Before I address some of the shocking moments of MAM, I should mention that I am going to attack these through the eyes of a "guilter". I think it is important to remember that Steven Avery is convicted of the crime. Therefore, I will try to debunk the perception of people who are 100% convinced that Steven is innocent.
That Blasted Key
This is the most difficult piece of evidence to explain. I mean, we have all heard that the police were in Steven's trailer a total of 7 times before they found the key. That may be true, but some of those entries were to find one particular item or piece of information, such as the serial number from his computer. So, it is not factual to assume that they actually did a thorough search on each and every entry.
Do you really believe the rumor circulating that Sgt. Andrew Colborn spent a full hour and a half just searching that little bookcase ? He testified that he got a little rough with it, twisting it, turning it, etc. But, looking at the photo, it's easy to tell that the contents would have fallen out if he was just tossing this thing around.
My thoughts are that the key was under or inside a slipper. Or, it could have really been wedged between the bookcase and the wall. Once you look at the photo, it's not so obvious that it was planted. If the police wanted to plant the key, why would they need to look so obvious about it ? Wouldn't they place it somewhere very discreet to appear as if it was being concealed ?
Police planted the key: DEBUNKED.
The Blood Vial
Jerry Buting was ecstatic when he saw the hole in the blood vial. They had finally caught the break that they needed, or so it appeared.
They would later discover that it was common practice. In fact, the nurse who actually drew the blood from Steven Avery was willing to testify at trial if requested. They were hoping that this hole in the vial would explain how the police were able to have a sample of Steven's blood to plant in the Rav4. The defense also asked the jury to believe that Lt. Lenk remembered signing this piece of evidence in over 18 years ago. Basically, the documentary made the viewer think that the instant the Rav4 was found at the salvage yard, Lt. Lenk remembered this vial, snuck into the evidence room, stuck a syringe into the vial, and left with a sample of Steven's blood. He did this because he was deposed over a lawsuit that he knew almost nothing about. Likely ? No.
The pattern of the blood is another concern of the Avery supporters. I'm not a scientist, so I cannot explain why it looks like a Q-tip applied it. You could probably parade a list of experts from both sides that would have completely different answers. Therefore, I will state that since the blood did not contain EDTA, the blood in the Rav4 was most likely caused by contact rather than a Q-tip. I simply do not buy the theory that it came from a sink in the trailer. At trial, the defense argued that it was old blood. I don't feel it is fair to suddenly remember about a bloody sink several months later and expect us to believe it.
The blood was planted: DEBUNKED.
Calling in the Plates
Making A Murderer did a brilliant job of making Sgt. Andrew Colborn look like a bumbling keystone cop from a cartoon. However, what it didn't tell you was that this was a decorated officer of the law, respected member of the community, family man, and even campaigned to be Sheriff when Kenneth Peterson retired.
Colborn was on the receiving end of a telephone call about the possibility of another man being guilty for a rape that someone in his jail was charged with. He passed the call on to his superior and that was seemingly the end of it. In fact, he never even filed a report on it until he learned that Steven Avery had been freed when DNA pointed to Gregory Allen. Sgt.Colborn could have just not written the report and let it go. Instead, he took it to his boss and admitted that he had taken that call years before. Meanwhile, Steven was released from prison, innocent of the rape that he had served many years in prison for. The defense tried to convince the jury that Colborn was so embarrassed by this "mistake" that he carried this shame with him and hated Steven Avery for it. Why on Earth would he be angry at Steven ? If anything, you would think that he feels he "owes a break" to the man who he supposedly kept locked up.
Let's move forward to the moment that still has supporters booing and hissing at the mere mention of Colborn's name.
Read More From Reelrundown
Colborn goes on to explain that he had been given the information earlier in a call from Mark Wiegert, an investigator from another county. He was simply checking with his own dispatch to confirm the information that he had written down. In fact, he said he does this regularly, so that explains why he might not even remember where he was at the minute he made the call. However, people just cannot accept that this was anything other than him looking at the vehicle when we made the call.
