Netflix's documentary series Making a Murderer has captivated audiences everywhere, igniting controversy and fiery debate-especailly among true crime fans.Michael Griesbach, a Wisconsin D.A. helped have Steven Avery exonerated and released from prison after being wrongfully convicted and went on to write the definitive and briliant book about the case, The Innocent Killer. Making a Murderer documentary writers and producers made a strong case that Avery and co-accused nephew Brendan Dassey, convicted of the murder of Teresa Halbach, deserve another trial. Michael and I will discuss Making a Murderer, the trial of Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey and the murder of Teresa Halbach. MAKING A MURDERER-The Need For A Re-Trial?-Michael Griesbach
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Hi. I'm Jay Farner, ceo of Quicken Loans, America's largest mortgage lender. Let's talk credit card debt for a minute. If you feel you're carrying too much of it, you're, not alone the average household in the. U S carries over eight thousand dollars in credit card debt, ready for some good NEWS with a cash out refinance from Quicken loans. You can quickly and easily put some of the equity in your home to good use by paying off a lot of that high interest credit card debt. A great way to take cash out is with our thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The rate today, in our thirty year, fixed rate mortgage is three point: nine nine percent APR four point: zero. Eight percent call us today at eight hundred Quicken to learn how taking cash out with a thirty year fixed mortgage might be the right solution for you and for a red nine years in a row. Jd power, his right Quicken loans highest in the nation in customer satisfaction for primary mortgage origination call us today,
eight hundred Quicken or go to rocket mortgage dot com for getting our work for mission is a J part account rates of exchange. At one point, two five percent fee receive a discount rate off across information in conditions, people having like license in all fifty states and one hundred thirty thirty- and now I thought, from Geico Motorcycle. It took fifteen minutes to take a spirit, animal quiz online. Please be the cheetah, the would be the cheetah and learn your animal isn't the cheetah, but the far appealing blobfish come on. To add insult to injury, you could have used those fifteen blobfish minutes to switch your motorcycle insurance to Geico Geico. Fifteen minutes could save you, fifteen percent, or more on motorcycle insurance locked
hi. I'm Jay, Farner, ceo of Quicken loans. Thirty percent of Americans, who are planning home improvements of five thousand dollars or more will pay for those renovations with a high interest credit card. That may not be a great idea. A better idea may be to take cash out of your home with a Quicken loans. Thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The rate today, in our thirty year, fixed rate mortgage is three point: nine nine percent APR four point: zero. Eight percent call us today at eight hundred Quicken or go to rocket mortgage dot com rates of exchange. At one point, two five percent be receive the discount rate, all the concentration in conditions because, like license in all fifty states and one hundred thirty
steeped in luxury, driven by innovation. It's how we do business at Genesis of Willow Grove. It's our mantra, the phrase we can't help, but repeat it's our promise that I Genesis of Willow Grove will serve every customer as exquisitely as Genesis, DAS, steeped, in luxury, driven by innovation. Its genesis of Willow, Grove on Eastern Road in Willow, Grove and online at Genesis of Willow Grove dot com hurry in for an offer as exceptional as our vehicles. Radio
You are now listening to true murder, the most shocking killers and true crime history and the authors that have written about them: DC, Bundy, Dahmer, the night Stalker Dck every week, another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and infamous killer, true crime history through murder, with your host journalist and author Dan. This is Nancy good evening, Netflix Doctor, entry series making a murderer has captivated audiences everywhere, igniting controversy and fiery debate, especially among true crime fans, Michael Greis, back a Wisconsin district
attorney helped have Steven Avery exonerated and released from prison after being wrongfully convicted and went on to write to defer but in brilliant book about the case the in killer. Making a murderer, documentary writers and producers made strong case that Avery and Anko accused nephew, Brendan Dassie addicted of the murder of Teresa Holbach deserve another trial. Michael and I will discuss making a murderer. The trial, all of Steven Avery and Brendan see and the murder of Teresa Hall, the title of the program this evening is making a murderer. The need for a retrial with my special guest journalist and author, Michael Greis, back welcome back to the program, and thank you very much for agreeing to this interview, Michael Greis, back and slowly Dan, good to be here. As always. Thank you
very much. That's very interesting in the short span of time. What has happened with your ridge? the story. So tell us just a little bit be. 'cause there's so much going on, tell us a little bit about that. Just a couple of the personal stories before we get into this incredible tale. And this really divisive and controversial case now. This has really blown up but tell us some the personal anecdotes that I was just reading recently about protests at courthouse and involving with your facebook page, so tell us a little. About those kinds of things before we get into this sure, protests byam threats. Sabotaging their taking over or hijacking Facebook pages and Amazon ratings and you name it
I've seen it and I've probably seen it less than the specific police officers most directly involved in the in the allegations of evidence planting there, Jim Lincoln Andy Kalb the two men talk county officers who have been most directly accused of planting oven and specifically the key, the the now infamous key of treason, humpbacks vehicle found in Mister Avery's, bedroom right and Before we go any further to you appear this program. Originally the story. Incredible and the your original version of your book on reasonable inferences and then the innocent killer, so tell us before I start a again of barrage
really tough questions for you. What has happened with the book, the innocent killer? What's the newest development in regards to that sure? Well, first of all, the the I self published the book under the table and reasonable inferences back in I want to say two thousand and ten and the American BAR Association picked it up and published it with some changes. I added a postscript by Teddy Burns in the victim of the first case that case for which Steven. Avery was wrongly convicted, no question horribly, wrongly convicted in nineteen, eighty five in, for which he spent eighteen or twelve years in prison depending upon how you look at it. We can get to that later and also in that new version, the innocent killer is an afterword by Keith family. They better Wisconsin Innocence project and
They actually went into service the president of the national innocence project. And the board of advisors at the Wisconsin Innocence project at the University of Wisconsin in Madison So it's interesting and I know we're going to get into that- that I am sort of portrayed by some of my critics- are sort of a tool of the state and have prosecutors, which really is to me very interesting development, because I have spent a lot of years talking about the infirmities of the criminal justice system is specifically and and press kit, Toria misconduct issues in terms of withholding evidence in in terms of an old overzealousness on their part, but so yes, the instance American BAR Association picked up the book. We published it in the summer of twenty fourteen with those changes.
