses or hidden flaws. For instance, take a common item like a pen and consider how it could be repurposed or what design weaknesses it might have. This exercise trains your mind to question the obvious and look beyond the surface, similar to scrutinizing the puncture in a vial lid.
• Develop your attention to detail by creating a "spot the difference" challenge with a friend using photographs. Take turns altering a photo slightly, such as changing a color or removing an object. Exchange photos and see who can identify the changes more quickly and accurately. This activity mimics the process of examining evidence for tampering by sharpening your observational skills.
• You can enhance your understanding of medical procedures by volunteering at a local blood drive or clinic. By observing professionals in action, you'll see firsthand how puncture marks are made and managed, which can deepen your appreciation for the precision and care involved in medical practices.
• Start a small journal to record observations and experiences with product packaging and contents. Note down any discrepancies or concerns, and over time, you'll build a personal reference guide that can help you quickly identify authentic products from those with questionable packaging.
• Engage with friends or family in a "fact-check challenge" where you collectively pick a widely held belief or recent news item and independently research to find concrete evidence. Later, come together to discuss your findings. This activity not only sharpens your research skills but also promotes healthy skepticism and collective learning about the importance of evidence in supporting claims.

There are concerns that Officers Colborn and Lenk may have intentionally positioned Halbach's car key within Avery's residence.

Michael Griesbach scrutinizes the controversial assertion that Halbach's vehicle key was intentionally planted by Colborn and Lenk. He carries out a detailed examination, contrasting the portrayal shown in the film with what is documented in the court records, revealing a substantial inconsistency. Griesbach discloses the selective exclusions in 'Making a Murderer' regarding the explanations Colborn and Lenk gave at the trial for finding the key. He emphasizes the documentary's deliberate omission of certain details that could contradict its narrative, thus shaping the viewers' perception of the events' chronology.

Practical Tips

• Improve your understanding of narrative influence by writing two different accounts of the same event in your life, focusing on how the inclusion or exclusion of certain details can change the perception of the event. This exercise will help you see firsthand how storytelling can shape opinions and judgments.
• Create a personal checklist of criteria to evaluate the reliability of a documentary or article. Include points such as diversity of sources, acknowledgment of counterarguments, and the presence of supporting evidence. Use this checklist every time you consume media to assess its comprehensiveness and objectivity. This tool can help you become more discerning about the information you accept.
• Experiment with your daily communication by deliberately omitting certain time-related details when recounting events to others. For instance, when telling a friend about your day, skip the part that indicates when you had lunch. Observe and note if and how they infer the wrong timing of your activities. This personal experiment can reveal the power of omission in everyday conversations.

The defense contended that law enforcement officials had framed Avery, alleging that they manipulated and arranged the evidence.

Michael Griesbach examines the claims of manipulated evidence, centering his attention on two bullets found in the garage. He raises concerns about the lack of substantial proof and believable narratives that would enable law enforcement to execute a scheme with such complexity and risk. He meticulously examines every detail, methodically questioning the discrepancies, implausibilities, and practical difficulties found within the arguments put forth by the defense team. He concludes that the contentions of the defense rested primarily on speculation and assumption, lacking concrete evidence to substantiate their assertions.

Context

• Steven Avery was previously wrongfully convicted of a crime and later exonerated, which adds complexity to any claims of being framed in subsequent legal issues.
• The case received widespread media attention, influencing public opinion and potentially affecting the proceedings. This context is important for understanding the environment in which these allegations were made.
• The two bullets mentioned were part of the evidence used to convict Avery in the murder trial. The defense claimed these bullets were planted by law enforcement to ensure a conviction, a claim that Griesbach scrutinizes.
• The examination of the bullets includes forensic techniques such as ballistics testing, which can determine if they were fired from a specific weapon.
• Defense teams must balance zealous representation with ethical obligations, ensuring that claims of evidence tampering are based on more than conjecture.
• While there have been instances of wrongful convictions, they often involve systemic issues rather than elaborate conspiracies, highlighting the rarity and difficulty of such schemes.
• If the defense's claims were proven, it could lead to appeals and retrials. Understanding the judicial process helps in comprehending the potential consequences of such allegations.
• For a defense based on framing to succeed, it must meet legal standards of evidence, which include reliability, relevance, and the ability to withstand scrutiny under cross-examination.
• Understanding the motivations and pressures on law enforcement can be complex. The defense would need to provide a plausible motive for why officials would risk their careers and reputations to frame an individual.

