Speaker 1: It is Ryan here, and I have a question for you.
Speaker 1: What do you do when you win?
Speaker 2: Like?
Speaker 1: Are you at fist pumper, a woo, a handclapp or
Speaker 1: a high fiver? I kind of like the high five,
Speaker 1: But if you want to hone in on those winning moves,
Speaker 1: check out Chumbuck Casino. At chumbacasino dot com, choose from
Speaker 1: hundreds of social casino style games for your chance to
Speaker 1: redeem serious cash prizes. There are new game releases weekly,
Speaker 1: plus free daily bonuses, so don't wait start having the
Speaker 1: most fun ever at Chumbu casino dot com.
Speaker 3: No pursinesses, every dale REVOI where every by loss, the
Speaker 3: terms conditions eating plus Hey guys, it is Ryan.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if you know this about me, but
Speaker 1: I'm a bit of a fun fanatic when I can.
Speaker 4: I like to work, but I like fun too. It's
Speaker 4: a thing.
Speaker 1: And now the truth is out there, I can tell
Speaker 1: you about my favorite place to have fun, Chumbuck Casino.
Speaker 1: They have hundreds of social casino style games to choose from,
Speaker 1: with new games released each week. You can play for
Speaker 1: free anytime, anywhere, and each day brings a new chance
Speaker 1: to collect daily bonuses. So join me and the fun.
Speaker 1: Sign up now at chumbacasino dot com.
Speaker 3: No personesses, every dvoid, every by, loss Eaters, conditions Eating Plus.
Speaker 5: You are now listening to True Murder, the most shocking
Speaker 5: Killers in True crime History and the authors that have
Speaker 5: written about him Gasey Bundy, Dahmer, The Night Stalker VTK
Speaker 5: every week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking
Speaker 5: and infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with
Speaker 5: your host journalist and author Dan Zufanski, Good Evening.
Speaker 6: Convicting a Murderer unveils the shocking truth behind one of
Speaker 6: the most controversial criminal cases in history. In Netflix's Making
Speaker 6: a Murderer, which had one hundred million viewers, Stephen Avery
Speaker 6: was portrayed as an innocent victim of corrupt law enforce Smith.
Speaker 6: But there's more to the story than what we were shown.
Speaker 6: Convicting a Murderer is narrated by Candice Owens, who sets
Speaker 6: the record straight by exposing the hidden evidence in the
Speaker 6: murder of Teresa Halbach. Convicting a Murderer is a ten
Speaker 6: part documentary series available on Daily Wire Plus. Joining Me
Speaker 6: Now is Convicting a Murderer. Producer Brenda Schuler and director
Speaker 6: Sean reck Welcome to the program.
Speaker 7: Thank you for having us, Thank you, thank.
Speaker 6: You very much. First off, for people, what is the
Speaker 6: focus of this ten part documentary series Convicting a Murderer?
Speaker 6: What's it all about.
Speaker 8: Well, back in twenty fifteen, Netflix is Making a Murderer
Speaker 8: was the biggest crime docuseries of all time. We believe
Speaker 8: over one hundred million people watched it worldwide. Yes, we
Speaker 8: watched it and both became obsessed with it. I largely
Speaker 8: believed it and found out pretty quickly through print media
Speaker 8: that I was duped that a lot of information was
Speaker 8: left out, a lot of information was edited, like unethically edited.
Speaker 8: We allege and you know, we came to a conclusion
Speaker 8: based on bad info. So, as a documentary filmmaker who
Speaker 8: benefited from it because I had another series out that
Speaker 8: became more popular because it was similar to Making a Murderer.
Speaker 8: So I benefited from Making a Murderer. I thought, well,
Speaker 8: somebody's going to come correct the record at some point
Speaker 8: and I can't wait to watch it. That never happened,
Speaker 8: and a couple of years later, some of the people
Speaker 8: involved in law enforcement who were considered themselves victimized by
Speaker 8: Making a Murderer approached us and said, we trust you
Speaker 8: to tell this story because of your first film, which,
Speaker 8: in their words, exposed what they call the innocence industry.
Speaker 8: So we set out to make an answer or retort
Speaker 8: to Making a Murderer that included all the information and
Speaker 8: showed law enforcement point of view. And it took six
Speaker 8: and a half years. But that's what Convicting Your Murderer is.
Speaker 8: It's a ten part, ten hour docuseries that you can
Speaker 8: see on the Daily Wire Plus and it's out now.
Speaker 6: Brenda, as producer of Convicting a Murderer, tell us how
Speaker 6: you became involved and why.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Ashley, I watched Making a Murder, just like everyone
Speaker 3: else brings it over the holidays. I live about an
Speaker 3: hour from match Walk, so I was a little more
Speaker 3: local and I knew about the case beforehand, but had
Speaker 3: never really involved myself to any degree up until Making
Speaker 3: a Murder. After watching Making a Murder, I became obsessed.
Speaker 3: It's the best way I can describe it. Kind of
Speaker 3: went on a journey to figure out the truth. Prior
Speaker 3: to Making a Murder, I believe Stephen was guilty. Watching
Speaker 3: Making a Murder made me have some doubts and within
Speaker 3: probably a couple of days, I was back to he's
Speaker 3: guilty in a nutshell, so but I still wanted to know.
Speaker 3: I wanted all my questions answered that arose from making
Speaker 3: a murderer. So I kind of went on a mission.
Speaker 3: I reached out to the assistant district attorney from management,
Speaker 3: Michael greasback ended up kind of doing some fact checking
Speaker 3: for him on his book that connected me with Andrew Colburn,
Speaker 3: the officer from making a murder, that controversial officer from
Speaker 3: making murder. And at that point, then Michael's book was
Speaker 3: released and I met up with Tom Fosspender, the lead detective,
Speaker 3: who talked to me just about helping the prosecutor of
Speaker 3: the Avian Dacy trials if ken krat if I would
Speaker 3: help him fact.
Speaker 7: Check his book.
Speaker 3: So that's kind of how I became involved. Early on,
Speaker 3: just kind of inserted myself to be honest because I
Speaker 3: wanted the truth, and reached out to people. And then ultimately,
Speaker 3: as Sean said, law enforcement went to Sean and his
Speaker 3: partner and touch base with them on maybe a possibility
Speaker 3: of something happening or doing some type of series or film,
Speaker 3: And that's kind of how I became involved. I just
Speaker 3: worked with Sean and his team and got something together
Speaker 3: and it just took a lot then I expect to.
Speaker 7: But that's really my story in a nutshell.
Speaker 3: I was really an early retired woman from Wisconsin, working
Speaker 3: previously in an insurance industry for twenty some years, never
Speaker 3: watched True Prime or anything, and something about this chase
Speaker 3: just drew me in And apparently I'm still drown in.
Speaker 7: So here we are. But that's my story.
