Indefensible: The Missing Truth - Michael Griesbach

New Posts

Teresa's family, IIRC, do not accept donations of any kind. Is Buting & Strang donating proceeds of their World Tour to a charitable organisation?

Again, as someone who has read the book, his quest for justice for the victim is loud and clear. jmo

Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk
 
Limaes said:
Back to the topic...

As someone who has read the book, I can vouch for the wealth of knowledge MG has shared along with his sources e.g official documentation. I for one am grateful that he is publically denouncing the tactics used by SA's Defense Attorney. JMO
Click to expand...

So, in this wellspring of knowledge, does MG explain about the set of keys Lenk and Colborn observed falling out of the bookcase, and why when they came to testify they denied seeing the set of keys fall from the book case?

Because that would be evidence that was left out of MaM, and also out of court records as well.

On the other hand, it could be just false claims made by the author.

Just my opinion, obviously.
 
proudfootz said:
So, in this wellspring of knowledge, does MG explain about the set of keys Lenk and Colborn observed falling out of the bookcase, and why when they came to testify they denied seeing the set of keys fall from the book case?

Because that would be evidence that was left out of MaM, and also out of court records as well.

On the other hand, it could be just false claims made by the author.

Just my opinion, obviously.
Click to expand...

He discussed the key and fob. I don't recall him giving an opinion though I do recall he compared the trial transcripts and CASO reports to MaM dialogue to show how they edited and spliced the footage along with photos they chose to show and the ones they didn't. JMO
 
Limaes said:
He discussed the key and fob. I don't recall him giving an opinion though I do recall he compared the trial transcripts and CASO reports to MaM dialogue to show how they edited and spliced the footage along with photos they chose to show and the ones they didn't. JMO
Click to expand...

Can you give us a rundown on how they "edited and spliced the footage"?
You mention this a lot without giving any details.
 
CoolJ said:
Can you give us a rundown on how they "edited and spliced the footage"?
You mention this a lot without giving any details.
Click to expand...

I asked a few days ago... still waiting. :confused:

I know of Colborn's testimony being cut. But I know of no other testimony, or any testimony that showed a question with the wrong or different answer, which has been stated. Could be that I haven't watched the show since January 2016 and I have relied solely on the transcripts since they have been released in February 2016.
 
You asked and you were answered. It's one's prerogative if they wish to read the book or not however, if you choose not to, I don't think it is fair to the author to copy & paste excerpts from their book.

Besides, as is constantly reiterated, the transcripts have been available for quiet some time and MaM is still streaming. If one really wants to determine the extent of their editing & splicing, it is not difficult. Especially if one likes to read things for themself. JMO



Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk
 
I don't know why people need to read MG's books

Prosecutor Griesbach' caught lying in Steven Avery Book
[video=youtube;hXRzmbsO2o4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXRzmbsO2o4[/video]
 
CoolJ said:
Can you give us a rundown on how they "edited and spliced the footage"?
You mention this a lot without giving any details.
Click to expand...

Looks like we will never know CoolJ ... don't know about you, but I don't ever plan on reading it ;-)

I do have some info about Colborn's testimony, so I will post that in another thread for you.
 
No one needs to read any book including MG's. But I can't understand why someone who didn't read the book and has no intention of ever doing so would come into a thread that is about exactly one topic--that very book--and criticize the book that's not been read.

What could possibly be the point of doing that other than trying to initiate something that a WS admin would not look kindly upon?

You could spend more time insulting the book's existence than it would take to actually read the book for yourself and see what MG discussed in the book.

Go ahead, read the book. Then come back and discuss why you think it's all bunk.
 
Madeleine74 said:
No one needs to read any book including MG's. But I can't understand why someone who didn't read the book and has no intention of ever doing so would come into a thread that is about exactly one topic--that very book--and criticize the book that's not been read.

What could possibly be the point of doing that other than trying to initiate something that a WS admin would not look kindly upon?

You could spend more time insulting the book's existence than it would take to actually read the book for yourself and see what MG discussed in the book.

Go ahead, read the book. Then come back and discuss why you think it's all bunk.
Click to expand...
For me I question the authors credibility. We have sleuthed this case for over a year now, some, for a LOT longer.

IMO if excerpts from MG's book are copied & pasted or quoted ( as long as tos aren't violated ) and are shown to be lies ( backed by transcripts & reports that say otherwise ) and the author is presenting them as factual, well?...

Do we not have the right to sleuth what's being written/said & repeated as fact especially when documents prove different?


I'm genuinely asking

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 
Limaes said:
You asked and you were answered. It's one's prerogative if they wish to read the book or not however, if you choose not to, I don't think it is fair to the author to copy & paste excerpts from their book.

Besides, as is constantly reiterated, the transcripts have been available for quiet some time and MaM is still streaming. If one really wants to determine the extent of their editing & splicing, it is not difficult. Especially if one likes to read things for themself. JMO



Sent from my SM-P550 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is if we want to understand how the Colbourn testimony was spliced and diced we have to buy the book?
 
dexter75 said:
For me I question the authors credibility. We have sleuthed this case for over a year now, some, for a LOT longer.

IMO if excerpts from MG's book are copied & pasted or quoted ( as long as tos aren't violated ) and are shown to be lies ( backed by transcripts & reports that say otherwise ) and the author is presenting them as factual, well?...

Do we not have the right to sleuth what's being written/said & repeated as fact especially when documents prove different?


I'm genuinely asking

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I question the authors credibility as well seeing how he readily admits he is personal friends with Colbourn and Lenk.

Having said that I have taken the time to read and listen to some of MG's interviews over the past couple days and it is quite interesting the things he has to say, such as:

- he readily admits there was malicious corruption by authorities during the 1985 case
- he readily admits that MCSD should not have been involved in the TH case as they had an obvious conflict of interest
- he readily admits the Dassey "confession" was problematic and done in a fashion to elicit a confession, not to seek truth
- he readily admits that it is troubling that there seems to have been some intimidation at play with regards to the jury

All of the above is evidence enough IMO to order a new trial
 
I just finished reading this book. I like reading but did not enjoy this book. It took me months. It wasn't really objective though he restates time and again he was out to seek the truth and wasn't taking sides. Yet, he was satisfied to state LE had no reason to plant eveidence, knew and liked many of the key players and often accepted critized actions because it followed protocol. He did state the times he thought something was hinky, but as long as the info was passed along, he seemed fine with the decisions made by prosecutors and judges, eventhough it seemed contrary to his concerns.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 199 more.
Total: 3,951 (members: 200, guests: 3,751)

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
3,751
Total visitors
3,951
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,352
Messages
17,967,917
Members
228,753
Latest member
Cindy88
Back
Top