Postscript the afterward in some additional things here and there that I that I added to the book to to a few issues that I left out, not with regard to Teresa Holbach's murder, most of the book, although that that the interest right now, of course, but the first two slash three or maybe with three slash four of the book has to do with Mister Avery's wrongful conviction and that his trial for the murder of of true saw box real, Quick Dan. Of course. More recently, this thing is taken off like wildfire. My boo to some extent, but much more so just the Avery story and it the your listeners and you don't need to be reminded of that it just it's a it's a world wide phenomena, and it in in some sense I think, that's good, because it it speaks to the criminal justice
system and people are looking at it more clearly and seeing its shortcomings. It says system badly in need of reform. No question about that. Now: let's use this as a segue because the reason why you ran right here now is not just to gain new listeners from sensationalizing, something that is really like. You say really caught fire and captivated people's imaginations and people are outraged. We've got Alec Baldwin and other people hundreds of thousands of people are have protein it all the way to the White House with this in terms of asking Barack Obama and view rock Obama in the White House have have issued a state. And that they, but they can't are capable of pardoning a even if they wanted to so really into
thing. So, let's go back to the Wisconsin innocent project just for to a staff. Beyond all doubt, York, red the here in your objectiveness, so talk about. We can't go the original trial- and that is just a done deal and and again like, as you mentioned, the emphasis is on the whole back murder and the second part of your book really are the second murder on our part, me second trial. So, with the innocence, Wisconsin Innocence project, just take us back to where you became involved aware you were an advocate for Steven Avery before we talk about the deposition you made on behalf of Steven Avery and then the turn of events with the disappearance and the murder of Teresa Holbach sure
So I was a prosecutor in Manitowoc County, as I still am in two thousand and three, when the crime lab unit in Madison, Wisconsin State and we called indicating that the last shred of evidence really a hair, a pubic hair, round and the person of penny burns and the victim of the first time the dna testing came back to a known sex offender who is serving time already in present throat for a new offense by the name of Gregory, Alan and Nat Steven Avery, So the credit really goes to you know the Wisconsin Innocence project. For for for bringing the motion for testing new evidence, I was merely the person and the receiving end to
carefully work with them, not to put up roadblocks some DA's fight, the most obvious evidence, In a sense, I never thought if I roll that way, I roll you know is it's important, it's just as important to make sure that innocent gopher Even to convict those who are guilty, perhaps even more important, so my role was varied. I had to make sure that it wasn't just the pubic hair, but the other evidence also showed clearly that Mr Avery did not commit the crime and, as I looked into that quickly because he had been serving already
you so much time, it became really clear to me that not only did he not do this first crime, this attack and attempted murder and first degree sexual assault charge on a beach and Lake Michigan. Here in Wisconsin. He not only didn't do it, but the authorities, pacifically, the DA former district attorney here in Manitowoc, county and former sheriff in Manitowoc County. If not intentionally certainly recklessly sent him to prison while knowing he was innocent. You can't get much more correct, but that now he said the ad is. I always do in these interviews that Wisconsin attorney general in conducting her independent review back in two thousand. For late, two thousand and three early, two thousand and four after
myself and another prosecutor took it to her for to conduct a review to see if there are any ethical or criminal violations and the for the former sheriff and district attorney. She see that is the attorney general concluded that now mister Mister Avery was the victim of you know bad police communication, maybe sort of
narrow tunnel vision, but nothing unethical or criminal, and the part of the sheriff and DA I called her opinion as a whitewash in my book. She's, the tap law enforcement officer was at the time in Wisconsin, was nothing but a white wash of the authorities in my county in nineteen eighty five for what they did to mystery, where he and his family so again to lend credibility. This is not the kind of thing that a that a prosecutor, dreams of is securing their own and fighting against. Like you said, there are all that even with the evidence in front of them will deny so what's the? What is the next thing that you have to do this extraordinary effort to be able to establish that this? The way
some criminality that had it occurred in this first investigation and trial right well. The first thing I did is we quickly stipulated to Mystery very released. We did that send a matter of days at most one week we didn't put the defense too. To further criminal litigation too motions to the two of you know, I hearing that would be set a month or two later and we didn't argue that other evidence suggested X, Y Z. We looked at it myself and another prosecutor in our office and said you know he didn't do it, we gotta get him cut loose, and not only did he didn't do it, but the supposed good guys, the guys with the supposed white hats, were the bad guys here. So that's what I did and we took it to the attorney general when I became frustrated Dan and really what was sort of the impetus for writing the block. Is this