Speaker 6: Let's talk about the major issues that are examined in
Speaker 6: this documentary series. In the trailer, it is mentioned just
Speaker 6: some of the things that are going to be revealed
Speaker 6: in the documentary series unedited phone call, shocking unedited phone calls.
Speaker 6: But other than that, what are the major issues examined
Speaker 6: in this documentary series.
Speaker 8: I think that the biggest problem I have with the
Speaker 8: series is the fact that they edited courtroom testimony and
Speaker 8: they edited depositions. They changed the meaning of what people said,
Speaker 8: They changed people's reactions to questions to make the audience
Speaker 8: more skeptical, and questioned body language and things like that
Speaker 8: wasn't even their body language at the time that they
Speaker 8: were answering the question. And to me, as a filmmaker,
Speaker 8: if somebody takes the time to do that, they've got
Speaker 8: a dog in this race, and it's an advocacy piece.
Speaker 8: At least it's propaganda. And it was portrayed as just
Speaker 8: a fly on the wall watching What's Happening documentary and
Speaker 8: it wasn't. So a lot of the issues are They
Speaker 8: left a lot of things out. They said it was
Speaker 8: for brevity, and it's true, you can't include everything in
Speaker 8: the documentary, but when everything that ends up on the
Speaker 8: cutting room floor would have made Stephen Avery look worse,
Speaker 8: you have to question their motives. And that's really doing
Speaker 8: is questioning the filmmaker's motives and Netflix motives.
Speaker 3: I was just going to say, I want to kind
Speaker 3: of say what Sean's saying exactly too. I think the
Speaker 3: thing that alarmed me not being in the industry was
Speaker 3: that documentaries I always believed were truly like sixty minutes,
Speaker 3: you know, they were documents of truth.
Speaker 7: There were news.
Speaker 3: So when I first started looking into this and looking
Speaker 3: at these tiny little edits that I couldn't really understand
Speaker 3: why they didn't seem to be for brevity, and in
Speaker 3: the long run ended up learning that it was like
Speaker 3: Death by a thousand edits, as Candace says in the film,
Speaker 3: all of these little tiny edits that were done to
Speaker 3: me to form a narrative that was false, and quite frankly,
Speaker 3: I'm so glad that Sean did this film because it
Speaker 3: really needed to come forward about how people can be
Speaker 3: fooled and take a gregious.
Speaker 7: Action as a result of that.
Speaker 3: I mean, there were a lot of lives affected by this,
Speaker 3: a lot of lives, and I think that's where my
Speaker 3: passion comes from, is just really setting the record straight.
Speaker 7: So I just wanted to add that on top of
Speaker 7: Seawan's answer, Let's.
Speaker 6: Talk about Candace Owen's participation and why she's involved and
Speaker 6: why it's important she's involved.
Speaker 8: We were very very much blackballed in Hollywood when we
Speaker 8: thought we had to finished product. A lot of buyers
Speaker 8: they don't know where they're going to want to work
Speaker 8: in two or three years, and they don't want to
Speaker 8: be the ones to new co Netflix when they may
Speaker 8: want to work there someday. So when we originally spoke
Speaker 8: with the Daily Wire, we thought we were speaking with
Speaker 8: Fox Nation because of the because of who the buyer was,
Speaker 8: we didn't realize he was working with a Daily Wire.
Speaker 8: It ended up being quite a blessing that they were
Speaker 8: the ones who took this film and that Candice is
Speaker 8: the one who fronted it, because you have to have
Speaker 8: very thick skin, and you have to you have to
Speaker 8: be fearless to take on this. This group of they
Speaker 8: call themselves truthers, people who think Stephen are is innocent.
Speaker 8: They're a vicious bunch. This is very personal to them.
Speaker 8: I liken it to a religion, and I think they're
Speaker 8: the perfect partners to have. But the fact is we
Speaker 8: only had one other offer from a women's crime network
Speaker 8: that I did not want it on. So the Daily
Speaker 8: Wire was was really a perfect partnership it and it's
Speaker 8: not this is this series isn't limited to the Daily Wire,
Speaker 8: but it is. You know, if you want to watch
Speaker 8: it this year, that's where you watch it. And at
Speaker 8: this point you can you can just pay for one
Speaker 8: month and binge all ten episodes.
Speaker 6: At this point, let's get to what Daily Wire provides
Speaker 6: in terms of the freedom to make the kind of
Speaker 6: doc documentary that you want, or you've already made a
Speaker 6: documentary that you wanted, but these are the people that
Speaker 6: will distribute it and as you say, go up against
Speaker 6: this behemoth of truthers. But also is there not some
Speaker 6: blowback or resistance from Netflix itself.
Speaker 8: No, nothing from Netflix. They've I think they've benefited. I
Speaker 8: know that Making a Murderer went back on their top ten,
Speaker 8: so people are going back and rewatching it. So I
Speaker 8: guess it helped them. They're a company that in the
Speaker 8: past they when they've made mistakes, or even when they
Speaker 8: didn't make mistakes, but they were in the middle of
Speaker 8: a controversy like the Chappelle controversy, which was really between
Speaker 8: Dave Chappelle and Comedy Central. They've taken steps to do
Speaker 8: the right thing. I don't think that. I don't think
Speaker 8: Netflix is a very clinical company. They're analysts more than
Speaker 8: their artists, and I think that they probably enjoy the
Speaker 8: attention that this brought. You know, they already won their
Speaker 8: lawsuit over this case, so they're no real ramifications other
Speaker 8: than people learning that they have to question what they want.
Speaker 8: They can't trust documentaries. So there hasn't been really been
Speaker 8: any blowblack from Netflix. And I don't think Netflix told
Speaker 8: people to not buy our film. I think that people
Speaker 8: were just it's just acts of self preservation for people
Speaker 8: who may want to work there one day and that's
Speaker 8: really the problem we had in Hollywood.
Speaker 6: To be honest with you, Candace Owens has made some
Speaker 6: public statements, we'll say on Russell Brand's podcast, What to
Speaker 6: her does this documentary series demonstrate, as she's mentioned about
Speaker 6: police the attitude?
Speaker 8: I think that, first of all, you know, the police
Speaker 8: aren't always wrong. The news loves to highlight when there's
Speaker 8: a tragedy such as you know, George Floyd, but you know,
Speaker 8: they don't point out that these are these are literally
Speaker 8: soldiers who go out and lay their life in the
Speaker 8: line every day for our protection. So I think that
Speaker 8: that Candice is cognizant in that, and she of course
Speaker 8: can speak for herself, but I'm just paraphrasing her views.
Speaker 8: I believe, and I think that she also believes that,
Speaker 8: you know, this is just a ten hour piece of
Speaker 8: fake news. To put it quite frankly, that making a murderer,
Speaker 8: that Hollywood got away with a ten hour piece of
Speaker 8: fake news, and somebody has to correct the record. And
Speaker 8: I think that's why she enjoyed being involved.
