Speaker 1: We're outside the travel Agency, a cannabis store that's got
Speaker 1: everyone buzz them.
Speaker 2: I walked it. I felt like I was in the
Speaker 2: elite of the skies, like I'm about to get elevated
Speaker 2: and lifted in the best way. Got the important essential
Speaker 2: things I need. Sleep, So tinctures salves too, relax my
Speaker 2: body right the best New York flowers.
Speaker 1: Come down to the travel Agency and see for yourself.
Speaker 1: Preeze only by adults age twenty one an older. Keep
Speaker 1: out of reach of children and pets. In case of
Speaker 1: accell ingestion or over consumption, contact the National Poison Control Center.
Speaker 1: Consumer responsibly.
Speaker 3: With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 4: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 4: the bride and groom?
Speaker 5: Sorry?
Speaker 4: Sorry, we're here. We were getting lucky in the limo
Speaker 4: and we lost track of time.
Speaker 6: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 6: quicker than a guess registry.
Speaker 4: In in luck case, I pronounce you lucky, thanks for free.
Speaker 6: At Lucky landslots dot com. Daily bonuses are waiting. No
Speaker 6: purchase necessary board.
Speaker 3: We're prohibited by lock eight team plus terms and conditions.
Speaker 2: Applying.
Speaker 3: See website for details.
Speaker 6: Guys, it is Ryan.
Speaker 7: I'm not sure if you know this about me, but
Speaker 7: I'm a bit of a fun fanatic when I can.
Speaker 7: I like to work, but I like fun too. It's
Speaker 7: a thing. And now the truth is out there, I
Speaker 7: can tell you about my favorite place to have fun,
Speaker 7: Chumba Casino. They have hundreds of social casino style games
Speaker 7: to choose from, with new games released each week. You
Speaker 7: can play for free anytime, anywhere, and each day brings
Speaker 7: a new chance to collect daily bonuses. So join me
Speaker 7: and the fun. Sign up now at Chumba Casino dot com.
Speaker 3: No person nesses, every daloivery by loss, EA terms conditions
Speaker 3: eight plus.
Speaker 7: It is Ryan here, and I have a question for you.
Speaker 7: What do you do when you win?
Speaker 5: Like?
Speaker 7: Are you at fist pumper, a woo, a handclapp or
Speaker 7: a high fiver?
Speaker 6: I kind of like the high five.
Speaker 7: But if you want to hone in on those winning moves,
Speaker 7: check out Chumbuck Casino at chumbacasino dot com. Choose from
Speaker 7: hundreds of social casino style games for your chance to
Speaker 7: redeem serious cash prizes. There are new game releases weekly,
Speaker 7: plus free daily bonuses, so don't wait start having the
Speaker 7: most fun ever at Chumba Casino dot com.
Speaker 3: No person necessary dy by lost terms of it.
Speaker 8: You are now listening to True Murder, the most shocking
Speaker 8: killers in true crime history and the authors that have
Speaker 8: written about them. Gasey, Bundy, Dahmer, The Night Stalker BTK
Speaker 8: every week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking
Speaker 8: and infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with
Speaker 8: your host journalist and author Dan.
Speaker 5: Zufanski, Good Evening.
Speaker 9: Netflix documentary series Making a Murderer has captivated audiences everywhere,
Speaker 9: igniting controversy and fiery debate, especially among true crime fans.
Speaker 9: Michael Greesback, a Wisconsin district attorney, helped have Stephen Avery
Speaker 9: exonerated and released from prison after being wrongfully convicted, and
Speaker 9: went on to write the definitive and brilliant book about
Speaker 9: the case, The Innocent Killer. Making a Murderer documentary writers
Speaker 9: and producers made a strong case that Avery and co
Speaker 9: accused nephew Brendan Dacy, convicted of the murder of Teresa Hallback,
Speaker 9: deserve another trial. Michael and I will discuss Making a Murderer,
Speaker 9: the trial of Stephen Avery and Brendan Dacy and the
Speaker 9: murder of Teresa Hallback. The title of the program this
Speaker 9: evening is making a murderer the need for a retrial
Speaker 9: with my special guests, journalist and author Michael Greesback. Welcome
Speaker 9: back to the program, and thank you very much for
Speaker 9: a green to this interview.
Speaker 10: Michael Greesback, it's slowly Dan, good to be here as always.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much much. It's very interesting in the
Speaker 9: short span of time what has happened with your original story.
Speaker 9: So tell us just a little bit, because there's so
Speaker 9: much going on, tell us a little bit about just
Speaker 9: a couple of the personal stories before we get into
Speaker 9: this incredible tale and this really divisive and controversial case
Speaker 9: now that's just really blown up. But tell us some
Speaker 9: of the personal antidotes that I was just reading recently
Speaker 9: about protests at the courthouse and involving with your Facebook page.
Speaker 9: So tell us a little bit about those kinds of
Speaker 9: things before we get right into this.
Speaker 10: Sure protests, biom threats, sabotaging or taking over or hijacking
Speaker 10: Facebook pages and Amazon ratings and you name it, I've
Speaker 10: seen it, and I've probably seen it less than the
Speaker 10: specific police officers most directly involved in the allegations of
Speaker 10: evidence planting. There's Jim Lincoln, Andy Colburn, the two Manitoa
Speaker 10: County officers who have been most directly accused of planting evidence,
Speaker 10: specifically the key they now infamous key of Teresa Hubback
Speaker 10: vehicle found in mister Avery's bedroom.
Speaker 9: Right, and before we go any further too, you appeared
Speaker 9: on this program originally this story was incredible, and with
Speaker 9: your original version of your book on Reasonable Inferences and
Speaker 9: then The Innocent Killer. So tell us before I start
Speaker 9: again a barrage of really tough questions for you. What
Speaker 9: has happened with the book The Innocent Killer? What's the
Speaker 9: newest development in regards to that?
Speaker 10: Sure? Well, first of all, I self published the book
Speaker 10: under the title Unreasonable Inferences back in I want to say,
Speaker 10: twenty ten, and the American Bar Association picked it up
Speaker 10: and published it with some changes. I added a PostScript
Speaker 10: by Penny Burns and the victim of the first case,
Speaker 10: the case for which Stephen Avery was wrongly convicted, no question,
Speaker 10: horribly wrongly convicted in nineteen eighty five, in for which
Speaker 10: he spent eighteen or twelve years in prison, depending upon
Speaker 10: how you look at it. We can get to that
Speaker 10: later and also in that new version, The Innocent Killer
Speaker 10: is and afterward by Keith Findley, the head of the
Speaker 10: Wisconsin Innocence Project, and Keith actually went on to serve
Speaker 10: as the president of a national Innocence Project. I'm on
Speaker 10: the board of advisors at the Wisconsin Innocence Project at
Speaker 10: the Diversity of Wisconsin and Madison. So it's interesting, and
Speaker 10: I know we're going to get into that that I
Speaker 10: am sort of portrayed by some of my critics as
Speaker 10: sort of a tool of the state and of prosecutors,
Speaker 10: which really is to me a very interesting development because
Speaker 10: I spent a lot of years talking about the infirmities
Speaker 10: of the criminal justice system, specifically on proscatorial misconduct issues
Speaker 10: in terms of withholding evidence and in terms of an
Speaker 10: over zealousness on their part. But so yes, The Innocence.
Speaker 10: The American Bar Association picked up the book republished it
Speaker 10: in the summer of twenty fourteen, with those changes in
Speaker 10: the PostScript, the afterword, and some additional things here and
Speaker 10: there that I added to the book to speak to
Speaker 10: a few issues that I left out, not with regard
Speaker 10: to Terresa Holbach's murder most of the book, although that's
Speaker 10: not the interest right now, of course, but the first
Speaker 10: two thirds or maybe even three quarters of the book
Speaker 10: have to do with mister Avery's wontful conviction and not
Speaker 10: his trial for the murder of Theresa Hoboch real quick Dan.
Speaker 10: Of course. More recently this thing is taken off like
Speaker 10: wildfire my book to some extent, but much more so
Speaker 10: just the Avery story, I mean, your listeners, and you
Speaker 10: don't need to be reminded of that. It's a worldwide phenomena,
Speaker 10: and in some sense I think that's good because it
Speaker 10: speaks to the criminal justice system and people are looking
Speaker 10: at it more clearly and seeing its shortcomings. It's a
Speaker 10: system badly in need of reform, no question about that.
Speaker 9: Now, let's use this as a segue, because the reason
Speaker 9: why you're on right here now is not just to
Speaker 9: gain new listeners from sensationalizing something that is really, like
Speaker 9: you say, really caught fire and captivated people's imaginations, and
Speaker 9: people are outrage. We've got Alec Baldwin and other people.
Speaker 9: Hundreds of thousands of people have protested all the way
Speaker 9: to the White House with this. In terms of asking
Speaker 9: Barack Obama, and Barack Obama and the White House have
Speaker 9: issued a statement that they can't can they can aren't
Speaker 9: capable of pardoning Aver even if they wanted to. So
Speaker 9: it's really interesting. So let's go back to the Wisconsin
Speaker 9: Innocent Project just to establish beyond all doubt your credibility
Speaker 9: here and your objectiveness. So talk about we can't go
Speaker 9: through the original trial and that is just a done deal.
Speaker 9: And again, like you mentioned, the emphasis is on the
Speaker 9: Halback murder and the second part of your book really
Speaker 9: or the second murder or pardon me second trial. So
Speaker 9: with the innocence Wisconsin Innocence Project, just take us back
Speaker 9: to where you became involved, where you were an advocate
Speaker 9: for Stephen Avery before we talk about the deposition you
Speaker 9: made on behalf of Stephen Avery and then the turn
Speaker 9: of events with the disappearance and the murder of Teresa Hallback.
Speaker 10: Sure, so, I was a prosecutor in Manitoac County, as
Speaker 10: I still am in two thousand and three when the
Speaker 10: crime lab unit in Madison, the Wisconsas State Crime Lab
Speaker 10: called indicating that the last shred of evidence really a hair,
Speaker 10: a pubic hair found on the person of Penny Burns
Speaker 10: and the victim of the first crime. The DNA testing
Speaker 10: came back to a known sex offender who was serving
Speaker 10: time already in prison for a new offense, by the
Speaker 10: name of Gregory Allen and not Steven Avery. So the
Speaker 10: credit really goes to, you know, the Wisconsin Innocence Project
Speaker 10: for for for bringing the motion for testing new evidence.