The assertions and consequences depicted by the documentary known as "Making a Murderer."

Griesbach examines the influence of the documentary on public perception of the Avery case, highlighting its deliberate choice of evidence, its tendency to present only the evidence that supports a particular viewpoint, and its inherent bias. He argues that the way the documentary was presented emotionally overshadowed the factual evidence, leading to a skewed view of the case and an unjustified wave of public outrage.

The portrayal of the Avery case in the documentary and its impact on shaping public perception.

Griesbach argues that, contrary to the filmmakers' claims of neutrality, the series seemed structured in a way that seemed biased towards supporting Avery's innocence. He exposes the strategies employed by the documentary filmmakers to manipulate the presentation of evidence, identifying instances where crucial information was omitted and statements were modified to support the perspective of the defense. The audience was swayed by the compelling storytelling, strong emotional engagement, and masterful cinematic techniques, which led them to believe that Avery's innocence was unjustly overlooked once more.

The film intentionally omitted crucial details that would dispute the idea that the evidence was tampered with.

Michael Griesbach conducts an in-depth analysis of how the documentary portrayed key evidence, highlighting how it selectively edited interviews and omitted opposing viewpoints to support the accusation of evidence tampering. He references several occurrences, including the discovery of the key, Colborn's radio exchange with the dispatcher about the RAV4's license plates, and Dassey's confession. He details how the filmmakers neglected to present evidence that might have cleared the person in question, emphasizing their lack of alternative perspectives and their disregard for accounts that challenged the narrative they intended to depict. Griesbach skillfully illustrates the influence of the documentary's editing on the perceptions of its audience.

Practical Tips

• Engage in a media literacy course or workshop to better understand the techniques used in film editing and how they can shape narratives. This knowledge will enable you to watch films with a more discerning eye. Look for free online courses or community workshops that cover topics like media influence, editing, and critical analysis.
• Engage in role-reversal exercises when discussing current events with friends or family. Assign a devil's advocate role to someone in the group, ensuring that for every popular opinion or widely accepted narrative, there's someone to present a challenging perspective. This activity encourages open-mindedness and the ability to understand and articulate viewpoints different from your own.
• Create a simple video project using free editing software to experience firsthand how editing choices alter perceptions. Record a short, straightforward scene, like a conversation or a simple task. Then, edit it in multiple ways: one that suggests positivity (with bright filters, upbeat music), another that implies negativity (using dark filters, slow tempo music), and a neutral one. Share these with friends or family without context to see how their interpretations differ.
• Improve your understanding of interrogation techniques by role-playing different confession scenarios. With a partner, take turns being the interrogator and the suspect, where the interrogator must elicit a confession using only verbal cues. After each session, discuss the strategies used and their effectiveness. This will give you insight into the dynamics of confessions and the psychological aspects at play, similar to analyzing a real confession's nuances.

The film sparked public outrage, leading to a strong call for the release of Avery and Dassey.

Griesbach analyzes the significant public commotion, highlighting the way a meticulously constructed narrative swayed their views after the documentary was made public. He details the widespread public indignation, which manifested in petitions, social media campaigns, protests, and threats directed at the police, illustrating the extent to which the documentary fueled a profound belief in the injustice of the legal system's treatment of Avery and Dassey. He argues that the widespread outrage originated mainly from the documentary's selective portrayal and its ability to influence feelings.

