People aren't apologizing for a murderer. People are raging at how unethical and unprofessional people have been trying to convict avery. The fact that he is a murderer or not is not really relevant here since most people have no clue wether he did it with that ****ty story the Da fed the jury with.

I think it is still in production. It was supposed to air earlier this month but hasn't yet.

If you read the transcripts you would see that the state presented a pretty solid case to convict avery.. I think a lot of people confuse "reasonable doubt" with "beyond a shadow of a doubt" The two are not the same. Reasonable doubt just means that there is no other reasonable hypothesis. There will always be some degree of doubt.

Okay, right, but how do you know this? Where does it say that

?

Do you know if did file that report?

http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/d...ing-a-murderer

If the dumb magazine is correct, the dumb tv show is going to show a series of shows about wrongfully convicted people.

Dunno if that's what frelay is talking about, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Frontline is the good show. Dateline the not so good one.

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/maki...on-1201674567/

Sorry its ID, just hosted by Datelines Keith Morrison.

Well fraleyight, maybe this is why you are receiving so much hate. Nowhere in the article you just linked me to does it state anything about them creating a show that refutes anything shown in MaM.

This seems to be a recurring theme from you.

Wtf?

The news program, which is produced by NBC’s Peacock Productions, will be part of ID’s “Front Page” series and be hosted by “Dateline NBC” correspondent Keith Morrison. It promises to look at critical details surrounding the Steven Avery murder trial at the center of the Netflix project.

“We feel compelled to display some of the critical details missing from the Netflix production,” said Henry Schleiff, group president, Investigation Discovery, American Heroes Channel and Destination America, said at TCA. “In an attempt to provide critical and crucial testimonies that surround … Steven Avery.”

What do you think that means?

Yep, Fraley says stuff that is just factually inaccurate then when someone calls him out he says they are just after anyone claiming Avery is guilty.

Edit: Critical has multiple meanings.

There is nothing factually incorrect about what I just said..

“We feel compelled to display some of the critical details missing from the Netflix production,” said Henry Schleiff, group president, Investigation Discovery, American Heroes Channel and Destination America, said at TCA. “In an attempt to provide critical and crucial testimonies that surround … Steven Avery.”

WHAT DO YOU THINK THIS MEANS??

http://deadline.com/2016/01/investig...ca-1201677975/

more information about it.

Investigation Discovery is partnering with NBC News’ Peacock Productions on Front Page: The Steven Avery Story, slated to air late this month. Dateline NBC correspondent Keith Morrison will host the special, which ID says aims “to provide viewers with critical details surrounding the case” and “inform viewers in light of the nearly 300,000 people calling for the release of Avery.

Can you apologize for this statement now since the special made by ID is clearly going to be arguing against the narrative from MAM?

For anyone that thinks the phone call Colborn received about SA's innocence being irrelevant or otherwise not important, here is some excellent stuff from reddit:

It seems worthwhile to restate the facts surrounding the 2003 Wisconsin DOJ investigation into Avery's 1985 wrongful conviction, the 1995 phone call received by Sgt. Colborn, and Avery's civil lawsuit and depositions, since they're in the first 2 episodes of the documentary and many viewers forget the details with the onslaught of information about the subsequent Halbach murder, investigation and trials.

This is what is known via depositions, statements, and other documents:

1) The phone call which would have led to Avery's exoneration in 1995 was apparently not reported to the Wisconsin DOJ investigators in 2003. No written report/statement of it was included in the documents the Attorney General received from Manitowoc County (see Rohrer deposition and civil lawyers' remarks in doc.), and it was never mentioned in the DOJ's report on their investigation (with their stated goal of assessing "whether any criminal or ethical violations were committed by anyone involved in handling the [Avery] case"). (see link below)
In other words, the Wisconsin DOJ cleared the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department of criminal wrongdoing in the 1985 wrongful conviction of Steven Avery, but it never cleared them of any criminal wrongdoing in the ignoring of exculpatory evidence that would have freed Avery in 1995, because they were never notified of the phone call from Brown County to Manitowoc County.
http://www.daysalive.com/share/DOJ_Review_2003.pdf

2) Avery's civil suit was filed before the phone call was discovered; the incident came to light during the gathering of documents - and depositions investigating that phone call had just started in late 2005 - 3 weeks before Halbach's murder.
Following the remaining depositions, notification of the DOJ, and any subsequent investigation, any/all of Colborn, Lenk, Petersen, Kusche, Rohrer, etc. could have been added as additional parties to the ongoing civil suit through the joinder process.