Speaker 10: I was merely the person on the receiving end to
Speaker 10: carefully work with them, not to put up roadblacks some
Speaker 10: DA's fight the most obvious evidence of innocence. I never
Speaker 10: thought of our roll that way. Our role, you know,
Speaker 10: is it's important. It's just as important to make sure
Speaker 10: the innocent go free them to convict those who are guilty,
Speaker 10: perhaps even more important. So you know, my role was
Speaker 10: very I had to make sure that it wasn't just
Speaker 10: the publicare but at other evidence also showed clearly that
Speaker 10: mister Avery did not commit the crime. And as I
Speaker 10: looked into that quickly because he had been serving already
Speaker 10: so much time, it became really clear to me that
Speaker 10: not only did he not do this first crime, this
Speaker 10: attack and attempted murder and first degree sexual assault charge
Speaker 10: on a beach in Lake Michigan here in Wisconsin, he
Speaker 10: not only didn't do it, but the authority specifically the DA,
Speaker 10: former district attorney here in Manitaa County and a former
Speaker 10: sheriff in Manitoac County, if not intentionally, certainly recklessly sent
Speaker 10: him to prison while knowing he was innocent. You can't
Speaker 10: get much more corrupt than that. Now hastened to add,
Speaker 10: as I always do in these interviews, that the Wisconsin
Speaker 10: Attorney General, in conducting her independent review back in two
Speaker 10: thousand and four, late two thousand and three or early
Speaker 10: two thousand and four, after myself and another prosecutor took
Speaker 10: it to her to conduct a review to see if
Speaker 10: there were any ethical or criminal violations on the part
Speaker 10: of the former sheriff and district attorney. She, that is,
Speaker 10: the Attorney General, concluded that now mister Avery was the
Speaker 10: victim of bad police communication, maybe sort of narrow tunnel vision,
Speaker 10: but nothing unethical or criminal on the part of the
Speaker 10: sheriff and DA. I called her opinion a whitewash in
Speaker 10: my book. She's the top law enforcement officer was at
Speaker 10: the time in Wisconsin. Her report was nothing but a
Speaker 10: whitewash of the authorities in my county in nineteen eighty
Speaker 10: five for what they did to mister Avery and his family.
Speaker 9: So again to lend credibility. This is not the kind
Speaker 9: of thing that a that a prosecutor dreams of is
Speaker 9: prosecuting their own and fighting against. Like you said, there
Speaker 9: are people that even with the evidence in front of them,
Speaker 9: will deny. So what's the what is the next thing
Speaker 9: that you had to do this extraordinary effort to be
Speaker 9: able to establish that this there was some criminality that
Speaker 9: had occurred in this first investigation and trial right.
Speaker 10: Well, the first thing I did is we quickly stipulated
Speaker 10: to get mister Avery released. We did that within a
Speaker 10: matter of days, at most one week. We didn't put
Speaker 10: the defense to you know, to further criminal litigation, to
Speaker 10: motions to to you know, a hearing that would be
Speaker 10: said a month or two later, and we didn't argue
Speaker 10: that other evidence suggested x y Z. We looked at
Speaker 10: it myself and another prosecutor in her office and said,
Speaker 10: you know, he didn't do it. We got to get
Speaker 10: him cut loose. And not only did he didn't do it,
Speaker 10: but the supposed good guys, the guys with the supposed
Speaker 10: white hats, were the bad guys here. So that's what
Speaker 10: I did, and we took it to the Attorney General
Speaker 10: when I became frustrated, Dan, and really what was sort
Speaker 10: of the impetus for writing the book is the sheriff
Speaker 10: and the district attorney at the time to this day
Speaker 10: have not been held accountable for what they did to
Speaker 10: mister Avery and his family. And to me, that's one
Speaker 10: more tragedy to this whole thing, and a long list
Speaker 10: of tragedies. I mean, they were sued. There was a
Speaker 10: thirty six million dollar lawsuit filed by Steven Avery against
Speaker 10: the sheriff and the district attorney and the county where
Speaker 10: I'm still employed as tistrict attorney. I was deposed in
Speaker 10: that runful conviction lawsuit, testified as to what I knew,
Speaker 10: certainly did not try to fudget one way or the other.
Speaker 10: I wasn't going to try to help mister Avery, but
Speaker 10: I wasn't going to try to help the county.
Speaker 5: I mean, it is what it is.
Speaker 10: The facts are what they were. In fact, I've become
Speaker 10: close to the lawyers who represented Stephen in his rounful
Speaker 10: conviction lawsuit. I've also become close to his lawyers, at
Speaker 10: least one of them, Dean Strang, that represented Stephen in
Speaker 10: his murder trial. We've held conferences together on ronful convictions
Speaker 10: and Steven's case in particular. So this is a long,
Speaker 10: sordid tale that's led to a way too much emotion,
Speaker 10: myself included, and not enough reason. Sometime, as people's people's
Speaker 10: passions become involved, and I think for what it's worth,
Speaker 10: my thought is that, including for myself, it's probably time
Speaker 10: to step back and stop pointing fingers and just look
Speaker 10: at the evidence and try to be calm about it,
Speaker 10: try to be clear headed and rational and objective about it,
Speaker 10: with no agenda and with no feeling that the other
Speaker 10: side is against anybody, even though sometimes they are. We
Speaker 10: all are susceptible to that, but we need to fight
Speaker 10: against that because this is important stuff. You know, if
Speaker 10: it's important for mister Avery, of course, it's important for
Speaker 10: mister Darcy, of course, but it's also important for the
Speaker 10: Hallback family. It's also important for the Burnston family, and
Speaker 10: I know some of your listeners don't want to hear
Speaker 10: about the Burnston's and the Hallbacks. It is perhaps even
Speaker 10: more important for Stephen Avery and and Brenda Dacy. Certainly
Speaker 10: it is if if you know, if you were to
Speaker 10: believe that they didn't did not do this, but it
Speaker 10: is important for a lot of people, and finally, it's
Speaker 10: important for the criminal justice system. And I guess, as
Speaker 10: a kind of an observer of this, a person who
Speaker 10: wrote this book and has lectured about this and served
Speaker 10: on panels about wrongful convictions and Stephen Avery's case in particular,
Speaker 10: my concern is also for the criminal justice system. The documentary,
Speaker 10: you know, brought out a lot of good things that
Speaker 10: need to be looked at, including interrogations, how we do them,
Speaker 10: whether that's the way we should be allowed to do them,
Speaker 10: especially when there's a young, developmentally disabled young man. It
Speaker 10: brought out the you know, the disparity in in justice
Speaker 10: that is achieved sometimes between those on the lower of
Speaker 10: society and those on the upper run. There's no question
Speaker 10: these are issues, but it's also brought this other issue
Speaker 10: that is is new and is really disturbing to me,
Speaker 10: which is the role of entertainment and what I still
Speaker 10: think is somewhat agenda driven in in in not just
Speaker 10: entertainment but well intended, meaningful you know, examination of something
Speaker 10: but not balanced, and the role that that has on
Speaker 10: an actual criminal case with real people, real victims, real defendants,
Speaker 10: real police were accused of planting evidence, real reputations. This
Speaker 10: is this is We're in a new this is a
Speaker 10: whole new ballgame because of this, and I think we
Speaker 10: need to tread carefully and think, yours truly included, myself included,
Speaker 10: think a little more carefully and wisely for we to
Speaker 10: shout out our latest feeling about this.
Speaker 9: Well, I got to say for the defense of this audience,
Speaker 9: because I think a lot of the people have been
Speaker 9: raised on true crime books, which are very much like
Speaker 9: your book, very less emotional obviously, and less provocative in
Speaker 9: the way that video and film can be. And also,
Speaker 9: these people are not the uninitiated to how stories are
Speaker 9: told very much like fictional writing when it's really good
Speaker 9: in that it's very mister, you know, there's a lot
Speaker 9: of mystery left to it, and the writing is on
Speaker 9: the same level in terms of keeping on the edge
Speaker 9: of your seat. And so I think that these people
Speaker 9: that will listen to this program tend more to be
Speaker 9: people who have read a fair amount of true crime,
Speaker 9: and so they are looking for more answers. They're not
Speaker 9: as naive as the people that maybe have never watched
Speaker 9: a documentary before Netflix, before the Hoopla, and before them
Speaker 9: not understanding that's still filmmaking as opposed to a book,
Speaker 9: is more level headed and more expansive, more information provided.
Speaker 9: So what I'm saying is in that regard, what I
Speaker 9: think this audience wants, and what we would try to
Speaker 9: do with this program is to address some of the
Speaker 9: things that I think that after I have watched this series,
Speaker 9: and after I've read your book and interviewed you, that
Speaker 9: I still have some burning questions too that brought on
Speaker 9: by this documentary. And so I think the person to
Speaker 9: ask would be you.
Speaker 10: That's all fair well and good, and I don't mean
Speaker 10: to suggest. Surely there's a place for emotion. There's a
Speaker 10: place for suspense, you know, there's a place for looking
Speaker 10: at things beyond just you know, sort of a lawyerly
Speaker 10: type way. I'm more I'm totally with you and the
Speaker 10: audience about that. But when we get to the point
Speaker 10: of of making decisions about what we think in in
Speaker 10: in a particular case, I think overwriting, that should be
Speaker 10: some sense of of reason, in some sense of of
Speaker 10: of tolerance, I guess, and some sense of humility on
Speaker 10: everybody's part, mine included. But I will do my best
Speaker 10: to answer the questions you have, Dan, I'm well aware
Speaker 10: that there's there's a lot of passion out there about
Speaker 10: my position on this and what I have written and said,
Speaker 10: and I I'll, you know, admit where i think I've
Speaker 10: gone wrong, and I'll stand up where i think I've
Speaker 10: I've got it right. But before we got into that,
Speaker 10: I did want to point out the other side of
Speaker 10: this that I think is worthwhile, too.
Speaker 9: Okay, And does that being or do we get to
Speaker 9: that a little bit later.
Speaker 10: I think we can know that pretty much what I
Speaker 10: had gone through earlier, the other side being the need
Speaker 10: for for you know, also just trying to be kind
Speaker 10: of cautious and remember that there's real people out there
Speaker 10: who were talking about beyond our legitimate interest in true
Speaker 10: crime and in the justice system. But there are there
Speaker 10: are defendants, there are victims, they are police, and there's
Speaker 10: the system itself that I'm a part of and have
Speaker 10: been for a long time that I believe in. It's
Speaker 10: not all bad. The criminal justice system that has huge
Speaker 10: problems that I've worked to try to do my part
Speaker 10: to point out. But that's still I think is you know,
Speaker 10: is the best is the best we have. But I
Speaker 10: guess enough of my my philosophizing out. Let's let's see, uh,
Speaker 10: let's see what what we can what we can accomplish here.
Speaker 9: You have said, and others have said, and I think
Speaker 9: I understand what you are saying. So maybe explain to
Speaker 9: this audience the criticism of making a murderer as agenda driven.
Speaker 10: Mm hmm, right, well, I think it is. And and
Speaker 10: I don't you know a lot almost everything is agenda driven,
Speaker 10: I guess to some extent. But uh, and it's fair
Speaker 10: for your audience to say, well, what is the agenda?
Speaker 10: And U part of the agenda? I agree with part
Speaker 10: of Laura and Moira's agenda, And remember and those that
Speaker 10: Laura Rookie Arti and Moira demos, the producer or not
Speaker 10: the producers, but the creators and the filmmakers I interviewed
Speaker 10: with them. I thought what they were doing was a
Speaker 10: good thing. I think I'm in the first episode for
Speaker 10: a minute or two or something. And I agree with
Speaker 10: a good portion of their agenda, which is to use
Speaker 10: the Avery case to draw lessons about the criminal justice system,
Speaker 10: including some of those things I spoke to earlier interrogations,
Speaker 10: When is enough enough? When is too much? Too much?
Speaker 10: And and I can't weigh in too much on that issue.
Speaker 10: I'm still a prosecutor. I'm speaking tonight, as you know,
Speaker 10: the author of this book, But i still am a
Speaker 10: prosecuting attorney in Wisconsin and in Manitoba County. That's a
Speaker 10: pending case. But suffice it to say that that's a
Speaker 10: good example of I mean, I'm troubled. I think anybody's
Speaker 10: troubled by what they saw in the interview during making
Speaker 10: a murder of mister Dascy. You know, that's a technique,
Speaker 10: the read technique. It's called I believe it's our ei
Speaker 10: D that's used all over the United States. I'm not
Speaker 10: sure about Canada, but in in law enforcement interrogation and
Speaker 10: and there's good reason to question the validity of that.