sheriff and the district attorney at the time to this day have not been held accountable for what they did to Mister Avery and his family. And, to me that's that's one more tragedy to this whole thing in a long list of tragedies I mean they were so there was a thirty six million dollar lawsuit filed Steven Avery against the sheriff and the district attorney and the county, where I am still employed as a district attorney. I was deposed in that runs full conviction lawsuit testified as to what I knew certainly did not try to fudge it one way or the other. It wasn't going to try to help Mister Avery, but I wasn't going to try to help the county. I mean it is what it is. The facts what they were, in fact, I become close to the lawyers who represented Steven in his wrongful conviction, lawsuit I've also
become close to his lawyers at least one of them Dean Strang that represented Steven and his murder trial. We've held conferences together, full convictions and Steven Stevens case in particular so this is a long sordid tale- that's led to. Way too much emotion, myself included and not enough reason sometime as peoples, peoples, passions become involved in. I think for what it's worth. My thought is that, including for myself, it's probably time to step back and start pointing fingers and just look at the evidence and try to be calm about it, try to be clear, headed and rational and objective about it, with no agenda and with no see
doing that. The other side is against anybody, even though sometimes they are. We are susceptible to that. But we need to fight against that, because this is important stuff if it's it's important. For Mr Avery, of course, it's important for Mister Dancy, of course, but it's also important for the hall Back family. It's also important for the parents and family and I know some of your listeners, don't wanna hear about the birds and so now all blacks is. It is perhaps even more important for Stephen Avery and and Brenda D'Assise. Certainly it is. It is You know if you were to believe that they didn't did not do this, but It is important for a lot of people insanely, it's important for the criminal justice system and I guess there's a kind of this.
In Stephen Steven Avery's case in particular, my concern is also for the criminal justice system. The document You brought out a lot of good things that need to be looked at, including interrogations how we do them, whether that's the way. We should allowed to do them when special in, a young developmentally disabled young man? it's right out. You know the disparity in injustice that is achieved some since between those and the lower rung of society in those on the upper room. No question. These are issues, but it's also brought this other issue. That is is new. And is really disturbing to me, which is the role of entertainment, and what I still think is somewhat agenda. Driven in that just entertain
but well intended meaningful uh. You know examination of something but not balanced in the role. That has an actual criminal case with real people, real victims, real defendants, real police were accused of a planting evidence real reputations. This is this is we're in a new. This is a whole new ballgame because of this, and I think we need to tread carefully in think yours truly in who myself included, think a little more carefully and wisely before, we just shout out our latest feeling about this. What's going to say for the defense of this audience the because, I think a lot of the people have been raised on true crime book, which are very much like Your book very
less emotional, obviously, in less provocative, in the way that video and Phil it can be an also these people are not the uninitiated to how story, they're told very much like fictional writing and it's really good in that it's it's very you know. There's a lot of mystery left to it in there in the writing is on the same level in terms of keeping the edge of your seat, and- and so I think that these people that will listen to this program or ten more to be people who have read a fair amount of crime, and so they we're looking for more answers are not as naive as the people that that may I have never watched a documentary before Netflix before the hoopla and for the them. Not understanding this still filmmaking, as opposed to a book, is more level headed and
more expensive for more information, provided, so So what I'm saying is in in that regard, what I think this audio Once in we would try to do it. This program is to address some of the things that I think that after I have watched this series and after I have read your book and interviewed you that I still have some burning question to that brought on by this documentary and So I think that a person to have would be you, that's all fared well and good, and I don't mean to suggest it is surely and there's a place for emotion, there's a place for suspense. You know, there's a place for looking at things beyond. Just you know, sort the lawyerly type way. I I'm I'm more totally with you
in the audience about that. But when we get to the point of of making decisions about what we think in in in a killer case, I think overriding that should be some sense of of reason in some sense of of of tolerance. I guess, and some sense of humility on every pirate mine included, but I will do my best to answer the questions you have Dan, I'm well Where that there's there's a lot of passion out there about my position on this and what I have written and said, and hi. I how you know it that's where I think I've gone wrong and I'll stand up where I think I've I've got it right, but before
we got into that. I did want to point out the other side of this that I think it's worthwhile to it is that being or do we get to that a little bit later. I think we can no I'd that pretty much what it going. Earlier the other side being we need, for you know, also just trying to be kind of cautious, and remember that that there's real peace, there who were talking about the end our legitimate interest in true, and in the justice system, but there are defendants are victims, are are police and there's the system itself that I'm a part of um and have been for a long time that I believe that this not all bad the criminal justice system. It has huge problems that I've worked.