Speaker 6: You mentioned the term the innocence industry, and this documentary series,
Speaker 6: the second part features somebody that claims to be just
Speaker 6: an advocate for the innocent, and she's a very very
Speaker 6: strong character and leading character in this documentary Making a Murderer.
Speaker 6: What about Kathleen Zelner? What about this documentary series? What
Speaker 6: do they theorize or have to say about Kathleen Zelner in.
Speaker 8: This Believe It or Not? We don't touch on that attorney.
Speaker 8: On Kathleen Zelener. She was in season two and we
Speaker 8: pretty much focus on season one of Making a Murderer.
Speaker 8: Kathleen Zelner is the best at what she does. I
Speaker 8: think that a lot of what she laid out in
Speaker 8: season two of Making a Murderer is a stretch. I
Speaker 8: think she's in a kind of a tough position representing
Speaker 8: someone I think is probably guilty. But if Stephen Avery
Speaker 8: he won one hundred million dollars in the lottery and
Speaker 8: went to twenty legal experts and said, who do I
Speaker 8: get as my attorney, he would not change attorneys. They
Speaker 8: would tell him he needs Kathleen Zelener. So he's got
Speaker 8: the best he could possibly have in this business. And
Speaker 8: she's done miracles with people who are innocent. So we
Speaker 8: don't touch on her in the first season of Convicting
Speaker 8: a Murderer. That doesn't mean we won't eventually our series.
Speaker 8: I'm not sure we even mentioned her in our ten hours. Wow.
Speaker 6: Okay, let's get to some specifics about what is examined
Speaker 6: in this docu series.
Speaker 2: In this documentary series, if you're referring to evidence pretty
Speaker 2: much everything, we go through the blood viol and just
Speaker 2: would an agregious that that was in making a murder?
Speaker 3: How the whole environment nothing And I think a lot
Speaker 3: of people figured that out pretty soon if they had
Speaker 3: any relationship to Phlebotomus, who would easily explain that. But
Speaker 3: the tape that you know, why the seal was broken
Speaker 3: was because in the nineteen or the two thousand and
Speaker 3: three they needed to collect some samples. So it was
Speaker 3: literally Stephen's attorneys and the state were presidently unsealed that.
Speaker 3: So the blood file, we kind of go through every
Speaker 3: piece of evidence that making a murder covered and just
Speaker 3: go through from another perspective. And was there anything in particular, Dan,
Speaker 3: that you were wondering about, like the bullets, the blood
Speaker 3: in the grund Brendan's role, and we touched on all
Speaker 3: of that.
Speaker 6: Yes, Well, I mean the thing is you mentioned in
Speaker 6: the trailer, it is mentioned that one of the keys
Speaker 6: is the key, so blood on the key.
Speaker 7: Right, the key that was found in Stephen's bedroom.
Speaker 3: That is probably the most controversial piece of evidence from
Speaker 3: a planting perspective. A lot of people still to this day,
Speaker 3: even people that believe in is guilt, think, well, it's
Speaker 3: possible the police could have still planted that. But the
Speaker 3: one thing that isn't shown in making a murder is
Speaker 3: a better explanation of how it possibly could have gotten there.
Speaker 3: So it's not like we're saying, oh, here's what happened.
Speaker 3: I think we're showing from the perpet that it's probable
Speaker 3: that it could have happened this way. But you were
Speaker 3: never given that opportunity because making a murder never share
Speaker 3: that information. So, for instance, there was a gap in
Speaker 3: the back of the bookcase and you never saw that.
Speaker 3: So when the officers were explaining how they were putting
Speaker 3: the binders back that they weren't collecting, they were actually
Speaker 3: there to collect his computer and his porn collection. So
Speaker 3: when they were shoving the binders back that they weren't
Speaker 3: collecting for evidence, it kind of got stuck and they
Speaker 3: jammed it in real hard, and it was theorized that
Speaker 3: the back of the bookcase popped open. And however the
Speaker 3: key was tucked in back there kind of bounced oll it,
Speaker 3: which from an amateur perspective of experimenting, No, we never
Speaker 3: went and tried to test that with anyone who who
Speaker 3: could prove that, But there were a lot of amateurs
Speaker 3: online doing that and showing videos of it, and it
Speaker 3: actually didn't work like that. Of course we didn't include that,
Speaker 3: but just from a perspective of how deep the got
Speaker 3: into this, everybody was doing these amateur experiments offline too.
Speaker 3: But so to recover the key, Andy Colburn talks about
Speaker 3: that in the series. He explains what he believed we
Speaker 3: showed the back of a bookcase and how it is
Speaker 3: possible that it could have happened the way Colburn described
Speaker 3: and the other officers described. There were three of them
Speaker 3: in the in the room. There's pretty much no way
Speaker 3: that an officer could come in and stand at the
Speaker 3: doorway and toss the key on the floor without the calling.
Speaker 3: You met officer sitting on the bed literally two feet
Speaker 3: away and say, oh, look there's a key, So you'd
Speaker 3: have to guess. My perspective on it has always been
Speaker 3: if you were going to plant that key, and you're
Speaker 3: the officer that planted.
Speaker 7: You're the one that's doing it. You're not going to
Speaker 7: be the one to find it.
Speaker 3: You're not going to have it found that way when
Speaker 3: they've already looked at that bookcase the priorate Saturday. So
Speaker 3: my perspective on it was you're going to have the
Speaker 3: calumet officer find it or someone else find And as
Speaker 3: far as the blood on the key, it was actually
Speaker 3: Stephen Avery's DNA on it and it was proven.
Speaker 7: To be not blood, non blood.
Speaker 3: Kathleen's owner did prove that it was skin cells, and
Speaker 3: we said in the film was testimony from one of
Speaker 3: the prosecutors talking to a prime lab expert just basically
Speaker 3: explaining that well, if somebody had the key and there
Speaker 3: was blood on it and he wiped it off, obviously
Speaker 3: you know it's got blood on he wiped it off,
Speaker 3: but then continued to touch it with his bare hands,
Speaker 3: could that explain how that got on there? He stated, yes,
Speaker 3: it would have eliminated anyone else's DNA on it because
Speaker 3: blood is very strong, and then when he touched it
Speaker 3: would have only shown his DNA. So that's kind of
Speaker 3: how we explain the key. Kind of a nutshell overall.
Speaker 3: How they found it, and why there was only Stephen
Speaker 3: Avery's DNA on it not Teresa's.
Speaker 6: What about the blood spatter evidence itself and the experts
Speaker 6: used at Avery's trial, Well.