Speaker 10: I mean, it's basically it assumes that the police know
Speaker 10: the truth and they know the guilt of the person,
Speaker 10: and it's designed to elicit a confession, not you know,
Speaker 10: objectively to search for the truth. I am not an
Speaker 10: expert in that. There will be police officers who will
Speaker 10: be very upset that that's the way I care or
Speaker 10: tries it. And you know, from their perspective, they do
Speaker 10: that once they feel they have enough evidence that there
Speaker 10: is no question the defendant is guilty, so therefore their
Speaker 10: job becomes to to do whatever, frankly the law allows,
Speaker 10: which is way too much.
Speaker 5: I think.
Speaker 10: To lie and to fib and to you know, promise
Speaker 10: and manipulate a confession pretty ugly stuff, especially when the recipient,
Speaker 10: the defendant or the suspect is a fifteen year old
Speaker 10: developmentally disabled to some extent personally Brendan Dacy. So you know,
Speaker 10: that's just an example where I see where I share
Speaker 10: the agenda of bringing these things to the attention of
Speaker 10: the public.
Speaker 6: Okay, Brown two, name something that's not boring loud.
Speaker 4: Computer solitaire.
Speaker 6: Huh oh, Sorry, we were looking for chumbuck Casino.
Speaker 5: Jump.
Speaker 7: That's right, chumbut Casino dot com as over one hundred
Speaker 7: casino style games joined today and play for free for
Speaker 7: your chance to redeem some serious prizes.
Speaker 6: Chump chumbucasino dot com No percessary.
Speaker 3: Law eighty plus arts the conditions of plus website retails.
Speaker 6: Hello.
Speaker 7: It is Ryan and I was on a flight the
Speaker 7: other day playing one of my favorite social spin slot
Speaker 7: games on chumbacasino dot com. I looked over the person
Speaker 7: sitting next to me, and you know, what they were doing.
Speaker 7: They were also playing Chumba Casino. Coincidence, I think not
Speaker 7: everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumba Casino's home to
Speaker 7: hundreds at casino style games. You can play for free anytime, anywhere,
Speaker 7: even at thirty thousand feet. So sign up now at
Speaker 7: Chumbuckcasino dot com to claim your free welcome bonus. That's
Speaker 7: Chumbu Casino dot com and live the Chumba Lane.
Speaker 3: No burgs necessary, d wherever. If I lost et terms
Speaker 3: conditions eighteen plus.
Speaker 10: In the socioeconomics stuff, I talked about him. It's all
Speaker 10: over my book, by the way, the first Davery case,
Speaker 10: how they didn't have a chance against the system because
Speaker 10: of who they were. Legitimate points an agenda, to be sure,
Speaker 10: But when you take a specific case and you mess
Speaker 10: with evidence, you show only parts of the evidence, it's
Speaker 10: almost as if the viewers a juror who only gets
Speaker 10: to see or the viewers are jurors who only get
Speaker 10: to see one side of the case, and you know,
Speaker 10: you watch that and if that's all you see, you
Speaker 10: walk away from that utterly convinced that Steven Avery was
Speaker 10: framed Again, was that police planted evidence that he is
Speaker 10: as as you know, as an unjust he is a
Speaker 10: victim of the system. There's no no other conclusion you
Speaker 10: can and you can make almost after watching that he's
Speaker 10: a victim of the system.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 10: The other possibility, though, is that he is the perpetrator
Speaker 10: of this murder. And if people try to put away
Speaker 10: what they think they know, try to approach things objectively
Speaker 10: and look at everything, it'll be hard to get out
Speaker 10: of their mind the feeling and the passion they had
Speaker 10: when they first watch Making a Murderer. But I think
Speaker 10: that's the only way to do this, to try to
Speaker 10: look at things with some realization that, you know, it's
Speaker 10: possible they didn't show us things in an objective, balanced
Speaker 10: way because they didn't. I'll say that. I'll say that
Speaker 10: as confidently and as firmly, and if people think it's arrogant,
Speaker 10: so be it. They did not present and an objective portrayal,
Speaker 10: an objective view of the evidence in the homicide trial
Speaker 10: of Stephen Aby. They didn't.
Speaker 9: Okay, let's get to that here. Let's right off the bat.
Speaker 9: You say that the agenda was to shed light on
Speaker 9: the judicial system, but I thought you might have said,
Speaker 9: as others. I think have said that the agenda was
Speaker 9: to create a movie so that they would have a shot.
Speaker 9: I mean, especially given the success of the serial podcast
Speaker 9: in regards to gaining another trial, new evidence, attention to
Speaker 9: your case, sympathy, and people maybe will influence political leaders
Speaker 9: to do things like they were trying to do in
Speaker 9: this case here. So isn't part of the agenda for
Speaker 9: the defense team is to cooperate and then, as they
Speaker 9: will try to do, a jury and a judge and
Speaker 9: an entire courtroom try to influence as is their job
Speaker 9: their task. And wouldn't they then have an agenda to
Speaker 9: present a case at the further this case, since we're
Speaker 9: talking about two thousand and five, it is twenty and fifteen.
Speaker 9: He's been in ten years now for this if he
Speaker 9: were to be wrongfully convicted, So isn't that part of
Speaker 9: the agenda that we're talking about? And you have said
Speaker 9: publicly though that you believe that they both of them
Speaker 9: did have a fair trial. What you just said and
Speaker 9: criticize the interrogation techniques used on Brendan Dassy and a
Speaker 9: lot of that information was we'll say, more than influential
Speaker 9: in the Stephen Avery case.
Speaker 5: Even though.
Speaker 9: So can you speak to that sure.
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 10: First of all, I think I've said publicly that Steven
Speaker 10: Avery I believe had a very fair trial, and I
Speaker 10: have and I do that. I don't know if i'd
Speaker 10: said that directly with regard to Brendan Darcy's trial. Brendan
Speaker 10: Darcy's trial is still it's impending litigation in federal court.
Speaker 10: That's for a court to decide. That's been the impetus
Speaker 10: of what I've been saying. And I have stress that
Speaker 10: the confession, which is really the only issue as to
Speaker 10: whether Brendan got a fair trial, and the confession includes
Speaker 10: whether he had an effective assistance of counsel. And I
Speaker 10: think I think that that is one of those questions
Speaker 10: that it's hard to stay say with with with with
Speaker 10: a lot of sincerity, frankly, that that at least one
Speaker 10: of his attorneys was effective. The question is whether that
Speaker 10: affected his trial, would it have turned out differently? And
Speaker 10: that that turns on on the interrogation, and that is
Speaker 10: something that that a court is going to have to
Speaker 10: really wrestle with and something that I, frankly haven't you know,
Speaker 10: done the research on the law as much if I
Speaker 10: were his attorney, if I were prosecuting the case in
Speaker 10: federal court right now, I would, But more importantly, it's
Speaker 10: not something I should really weigh in right now as
Speaker 10: it is specifically pending on that issue. So I'm not
Speaker 10: going to weigh in on that. But but Stephen ab yes,
Speaker 10: I do believe you had a fair child. I think
Speaker 10: what you're what you're raising, Dan, I started to say,
Speaker 10: and I do think that there are a few agendas
Speaker 10: here by them. Some of the first agenda that I
Speaker 10: talked about, I think was what they were originally after.
Speaker 10: Remember when they did this ten years ago or eight
Speaker 10: years ago, they didn't know this was going to be
Speaker 10: a Netflix documentary. They they had no idea that that
Speaker 10: serial was going to come out, that that there would
Speaker 10: even be a Netflix you know, So they were My
Speaker 10: impression of them was that they were idealistic, young people
Speaker 10: from from New York, one a recent law school grad,
Speaker 10: one I think in film, two women that were concerned
Speaker 10: about the justice system and saw this as a good
Speaker 10: case to sort of explore that, and who liked film.
Speaker 10: I mean, how could you argue with that that that's
Speaker 10: a that's an excellent thing to do. And to that extent,
Speaker 10: I agreed to be interviewed, and I think to the
Speaker 10: extent that they brought up those issues, I think it's great.
Speaker 10: I think that's you know, and you know, to be clear,
Speaker 10: it's not to anybody to decide. I guess you know
Speaker 10: what agenda someone has, however, if they are going to
Speaker 10: try to affect a case. And and this is the point,
Speaker 10: I think you're getting it when I say it's agenda driven.
Speaker 10: That's when I and other people I think have have
Speaker 10: kind of bristled back at it. And the reason is, Yeah,
Speaker 10: defense lawyers their job is to zealously represent their client
Speaker 10: and to to make the state prove it beyond any
Speaker 10: reasonable doubt, and to do everything they can to protect
Speaker 10: their client from any kind of misuse of power by
Speaker 10: the state, and to make sure they're treated fairly. You know,
Speaker 10: that's not so much an agenda. That's their job, and
Speaker 10: it's it's as important or more important than my job
Speaker 10: as a prosecutor. But those things are done in the
Speaker 10: court of law with rules of evidence and and a
Speaker 10: referee being a judge and a jurors that see the
Speaker 10: whole trial. And I guess I think the danger is
Speaker 10: here that and I guess we'll have to get into details,
Speaker 10: because that's the only way to do this is that
Speaker 10: they showed because they do have an agenda, they showed
Speaker 10: only one side of the story, despite their claim to
Speaker 10: the country, and they showed that one side of the
Speaker 10: story such that viewers would end up being like jurors
Speaker 10: who only saw the defense side of the case, or
Speaker 10: who when they saw the prosecution side, only saw the
Speaker 10: parts where the defense poked holes in the prosecution. And
Speaker 10: that's intellectually dishonest. It's it perhaps they have a larger agenda,
Speaker 10: you know, Stephen Avery got to use you know, to
Speaker 10: use in sense legal non legal. You got screwed over
Speaker 10: severely by the police and the prosecutor in the first time.
Speaker 10: And police misconduct and prosecutor misconduct is is a is
Speaker 10: a major problem. It's rare, I think, but when it happens,
Speaker 10: it is a huge problem, and it needs to be,
Speaker 10: you know, shouted out. And that's why I wrote my book.
Speaker 10: But they decided that that's what happened here in case
Speaker 10: number two. The problem is if you're gonna if you're
Speaker 10: gonna present something, you need to present it evenly for
Speaker 10: people to decide. Then whether that's what happened in case
Speaker 10: number two, And just because it happened in case number
Speaker 10: one doesn't mean it happened in case number two. And
Speaker 10: in this case, I firmly believe I just because I
Speaker 10: think that's at the facts show that it didn't happen
Speaker 10: in case number two, that that indeed Stephen Avery did
Speaker 10: commit h the murder. Indeed the police did not plant evidence.
Speaker 10: As hard as that is to believe, if all you've
Speaker 10: seen is the documentary, I think an honest look at
Speaker 10: all of the evidence will show you as much as
Speaker 10: anything can in this case. Where As they've said, truth
Speaker 10: is elusive, and it is at the Stephen Avery case.
Speaker 10: That's why it's tough. You got to you gotta weed
Speaker 10: your way through it, but you don't get to the
Speaker 10: truth by just seeing one side of the story.