To try to do my part to point out, but that still, I think is you know, is the best is the best we have but I guess enough of my philosophising, let let's see, let's see what we can, what we can accomplish here, you have said, and others have said- and I think I understand what you are saying so maybe explain to this audience- the criticism of making a murderer as agenda driven right and I don't you know the last. Almost everything is agenda driven a gas to some extent, but in in used it's fair for your audience to say well what is the agenda and
part of the agenda. I agree with part of Laura and Moira's a jet And remember, and those Laura rookie, Artie and Moira demos, the producer or not the producers, but the crew there's an the filmmakers. I I interviewed with that money. I thought what they were doing was a good thing. I think I'm in the first episode for a minute or two or something in I a agree with a good portion of their agenda, which is to use the case to trial lessons about the criminal justice system, including some of those things I spoke to earlier interrogations. When is enough, and
When is too much too much, and- and I can't wait in too much- and that is who I'm still a prosecutor and then speaking tonight, as you know the author of this book, but I still am a prosecuting attorney in Wisconsin in in Manitoba County- that's a pending case, but suffice it to say that that's a good example of I mean I'm troubled. I think anybody's troubled by what they saw it and and in the interview during making a murderer of Mister Dassie, you know that's a technique. The Reid technique is called, I believe it's Reid, that's used all over the United States, I'm not sure about Canada, but in law enforcement interrogation in and there good reason to question the validity of that. I mean it's the basically. It assumes that the police know.
Truth, and they know the guilt of the person and it's designed to elicit a confession that you know objective lead to search for the truth. I am not an expert in that they will be police officers who will be very upset that those who had characterized it and you know from their perspective they do that once they feel they have enough evidence that it is. There is no question the defendant is guilty, so therefore they're they're chat becomes to to to to to whatever. Frankly the
fallout switches, but wait too much, I think, to lie into said in the press. You know Primus and manipulate a confession, pretty ugly stuff, especially when, when the the recipient, the defendant or the suspect, is a fifteen year olds developmentally disabled to some extent personally. When it asks you. So no, it's just an example where I see where I I share the agenda of the bringing these things to the attention of the public in the so the economic stuff. I talked about him, it's all over my book by the way, in the first Avery case, how they didn't have a chance against the system because of who they were legitimate points in agenda to be sure, but when you take a specific case,
and yet you mess with evidence. You show only parts of the evidence, it's almost as if the viewers, a juror who only gets to see or the viewers are jurors. Who only get to see one side of the case, and you know you watch that and if that's all you see you walk away from that utterly convinced that Steven Avery was framed again was was that police planted evidence that he is, is you know as an unjust, he is a victim of the system. There's! No! No other conclusion you could you can make almost after watching that he is a victim. This system you know the other possibility, though, is that he is the perpetrator of this murder and if, if
people try to put away what they think they know try to approach. Things objectively and look at everything it'll be hard to get out of their minds. The ceiling and the passion they had when they first watch making a murder, but I think that's the only way to do this to to try to look at things and with some realization that you know it's passable Dave didn't show us things in an objective balanced way because they didn't they're out I'll say that how safe it is as time for that Lee and as firmly as people think it's here again, so be it they. They didn't that present.