Speaker 3: It depends on which blutch better. You're referring to a
Speaker 3: referring to the rat okay for to teresa vehicle. Okay,
Speaker 3: So Stephen's blood was found in the vehicle in six
Speaker 3: different locations, planted in three different ways. So if you
Speaker 3: have a planter that's going into the vehicle and he's
Speaker 3: using a cue tip to paint on the blood by
Speaker 3: the ignition in this certain way, and there's little smears
Speaker 3: around it, which you don't see in making your murd
Speaker 3: and there's little dots around it. The amount of detail
Speaker 3: that was in that stain For someone to plant it,
Speaker 3: I think we proved pretty well, would be very, very
Speaker 3: difficult to plant with the coagulation timeline of blood.
Speaker 7: Then you have the blood on her CD case, which
Speaker 7: is a smear.
Speaker 3: You have blood on the black back passenger door on
Speaker 3: the inside doorframe of it, and then.
Speaker 7: Of course you have Teresa's blood in the back of
Speaker 7: the vehicle.
Speaker 3: One of the things that came from I believe it
Speaker 3: was season two I just throw that out there, is
Speaker 3: why weren't they mixed? If there was blood in the vehicle,
Speaker 3: Steven's blood and Teresa's blood, why are they not together?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 3: And I thought, well, that doesn't make any sense. Why
Speaker 3: would they be together. They didn't bleed at the same time.
Speaker 3: He was in his vehicle more than once. Obviously he
Speaker 3: had to put it in the garage to hide it,
Speaker 3: let's say, and then he had a drive that put
Speaker 3: it where it was found, and then when he put
Speaker 3: trace in the vehicle wouldn't have been the same time,
Speaker 3: So why would they be mixed?
Speaker 7: So that always just made me wonder. I just wanted
Speaker 7: to throw that out there.
Speaker 3: But the blood spotter, to me, was very convincing and
Speaker 3: honestly probably the most difficult for.
Speaker 7: Anyone to debunk that it wasn't Steve it actively bleeding.
Speaker 3: And the other thing we point out is he bled
Speaker 3: in his own vehicle in similar patterns, So he had
Speaker 3: blood dripping on the console in his very own vehicle.
Speaker 3: So how do you explain It's it's not likely that
Speaker 3: he bled in the rav four, but he bled in
Speaker 3: his own vehicle and that is his blood, So we
Speaker 3: point that out too. It's like, just okay, let's look
Speaker 3: at Akham's rais or what's more likely. And I think
Speaker 3: if you do that with every piece of evidence, you
Speaker 3: find pretty quickly that Okham's raiser will completely prove to you.
Speaker 3: The much easier way of doing this would be Stephen
Speaker 3: actively blood in the vehicle is faith in this series?
Speaker 6: Do you point out the major deceptive film techniques that
Speaker 6: they use that you spoke.
Speaker 7: About, Yes, we do.
Speaker 3: We compare them side by side with actual testimony, just
Speaker 3: like what they eliminated and what we believe the reason
Speaker 3: was to why they eliminated it.
Speaker 7: So I'll give you one example real quick.
Speaker 3: Down there's a call in the beginning where the narrative
Speaker 3: is that the police framed Avery to save thirty six
Speaker 3: million dollars in this lawsuit, right, so they targeted him
Speaker 3: im media.
Speaker 7: And there's a phone call the morning that the vehicle
Speaker 7: was found.
Speaker 3: Trees's vehicle was found on the salvage yard, and in
Speaker 3: that phone call, the caliumet officer is saying to the
Speaker 3: manage WAC officer again, remember this is missing person. At
Speaker 3: this point, she had three appointments prior to that. The
Speaker 3: last two were Steven Avery and George Ziphyr. So that morning,
Speaker 3: the two officers are talking about what they're going to
Speaker 3: do for that day in this missing person investigation, and
Speaker 3: they had already interviewed the two appointments, and they wanted
Speaker 3: to go back over and interview both of them again
Speaker 3: because they had interviewed them later at night and they
Speaker 3: just had more information now they wanted to go reinterview
Speaker 3: the last two people they believe saw Teresa on that Monday.
Speaker 3: So they when they play the recording and making a burner,
Speaker 3: they play the boss wants us to go back over
Speaker 3: and interview Steven Avery again.
Speaker 7: So of course the.
Speaker 3: Narrative around that is that police are right away going
Speaker 3: after Steven. They're focusing right on him, and the car's
Speaker 3: not even found yet, they're focusing on him. But what
Speaker 3: they cut off and this is what I meant by
Speaker 3: death by a thousand little edits. They cut off at
Speaker 3: the end of that and Zipper. So they say, the
Speaker 3: boss wants us to go back over and interview or
Speaker 3: reinterview Stephen Avery and Zipper again, and then the Manu
Speaker 3: TAC officers says, oh man, he's not going to be
Speaker 3: very happy about that. So they're talking about Zipper and
Speaker 3: how they're clearly not focusing on avery. They do these
Speaker 3: little sleights of hand on almost that show why they
Speaker 3: did it. It was like the it's clear the narrative
Speaker 3: was we want people to believe Steven Navy was Frank
Speaker 3: and how they do that is by removing these little
Speaker 3: in zipper type edits adding those in. And that was
Speaker 3: one of them that I actually thought, well, why did
Speaker 3: they remove that? I mean, those were her last two appointments.
Speaker 3: That doesn't make any sense. But as we researched more,
Speaker 3: we found that more and more things like that, And
Speaker 3: there's of course more agree just once than matter or
Speaker 3: more deceptive, I should say than that one. But that's
Speaker 3: just the quick exit in pull. And we show them.
Speaker 3: We show them side by side so you can actually
Speaker 3: see what making a murder did. We play a voice
Speaker 3: message from making a murder and then we played the
Speaker 3: actual voice message. So I think we did a really
Speaker 3: good job of kind of showing clearly to the audience
Speaker 3: what specifically was removed or omitted from making a murder.
Speaker 3: And then we hope that obviously the audience will be
Speaker 3: able to come to their own conclusion on why they
Speaker 3: possibly did that.
Speaker 6: What can you theorize either one of you, producer and director.
Speaker 6: What can you theory as to the reason other than
Speaker 6: to keep their narrative as they initially had envisioned. But
Speaker 6: is there more to this deception in your mind?
Speaker 8: In my opinion, I think that they painted themselves into
Speaker 8: a corner. They spent years of their lives telling a
Speaker 8: story that and as they slowly realized this guy's probably guilty,
Speaker 8: they probably went into denial because they had spent their
Speaker 8: life savings making a movie. That's really all I can
Speaker 8: as a businessman. That's how I look at it. Maybe
Speaker 8: Brenda has a different idea.