Speaker 9: Now, in light of the pending lawsuit investigation into wrongdoing
Speaker 9: by prosecutor and police in Manitowa County on and certain
Speaker 9: players involved going to be the subject of this scorn
Speaker 9: and maybe even the liability on the thirty six million dollars,
Speaker 9: why on earth at that time were they allowed to
Speaker 9: be involved at all? And if they were, was there
Speaker 9: no official order to have these guys In light of
Speaker 9: what historically had just happened. How on earth could you
Speaker 9: have the same county involved at all, and if they
Speaker 9: were involved at all under any circumstances, isn't that can't
Speaker 9: you see what people are looking at. They're saying, well,
Speaker 9: they did a convincing job, as you did in showing that, Yeah,
Speaker 9: there was what people don't want to believe, that the
Speaker 9: judicial system was corrupt, railroaded an innocent guy wasn't an
Speaker 9: honest mistake. It was a dishonest mistake. Why is it
Speaker 9: so unbelievable that it could be a conspiracy to railroad
Speaker 9: the guy given the circumstances and that timing, and as
Speaker 9: a result, why is he not entitled to another retroal?
Speaker 9: I think that's what people are seeing.
Speaker 10: That's what sure, you know.
Speaker 9: I think I'm more objected on some people having seen
Speaker 9: the series after reading your book and interviewing you, So
Speaker 9: it's it's.
Speaker 10: Not that unreasonable at all.
Speaker 5: It isn't that.
Speaker 10: That's uh, that's what you you You hear what they
Speaker 10: did the first time, and you see that they were
Speaker 10: involved in the search to some extent the second time.
Speaker 10: Although there's some things to be said about that, and
Speaker 10: and it is not unreasonable to start thinking, wait a second, uh,
Speaker 10: and these guys are the ones that found found some
Speaker 10: of the key, key, excuse me, pieces of evidence. So
Speaker 10: I do get it. I completely get it. I understand
Speaker 10: and why this is so bedeviling. I mean, it is
Speaker 10: just so difficult because that is a legitimate suspicion. I
Speaker 10: don't think it's a legitimate conclusion right off the bat.
Speaker 10: But we wouldn't have a making a murderer if there
Speaker 10: wasn't that issue out there. We wouldn't have it if
Speaker 10: it weren't for the first wrongful conviction, and we wouldn't
Speaker 10: have it had Probably we wouldn't have had it had
Speaker 10: manitoa County Sheriff's department completely withdrawn from the search. So
Speaker 10: I do understand why people think the way they do.
Speaker 10: What I don't understand is, well, I understand it, but
Speaker 10: what I don't agree with is the producers of the
Speaker 10: not the producers, but the creators of the documentary. And
Speaker 10: I guess the producers too desire to well, I understand it, frankly,
Speaker 10: to make it look like that initial suspicion is more
Speaker 10: than just an initial a suspicion that it's true. But
Speaker 10: I don't think it's it's right to to to take
Speaker 10: what is what looks terrible, and then to twist facts
Speaker 10: and to manipulate facts, and to use only some facts
Speaker 10: and exclude others. Uh, to to then present this all
Speaker 10: but conclusion. I mean, they can say we didn't really,
Speaker 10: you know, say what people should should believe. But Dan,
Speaker 10: your listeners are much brighter than that. You can without
Speaker 10: saying directly this is what I want you to believe.
Speaker 10: By the way you present things, you can all but
Speaker 10: force people to believe a certain thing, especially if it
Speaker 10: looks just by nature, by the fact that they did
Speaker 10: perpetrate a horrible injustice upon mister Avery earlier. And here
Speaker 10: they are involved again searching and finding some evidence, some
Speaker 10: of the main evidence. It looks terrible. That's why all
Speaker 10: the more reason that it takes a lot to really
Speaker 10: look through this and to keep a clear head about it.
Speaker 10: There are a few things real quick, you know, on
Speaker 10: the search, and maybe this is just sort of a
Speaker 10: microcosm or as an example of how you know, all
Speaker 10: these pieces of evidence need to be looked at and
Speaker 10: considered in total and thoroughly each single allegation. Okay, so
Speaker 10: we have Lincoln Colburn why, you know, why would Manitoac,
Speaker 10: even before we get to Lincoln Core, why would Manitoac
Speaker 10: at all Sheriff's department be involved in the search at all.
Speaker 10: You know, shouldn't they have been completely withdrawing. Okay, now,
Speaker 10: let's look at what happened. Though it's a Manitoc County case. Okay,
Speaker 10: she was killed in Manitoac County. In Wisconsin and the
Speaker 10: United States everywhere, the county where it happened is the
Speaker 10: venue the law enforcement agency from that county. In ninety
Speaker 10: nine point ninety nine percent of crimes they do the investigation. Now,
Speaker 10: there was a reason not to do it that way
Speaker 10: in this case, of course, because of what happened earlier.
Speaker 10: So what they did right or wrong, the Sheriff's department
Speaker 10: recognized that, you know, there is this conflict. We can't
Speaker 10: do this the way we do ninety nine point ninety
Speaker 10: nine percent of the other cases. We're going to have
Speaker 10: to do it different. So what we're going to do
Speaker 10: is we're not going to have Manitoac County cops they're
Speaker 10: searching alone. We're always going to have somebody else with them.
Speaker 10: And that's a little bit like being half pregnant. It
Speaker 10: doesn't work, you know, there isn't one or the other.
Speaker 10: But that's not the way they looked at it. They
Speaker 10: thought they were protecting themselves and protecting the integrity of
Speaker 10: the investigation, and obviously they weren't. It didn't turn out
Speaker 10: that way, Lincoln Colburn. Those two guys were portrayed in
Speaker 10: the documentary as basically being on the hook for the
Speaker 10: money in the runful conviction lawsuit. They weren't. They weren't
Speaker 10: defendants in the runful conviction lawsuit. They were witnesses. They
Speaker 10: weren't even here when Avery was wrongly convicted in nineteen
Speaker 10: eighty five. Well, I take that back, Colburn might No,
Speaker 10: I don't think either of them were on the force
Speaker 10: even in nineteen ninety five when they got the call.
Speaker 10: And the listeners who really have gotten into this will
Speaker 10: recall when Lincoln Colburn received the telephone call from the
Speaker 10: Brown County Jail, Green Bay, from a jailer there, I believe,
Speaker 10: saying or a detective saying, look, we have this guy
Speaker 10: in custody who says he's responsible for a rape on
Speaker 10: a beach that you have someone in custody for in
Speaker 10: prison for for ten years now. Lincoln Colburn. One was
Speaker 10: a corrections officer young the other was a deputy. Neither
Speaker 10: of them were police officers in Manitoa County in nineteen
Speaker 10: eighty five, but they weren't ninety five. And when they
Speaker 10: got that call, they did just what they should have.
Speaker 10: They sent it up the line the chain of come
Speaker 10: in and they're working third shift, I believe, and get
Speaker 10: this call. You know, are they supposed to drop everything
Speaker 10: and themselves take on an investigation. No, they're not even detective.
Speaker 10: So they send it up the line the chain of command.
Speaker 10: It comes back down saying, ah, that's a bunch of boloney.
Speaker 10: We got our guys's been in prison forever. The Court
Speaker 10: of Appeals has has affirmed the conviction. Tell green Bay,
Speaker 10: you know, we don't have time to waste that. I
Speaker 10: don't know if that came from the sheriff, it might
Speaker 10: have all the way up to the sheriff some higher up.
Speaker 10: But it wasn't Lincoln Colbert who manipulated and hid evidence
Speaker 10: against that would have freed Stephen Avery. They did what
Speaker 10: their job required at the time. People may not want
Speaker 10: to agree with that if they were in the system
Speaker 10: and in the shoes of a corrections officer and a
Speaker 10: deputy at the time, if you have any police officers
Speaker 10: on listening or corrections officers listening who can put themselves
Speaker 10: in that exact position have knowing nothing about the case.
Speaker 10: And you know, I hate to say it right or on,
Speaker 10: but if law enforcement hears police here out of the
Speaker 10: blue that some guys saying that he did some crime
Speaker 10: that somebody's already been in prison for ten years, there
Speaker 10: won't be taken much more seriously than put it up
Speaker 10: the chain of command to somebody who might know. And
Speaker 10: then if the people up the chain of command said
Speaker 10: there's nothing to it, that'll be the end of it
Speaker 10: for those guys. So these guys weren't the bad guys
Speaker 10: in the earlier case, should they have been there? I
Speaker 10: think the ideally the Mantoh County officials, the Sheriff's department
Speaker 10: should have just said no searching by Manitoa County. But
Speaker 10: just as a practical I know you want to move
Speaker 10: on here, But as a practical matter, Kelly met County
Speaker 10: is maybe a fourth of the size of Manitoac County
Speaker 10: and the Sheriff's department is probably even less than that.
Speaker 5: They have a.
Speaker 10: Less crime per capita in County met County than they do.
Speaker 10: And it's so to search this extensive property without help
Speaker 10: by the home county as it were not realistic. I
Speaker 10: guess they should have got just you know, one of
Speaker 10: maybe Brown County could have done the whole thing. Maybe
Speaker 10: the state cops could have done the whole thing. They
Speaker 10: thought they were doing what they should. They were treating
Speaker 10: it different than ninety nine point nine percent of the
Speaker 10: other crimes in the county by having never a manitoa
Speaker 10: county cops search it alone. They thought that would do it.
Speaker 10: And I believe that search in the bedroom was like
Speaker 10: eight weeks after the initial searches. They really didn't expect.
Speaker 10: My understanding is to find substance of criminal evidence at
Speaker 10: that time they were looking through mister Avery had a
Speaker 10: stack of pornography. Actually in that in the bookcase. The
Speaker 10: shelves that they showed empty by the way making a
Speaker 10: murder folks showed empty with the key, It wasn't empty
Speaker 10: when Lincoln Kobra moved. It was stacked full of pornography
Speaker 10: and they had to go through it to see if
Speaker 10: there's anything relevant to be used at trial. And my
Speaker 10: understanding is when they put that back that the backing
Speaker 10: fell off and or fell partially off, and the key
Speaker 10: fell out. And if you think about it, Avery, but
Speaker 10: anybody who's going to hide a piece of evidence like that,
Speaker 10: the last thing left was the car, and the key
Speaker 10: was going to be the next thing used to move
Speaker 10: the car to get rid of the car, presumably in
Speaker 10: the car crusher. You'd want to hide that key really
Speaker 10: well in a place like that. So you know, you
Speaker 10: look at this and you're thinking, oh my gosh, how
Speaker 10: you know, how could they be the ones that find
Speaker 10: the key after so many searches, How could it just
Speaker 10: PLoP out there? Look what it looked like in the show.
Speaker 10: There was an empty bookcase for crying out loud. And
Speaker 10: these guys were the evil ones from ten years ago
Speaker 10: who blew off, you know, a claim that Avery was innocent.
Speaker 10: The details I just listed should at least give listeners
Speaker 10: maybe a pause. I am conceding that at first brushed
Speaker 10: this looks horrible. Okay, no one will ever know with
Speaker 10: one hundred percent certitude what happened in that bedroom. The
Speaker 10: only thing I am saying is look at all of it,
Speaker 10: and don't assume that what they showed, such as that
Speaker 10: empty bookcase with the key on the floor is the
Speaker 10: end of the story because it's not.
Speaker 9: Interesting. That's a good point. Here's the follow up to that,
Speaker 9: And for the sluice that have followed this is that
Speaker 9: there's a photo of Teresa Hallback holding What normal people
Speaker 9: would say is that you wouldn't just have one key,
Speaker 9: And of course you've explained why it might just be
Speaker 9: one key and the rest of the key's been separated.