I watched this video clip a number of times, went over the transcripts, but couldn't convince myself he was telling the truth. Then, it finally hit me and I realized that he was being honest on the stand. After he confirmed the plate number, he asked the dispatcher if it was a "99 Toyota"? If he was really looking at this vehicle, would he automatically know the year it was made? Playing that clip again, with that thought in mind, and suddenly it sounds to me like a man verifying his notes. Also, he obviously knew this call was being recorded. This is not something someone being sneaky would do.
Colborn found the Rav4 and called it in: DEBUNKED.
It's possible that we will never know the full truth about this case. There are so many things that cannot be explained except by the person who committed the crime. Hopefully, that person is the one who was convicted and imprisoned. Otherwise, he may be the unluckiest man in the world. This case will forever have many unanswered questions.
mishadog on March 16, 2019:
MaM is fiction. When you have evidence and facts to support your position, then you don't need to lie. And they totally do LIE. And purposely leave things out, and present theories and conjecture as fact.
mishadog on March 16, 2019:
Of course he is guilty. Only extremely stupid people think otherwise. He has been proven guilty way beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is no evidence of innocence; none.
Myview on December 17, 2018:
Just finished this, thoroughly enjoyed this series but kinda glad I've just finished it so I can finally get a good nights sleep ;)! Here's my conclusion... Bobby did it, perhaps it was accidental due to deer hunting. He panicked and tried to cover it up up. The cops caught wind of this and struck a deal with him.. "We'll help you if you help us frame Steven" It would've helped save them a multi million dollar lawsuit, embarrassment and jobs, etc. Hope the truth comes out one day! Carry on the good work Netflix. Here's to season 3?!
Nonbiased on October 27, 2018:
For all saying he was guilty do u feel same after season 2 .. bc i feel like hes 100% innocent after that.
Nick on October 24, 2018:
A man spends 18 years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, get out, enjoy his freedom , will receive a lot of money, and suddenly wants to kill a woman, how dumb is that ??? And he hides everything in his property ? How can you believe that ? Even with a low IQ, you are not stupid to do that. I can’t believe how people thinks is guilty...
Brian Belgard on October 21, 2018:
He’s probably guilty, but these arguments are super weak.
Sternwheel on March 13, 2018:
Brandon said he seen her walking to his house so when did he get in the car who moved the car? If he moved the car wouldn’t he have finger prints on the Sternwheel
Kenneth Claude (author) from Ohio on August 30, 2017:
Don't worry about it in the last. Thanks for visiting my articles !
Suzie from Carson City on August 29, 2017:
Oops....Sorry about my mistake in the fan mail I left you! I know your name is Kenneth, but at the end of my note, I referred to you as Claude. That's what happens when someone has a 1st & last name that are both first names!! LOL
Kenneth Claude (author) from Ohio on August 03, 2017:
Thanks for leaving feedback. I've read the entire transcripts and all court documents, which includes over 10000 pages. I didn't just watcn a documentary. I appreciate your taking the time to read my article and hopefully the case gets some finality to it before it drives a lot of people nuts.
Tommy B on August 03, 2017:
You can't just make claims on a case just be watching a documentary.
The key: After non-local investigators have already searched the room, the local department, which was not suppose to be allowed there in the first place, searches it and mysteriously finds it. Believing this is another way to say that the other investigators are horrible at their job. In addition, explain how Avery's DNA was the ONLY DNA found on the key. Not even Halbach's DNA was on the key. And you can't just wipe off DNA with some clorox.
The blood: In every spot in the RAV-4 that Avery's blood was found, there were NO fingerprints of Avery. In fact, there were NO fingerprints of Avery's anywhere on or in the vehicle. However, there were 8 other fingerprints found all around the vehicle, so it was not wiped clean.