3) In the video-tape depositions (taken just 1-3 weeks before Hallbach's murder):
Oct.11: Lt. Lenk testifies under oath that he prepared his statement after meeting with then-Sheriff Petersen, and in it he states, "Sgt. Colborn said he was later informed that the case was already solved and the right person was arrested." His statement makes no mention of Gregory Allen, Steven Avery, Peggy Beertsen, ex-Sheriff Tom Kocourek, or whoever Colborn allegedly informed about the phone call or who told him that the case was solved.

-Oct.13: Sgt. Colborn testifies under oath that he doesn't recall telling anyone about the phone call except Lenk and Sheriff Petersen (and, again, his statement does not mention Allen, Avery, Beertsen, or any other names).

-Oct.13: Sheriff Petersen testifies under oath that he has never seen either Lenk's or Colborn's statements about the phone call before.

-Oct.26: Chief Deputy Kusche testifies under oath that Colborn told him that Colborn told ex-Sheriff Tom Kocourek that an officer from Brown County told him that Allen, and not Avery, might have actually committed the Beertsen assault.

So from the very start of the investigation into the incident, there were conflicting stories.

4) Just 5 days after Kusche's deposition contradicting Colborn and Lenk's - and 10 days before ex-Sheriff Kocourek was scheduled to be deposed - Halbach was murdered.

I think it means exactly what it says.

Exaggerations, assumptions, lies, half-truths and rumors are part of exactly what started this mess 31 years ago.

fraleyight,

are you from WI? Are you in any way, shape or form connected to anybody who has a connection to this case?

I wasn't even referring to that.

You've said multiple things about the show that were just untrue.

Also, who's to say their crucial evidence isn't in favor of Avery?

On the one hand, frelay is obviously unable to understand what the word critical is even intended to mean there. But, on the other hand, the producer of American Heroes is almost certainly going to be supporting the police and prosecutors.

When you have a 36 million dollar law suit against your county and insurance isn't going to cover it, it ends up being the tax payers that foot the bill, right? My parents live in a smallish town that needs a new sewer system that is going to cost the people 100 million. ( I realize that's about 3 times.) The people are really spending a lot of time debating and fighting over the matter. And this is something they will at least get a benefit from. In a small community with blue collar folks, I can imagine there were a lot of people both bitter and jealous of Avery. Especially if he was for the most part a scumbag.

Why was Bobby Dassey so matter of fact on the stand testifying against his uncle?

I am confident Zellner will find a way to win Steve's case.

As I have stated before, as I have not done any research into this case, I do not hold an opinion as to whether he did it, but based only on the show, I believe there is reasonable doubt - especially since criticisms of the show (Katz' list of omitted "evidence") have proven to be weak.

However, given how brash Zellner has been, I am sure she believes she has a strong case and will be travelling a road she's familiar with. Strong facts, good law, and ample experience with that particular area of law allow attorneys like Zellner to make such certain statements when they are warranted.

I cannot believe Zellner is going to risk falling on her face in front of the world for Steve Avery. She is a very accomplished attorney, she does not need to shill for publicity. Therefore, I believe she is going hard in the paint here because she believes she will back it up. I have no reason to doubt her.

Do yourself a favor, Oski, and do outside research. I don't know a single person who didn't raise their percent chase SA is guilty after researching once finishing the doc. The doc is extremely biased. It's impossible not to watch the doc and not have reasonable doubt.

Investigation Discovery is partnering with NBC News’ Peacock Productions on Front Page: The Steven Avery Story, slated to air late this month. Dateline NBC correspondent Keith Morrison will host the special, which ID says aims “to provide viewers with critical details surrounding the case” and “inform viewers in light of the nearly 300,000 people calling for the release of Avery.

How can this mean anything but, we don't agree with the narrative from the doc and want to provide information they left out?

Reading comprehension would suggest that isn't the case. And, no.. I don't know what untrue things I have said. I know others have said I am lying, or wrong.. But they didn't have a reason to.

For example, I said it is demonstrably true that the bullet came from avery's gun because a ballistic expert testified to this in trial. Someone then posted that there is an issue with the field of ballistics being credible compared to other fields of science like dna testing.. I agree with this. That doesn't make my above statement untrue. I also paraphrased BD's interview and confession which was a fair paraphrase. There really isn't anything I have been dishonest about. You are just taking others words for things. I suggest you actually do some independent research on this case instead of shooting the messenger or going along with the herd mentality.

I am not from WI. I am not connected to anyone from WI in any meaningful way. I do however, talk to several people from the area, my relationship with these people is a direct result from watching MAM though.