Speaker 9: But the contention is now, where the talk is now
Speaker 9: is that only Steven Avery's DNA was found on that
Speaker 9: key and not Teresa Hallbacks. So they speculate, well, how
Speaker 9: could that happen? Well, how do you address that?
Speaker 10: Well, I think forensically, you know that that can happen.
Speaker 10: That DNA is I'm not an expert in DNA, but
Speaker 10: I've know enough to know that it's not everywhere. It
Speaker 10: can be casually put on and it can be casually
Speaker 10: taken off. So if somebody touches it after the fact,
Speaker 10: whatever was there prior to that fact, to that touching
Speaker 10: will no longer be there. And you know, when you
Speaker 10: test for DNA, they find all kinds of DNA. It's
Speaker 10: just whether there's enough of a sample suitable sample is
Speaker 10: the way they testify in court, suitable for comparison purposes
Speaker 10: or for identification purposes. Excuse me, so you know, it's
Speaker 10: what we call the CSI effect, where every that he
Speaker 10: expects there to be physical scientific evidence in every square
Speaker 10: inch of every crime scene, and it isn't that way.
Speaker 10: Fingerprints are the best example of that. They have to
Speaker 10: find suitable prints, latent prints that can be lifted for
Speaker 10: comparison purposes. And things in life are messy DNA, biological material, fingerprints, blood.
Speaker 10: You know, it's not like there there. We're looking at
Speaker 10: this through some some you know, book or something where
Speaker 10: we can say this piece right here contains the whole truth.
Speaker 10: The truth is smeared together.
Speaker 4: Judy was boring.
Speaker 8: Hello.
Speaker 4: Then Judy discovered Jump of casino dot com.
Speaker 3: It's my little escape.
Speaker 4: Now Judy is the life of the party. Oh mam
Speaker 4: is bringing home the bacon.
Speaker 11: Who take it easy, Judy, the jumble life is forever.
Speaker 11: So go to chumpicksino dot com and play over one
Speaker 11: hundred casino style games joined today and playing for free
Speaker 11: for your chance to redeem some serious prices.
Speaker 4: Jump chumpick Asino dot com.
Speaker 3: No necessary, We're promited to go one plus terms and
Speaker 3: conditions to whatever.
Speaker 10: Details with lots of material, and half the time there
Speaker 10: is no scientific material. That's one of the tragedies of
Speaker 10: exonerations where we've kind of got to the end. We
Speaker 10: talk about the Wisconsin Innocence Project of the low hanging fruit,
Speaker 10: that is, the ones that we can prove we're roundful
Speaker 10: convictions because there was physical evidence there to be tested.
Speaker 10: Most cases there aren't. So the DNA cases are done
Speaker 10: for the most part, I mean there's still some, but
Speaker 10: so for every you know, for the three hundred and
Speaker 10: fifty roundful convictions that in the United States have been
Speaker 10: proven by DNA testing since what nineteen eighty nine or so,
Speaker 10: that leads a whole slew of people or in prison
Speaker 10: right now who did not commit the crime for which
Speaker 10: they're they're innocent people in prison that DNA isn't present
Speaker 10: to test because there wasn't scientific physical evidence. Most crimes,
Speaker 10: at least, you know, most kinds don't have slam dunk,
Speaker 10: smoking gun physical evidence. And that's a tragedy on both sides,
Speaker 10: and finding guilty and finding innocence, it's just the way
Speaker 10: it is.
Speaker 5: Though.
Speaker 9: Now let's get to a big issue, which is the
Speaker 9: blood planting or potential blood planting or the conspiracy to
Speaker 9: blood plant blood DNA from Steven Avery. What I got
Speaker 9: out of this entire ten hour documentary series for me
Speaker 9: was that it hinged on that that that was a
Speaker 9: very important hinge of this was that if it were
Speaker 9: plant did blood, then that blood that's in that vial
Speaker 9: that everybody saw in the documentary would have been had
Speaker 9: the preservative E d T A or as such that
Speaker 9: e d T A if tested to be at the
Speaker 9: crime scene in the rav four and if not, so
Speaker 9: can you speak to that ed T A test and
Speaker 9: that issue of potential planting of blood.
Speaker 10: Sure, but my impression was that both sides were sort
Speaker 10: of playing cat and mouse with the blood. The defense,
Speaker 10: I'm not sure the defense wanted to know, and the prosecution,
Speaker 10: I guess wasn't going to do it unless the defense
Speaker 10: brought it up that that, you know, I didn't try
Speaker 10: the case. I I I there was a but there
Speaker 10: seemed to me, just from you know, an outsider's view,
Speaker 10: although I'm a prosecutor, but from an outside prosecutor's view
Speaker 10: of what was going on is it took a long
Speaker 10: time during the run up to the murder trial for
Speaker 10: the defense to decide if they're going to ask that
Speaker 10: they be allowed the blood, and they they only after
Speaker 10: they had brought the motion, but they didn't have it
Speaker 10: heard in court, and so that issue was sort of
Speaker 10: out there until close to the end of the trial
Speaker 10: when all of a sudden, the defense the court granted
Speaker 10: the defense motion that they could claim, you know, essentially
Speaker 10: that they were claiming the frame up defense. The state,
Speaker 10: as you know, quickly moved to get this test that
Speaker 10: the the eye I think Mark I forget his name
Speaker 10: right now, le Beau put together in short order, I think,
Speaker 10: within two weeks, working you know, around the clock, developed
Speaker 10: this this test, this protocol, and the test that he
Speaker 10: developed showed that there was, you know, the lack of
Speaker 10: the presence of the preservative that that would have been
Speaker 10: there had it come from the blood file in the
Speaker 10: clerk co Court's office. Now that's the you know, sixty
Speaker 10: four thousand dollars question, right, was that test legitimate? Had
Speaker 10: it had it gone through peer review enough?
Speaker 5: Had it.
Speaker 10: Do we can we really place enough confidence in that
Speaker 10: scientific test to know with absolute certitude that there is
Speaker 10: none of that preservative in those specs in the blood
Speaker 10: spatter that was found in in Theresa all about suv
Speaker 10: I guess my response is, I don't know that science
Speaker 10: will ever have presents us with that kind of certitude,
Speaker 10: you know, about anything almost I think we have this
Speaker 10: faith in science that that so so does the state
Speaker 10: have to prove, you know, with absolute certitude, that something
Speaker 10: that the blood did not have the preservative. It's just
Speaker 10: one of those issues that, with everything else, the jury
Speaker 10: had to wrestle with and they did. Obviously they wrestled
Speaker 10: with it a lot. I think they were out to
Speaker 10: two and a half almost three days before reaching a verdict.
Speaker 9: So uh.
Speaker 10: And of course the other part of the blood vile
Speaker 10: is is the is the needle the whole uh Yeah.
Speaker 10: And my understanding is that that is not each typical.
Speaker 10: It actually is typical of how of what you would
Speaker 10: expect the tube to look like because of the way
Speaker 10: they withdraw blood and then inserted into the blood vile
Speaker 10: through uh through a needle into the tube and finally
Speaker 10: into the zeal. Frankly, I don't know. I don't know
Speaker 10: the answer to that. I I I suspect that you
Speaker 10: know that that tube that vile had been uh tested
Speaker 10: on prior occasions. He had two Stephen Abery had two
Speaker 10: prior appeals in his wrongful conviction case with that very
Speaker 10: blood vile So that thing had been sent back in
Speaker 10: force to the crime lab, but at least two times,
Speaker 10: maybe three, and for testing purposes.
Speaker 9: And that's a good example of disingenuine filmmaker, I think,
Speaker 9: because of either they did the necessary research or they
Speaker 9: accidentally did that. You know, in terms of skewing it
Speaker 9: a certain way. That looks like a very dramatic point
Speaker 9: in the documentary, isn't it that you've got a broken seal?
Speaker 5: Ahaha?
Speaker 9: And as you say, it looks like, oh, this never happens.
Speaker 9: We talked to somebody, this never happens. There's a syringe.
Speaker 9: Oh my god, there you go, and then you so
Speaker 9: in the continuum globally, then there's blood inside and then
Speaker 9: people can again contentious, Oh that's not the way blood
Speaker 9: would really be, and there's no okay, it's hinging on edta.
Speaker 9: So they had me by this selective use of evidence,
Speaker 9: which every documentary would have a certain position, we'll say
Speaker 9: in this because of the circumstances, because of their extraordinary access,
Speaker 9: and like you say, the charming and convincing defense team
Speaker 9: would be putting on their best show just naturally, not
Speaker 9: you acturally what they would do. So the thing is
Speaker 9: now is that you have the the nexus is. But
Speaker 9: people have said, okay, or at least people that are
Speaker 9: criticizing making a murderer, tell us about the DNA that
Speaker 9: they did find under the hood latch, m.
Speaker 10: Right, or the DNA and the bullet fragment that was
Speaker 10: found in Stephen Avery's garage. But yeah, I mean, there
Speaker 10: was no question Stephen Avery's DNA was found under the
Speaker 10: hood latch of the vehicle, which the state's theory is
Speaker 10: that you know, he he he moved that vehicle and
Speaker 10: opened the hood latch, and he moved Teresa's body. I
Speaker 10: don't think that was mentioned in there, and I think
Speaker 10: they made they suggested anyhow that the bullet found in
Speaker 10: Stephen Abray's garage with Teresa Hullbuck's DNA on it, which
Speaker 10: I know is controversial as well because the testing of
Speaker 10: that bullet. I believe that's the issue when whether Sherry
Speaker 10: Colheen at the crime web, whether that was contaminated or not.
Speaker 10: But in any event, they made it seem like that
Speaker 10: bullet fragment was again found by Manitoa County Police, and
Speaker 10: it wasn't. There were no Manitoa County Police officers inside
Speaker 10: the garage when the bullet was found, and they showed,
Speaker 10: as I recall, kind of a close up of an
Speaker 10: evidence transmittle form with the bullet with the signature of
Speaker 10: Lieutenant David Remaker from the Manitoa County Sheriffs to our
Speaker 10: suggesting that Rimiker or just the sheriffs to Burnman had
Speaker 10: found the bullet, when in fact, that's that's a transmittal
Speaker 10: form basically meaningless. It's it's packaged. It's when things are
Speaker 10: packaged and sent to the crime lab, somebody's got to
Speaker 10: sign it. So there was plenty of oh, I'm not
Speaker 10: sure what the right term is, but lack of completeness
Speaker 10: and lack of candor lack of objectivity. I think, you know,
Speaker 10: nobody wants. People get upset when I talk about the
Speaker 10: cat burning incident and the ramming Steve Vidaver ramming his
Speaker 10: pickup truck into the woman's car and then holding her
Speaker 10: at knife point. Neither of those were portrayed, honestly, and
Speaker 10: people don't like it when I talk about that because
Speaker 10: they say that has nothing to do with the murder.
Speaker 10: It's all true. It has nothing to do with the murder.