An objective portrayal, an objective view of the evidence in the homicide trial of Steven Avery. They didn't ok. Well, let's, let's get to that here. Let's write off the bat. You say that the agenda was to shed light on the judicial system, but I thought you might have said as others. I think I've said that the agenda was to create a movie uh. So that they would have a shot, I mean special given the the success of the serial podcast in regards to gaining another trial new evidence, attention to your case. Sympathy and people
He will influence political leaders to do things like they were trying to do in this case here. So isn't part of the agenda for the defense team is to cooperate and then as they will try to do a jury and a judge in a and a, entire courtroom try to influence, as is their job, their task and wouldn't they then have an agenda to present a case of the further this case since we're talking two thousand and five and two thousand and fifteen I've been in ten years now for this. If you were to be wrongfully convicted, so isn't that part of the agenda we're talking about, and you have said publicly, though, that you believe that they Both of them did have a fair trial. What you just said, Increta
size, the interrogation techniques used on Brendan Dassie and a lot of that information was will save more than influential in the Steven every case, even though so can you speak to that sure first, so I think that's that publicly that Stephen Avery, I believe, had a a very of fair trial, and I I a hand than I do. I don't know if I'd say that directly with regard to Brendan dances, trial, Brenda D'Assise trial is, is still it's in, pending litigation in federal court, that's for a court to decide that spin, the impotence of what I've been saying and I have stressed that the the confession, which is really the only issue as to whether Brendan got a fair trial and and
concession includes whether he had a an effective assistance of counsel, and I think I think that that is one of those questions that it's hard to to state say with Lewis was with a lot of sincerity frankly that that at least one of his attorneys was effective. The question is whether that affected his his trial. Would it turned out differently in that room. That turns, and an interrogation in that is something that that the court is going to have to really wrestle with him, something that I frankly haven't. You know done the research on the lot is much. If I were his attorney fiber prosecuting the case in federal court right now. I would but more importantly, it's
That's something I should really way in right now, as it is specifically pinning on that issue, so I'm not going to weigh in an app, but Stephen Avery. Yes, I do believe the end of her child. I think what years which you're raising Dan right, I started to say an eight and- and I do think that there are a few agendas here by them. Some of the the first. Agenda that I talked about, I think, was what they were originally after remember when they did this ten years ago or eight years ago they didn't know. This was going to be a Netflix documentary, they they had no idea that is that the serial was gonna come out that that they would even be a net flex. You know so here they were. My impression of them was that they were idealistic young people from from the.
New one. A recent law school grad one. I think, and film two women that were concerned about the justice system and saw that says a good cake to sort of explore that and who, like film, I mean How could you argue with that? That that says that's an excellent thing to do and to that extent I agree to to be interviewed and I think, to the extent that they brought up those issues. I think it's great, I think that's you know, you know to be clear: it's not to anybody to decide. I guess you know what agendas someone has. However, if they are going to try to affect a case and in this is the point I think you're getting it. When I say it's
ten digit and fats when I and other people, I think, has has kinda bristle back at it and the reason is yeah the defense lawyers. Their job is says that once we represent their client into to make the state prove it beyond any reasonable doubt and to do everything they can to to protect their client from any kind of miss use of power by the state And then make sure they're treated fairly. You know that sense how much an agenda that's their job and it's it's it's important or more important in my job as a prosecutor, but those things are done in a court of law with rules of evidence- and and, and a referee being a judge, and a jurors that see the whole trial, and I guess, but I think the
the danger is here that, and I guess we'll have to get into details 'cause! That's the only way to do this is that. They showed because they do have an agenda They showed only one side of the story, despite their claim to the country, and they showed that that one side of the story such that viewer would end up being like jurors, who only saw the defense side of the case or when they saw the prosecution side only saw the parts where the defense poke holes in the press. And that's Intellectually, dishonest, it's it. They have a larger agenda. You know Steven Avery get to use. You know to use common sense league,
nine legal, he got screwed over severely by the police and the prosecutor in the first and police misconduct and prosecutor misconduct is, he is a is a major problem. It's rare, I think, but when it happens, it is a huge problem and it needs to be you know shouted out and that's why I wrote my book, but they decided that that's what happened here in case number two. The problem is if you're going to present something you need to present it even leave for people to decide, then whether that's what happened in case number, two and just 'cause? It happened in case number. One doesn't mean it happened in case number two
and in this case I firmly believe I I just because I think it's that the facts show that it didn't happen in case number, two that that indeed Stephen never did commit the murder. Indeed, the police did not. Plant evidence is hard, as that is to believe it's all you've seen is the documentary I think, in an honest look at all of the evidence: we'll show you as much as anything can in this case were as bait said, truth is elusive and it is in the Steven Avery case. That's why it's tough to get you get we'd your way through it, but you don't get to the truth by just seen one side of the story Now, in light of the pending lawsuit, investigation into wrongdoing by prosecutor in police.