Speaker 3: The only thing from just listening to phone calls, so
Speaker 3: many phone calls, Dan was I do believe that they
Speaker 3: chose the case going into it from the standpoint exactly
Speaker 3: as Sean said. I think they read this article. The
Speaker 3: article talked about this man who was recently exonerated two
Speaker 3: years prior, is now being charged with the murder of
Speaker 3: a twenty five year old photographer. So I do believe
Speaker 3: they exactly what they said. They said, this is it,
Speaker 3: this is the story we want to go follow. And
Speaker 3: I think they came here and they were pushed away
Speaker 3: from everyone because obviously nobody could talk. The investigators couldn't talk,
Speaker 3: the prosecutors couldn't talk, and I think that every family
Speaker 3: was willing to listen. And I know from phone calls
Speaker 3: that Avery and his family were very skeptical of them,
Speaker 3: very skeptical. So I think that they did paint themselves
Speaker 3: into a corner is that they maintain this very close
Speaker 3: relationship with Steven and his family, and I think we
Speaker 3: portrayed that pretty well in at the end of episode nine,
Speaker 3: we play a phone call where the filmmakers.
Speaker 7: Are talking to Steven and it's so telling.
Speaker 3: They say to him, it almost feels like they're talking
Speaker 3: strategy about their film, and they say to Stephen on
Speaker 3: a phone call, there's a truth, and then there can
Speaker 3: be a full truth, and then there can be what
Speaker 3: actually happened, and then a little more you know, interjected
Speaker 3: in there, and then we end it with would it
Speaker 3: be enough for people to believe innocent? And to me,
Speaker 3: that phone call is the one that I went to
Speaker 3: Sean and I say, oh, my gosh, they literally knew
Speaker 3: what they were doing. And that was that moment that
Speaker 3: I kind of realized, Wow, they did have this story
Speaker 3: that they were following and they were kind of in
Speaker 3: a rock and a hard place, and I think they
Speaker 3: went too far with it. I think they could have
Speaker 3: still told the story fairly. I think they could have
Speaker 3: shown both sides of it from a fair standpoint, and
Speaker 3: they didn't have to go to the media afterwards and
Speaker 3: state to the media that, oh, we were just letting
Speaker 3: this story unfold and we pointed the camera.
Speaker 7: That's honest to me. That is not what I heard
Speaker 7: in the phone calls behind the scenes.
Speaker 3: And shocked me because I think it's okay to do that,
Speaker 3: and I think Sean would totally admit that and say this.
Speaker 3: You can be an advocate, you can make an advocacy piece,
Speaker 3: but you need to say that.
Speaker 7: You need to say that this is what we're doing.
Speaker 7: You know, we believed in Stephen.
Speaker 3: We feel that he was wrongly convicted or he was
Speaker 3: wrongly convicted, and we're telling the story and that's what
Speaker 3: we're doing. But then don't go to media and just say, oh,
Speaker 3: we're following the story. Is it unfolded. That's not at
Speaker 3: all what I believe happened. But that's just my opinion too.
Speaker 3: I mean from listening to many many phone calls.
Speaker 8: Yeah, they went out they went out to the media
Speaker 8: and actually said, hey, we didn't care how it went
Speaker 8: either way, and it was very very clear from their
Speaker 8: prison phone call, So that was a lie.
Speaker 6: Making a murderer tries to theorize that there are other
Speaker 6: people involved and try to point to those people in
Speaker 6: this documentary Esewn there does it in the second season.
Speaker 6: But what about Bobby Dacy and Brendan Dacy. What does
Speaker 6: this Convicting a Murderer documentary series.
Speaker 9: Have to say?
Speaker 3: Well, sonswer Dan, we don't get too much into Bobby
Speaker 3: Dancy or it's more of Zeller's theory. But I'll tell
Speaker 3: you one thing that I've said in another podcast too,
Speaker 3: is that when Kathleen took the case, I want to
Speaker 3: just point this out for people that are underware, and
Speaker 3: these aren't her words exactly. And I think she then
Speaker 3: said the same season too, but I heard it on
Speaker 3: the interview she did. Stephen Avery was writing along with
Speaker 3: his fiance at the time, Sander Greenman. They were writing
Speaker 3: to Kathleen Zohler for a while prior to Making a
Speaker 3: Murder Right, and I think she rejected him. Was maybe
Speaker 3: his last letter to her was maybe around a couple
Speaker 3: months before making murder aired, and Kathleen and her team
Speaker 3: turned down taking that case because she felt that there
Speaker 3: was too much evidence that they wouldn't be able to
Speaker 3: you know, she didn't say it was guilty or anything,
Speaker 3: but she just said there was too much evidence that
Speaker 3: it didn't meet their criteria. They had like a little
Speaker 3: you know, algorithm or whatnot that they would calculate if
Speaker 3: this was a case that could be won. And after
Speaker 3: making a murder within days, she was tweeting and reached
Speaker 3: out to Sander Greenman and said I want this case,
Speaker 3: and in return, of course, that's how that all came about.
Speaker 3: But she had never even met with Stephen. She had
Speaker 3: never met with him prior to publicly stating she's taken
Speaker 3: the case. And I remember thinking, well, how yeah, I've
Speaker 3: been studying this at this point for quite a while,
Speaker 3: not that long, but I've been studying this. I'm just
Speaker 3: kind of curious on what she could have found that quickly.
Speaker 3: So I was a little bit shocked after that, but
Speaker 3: I think that's something she says publicly, so I'm not
Speaker 3: afraid to share her thoughts on that. But as far
Speaker 3: as Bobby Dascy, he was the second person after her
Speaker 3: first allegation was against Ryan Hiligas, and in another podcast,
Speaker 3: like I said, I pointed out some of the things
Speaker 3: that were in her initial filing of Ryman Hiligas, and
Speaker 3: one of those was that he had scratches on his
Speaker 3: hands and that the expert and expert filed an AFFI
Speaker 3: David On behalf of that evidence that she had these
Speaker 3: scratches on her hand, or he had these scratches on
Speaker 3: his hand, and they would have been defense wounds, and
Speaker 3: Teresa Hallback's fingernails would have been the right link to
Speaker 3: cause wows and long the whole that turns out to
Speaker 3: be writing on his hands.
Speaker 7: So I was able to find news footage proved that
Speaker 7: that was handwriting.
Speaker 3: He wrote on his hands, and literally in the affidavit
Speaker 3: from an expert was saying that these were defensive wounds
Speaker 3: from the victim. And that was evidence that was used
Speaker 3: in her brief to try to get evidentry hearing for
Speaker 3: you know, Ryan Hilligas and for Stephen Avery and Ryan
Speaker 3: Hiligis was this potential suspect. So that alarms me. That
Speaker 3: alarmed me simply because I don't know how the defense
Speaker 3: system works. You have to represent your client zealously. I
Speaker 3: understand that, but I didn't realize it could cross into
Speaker 3: things like that. So I was very much taken them
Speaker 3: back by things like that. But then when it went
Speaker 3: to Bobby, look at all the damage that caused Ryan Hilligos.
Speaker 3: So that frustrated me that you can just throw off
Speaker 3: these people and basically have all these people and even
Speaker 3: today blaming Ryan Hilligas and coming up these crazy theories
Speaker 3: and now, oh, we just moved on to Bobby Dassy.