Speaker 10: But both of those in evidence, the reality of them
Speaker 10: versus how they were portrayed in the documentary, has everything
Speaker 10: to do with the question we're discussing now, which is
Speaker 10: whether making a murder was honest or whether it was
Speaker 10: agenda driven and one sided. And you know, I think
Speaker 10: your audience is probably familiar enough with those two incidents,
Speaker 10: but you know that cat burning incident wasn't a prank
Speaker 10: when he was a kid with some friends where the
Speaker 10: cat accidentally ended up tossing the fire. Stephen Avery boused
Speaker 10: it with gasoline and threw it into the fire, watched
Speaker 10: it burn. You know, he applied guilty to animal cruelty
Speaker 10: and I think he got sixty or ninety days jail
Speaker 10: for that. And you know, just that if you're going
Speaker 10: to make somebody a protagonist and a hero, you need
Speaker 10: to explain away an incident where somebody douses a cat
Speaker 10: with gas and tosses it into a fire. You know,
Speaker 10: have a hard time convincing an audience to feel very
Speaker 10: sympathetic about a person like that. And they knew they
Speaker 10: had to include it, but the way they portrayed it,
Speaker 10: and you know, ask the listeners if they're if they
Speaker 10: think I'm full of it, you know, go back to
Speaker 10: that episode and see if I'm right. And the thing
Speaker 10: on that it was really down played and doesn't mean
Speaker 10: he did the murder. No, I absolutely not, but doesn't
Speaker 10: mean making a murder or maybe was uh was a
Speaker 10: little too sympathetic toward one side and antagonistic toward the other.
Speaker 10: I think it does, you know, and real briefly because
Speaker 10: I just talked about it, the incident with ramming his
Speaker 10: pickup truck into the car. I mean, if you listen
Speaker 10: to making a murderer, if you from their point of view,
Speaker 10: Stephen was almost like the victim in that case, sort
Speaker 10: of getting back at the woman who was prejudicial toward
Speaker 10: him and his family. Apparently didn't have any you know,
Speaker 10: had a kind of a hatred about her. But they
Speaker 10: suggested that that was his attempt, a poor attempt, but
Speaker 10: just an attempt to get back at her for spreading
Speaker 10: rumors about him and his family. In fact, Stephen Avery
Speaker 10: had been watching her with a pair of binoculars for weeks,
Speaker 10: if not months actually, As she got into her car
Speaker 10: down the road early in the morning he had sexually
Speaker 10: gratified himself as she drove by outside on his pickup truck.
Speaker 10: As she drove by his house, he ran into the
Speaker 10: road naked in front of her once. I mean, this
Speaker 10: is not just a person. He wasn't the victim in
Speaker 10: that case. He then held her at gunpoint. After that
Speaker 10: one particular incident when he rammed her pickup truck, she
Speaker 10: lost control of her car after he rammed his pickup
Speaker 10: chuck inhood. He held her at gunpoint and only let
Speaker 10: her go after she begged him because of her baby
Speaker 10: in the back car would have frozen Stephen avery six
Speaker 10: of the eighteen years that he did in prison on
Speaker 10: the wrongful conviction case. He would have done anyhow because
Speaker 10: of that offense. He pled guilty or no contest, I
Speaker 10: don't remember which to a charge associated with that event,
Speaker 10: not a sexual assault charge because it wasn't a sex assault.
Speaker 10: He backed off. He did not do what he wanted
Speaker 10: to do with her, and you can I prove he
Speaker 10: wanted to do that with her. No, but with somebody
Speaker 10: watching her with binaculars for months that get into the
Speaker 10: car and running out naked in front of her and
Speaker 10: masturbating while she drove by, and then one day he
Speaker 10: happens to ram her, rams pick up into your car
Speaker 10: and holds a gun, a rifle, letter points an editor
Speaker 10: and holds her at gunpoint. I you know, I'd take
Speaker 10: that to a jury if he as far as his
Speaker 10: intent goes. But so it's a messy, messy case, and
Speaker 10: it's a messy documentary.
Speaker 9: Now let's get to one of the more serious issues too,
Speaker 9: is that the documentary intimates that there were bones or yeah,
Speaker 9: there were bones of Teresa Halbach found in some place
Speaker 9: other than the burn pit, which was in the backyard
Speaker 9: twenty feet away from Stephen Avery's trailer. Tell us about
Speaker 9: this issue, whether this is true or not.
Speaker 10: Yeah, well, I think there were other locations and the
Speaker 10: Avery premises where there were bones that were believed to
Speaker 10: be Teresa Hobbox, a few others, and then there was
Speaker 10: some other I think a quarry or something further away
Speaker 10: from the premises where there were bones, but it was
Speaker 10: never really determined whether those were animal bones or human bones,
Speaker 10: much less Teresa's bones. But there was more than one
Speaker 10: location to be sure, where it appeared that Teresa hobbox
Speaker 10: remains were located. So you know, again the question is, well,
Speaker 10: what do we draw from that, you know, And I
Speaker 10: think what the defense tried to say is one thing
Speaker 10: and what the state tried to say is another. The
Speaker 10: defense said, well, that meant that somebody had you know, planted,
Speaker 10: had moved the Teresa's remains from a different location to
Speaker 10: the to the burn barrel or the burn pip and
Speaker 10: the states theory was that, well, what that really shows
Speaker 10: is that Stephen Avery, you know, the source of the
Speaker 10: burning was right outside his house, his trailer, and then
Speaker 10: he was gradually trying to move out move those bones
Speaker 10: to other locations. So I don't know that that, you know,
Speaker 10: it's kind of a two edged sort. I'm not sure
Speaker 10: which way that cuts necessarily, but it's one more thing
Speaker 10: that at first look would convince people that, especially with
Speaker 10: everything else that, you know, there's some police Shenanigan's going
Speaker 10: on here.
Speaker 9: They do have a point in the documentary too that's
Speaker 9: very dramatic in that they have some report of the
Speaker 9: disappearance of Teresa Hallback or you can correct me on this,
Speaker 9: but they're asking the question is he in custody yet?
Speaker 9: So seems to be that he wouldn't be. There wouldn't
Speaker 9: be grounds for him to be arrested at at that
Speaker 9: point and in custody, and yet that you can address that, Yeah,
Speaker 9: I think.
Speaker 10: I think what you're referring to as one of the
Speaker 10: officers is heard over the radio saying in a kind
Speaker 10: of a top type voice, you know, Stephen Avery and
Speaker 10: custody yet or something like that. And I think that,
Speaker 10: you know, it raises that issue of how people jump
Speaker 10: to conclusions. And that was the problem in the first case,
Speaker 10: that they just assumed from the get go, without much
Speaker 10: evidence at all, that it must have been Stephen Avery
Speaker 10: that raped or tried to rape Penny Bertson on the
Speaker 10: beach back in nineteen eighty five, because the description sort
Speaker 10: of matched him. Now in this case, you know that
Speaker 10: officer I think at least had knowledge that Stephen Avery
Speaker 10: had been the one to call for Teresa Holbach to
Speaker 10: come out to the salvage yard. Now should is bad
Speaker 10: enough to have him, you know, suggested in his mind
Speaker 10: or concluded in his mind that it must be Avery.
Speaker 10: So is he in custody? I don't think so. You
Speaker 10: know that that wasn't that that doesn't make sense at
Speaker 10: that point. Is Stephen Avery suspect right off the bat?
Speaker 10: And in fact, with Steven Avery the number one suspect,
Speaker 10: I think anytimes you know, a vehicle is found in
Speaker 10: somebody's residence concealed like this in the property and that
Speaker 10: person is the one who had called her out there specifically,
Speaker 10: he would certainly be one of the top suspects lacking
Speaker 10: other information at that point. So yeah, I think that
Speaker 10: does show effectively how like everybody else jumps to some
Speaker 10: conclusion sometimes, but I don't think it shows too much
Speaker 10: more than that nothing you know, nefarious necessarily or suggestive
Speaker 10: of some kind of conspiracy, just just kind of cats
Speaker 10: jump at the conclusion, which is a prown in its
Speaker 10: own right, but doesn't go to the issue of whether
Speaker 10: you know they actually planted evidence here the way I
Speaker 10: look at it.
Speaker 9: Anyhow, let's talk about those phone calls and the Star
Speaker 9: six seven to conceal his identity, and then the one
Speaker 9: at four point thirty which they call said that would
Speaker 9: establish an alibi where he doesn't use the Star sixty seven,
Speaker 9: and tell us a little bit more about that and
Speaker 9: what you think that you can conclude from that.
Speaker 10: So with the Star sixty seven, that is, you know,
Speaker 10: the state thinks, and I think it's a pretty fair inference.
Speaker 10: Doesn't prove anything, but it is one suggestion that he
Speaker 10: did not want Theresa to know that he was the
Speaker 10: one that was calling her out to take to this
Speaker 10: salvage yard that day, to have pictures taken of this vehicle.
Speaker 10: One bit of evidence among lots and lots of other
Speaker 10: evidence that's legitimate, I think for the state to look at,
Speaker 10: you know, now, the call that you're referring to. Can
Speaker 10: you refresh my memory on that again, Dan, I don't,
Speaker 10: I hope I know what you're talking about, but I'll learn.
Speaker 9: Well, he made a call, he had used he had
Speaker 9: called I mean, it's not that unusual that he had
Speaker 9: called Teresa hallback. He had called her before he wanted
Speaker 9: to sell his vehicle. There's many theories, many reasons that
Speaker 9: don't prove very much. And so he's concealing his the
Speaker 9: number with the star six seven, but at four point
Speaker 9: thirty he gives her the same number a call and
Speaker 9: doesn't use the star sixty seven, which again is not
Speaker 9: evidence in itself, but it is circumstantial evidence of Oh.
Speaker 10: That, yeah, that would suggest if he's calling her, then
Speaker 10: you're saying and that was after the Well, they don't
Speaker 10: know exactly when she was killed, I suppose, but I
Speaker 10: guess that that could be used by the defense to say, no,
Speaker 10: he wasn't trying to hide her identity, or if the
Speaker 10: timing's right, you know that that he didn't think she
Speaker 10: was she had been murdered.
Speaker 5: Yet.
Speaker 10: I'm not sure exactly what they're trying to say, but
Speaker 10: you're absolutely right. All of these things at some point
Speaker 10: become and I can't even keep up with them all
Speaker 10: and I don't know if I plan to, which you know,
Speaker 10: at some point I'll try to keep up with what
Speaker 10: I can. But sometimes we become so speculative with evidence
Speaker 10: that could go one way or the other, that it
Speaker 10: just it gets to be a you know, sort of
Speaker 10: an exercise and futility I guess right or wrong. What
Speaker 10: I like to do is take the main bits of
Speaker 10: evidence that are really meaningful, and that might mean thirty
Speaker 10: pieces of evidence and not just physical pieces of evidence,
Speaker 10: but you know, meaningful entities, whether it's physical or statements
Speaker 10: or circumstances, and really drill down on those to see
Speaker 10: where I think they lead, because you could end up
Speaker 10: with hundreds, if not thousands, of sub parts to analyze
Speaker 10: that might lead in a couple different directions, and maybe
Speaker 10: it's just me, but my mind can't fit all that in.
Speaker 10: And I don't know if the one you're speaking to,
Speaker 10: you know, might be a larger piece of evidence that
Speaker 10: I know. The Star sixty seven, frankly is a piece
Speaker 10: of evidence. I don't know that I throw it up
Speaker 10: there in the top thirty either, he said the way
Speaker 10: I would look at those two pieces.
Speaker 9: Now, there has been lots of talk about and again
Speaker 9: I don't want to we could never cross examine or
Speaker 9: re examine all of the bits of evidence to say,
Speaker 9: but I want to ask you this question, because I
Speaker 9: think this is important. Was what did step and Avery
Speaker 9: say when he was initially questioned about Teresa Hallback and
Speaker 9: her appearance on his property and his interaction were with her?
Speaker 9: This is left out of the documentary. If I'm getting
Speaker 9: this correct, what did he initially say to the police
Speaker 9: about his interaction or any interaction with Teresa Hallback?