In Manitowoc County on and certain players involved going to be the subject of this score and maybe even liability on the thirty six million dollars why on earth at that time were they allowed to be involved at all and if they were, is there no fish order to have these guys in light of what? Historically, it just happened. How on earth could you have the same county involve at all and if they were, involved at all under any circumstances. Isn't that can't you see what people are low king at their saying? Well, they did occur. Convincing job as you did, in showing that
yeah. There was a what people don't want to believe this dude judicial system was corrupt. Railroaded an innocent guy wasn't an honest mistake. It was a dishonest mistake why is it so unbelievable that it could be a conspiracy to railroad the guy given the circumstances and that timing. And as a result, why is he not entitled to another re? I think that's what people are saying, that's what you know I think, I'm more objective than some people. Having seen the series after reading your book and interviewing you. So it's that's it and reasonable at all. It isn't that! That's that's what you use the you. You hear what they did. The first time in use see that they were involved in the search to some extent, the second time about
some things to be said about that, and and and it is in that and reasonable to start thinking. Wait a second in these guys are the ones that sound found. Some of the key people key excuse me the pieces of evidence, so I do get it right. I completely get it. I understand and that's why this is so bedeviling in it. It is just so difficult because that is he Jenna MIT suspicion, I don't think it's a legitimate conclusion right off the bat, but we wouldn't have a making a murderer if there wasn't that issue out there, wouldn't have it if it weren't for the first round for conviction in and we wouldn't have it had
Probably we wouldn't have had it had Manitowoc County Sheriff's department completely withdrawn from the search, so I do understand why people think the way they What I don't understand is why I understand it when I don't agree with, is the producers of the that the producers but the creators of the documentary- and I guess the producers too desire to Well, I understand that, frankly to to make it look like that initial suspicion is more than just as an initial suspicion that it's true these, but I don't think it's it's right to to to to take what is what looks terrible and then to twist facts and to manipulate facts and to use only some facts and
exclude others to then present this all. But conclusion I mean they can say we didn't really you know say what people should should believe. But then your listeners are much brighter than that pen without saying directly. This is what I want you to believe by the, hey. You present things you can all but force people to believe a certain thing, especially if it looks just by nature by the fact that they did perpetrator horrible enjoy. This append Avery earlier and here they are involved again searching and finding some evidence some of the main evidence. It looks terrible
that's, why all the more reason that it it takes a lot to really look through this and to keep a clear head about it. There are a few things real, quick. You know on the search, Maybe this is just sort of microcars more as an example of how you know how all these pieces of evidence and need to be looked at and considered in in total and spin it thoroughly each single allegation. Okay, so we have Lincoln Colbern why you know we Why would Manitowoc even before we get to Lincoln Car? Why would Manitowoc at all sheriff's department the involved in the search at all? You know shouldn't they have been completely withdrawn. Fair questions. Ok now, let's look at what happened, though, the Manitowoc County case. She was killed in Manitowoc County in Wisconsin in the United States, every
come to where happen is. Is the venue, the law enforcement agency from bad county in Ninety nine point: ninety nine percent of crimes. They do the investigation now there was a reason not to do it. That way, in this case, of course, because of what happened earlier, so but they did right or wrong. The sheriff's department recognize that you know there is this conflict. We can't do this. The way we do, ninety nine point, ninety nine percent of the other cases we're going to have to do it different. So what going to do- is we're not going to have Manitowoc County cops there searching alone we're always going to have somebody else with them
it's a little bit like being half pregnant, it doesn't work, you know there isn't one or the other, but that's not the way they looked at it. They thought they were protecting themselves and protecting the integrity of the investigation and obviously they weren't. It didn't turn out that way. Um Lincoln Colbert. Those two guys were portrayed in the documentary, as basically being on the hook for the money in the in the in the wrongful conviction, lawsuit they were, they weren't defendants in the rough, I said they were witnesses they weren't in here when Avery was wrongly convicted in one thousand nine hundred and eighty five. Well, I take that back Coburn. No, I don't think either of the force, even in nineteen, ninety five, when they got the call and the listeners who really gotten into this- will recall.
When Lincoln Covert received the telephone call from the Brown County jail, Green Bay. From a jail or there, I believe, saying or a detective saying. Look. We have this guy in custody, who says he's responsible for a rape on a beach that you have someone in custody for in prison for for ten years now, Lincoln Colburn one was a corrections officer young, the other was a deputy neither of them were police officers in Manitowoc County in nineteen, eighty five, but they were in ninety five. When they got that call, they did just what they showed up. They sent it up. The line the chain to come in and they're working third shift. I believe him get this call. You know it is supposed to do not. Everything ends in themselves. Take on an investigation, know there's there done that even detect it, so they sent it up the line, the chain of command. It comes back down saying