Practical Tips

• Volunteer with or donate to organizations that address the issues highlighted by the film that caused outrage. This direct action allows you to channel your emotional response into positive change, contributing to solutions rather than just participating in the outrage.
• Start a digital awareness campaign using social media platforms to support a cause. Create a hashtag, share stories, and engage with followers to spread the message. This approach can quickly gather momentum and reach a wide audience.
• You can analyze the dynamics of public reactions by observing and noting behaviors during local events. Attend a community meeting or a public gathering and discreetly jot down how people react to different speakers and announcements. Look for patterns in body language, applause, and engagement levels to understand what triggers positive or negative responses.
• Use social media to test the impact of different narratives on your audience's opinions. Write multiple short posts about a single issue but vary the angle and emotional tone of each post. Track engagement through likes, shares, and comments to see which narrative resonates the most. For instance, when talking about healthy eating, one post could focus on the dangers of processed foods, while another celebrates the joys of cooking fresh meals.
• Start a virtual book club focused on social issues to foster informed discussions and collective action. Choose books that tackle topics you care about and organize monthly Zoom meetings to discuss them. This can lead to a deeper understanding of the issues and may inspire members to take action, such as writing letters to policymakers or supporting relevant non-profits.
• Write letters to your elected representatives expressing your concerns about the justice system. This personal advocacy can influence policy and legislative changes. You could highlight specific cases or policies that you believe are unjust and propose changes that would improve fairness and transparency in the legal process.
• You can create a personal journal to reflect on how documentaries have influenced your emotions and thoughts. After watching a documentary, take some time to write down what you felt during the viewing and what thoughts it provoked. This can help you understand the power of visual storytelling and its impact on your personal perspective.

The film sparked a barrage of threats and bullying aimed at individuals involved in the judicial process.

Griesbach reveals the disturbing consequences of the story depicted in the film, leading to acts of intimidation, harassment, and cyberbullying directed at those associated with the legal case. He narrates his personal experiences with hostile messages, bomb threats, and the intense strain experienced by the legal experts in Manitowoc County. The documentary's widespread viewership has had significant real-world impacts, fostering an atmosphere where individuals associated with Avery's wrongful conviction are encountered with fear and animosity.

Practical Tips

• You can support a fair judicial process by becoming an informed juror if called upon for jury duty. Research the responsibilities and importance of a juror, and commit to making impartial decisions based solely on the evidence presented in court, not external influences or media portrayals.
• Create a support network by reaching out to friends or colleagues who have faced similar challenges. Set up a monthly meet-up or an online group where you can share experiences and strategies for coping with hostility or threats. This network can provide emotional support, practical advice, and a sense of community.
• Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper to highlight an underreported issue in your community. Use persuasive language and personal anecdotes to illustrate the problem's urgency and potential solutions, aiming to spark public discourse and bring about change through increased local media attention.

Investigating the potential biases and impacts that may have been swayed by the documentary.

The book examines the possibility of bias in the documentary, questioning its claims of neutrality and uncovering the methods used to sway the views of viewers. Griesbach contends that the emphasis on inciting public indignation has eclipsed the quest for justice, inflicting considerable harm on people and hindering a comprehensive grasp of the legal context.

The documentary's impartiality and its inclination to narrate from a singular perspective are assessed.

Griesbach challenges the impartiality claimed by the documentary's makers, arguing that their depiction of the Avery case was biased and incomplete. He condemns the biased manner in which evidence was displayed, highlighting their deliberate omission of exculpatory details and their skillful manipulation of testimonies to sway public opinion. The presentation of information that only supported the narrative of police misconduct, while ignoring evidence to the contrary, led to a significantly skewed perception of the events. Michael Griesbach argues that the documentary's intent was to evoke emotional responses and guide the audience to a predetermined verdict, instead of encouraging a detailed discussion on the complexities of the case.

Other Perspectives

• Griesbach's assessment of the documentary's impartiality may be subjective and influenced by his own perspective or involvement in the case.
• The documentary could be aiming to provoke critical thinking and discussion by presenting an alternative perspective to the one commonly held or reported by the media.
• The interpretation of the evidence as biased could be subjective, with different viewers taking away different impressions based on their preconceptions.
• The decision to exclude certain details could be seen as an artistic choice to create a coherent narrative, rather than an attempt to distort the truth.
• The filmmakers could argue that they presented the most compelling and relevant aspects of the testimonies to engage the audience and maintain the flow of the documentary.
• The inclusion of evidence to the contrary might not have changed the overall narrative if the weight of evidence for police misconduct was overwhelming.
• The perceived skew might be a reflection of the complexity of the case and the difficulty in presenting all facets equally within the constraints of the documentary format.
• Evoking emotional responses can be a way to highlight the human elements of a story, making complex issues more relatable and understandable to the audience.
• The predetermined verdict may not be a result of manipulation but rather a reflection of the evidence and events as they appeared to the filmmakers.
• The filmmakers might have intended to highlight specific issues within the case that they felt were underrepresented or overlooked in the public discourse.