Speaker 10: Well, I thought he just said that she was there,
Speaker 10: and I think he admitted he saw did he and
Speaker 10: then and then she left? There was some inconsistency later.
Speaker 10: But again, if if he can refresh my memory.
Speaker 9: Well, my sources, my sources and again, I I was
Speaker 9: this is just recent in that for my research was
Speaker 9: that he initially said to police that he had not
Speaker 9: seen her, and that's one of the parts of the
Speaker 9: documentary that was missing in that they contended that he
Speaker 9: changed his story when well, the second time he was
Speaker 9: questioned about.
Speaker 5: It then.
Speaker 9: Said that he had called her and that he hadn't
Speaker 9: seen her. Was his initial statement to police. Now, unless
Speaker 9: I've read that completely wrong.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I think I saw that somewhere too. I'm not
Speaker 10: you know, I'm not going to bet the farm on that,
Speaker 10: but I I know there were some inconsistencies in his
Speaker 10: early statement, his initial statements to the police, quite a few, actually,
Speaker 10: and I don't know the exact details, so I'm not
Speaker 10: going to speak to it, but you know, I guess
Speaker 10: i've I've I was convinced enough that I knew for
Speaker 10: my own purposes that this was not an objective look
Speaker 10: at this, that there were some things that I knew
Speaker 10: were left out that at some point I lost interest
Speaker 10: in proving that. I'm not you know, I'm not going
Speaker 10: to go on some mission to prove it. I guess
Speaker 10: I've been speaking out a lot about the justice system
Speaker 10: and about that making a murder. It's not accurate and
Speaker 10: I and I've tried to pick four or five things
Speaker 10: that I think pretty much established that there's a lot
Speaker 10: more that I know I could find. But you know,
Speaker 10: I always like to come back to the point I
Speaker 10: started with, and because here we are talking about, you know,
Speaker 10: what they did and what they didn't do, and that
Speaker 10: is a big part of this, But a larger part
Speaker 10: of it to me is that it's not going to
Speaker 10: be making a murderer that determines whether Steven Avery should
Speaker 10: have a new trial or Brendan Desci. Both of those
Speaker 10: things should be really, really thoroughly worked out in court
Speaker 10: with with aggressive attorneys on the defense side, both of
Speaker 10: whom have them. Stephen Avery's attorney, very competent and aggressive attorney.
Speaker 10: I'm sure she would look at that as a compliment.
Speaker 10: Kathleen Zelner and likewise Brendan Darcy's attorneys at the Wonderful
Speaker 10: Conviction Center in Chicago. So they are the ones who
Speaker 10: will come forward with as much evidence as they can,
Speaker 10: garner in arguments that they can garner and law supporting
Speaker 10: their arguments that they can garner to ask the courts.
Speaker 10: In the case of Stephen Aby it'll be back in
Speaker 10: the trial court in a post conviction motion to grant
Speaker 10: him Stephen a new trial. And in the case of
Speaker 10: mister Dacy, it's already in federal court. I think the
Speaker 10: briefs have already been filed. They've already asked that not
Speaker 10: exactly that they grant a new trial. It's at a
Speaker 10: different pasture. It's at a habeas petition at federal court,
Speaker 10: which means his state rooms have been exhausted. But he
Speaker 10: is asking the federal court to take a look at
Speaker 10: the interrogation, to take a look at his deprivation of
Speaker 10: liberty right now, and that it's an unconstitutional deprivation of
Speaker 10: liberty because of of a of a interrogation, that that
Speaker 10: that coerced him to give up his due process right
Speaker 10: not to self incriminate himself. So these are issues that
Speaker 10: the courts are going to wrestle through that the state
Speaker 10: has a right and a duty to suggest if they
Speaker 10: believe it, and I can assure you they believe it,
Speaker 10: and I believe it, And I'm only speaking about mister
Speaker 10: Avery's case here right now, that he did get a
Speaker 10: fair trial and that all of the evidence that they
Speaker 10: are going to bring to bear, and all the arguments
Speaker 10: that they're going to bring to bear suggesting that he
Speaker 10: didn't are not sufficient to grant tomdu trial.
Speaker 9: And that.
Speaker 10: Mister Abury remained.
Speaker 5: Where he is.
Speaker 10: Rightfully convicted, this time in serving the rest of his
Speaker 10: life in prison.
Speaker 9: In light of the extreme, incredible injustice that he endured,
Speaker 9: in light of the seemingly sense of impropriety. I know
Speaker 9: you've done a great job explaining why Manitowaka officials were
Speaker 9: involved in light of the public's interest and the public cry,
Speaker 9: especially when you get some hall with actors behind it. Right,
Speaker 9: is not a trial? Maybe he's entitled to a trial.
Speaker 9: Is maybe the state maybe in their best interest to
Speaker 9: have another trial since they're really confident with the evidence
Speaker 9: that really is there not the evidence that's not portrayed
Speaker 9: in the documentary. Right isn't it just a way of
Speaker 9: satisfying everybody, whether even if it's legally not really sound,
Speaker 9: just give this character another trial.
Speaker 10: Well that's a you know, that's a really that is
Speaker 10: an interesting question. It's a different way of looking at it.
Speaker 5: It's a.
Speaker 10: It's a question that could come I think natural to
Speaker 10: people if it were just you know, if this were
Speaker 10: just an event a national event in the media and
Speaker 10: among true crime circles and among people feel strong about
Speaker 10: these issues. Sure, but it is an actual case where
Speaker 10: someone lost her life, where somebody else is in prison,
Speaker 10: where police have been drugged through the mud, police who
Speaker 10: you know, devoted themselves to many, many years of honest service.
Speaker 10: There are some horribly dishonest cops out there. There are
Speaker 10: in every state. These two guys aren't, in my opinion,
Speaker 10: two of them, but neither here nor there. The point
Speaker 10: I'm trying to make is we can't just the system
Speaker 10: can't afford, not not financially, but the system can't operate
Speaker 10: by going sort of outside the constitutional principles that have
Speaker 10: guided it for since the seventeen hundreds, you know, since
Speaker 10: England or wherever we get our rules of evidence, and
Speaker 10: not just our rules of evidence, our right to it
Speaker 10: trial and our right to prove bean a reasonable doubt
Speaker 10: and to a good lawyer. There's a whole system of
Speaker 10: complicated stuff, but ultimately rational stuff I think that determines
Speaker 10: these issues, you know, and that does give a defendant
Speaker 10: a right to a new trial, but not every not
Speaker 10: under just because you know, he got he was There
Speaker 10: was a horrible injustice perpetrated upon him in a prior case.
Speaker 10: The law, I guess you could say it's too rational,
Speaker 10: maybe at some level, but the law really really stands
Speaker 10: on reason, and reason is connected to justice, and in
Speaker 10: a way maybe that emotion isn't, or entertainment isn't, or
Speaker 10: interest isn't. So I suppose I'm a defender of the
Speaker 10: law here, even though I often find myself in presentations
Speaker 10: and in my writing, especially the first book and in
Speaker 10: other articles I've written a big critic of the current
Speaker 10: status the state of the criminal justice system in the
Speaker 10: United States. But that's not the law. It's the way.
Speaker 10: It's the way sometimes things are done, more than the
Speaker 10: actual law. Long answer, but I really don't think it
Speaker 10: would serve any It would it would? I think it
Speaker 10: would be a real disservice. And this will really hit
Speaker 10: some of the IDIO. It's members hard, I know, but
Speaker 10: I think it'd be a real disservice. First, even Abery
Speaker 10: to get a second trial, another trial short of some
Speaker 10: type of evidence that newly discovered evidence that is what
Speaker 10: it's it's called under the law, that suggests that the
Speaker 10: the that it's material that that is it would it
Speaker 10: would suggest that the matter really wasn't tried fairly, that
Speaker 10: there's something else that a jury should have heard that
Speaker 10: could result in a different result, could lead to a
Speaker 10: different results, certainly physical evidence. What if there was a
Speaker 10: new blood test and it did show edta preservative, my goodness,
Speaker 10: you know, he should have a second trial in a minute.
Speaker 10: Or what if there was an alternative suspect that really
Speaker 10: looked like you know, not just some you know, speculation
Speaker 10: that this guy's a bad guy and maybe he did it,
Speaker 10: but that there was a connection and a motive and
Speaker 10: an opportunity and something beyond speculation that this person could
Speaker 10: have been the assailant. Absolutely he should get a new trial.
Speaker 10: So I guess you'll never say never in the Stephen
Speaker 10: Avery case. But short of that kind of evidence, I
Speaker 10: don't believe that Stephen Avery should or will obtain a
Speaker 10: new trial.
Speaker 9: Hm. Well, I don't want to disagree with you, but
Speaker 9: I think that just my idea is, and pardon me
Speaker 9: if I say this, is that I think that it
Speaker 9: would be a very good learning tool for everybody, for
Speaker 9: all the media to understand the media and to understand
Speaker 9: its role and its limitations. And again, the idea of
Speaker 9: everybody having a bias because you know, there's there's some
Speaker 9: organizations that pretend they don't have one, you know, the state,
Speaker 9: there isn't there isn't one. But I think that if
Speaker 9: he were to be entitled to another trial, the media,
Speaker 9: and again this is backed up by Investigation, Discovery, Time Magazine,
Speaker 9: they're coming from this from the position that you are
Speaker 9: from believing that Avery may not have gotten a fair trial.
Speaker 9: They're not really, but definitely he is guilty, and so
Speaker 9: they and they do. They have rallied around the idea
Speaker 9: that making a murderer has been skewed and has left
Speaker 9: things out and has been biased and as certainly seems
Speaker 9: to be agenda driven. Now, so I think that if
Speaker 9: they were to have another trial, the intense scrutiny because
Speaker 9: of this entertainment, as you call it, that everybody that
Speaker 9: the media would have an opportunity to really scrutinize the
Speaker 9: trial and see if it was conducted this time properly.
Speaker 9: Because I think I disagree with you in one way
Speaker 9: in that you think that Brendan Dacy is entitled to
Speaker 9: another trial because or possibly or potentially because of the interrogation.
Speaker 9: But yet at the same time, some of the story
Speaker 9: that was he confessed to created charges that Avery was
Speaker 9: charged with when we're talking about restraining where there was
Speaker 9: no blood evidence, again further complicating this and giving rise
Speaker 9: to speculation in that if Brendan Dassy deserves another trial
Speaker 9: because of the confession, and part of the confession is
Speaker 9: statements that aren't supported with forensic evidence that are at
Speaker 9: least I would think prejudicial to Steven Avery. I think
Speaker 9: just have a couple trials show how interrogation techniques really work.
Speaker 9: And for the record, I got to say, for research
Speaker 9: for this program, I watched the entire fifty six minute interrogation.
Speaker 9: And to be fair to what you're saying, to give
Speaker 9: credence to what you're saying, it look like in atrocious
Speaker 9: interview technique. And yet when I saw the entire fifty
Speaker 9: six minutes, rather than making a murderer version, I thought
Speaker 9: it was fair. I thought it was a fair interrogation.
Speaker 9: I don't know about that technique that they used. I
Speaker 9: think it works on people of a little bit simpler nature,
Speaker 9: but sometimes that's what you're dealing with.
Speaker 10: Yeah, they didn't show the whole thing, your larger issue.
Speaker 10: You know, programs like this where we're talking about these issues,
Speaker 10: you know, and there is a lot of media attention
Speaker 10: played right now, and what did making a murder do?