That's a bunch of baloney. We got our guys been in prison forever. The court of Appeals has has, has affirmed the conviction, tell Green Bay, you know we don't have time to waste or that I don't know if that came from the sheriff, it might have all the way up to the sheriff, for some IRA, but it wasn't Lincoln Colbert who, who manipulate and then hid evidence against that would have freed Steven Avery. They did what their job right at the time. People may not want to agree with that. If they were in the system, and in the shoes of a corrections officer and a deputy at the time, if you have any police officers on listening or corrections, officers listening who can put themselves in that exact position, knowing nothing about the case and You know I I hate to say it right on, but if law enforcement years police here out of the blue, that some guys saying that he did some
frame that somebody's already been in prison for ten years. It won't be taken much more seriously, then put it up the chain of command to somebody who might know and then, if the people up the chain of command said they nothing to it, that'll be the end of it for those guys, so these guys weren't the bad guys in the earlier case. Should be a been there. I think the ideally the man's, what county officials, the sheriff's department should have just said no searching by me. Coney, but just as a practical, I know you wanna move on here, but it is a practical matter. Kalu Matt County is maybe one slash. Four of the size of Manitowoc County in the sheriff's department is probably even less than that they have
less crime per capita income in the county than they do in the stove. So to search the this extensive property without help by the home company, as it were not realistic, I guess they should have got to Just you know one. Maybe brown county could have done all same name in the state. Caps could have done the whole thing. They thought they we're doing what they should. They were treating a different than ninety nine point: nine percent of the other crimes in the county by having never a Manitowoc County cab search, it alone. They thought that would do it and I believe that search of the bedroom was like eight weeks after the initial searches they really didn't expect. My understanding is to find substantive criminal evidence at that time. They were low
through sing through Avery. Mister Avery had a stack actually in that in the in the bookcase. The shelves that they showed empty by the way of making a murderer. Folks showed empty with the key it wasn't empty. When Lincoln Kober moved, it was stacked full of pornography. And they had to go through it to see if there's anything relevant, to be used at trial. And my understanding is when they put- that back- that the backing fell off and and or fell partially in the key. Fell out. If you think about it, every would anybody who's going to hide a piece of evidence like that. The last thing left was the car and the key was going to be the next thing used to move the car to get rid of the car, presumably in the car crusher you why that key, really well in a place like that so
You know you look at this in your thinking all my gosh, how you know how could they be the ones that find the key after so many searches? How could it just pop out there look what it look like in the show there was an empty bookcase for crying out loud, in these guys were were the evil ones from ten years ago. Who, who are you, know clean that Avery was innocent? The detail I just listed should at least give listeners may be a pause. I am conceded that it first brush. This looks Okay, no one will ever know with one hundred percent certitude. What happened in that bedroom? The only thing I am saying: is look at all of it and don't assume that
but they showed such as that empty bookcase, with the key on the floor is the end of the story, because it's not interest as a good point here is the following to that and for the sluice that have followed this is that there, is a photo of a Teresa call back holding what normal people. Say that you wouldn't just have one key and of course, you explain why it might just be one key in the rest of the keys been separated, but the content, it is now or the talk is now. Is that only Stephen Avery? DNA was found on that key and not. Teresa Holbach's. So they kind of they speculate. Well. How could that happen?. Well. How do you know that? Well, I think forensically you know that that can happen that kid of tea in the dna is and
a man, an expert dna, but I've known, to know that it's it's not everywhere, it can be casually put in and it can be casually taken off. So somebody touches it after the fact what never was there prior to that fact to that, touching will no longer be there and you know, when you test for DNA they find all kinds of dna is just whether there's enough of a sample suitable sample is the way they testify in court suitable for comparison purposes or for identification purposes. Excuse me, so you know it.
It's what we call the CSI effect, where everybody expects there to be physical, scientific evidence in every square inch of every Skype crime scene in it. Isn't that way finger prints of the best example of that they have to find suitable, Prince latent prints that can be listed for comparison purposes. And things in life are messy? Dna biological material, fingerprints, blood you know it's not like. There were looking at this through some some. You know Booker, something where we can say this piece right here contains the whole truth, the truth is smeared together with lots of material and half the time. There's no scientific material as well,
the tragedies of exonerations were we've kind of got to the end. We talk about the Wisconsin, innocence project of the low hanging fruit. That is the ones that we can prove for wrongful convictions, because there was physical evidence there to be tested most cases there. Aren't so the dna cases are done for the most part. I mean there's still some but so for every? You know, for the three hundred and fifty wrongful convictions that in the United States have been proven by dna testing, since what nineteen, eighty, nine or so that leaves a whole slew of people in prison right now, who did not? commit the crime for which they're they're innocent people in prison that DNA isn't present to test, because there wasn't scientific physical evidence most crimes. At least you know most kinds: don't have slam dunk Smoking Gun
evidence and that's a tragedy and both sides and and finding guilty and feigning innocence just is the way it is. Now, let's get to the big issue, which is the blood planting or potential blood planting or the conspiracy to plug plant blood DNA from Steven Avery. What I got out of this entire ten hours documentary series for me, one is that it hinged on that that that was a very important hinge of this. Was that if it were planted blood, then that bleh it's in that vial that everybody on the documentary would have been had the preservative edta or as such Di Dt EDTA.