Speaker 3: By the way, it has never had a criminal thing
Speaker 3: in his life. He's married, and so what I don't
Speaker 3: understand is they're blaming all this computer stuff on Bobby.
Speaker 7: What I also pointed out is that how did Stephen
Speaker 7: Avery know what was on that computer?
Speaker 3: Because Dan, we don't talk about this in the film,
Speaker 3: but on the day that the officers went to collect
Speaker 3: Barb's computer, the Dasy computer, Stephen called Barb and said,
Speaker 3: are my attorneys there?
Speaker 7: And she said, no, they're left.
Speaker 3: They're gone, he's gone, he's up by mas or they're
Speaker 3: gone or whatever gone from her house. And he said,
Speaker 3: did they take the computer? And she said no, the
Speaker 3: other assholes got it, meaning the officers.
Speaker 7: So what happened.
Speaker 3: After doing all this research, I found that Stephen actually
Speaker 3: told Dean Strang about the computer Barb's computer and he
Speaker 3: sent them there to get it. And there are other
Speaker 3: phone calls that represent that Stephen knew exactly what was
Speaker 3: on that computer. So my feeling on it is, well,
Speaker 3: how do you know what's on that computer? And how
Speaker 3: can you say that those are all Bobby Dacies searches
Speaker 3: And you can't.
Speaker 7: You can't.
Speaker 3: There's been intensive studies on that, and I'm not going
Speaker 3: to get into that because I don't want to share
Speaker 3: anything that hasn't been proven yet or hasn't been shared yet.
Speaker 3: But there has been studies that can actually prove that
Speaker 3: Bobby Dassy was not the only one that could have
Speaker 3: been doing those searches at that time. So I also
Speaker 3: think it's dangerous to what's happening to Bobby Dassy to
Speaker 3: just throw these allegations all it just to get you
Speaker 3: don't have to do as much as has been done,
Speaker 3: and I'm very skeptical of where it's going to go.
Speaker 3: But she's representing her client the way she's required and
Speaker 3: is able to, so we'll see where it goes. But
Speaker 3: I do have a lot of feelings on it, but
Speaker 3: I won't get into those obviously right now because she
Speaker 3: is a great tourney she knows what she's doing and
Speaker 3: I'm not so my opinion probably doesn't mean much in
Speaker 3: that aspect, but I just, like I said, the Ryan
Speaker 3: thing just kind of hurts. It breaks my hired that
Speaker 3: somebody can be blamed and then they're the new flavor
Speaker 3: or the old flavor. Now we're moving on to the
Speaker 3: new flavor, and I don't think it's going to go anywhere.
Speaker 3: She really has nothing left. The person that has the
Speaker 3: most recent appeal right now that is sitting well, they're
Speaker 3: waiting for her. She requested to have more time, and
Speaker 3: I think it's middle of December or something. I could
Speaker 3: be wrong on that, but middle of December this year
Speaker 3: she has to add something. And my understanding is that
Speaker 3: it's the only thing left is these two people that
Speaker 3: supposedly saw Bobby right pushing the rat right, and one
Speaker 3: of them in this guy's first statement in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 3: this guy that saw this his first email that was
Speaker 3: apparently sent to the innocents team or his attorneys at
Speaker 3: the time, whoever this guy sent him to.
Speaker 7: I'm not going to say his name, but you can
Speaker 7: figure out who the person was.
Speaker 3: I don't want to alligate anything, but this person said
Speaker 3: that he saw Bobby pushing the rat, right, that's what's
Speaker 3: in the fi David and this other guy. But his
Speaker 3: original statement, he didn't even know what day it was,
Speaker 3: and he also didn't know who the person was, and
Speaker 3: he never saw the passenger. So then once he went
Speaker 3: to Zelner and Zehner's f A David's stated that now
Speaker 3: he did know what day it was, and it was
Speaker 3: Bobby Dassy because he recognized him from making a murder too,
Speaker 3: and that the second person who he just said he
Speaker 3: never saw before, the second person in the vehicle was
Speaker 3: actually you know, an older man or something, or it
Speaker 3: was something like that like he described the second passenger.
Speaker 3: So there's there is conflicting information in original statements and
Speaker 3: what's being filed, right, So that's where the research comes
Speaker 3: in and looking into all of that. So I do
Speaker 3: have concerns, but that's what's left right now of her filing.
Speaker 3: And then this other person that apparently saw Bobby Gassy
Speaker 3: driving the rab and he just remembers his years and
Speaker 3: years later, has no connection to avery supposedly was seen
Speaker 3: at a rally, and there's text messages is just showing
Speaker 3: that he supported Stephen. So now he's out these rallies
Speaker 3: and for Stephen Avery, and he's on video supporting Stephen Avery,
Speaker 3: but yet you have no connection to him in the
Speaker 3: Saffiday there.
Speaker 6: Let's use this as an opportunity to stop for a
Speaker 6: second to hear these messages.
Speaker 4: Okay, Round two, Name something that's not boring. Laundry, a
Speaker 4: book club, computer solitaire. Huh oh, sorry, we were looking
Speaker 4: for chumba casino.
Speaker 3: Chum.
Speaker 1: That's right, chumbucasino dot com as over one hundred casino
Speaker 1: style games joined today and play for free for your
Speaker 1: chance to redeem some serious prizes.
Speaker 4: Chump chumbacasino dot com eighty plus stars. The condition of
Speaker 4: the Blue website retails.
Speaker 6: Now you're speaking about the best strategy for Zell there
Speaker 6: as an attorney trying to get this post conviction reversal
Speaker 6: for her client and doing so, as you say, she
Speaker 6: just will accuse somebody like Ryan Hilligis of being involved,
Speaker 6: because that's the best strategy, said, she mentions it. This
Speaker 6: is the best strategy for her as an attorney. Yes, Now,
Speaker 6: with this narrative of this film, Sean, you're the director, Brenda,
Speaker 6: you're the producer. You're not going to resort to the
Speaker 6: same strategy. You're not advocating for a particular person. But
Speaker 6: what is the narrative overall in this docuseries?
Speaker 8: Well, I think the narrative is that Well, I think
Speaker 8: that the takeaway is, you know, don't trust anything you see.
Speaker 8: Won't even trust us. Check it out, go to backup sources,
Speaker 8: do your own research, because while it's implicit that you're
Speaker 8: watching facts when you watch a documentary or a docuseries,
Speaker 8: you're not. People can have a point of view, could
Speaker 8: have been paid for by somebody. I think that my goal,
Speaker 8: my end goal was for our industry to create a
Speaker 8: set of voluntary, the cool standards by which we abide
Speaker 8: so that we don't lose credibility. Is our business is
Speaker 8: in a pretty good place. Documentaries are a lot more
Speaker 8: popular than they used to be. But we're going to
Speaker 8: mess it up for ourselves if we don't tell the truth.