Speaker 10: You know, sort of reflecting after it, I suppose you're saying, though,
Speaker 10: that that only goes so far that only a trial
Speaker 10: would would really show the massive amount of people that
Speaker 10: have seen, you know, the legions of people have seen
Speaker 10: Netflix the documentary Making a Murder. Only a trial would
Speaker 10: show that number of people the true evidence.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 10: It's it's an interesting thought, I mean, it is. I
Speaker 10: just I'm coming at this very much in it, you know,
Speaker 10: from a I guess creature of my profession, which is,
Speaker 10: you know, we don't do trials for the those kind
Speaker 10: of reasons, for purposes of, you know, showing the public anything.
Speaker 10: We just although there is a political almost a political
Speaker 10: element to this one at this point, it's like, so
Speaker 10: I hear you, Dan, I do I just think because
Speaker 10: there are people involved, and there is there, you know,
Speaker 10: a criminal case where you take somebody's liberty away, and
Speaker 10: where you where you also where a victim has a
Speaker 10: right to sort of see perhaps some kind of closure
Speaker 10: on something. There there has to be even more protection
Speaker 10: for a defendant. You know, that's even more important enclosure
Speaker 10: for a victim. It is people who say, well, it's
Speaker 10: just as much this person's trial that victims families trials
Speaker 10: is the defendant. That's not true. Is that really it's
Speaker 10: the defendants trial. We say that for a reason. It's
Speaker 10: his liberty. We're looking at ta take away. That isn't
Speaker 10: to say Teresa Hubach's not more important than Steven Aver
Speaker 10: and should not be forgotten one of the things that
Speaker 10: we lose in this so many times. But it's Steven
Speaker 10: Avery's child, it's his liberty. But there's rules, and there
Speaker 10: are we don't want to get to the point where
Speaker 10: it depends on the public's view of something. I guess
Speaker 10: whether somebody gets a new child, because next time it
Speaker 10: might be there was a Stephen Avery who has the
Speaker 10: public against them, you know, and then the law that
Speaker 10: would have protected him for to allow him to have
Speaker 10: a new child doesn't permit it. But this is I
Speaker 10: guess our discussion is just showing how strange this case is.
Speaker 10: It's taken on a different level, almost beyond just another
Speaker 10: criminal case, hasn't it. It's it's like an event. It's
Speaker 10: a political, ideological event, cultural event, whatever you want to
Speaker 10: call it, and from my perspective, it all comes back though,
Speaker 10: as interesting as all that is, and it's necessary, I guess,
Speaker 10: as it all is to a case and the actual
Speaker 10: case of real people, real victims, real defendants, and the
Speaker 10: real law. So I guess I guess said where where
Speaker 10: I'd be coming down anyhow on that issue.
Speaker 9: Well, you know the thing is that again I hate
Speaker 9: to predict what's going to happen, but I just saw
Speaker 9: I read some things today about the new attorney and
Speaker 9: some of the strategy and some of the claims already
Speaker 9: are that the bullet never passed through her head. And
Speaker 9: so I think you're going to have an EDTA. Here's
Speaker 9: my prediction, Michael, and I hope i'm talking about. I
Speaker 9: think you're going to have an EDTA expert on the stand.
Speaker 9: And I think and I think you may have, because
Speaker 9: it depends on what happens with this aggressive attorney in
Speaker 9: the second season of Making a Murderer. Because if you
Speaker 9: want to see the fascinations of something, you know, a
Speaker 9: force to be reckoned with and a force that you
Speaker 9: can't stop, right, and that might be the interest in
Speaker 9: this case. But when you get a successful documentary, as
Speaker 9: you know, right, they're going to try to have a
Speaker 9: second I mean, if they're if it isn't their dam
Speaker 9: right now.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I don't well, I think they're they they're they're correct,
Speaker 10: and they're being sincere in that events will determine whether
Speaker 10: there's a second acuenty. I don't think they can push
Speaker 10: that in so much. I think at this point that
Speaker 10: the events will push that. And I think you're right.
Speaker 10: I mean ms Elner will you know, she is determined
Speaker 10: and it's very confident in her ability to to to
Speaker 10: get another trial from mister Avery, and I guess we
Speaker 10: just have to see what she has. She's She's talked
Speaker 10: a lot. She's said there's this, there's that, and the
Speaker 10: other thing, and there may be I don't know, nobody knows.
Speaker 10: I know it is. You know, it's not hard to
Speaker 10: say that the old technology was old and the forensic
Speaker 10: testing was rowsy and ours is going to be so
Speaker 10: much better. That may all be true, but the evidence
Speaker 10: is what it is, so the best forensic testing in
Speaker 10: the world won't show something that doesn't exist unless it does.
Speaker 10: And if there is the blood the preservative in that blood,
Speaker 10: I'll be singing a very different tune. I tell you
Speaker 10: that much. I love the quote where they were the
Speaker 10: whoever said it. I think it was the filmmakers themselves
Speaker 10: that said in an interview that the truth is elusive.
Speaker 10: In the Stephen Avery case, it's hard to get at
Speaker 10: exactly what happened because if you just look at the
Speaker 10: circumstances like you were we were discussing before, you know,
Speaker 10: what's the chance Lincoln cover and find the key? You know,
Speaker 10: what's the chance these police who never you know, arguably
Speaker 10: shouldn't even be in there anywhere after the horrible injustice
Speaker 10: that happened last time. You know, doesn't it just look
Speaker 10: terrible right off the bat? And it does. But that's
Speaker 10: the point. Truth is elusive. You have to keep digging
Speaker 10: further down in this thing and you never know. I
Speaker 10: think that's the whole lesson throughout even the first day case.
Speaker 10: You have to keep an open mind, and you have
Speaker 10: to be honest and objective about it and see where
Speaker 10: the evidence waits. It's all we can do.
Speaker 5: I guess.
Speaker 9: It's very interesting too, the phenomena of people now rolling
Speaker 9: up their sleeves and trying to participate. I did a
Speaker 9: program I was hunting a psychopath about the East Area
Speaker 9: East Area rapist on original Nightstalker and how many people
Speaker 9: had been amateur sleuthing this thing for years and years
Speaker 9: reading it, very very very serious people and on all
Speaker 9: the ripperologists and and I guess the Zodiac of course
Speaker 9: as well. So there's a there's a bunch of people,
Speaker 9: a legion of people. I guess that, just like they
Speaker 9: binge watch are now, you know, have some really big
Speaker 9: interest in the law and some of this and join
Speaker 9: in and are hooked on trying to find new clues.
Speaker 9: And I've read my other Suspect and uh huh.
Speaker 10: There must be a little detective in all of us.
Speaker 9: I guess you know that, absolutely absolutely, and I think
Speaker 9: that's that's what it is. It always seems like they
Speaker 9: they find some of the media find it surprising that
Speaker 9: people are interested in true crime, But like I say,
Speaker 9: even the Bible's true crime every single I mean JFK
Speaker 9: and Martin Luther King and the Titanic or well that's
Speaker 9: the Titanic. I'm gone too far, but it's all there's
Speaker 9: a lot of too brime. Absolutely, So now with the
Speaker 9: Innocent Killer, you're getting much more attention, and some of
Speaker 9: it not very good, but hopefully you're going to get
Speaker 9: it balanced out when all of these programs, Investigation, Discovery,
Speaker 9: Time Magazine have explored this and again, like I say,
Speaker 9: they're basically on your side that despite what it looks like,
Speaker 9: at least for everybody else's conscience, that Stephen Avery is
Speaker 9: guilty of the Teresa Hallback murder. Tell us what's next
Speaker 9: for your book? It's released worldwide now? Is that the
Speaker 9: plan for The Innocent Killer?
Speaker 10: Yeah? The different groups that picked up are publisher in
Speaker 10: the United Kingdom picked it up. I think it was Penguin,
Speaker 10: and somebody is doing a mass market version of it,
Speaker 10: a paperback version. I shouldn't just say somebody I'm supposed
Speaker 10: to know Kensington.
Speaker 7: I believe.
Speaker 11: You know.
Speaker 10: But it's kind of funny. People think authors make a
Speaker 10: lot of money, but authors don't make a lot of money.
Speaker 10: Publishers make a fair phonte of money. And you know,
Speaker 10: it took me three years to write The Innocent Killer,
Speaker 10: and I don't know, frankly. What's happening recently is the
Speaker 10: Amazon rankings. This is a book that was a four
Speaker 10: star for since it was out in the summer of
Speaker 10: twenty fourteen, solid for stars, sometimes above a four star.
Speaker 10: People seem to, you know, appreciate what I did with
Speaker 10: the book. The vocal, the most vocal critics who just
Speaker 10: disagree with my position, and I don't know how many
Speaker 10: of them actually read the book, have taken to posting
Speaker 10: reviews on Amazon, all of them one star, all of
Speaker 10: them basically the same, you know, horrible book, corrupt prosecutor,
Speaker 10: don't read it, don't buy it. So they've driven it
Speaker 10: down from like a four star to I think a
Speaker 10: two and a half star or something like that. I
Speaker 10: guess I can't do anything about it, and you know,
Speaker 10: I frankly at some point, I don't care. You know,
Speaker 10: I'm doing my best. I'm trying to do what I can,
Speaker 10: and we're just all kind of kind of dealing with
Speaker 10: events as they unfold here. I shouldn't say I don't care.
Speaker 10: I do care, because I think it's and it isn't
Speaker 10: the money. I mean, there's some money, but there's not
Speaker 10: There isn't a huge amount of money anyhow, but there is.
Speaker 10: There's just something nasty about I get free expression and
Speaker 10: First Amendment rights, and I'm all for all that. Who
Speaker 10: wouldn't be, I mean, you have to express your beliefs,
Speaker 10: but if you're just doing something to sabotage somebody else's
Speaker 10: work because you disagree with at their conclusions. That's kind
Speaker 10: of ugly, so you know, but that's where I'm at now.
Speaker 10: I'm just moving on like everyone else at this point.
Speaker 9: So well, I want to thank you very much Michael
Speaker 9: for coming on and to testament that there is far
Speaker 9: more people interested in reading this book rather than trashing
Speaker 9: this book. Is the release from Kensington and the release
Speaker 9: in the UK with Penguin Books. So this story has
Speaker 9: Again when I interviewed you, it wasn't such a well
Speaker 9: known story a few years ago, and I was astounded
Speaker 9: that I had not heard of this story. So you
Speaker 9: have been the person that has brought this story to
Speaker 9: the forefront. Now this documentary for people that really normally
Speaker 9: probably don't read so much, this has ignited their imagination.
Speaker 9: I think there's going to be an their trial. Hopefully
Speaker 9: there will be, so that the naysayers and the people
Speaker 9: that are attacking people like yourself and are destroyed their
Speaker 9: faith and all of the judicial system will see that
Speaker 9: they have to. As many many true crime readers know,
Speaker 9: you have to just be patient, get all the facts
Speaker 9: before you start making some collusions. So I want to
Speaker 9: thank you very much for coming on and talking about
Speaker 9: the very controversial making a murderer and also tell people
Speaker 9: that you are the author of the Innocent Killer and
Speaker 9: if you want to get the real story of the
Speaker 9: person that helped exonerate Stephen Avery, but then to this
Speaker 9: day says Stephen Avery deserved god affair trial and is
Speaker 9: guilty of the Teresa Hallback murder. So I want to
Speaker 9: thank you very much for coming on and talking about
Speaker 9: this this evening.
Speaker 10: You've bet thanks for having me day, Thank you you
Speaker 10: have for hearing you too.
Speaker 5: Bi