The creators of the documentary had goals that significantly shaped public opinion.

Griesbach encourages readers to critically examine the motives and potential goals that led to the production of the documentary. He acknowledges the importance of underscoring the flaws within the legal system, yet argues that the methods employed have undermined their original purpose. The author is of the opinion that focusing on a story that stirs up public outrage and offers a slanted perspective has hindered a comprehensive understanding of the intricate details involved in the case. He wonders whether their primary goal was to clear his name or if their zeal in condemning law enforcement conduct overshadowed their dedication to impartiality.

Practical Tips

• Use social media to engage with documentary filmmakers and production companies. Follow them on platforms like Twitter or Instagram, and participate in conversations about their work. Ask questions about their process and goals to gain a deeper understanding of the motives behind their documentaries.
• You can start a blog to document and discuss real-life legal cases and their outcomes, focusing on the discrepancies and issues you observe. By doing this, you create a platform for raising awareness and fostering discussion about the legal system's flaws. For example, if you notice a case where the punishment didn't seem to fit the crime, write a post analyzing the factors that may have led to this outcome and invite legal experts to comment.
• You can critically analyze media by creating a "Purpose vs. Presentation" chart to evaluate if the content aligns with its intended purpose. Start by watching a documentary or any informative media and note down its stated purpose. Then, as you watch, create two columns: one for elements that support the purpose and another for elements that seem to undermine it. This will help you develop a keen eye for discerning the effectiveness of media in achieving its goals.
• You can diversify your news sources to avoid biased storytelling by creating a "perspective playlist" that includes a variety of media outlets with different editorial slants. Just like a music playlist, rotate through these sources regularly to get a more balanced view of current events. For example, if you typically read a conservative-leaning publication, add a liberal-leaning one to your rotation, and include independent or international news sources as well.
• Organize a discussion group with friends or community members who have also watched the documentary. Each member could be assigned to research a different aspect of the case not covered in the documentary, such as the legal system's role, the socio-economic context, or the personal histories of the people involved. When you meet, everyone shares their findings, providing a more rounded view of the case that goes beyond the documentary's scope.
• Volunteer with a local legal aid organization to gain firsthand experience with the justice system. While you might not have legal expertise, organizations often need help with administrative tasks, community outreach, or supporting families during trials. This direct involvement can give you a better understanding of the complexities involved in clearing someone's name or examining law enforcement conduct, and you can share these insights through personal stories or reflections on your blog or social media.
• Create a discussion group with friends or community members where the goal is to explore complex issues, such as law enforcement conduct, from a place of neutrality. Set ground rules that prioritize listening and understanding over judgment. This can be a space where you practice suspending immediate judgments and instead focus on gathering information and understanding different sides of a story.

The film has caused lasting damage to the standing of individuals linked to the case.

Griesbach sheds light on the deep and lasting impact on the individuals connected to the case, highlighting how their reputations and personal lives were thrown into disarray and suffered harm due to the documentary. The presentation of the narrative in the documentary has had a profound effect on individuals such as Colborn and Lenk, who were accused of misconduct. He emphasizes the detrimental effects arising from the portrayal of events in the documentary, which led to widespread disdain, intimidation, and harassment, tarnishing their reputations and disrupting their personal lives. Griesbach argues that the film, in its quest to stir deep emotions, inadvertently harmed the very people it aimed to protect.

Other Perspectives

• The negative impact on reputation could be mitigated by the individuals taking legal action against the film for defamation if the portrayal was indeed false or misleading.
• The documentary's impact on Colborn and Lenk could be argued as an unintended side effect of the broader discussion it generated about the criminal justice system.
• The public's reaction could also be seen as an exercise of free speech and expression, which are core values in many societies, even if the outcomes are sometimes challenging for the subjects involved.
• The disruption to personal lives might also stem from the legal system's processes and media coverage, not just the documentary.
• The harm to the individuals might be balanced against the social good achieved by fostering public discussion and critical examination of the legal system.