Speaker 8: And when this series was announced, a lot of people
Speaker 8: who were subjects of other series approached us and said, hey,
Speaker 8: this was done to us by so and so, and
Speaker 8: they wanted us to turn this into a kind of
Speaker 8: like you know, mentioning five six seven projects and we
Speaker 8: decided not to do it. But there's a lot of
Speaker 8: this going around in which people feel very very much
Speaker 8: victimized by serious that they participated in.
Speaker 6: Let's talk about those voluntary ethical standards that you propose. Specifically,
Speaker 6: give us an example.
Speaker 8: If it's an advocacy piece, as Brenda said earlier, say
Speaker 8: it's an advocacy piece, so you know, we think Stephen
Speaker 8: Avery and Brendan Dassy didn't do this, and we're setting
Speaker 8: out to show you why if it's not the case
Speaker 8: with this film. But if somebody funded the film, who's
Speaker 8: involved in the issue in any way, that has to
Speaker 8: be disclosed. If you pay subjects, that has to be disclosed.
Speaker 8: We did pay some of the subjects in this film
Speaker 8: for exclusivity, so they wouldn't do any other projects. Those
Speaker 8: are the things that I think warrant a fore warning
Speaker 8: when you're watching a series, so that you know it's
Speaker 8: very clear and transparent to people what you're setting out
Speaker 8: to do.
Speaker 3: Not that.
Speaker 8: What we point out in our docuseriies is that the
Speaker 8: first documentary ever made nan Nuke of the North, which
Speaker 8: has made you know, one hundred and ten years ago
Speaker 8: was a fraud. It was fake. So, as Patricia Afterraheide,
Speaker 8: a professor from American University, says, the history of documentaries
Speaker 8: and docuseries is shot through with these ethical problems, and
Speaker 8: we need to fix it by telling the truth when
Speaker 8: we start.
Speaker 6: You talked about that you couldn't get this film made
Speaker 6: through ordinary channels, and you talked about why. But tell
Speaker 6: us again what their criticism was, and if you've had
Speaker 6: any criticism so far with the series.
Speaker 8: We would deal with a buy like a major streamer,
Speaker 8: and they'd say this isn't for us or nobody cares
Speaker 8: about this case anymore, which is not true. Over one
Speaker 8: hundred million people watch this I've been flown to Oslo, Norway,
Speaker 8: just to give an update on this case. You know,
Speaker 8: the people all over the world care about this case.
Speaker 8: A great deal. We were very close to a deal
Speaker 8: with a major competitor of Netflix and they and they
Speaker 8: don't care about upsetting them. But they were like, yeah,
Speaker 8: we feel like this is their brand. We feel like
Speaker 8: we're nipping their brand, so we're not going to do it.
Speaker 8: That was another criticism we got. But you know the
Speaker 8: fact is they weren't going to tell the truth. They
Speaker 8: weren't going to implicate themselves in this, but we allege
Speaker 8: as a lie, so somebody else had to air it.
Speaker 8: So that's the sort of thing we ran into almost everywhere.
Speaker 8: I met with an agent, a huge documentary agent in
Speaker 8: Los Angeles, and he said his exact quote was, dude,
Speaker 8: I have to work in this town.
Speaker 5: Wow.
Speaker 9: You know.
Speaker 8: And my longtime agents in New York who represented everything
Speaker 8: I've done, they co produce Netflix all the time. They
Speaker 8: wouldn't even talk about this project with me. They don't,
Speaker 8: you know, this is all about self preservation. So it
Speaker 8: just I'm not trying to pat myself on the back,
Speaker 8: but I'm saying it takes some strength and some courage
Speaker 8: to tell this sort of a story. And then that's
Speaker 8: what the Daily Wire had. They had the courage to
Speaker 8: take this on. They couldn't care less about criticism from Hollywood.
Speaker 6: What are the biggest things featured in this We talked
Speaker 6: about that, of course, blood is so important. You talked
Speaker 6: about the mixing. They said, well, well it wasn't mixed.
Speaker 6: What are some of the featured things, the biggest featured
Speaker 6: things in this docu series.
Speaker 8: I'll start with this. A lot of people don't know
Speaker 8: Stephen Avery's background, and if you understood his history, it
Speaker 8: would paint a little bit different picture on whether it's
Speaker 8: plausible that he could do this, whether he can actually
Speaker 8: want to do something like this. If you understood his
Speaker 8: history with violence, his history with women, is inability to
Speaker 8: control himself sexually, you'd have a a little more background
Speaker 8: on whether someone would be capable of committing this crime. Also,
Speaker 8: you know, why would someone throw away millions of dollars
Speaker 8: of settlement money by taking this sort of risk. You're
Speaker 8: going to see a person who has the inability to
Speaker 8: differ gratification. And we paint that picture. It doesn't mean
Speaker 8: that doesn't mean he murdered somebody, Okay, but you need
Speaker 8: to at least be informed, yes, of who he actually is.
Speaker 8: It's not Stevie stole a cheese sandwich and five dollars.
Speaker 8: That wasn't the real history of Steven Avery. And that's
Speaker 8: the way the filmmakers and Making a Murderer portrayed him.
Speaker 8: It just wasn't true. So we dedicate like two and
Speaker 8: a half episodes to that, And I think it's very
Speaker 8: important to have that background and that backdrop when considering
Speaker 8: who this person is.
Speaker 6: What do the filmmakers of making a murderer specifically the
Speaker 6: biggest thing that they omit in their films?
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Brenda, I think the biggest thing, and that's
Speaker 3: hard to say because there's some pretty big edits, but
Speaker 3: as I said, most of them are all these slics
Speaker 3: of hand. But I think though one of the biggest
Speaker 3: act comes up is probably Andy Colburn's dispatch. Paul. I
Speaker 3: don't know if you're were of that down, but in
Speaker 3: a nutshell, one of the officers made this call and
Speaker 3: they alleged that he had found her vehicle, and of
Speaker 3: course Cancrat subjects to it, but they never see that.
Speaker 7: And I'm gonna just say this too now.
Speaker 3: You know, Andy Colburn filed a lawsuit and that was
Speaker 3: one of the main reasons was because they changed his
Speaker 3: answer to a question that was never or was never answered.
Speaker 7: There was an objection, right.
