Book Notes: Michael Griesbach’s Indefensible

This is about the Making a Murderer series, so if you aren’t into the Steven Avery saga, you won’t find this interesting.

Back before the Netflix series first ran, Michael Griesbach, a prosecutor in the Manitowoc County, published a book about the unfair imprisonment of Steven Avery for the 1984 crime he didn’t commit. Griesbach had no doubt that the second conviction was fair, though, and said so in passing in the closing section of his book. Then the goshdarn series aired and crowds of maniacs started hassling Griesbach for not being a fanatical pro-Averist.

People are so crazy. Even if you sincerely believe that Avery is innocent (although you’ve got to be very bad at processing any sort of narrative to arrive at that conclusion), you’ve got to have a really empty, sad life to harass people like Griesbach or Teresa’s family members online or in person. Shockingly, many Avery truthers actually went to Manitowoc County to harass people they think are guilty of something. You say gun laws. What kind of gun laws will help all these lonely, miserable, pathetic souls who get so attached to a stupid movie that they threaten other human beings with all sort of harm for not being as impressed by the idiotic movie? They don’t kill because they stumble upon a gun. They kill because they have empty, stupid lives. Once again, I’m all for an immediate ban on all firearms right now, if only to stop hearing this excuse already.

I digress, though.

Griesbach decided to look at all the evidence and find out if there was any truth to the Netflix series. And of course, he discovered that there wasn’t.

I knew from the second episode of the first season that it was all a load of steamy, stinky BS. The series is trying to manipulate viewers, and in quite a clumsy way, to side with Avery. I’m always ready to change my mind but every episode of this clusterfuck made it clear that the series were based on lies. Still, I didn’t know just how bad it really was. Griesbach’s book offers the extensive court records, testimony and information that were concealed from the viewers of the series. It turns out that the only time when Avery wasn’t beating, molesting and sexually assaulting women was when he was in jail. And when he was in jail he spent his time drawing torture chambers for women he was planning to rape after getting released.

There were several women, including a 17-year-old niece, whom he raped and assaulted after being released.

He meticulously planned the rape and torture of Teresa. This was all given in evidence at trial. Brandon Dassey confessed his part in the murder to a relative long before the police noticed him. Again, this was all offered in evidence at trial.

And there’s a lot more.

The only real question is why the creators of the series didn’t choose a case of some really innocent guy who’s unjustly incarcerated. Avery is a real sick fuck who spent all his life brutalizing women or fantasizing about brutalizing women. Why turn him into a folk hero? Just to see if you can get the sheeple to believe shameless, ridiculous lies?

It’s particularly bizarre that the authors of the script and the directors of the flick are women. Why would they want to glorify a guy who victimized at least a dozen women throughout his life? It’s not like it’s hard to find a less repellent character who can be painted as unfairly convicted.

Blah blah, #MeToo forever. It’s all total crap.

One thought on “Book Notes: Michael Griesbach’s Indefensible”

  1. I absolutely loved the Making a Murderer series (season 1) on Netflix. But I also have absolutely no doubt that S. Avery was guilty. My problem was with how the police treated Brandon (the nephew?). Obviously the guy has mental challenges (sorry, I can’t recall what the politically correct term for this is). So the police interviewed him, and if I remember correctly, they did so without a parent present. They took advantage of him and manipulated him into giving a confession of what happened. I do understand that the police are legally allowed to deceive suspects during interrogations, but given Brandon’s mental challenges, I think that the video of the interrogation should have been thrown out by the court–he should have had a parent and/or lawyer present. Now I’m not saying that I believe he was innocent; I’m just challenging the legality of the interrogation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.