Speaker 3: So when we obtained the trial footage through the licensing
Speaker 3: license and the child footage, we noticed and again this
Speaker 3: had been found online a little bit already, but they
Speaker 3: didn't have access to all the trial footage. So when
Speaker 3: we were going through and looking at the tilefoodage and
Speaker 3: comparing it and saw these different reaction shots we were
Speaker 3: shot that they were inserting these the same shot three
Speaker 3: different times, and that edit, along with other things that
Speaker 3: were said in Making a Murder, caused Andy Colburn to
Speaker 3: receive a lot of threats and for manas Quack also,
Speaker 3: So we call out that as probably the biggest edit
Speaker 3: or the most impactful edit the Andy Colburn. But of
Speaker 3: course there's many other little things not Making Your Murders
Speaker 3: showed about Andy Colburn that we also go through. But
Speaker 3: I would say of the film overall, is probably that one,
Speaker 3: but there are several other larger ones like that. One
Speaker 3: of them is the bullet. They took a sentence and
Speaker 3: spliced it into another sentence because you didn't hear in
Speaker 3: Making a Murder that the gun that the bullet came
Speaker 3: from La Teresa's DNA on matched the bed or the
Speaker 3: gun hanging up of Steven Avery's bed, and it matched
Speaker 3: it to the exclusion of all other guns in the world,
Speaker 3: so it was legitimately that gun. And they edited the
Speaker 3: vc I agent's testimony to say that they found this
Speaker 3: bullet and it was damaged basically or flattened. And I
Speaker 3: alleged when we were going through these edits that the
Speaker 3: reason they did that is because they didn't want to
Speaker 3: address ballistics testing, because ballistics testing was done and ballistics
Speaker 3: testing showed it was that Gune hanging above is that.
Speaker 3: So that was kind of my theory on why they
Speaker 3: didn't want that. But they literally had him say, well,
Speaker 3: the bullet was nearly intact. They inserted the information from
Speaker 3: a different bullet they found that said it was a
Speaker 3: flattened bullet, it was too damaged basically, so things like that.
Speaker 3: But that's how they were able to omit key evidence
Speaker 3: and it added to testimony to be able to do
Speaker 3: that well.
Speaker 7: And that's just really dishonest to me because you can
Speaker 7: see the edit.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's literally obvious you're taking words that say
Speaker 3: something completely opposite. So that was another one that stood
Speaker 3: out to me. But again there's a lot of ones
Speaker 3: that you really don't catch. Oh oh in another one too,
Speaker 3: Manuchwac's role in this. Everybody makes this big deal about
Speaker 3: MANUFAC being involved. Do I think they should have been?
Speaker 3: Heck no, I think we wouldn't be here today if
Speaker 3: they weren't.
Speaker 7: Absolutely not.
Speaker 3: But you know, I think we explained that pretty well,
Speaker 3: and I think some of the officers even probably would
Speaker 3: say yeah, you know, I find people back in time
Speaker 3: not want to be there, but they did what they
Speaker 3: believed they needed to do. And everybody thinks that you
Speaker 3: have all these resources like Candace site, you have all
Speaker 3: these resources, it's are really small charfs departments and caliu
Speaker 3: Met is tiny. The lead investigation unit is really small
Speaker 3: compared to Manuswac County. So they they're touched rual people.
Speaker 3: I mean that's what they are mainly. And the officers
Speaker 3: from Mantuac they have investigators, they have detectives.
Speaker 7: It's several of them, so of course they're going to
Speaker 7: bring them in.
Speaker 3: But conflict of interests the perception of it, we're going
Speaker 3: to ensure that DCI is with them or a Calumet
Speaker 3: officer at all times.
Speaker 7: So that's how they prevented that. But what people don't
Speaker 7: realize when they talk about, oh the coroner was pushed away,
Speaker 7: she wasn't allowed. Well, she was a Manutwac person, so
Speaker 7: of course she's going to be. But then why would
Speaker 7: she not allow the Colburn and Length work. Well, because
Speaker 7: they're not elected officials.
Speaker 3: Anybody that was an elected official and a boss, the
Speaker 3: prosecutor the sheriff, the corporate council. They all recused themselves.
Speaker 3: No one told them they had to do that. They
Speaker 3: made that decision. If they were going to frame Avery,
Speaker 3: hey let's just keep the investigation. Why would we hand
Speaker 3: it over? It was their choice. And there's press conferences
Speaker 3: that we show in convicting that making the murder just
Speaker 3: showed the one, you know resources, we used them for equipment.
Speaker 3: There's other press conferences prior to that that include Manutwac
Speaker 3: and Calumet's investigation.
Speaker 7: So we play each of those clips of books or
Speaker 7: can kind of see that?
Speaker 3: I mean, really, I think the whole thing overall it
Speaker 3: was like you're giving a piece of evidence, and I
Speaker 3: could tell you how it was portrayed there and what
Speaker 3: the real evidence show us. If every piece there was
Speaker 3: something done to every piece of evidence to make you
Speaker 3: believe it was anybody but Steven Avery.
Speaker 6: Let's Jesus as an opportunity to stop for these messages,
Speaker 6: step into the world of.
Speaker 9: Power, loyalty, and luck. I'm going to make him an
Speaker 9: offer you can't refuse. With family canoli's and spins mean everything?
Speaker 9: Now you want to get mixed up in the family business.
Speaker 9: Introducing The Godfather at Champa Casino dot com. Test your
Speaker 9: luck in the shadowy world at the Godfather slot.
Speaker 6: Someday I will call upon you to do a service
Speaker 6: for me.
Speaker 9: Play the Godfather now at Champacasino dot com.
Speaker 7: Welcome to the Family vdW group.
Speaker 3: No perch is necessary if we we're privited by loss
Speaker 3: he terms and conditions eighteen plus Now this series.
Speaker 6: Tell us more about the episodes that have occurred already
Speaker 6: and how people can watch this docuseries. Tell us more
Speaker 6: information about Daily Wire plus and this series.
Speaker 8: Yeah, well, the first two episodes are free. You can
Speaker 8: watch episode one on x formerly Twitter or on YouTube.
Speaker 8: I think about twenty million people have watched it by
Speaker 8: now on those platforms, and the rest of it you
Speaker 8: can watch on the Daily Wire. It takes a little
Speaker 8: bit of searching, but there is a way to sign
Speaker 8: up for just a month, and if you sign up
Speaker 8: for that month, I think it's you know, twelve dollars
Speaker 8: or something. You can binge all ten episodes now and
Speaker 8: you know, next year there may be a few more
Speaker 8: ways to watch this series, but right now, the Daily
Speaker 8: Wire is the way to see it.
Speaker 6: I want to thank you both for coming on and
Speaker 6: talking about this new series Convicting a Murderer, You producer
Speaker 6: Brenda Schuler and you the director Sean Reck. I want
Speaker 6: to thank you very much for one more time. How
Speaker 6: do people find out and get involved with this docu series.
Speaker 8: We have a presence on on Twitter hashtag convict a Murderer.
Speaker 8: There's a Facebook page for the project. You can go
Speaker 8: to Transition Studios dot com and reach us through there,
Speaker 8: and uh, stay tuned for more news on other ways
Speaker 8: you can watch it in the future.
Speaker 6: Oh, thank you very much for coming on and talking
Speaker 6: about Convicting a Murder. Brenda Schuler and Sean Reck, thank
Speaker 6: you so much for this interview, and you have a
Speaker 6: great night and good night. Thanks Dan, Thank you, Dan,
Speaker 6: thank you.