If tested, to be at the crime scene in the Rav four right, and if not so, can you speak to that ed, be a test in that issue of potential planting of blood sure, but my impression was that both sides were sort of playing cat and mouse with the blood. The defense, I'm not sure the defense wanted to know um and the prosecution. I guess wasn't going to do it unless the defense brought it up that that you know I didn't try the I hey, I there was a, but there seems to be just from you know an outsider's view, although I'm a prosecutor but from- and I would say, prosecutors view of what was going on. Is it took a long time,
during the run up to the murder trial too, for the defense to decide, if they're going to he asked that they be allowed the blood and and the they only after they had right the motion, but they didn't have it heard in court Ann. So that issue is sort of out there until close to the the trial when all the sudden, the defense, the court granted the defense motion that they could claim. You know essentially that they were cleaning the the frame up to fans the state is, you know, quickly, moved to get this test that the FBI, I think Mark. I forget his name right now will Lubo put together in,
in short order. I think within two weeks working you know around the clack developed this this test, this protocol, in the test that he developed, showed that there was the you know the lack of the presence of the preservative that that would have been there had it come from the the blood vial and the clerk of Courts office. Now, that's the you know. Sixty four thousand dollar question right was that tests with Jim and hand it had it gone through peer review and fed at do do we? Can we really play some of confidence in that scientific tests to know with absolute certainty? To that there is none of that preservative in those specs, then the blood spatter that was found in in to resell about says he'd be,
I guess my response is. I don't know that science will ever have presents us with that kind of certitude. You know about anything almost. I think we have this faith in science that that so so does the state have to prove you know with absolute certitude that something that the blood did not have the rid of the is just one of those issues that, with everything else, the jury had to wrestle with, and they did. Obviously they wrestle with it a lot. I think they were out to two one slash two, almost three days before reaching a verdict. So and of course the other part of the blood vial is is the is the needle in my eye,
thing is that that is not the typical. It's actually is typical of of how of what you would expect to to to look like because of the way there was trouble and and then inserted into the the blood vial through through a needle into the two and then finally Dan within that that seal frankly I don't know- I don't know the answer to that. I I I suspect that you know that that to that vial had been tested on prior occasions, he had to Stephen neighborhood to prior appeals in his wrongful conviction case with that very blood vials, so that things had been sent back and forth to the crime lab by at least two times. Maybe three and for testing purposes, and that's a good example of
disingenuous and filmmaker. I think because of either they did the necessary research or they accidentally did that you know in in terms of securing it a certain way. You know looks like a very dramatic point in the documentary. Isn't it that you got a broken seal, ha ha ha and as you say, it looks like all this never happens. We talked to somebody. This never happens right, there's a syringe? Oh, my God, there you go right and then so you it is so in the continuum globally, then there's blood inside and people can again contentious all that's not the way blood would really be and there's no. Okay, it's hinging on EDTA, so they had me by this. Selective use of evidence which every documentary would have a certain will say,
because of the circumstances, because of their extraordinary access and, like you say, the charming and convincing defense team would be pudding on their best show just naturally not right naturally that what they would do so the he is now is that you have the the nexus is. But people have said: ok at Lee People that are pre rising making a murderer tell us about the DNA that they, it's fine under the hood latch right or the dna on the bullet, fragments that was found. In Steven Avery's garage but yeah I mean there was no question
still Steven Avery's dna was found under the hood latch of the vehicle, which the states theory is that you know he he he moved at Villa. Call and and open the hood latch when he moved to Reese's body. I don't think that was mentioned in there and I think they made they. They suggested any that the bullet found in Steven Avery's garage with Teresa so DNA on it, which I know is, is controversial as well, because the testing of that Bullard, I believe, that's the issue when weather, Sherry Culhane at the crime lab, was that was contaminated or not, but in any event he made. It seem like that bullet fragment was again found by Manitowoc County police, and it wasn't. There were Manatee County police officers inside the the garage.
When the bullet was found. And they showed, as I recall, kind of a close up of an evidence. Transmittal form with the bullet, with the signature of Lieutenant Day but REM occur from the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department, suggesting that Rhema Kerr or just the shares to terminate found the bullet when, in fact that's that's transmittal form basically meaningless. It's it's packaged it's when things are packaged and sent to the crime lab somebody's got gotta sign it. So there was plenty of Oh, I'm not sure what the right term is, but lack of of completeness and lack of candor, lack of objectivity. I think you know nobody wants people get upset. When I talk about the cat burning incident,
and the ramming seated anger ramming his pickup truck into the woman's car and then holding her at nice, neither of those trade portrayed honestly and people don't take like it when I talk about that because they say that has nothing to do with the murder. It's all true. It has nothing to do with the murder, but both of those incidents. They re city of them versus how they were perch portrayed in the deck. Mentari has everything to do with the question. In discussing now, which is weather, make the was honest or whether it was agenda driven and one sided in. You know. I think your audience is probably familiar enough with those two incidents, but you know that kept,
it said it wasn't a prank when he was a kid with some friends. Were the cat accidentally ended up to us in the fire Stephen Avery doused it with gasoline and threw it into the fire watch the birds, no, he pled guilty to animal cruelty and I think he gets sixty or ninety days jail for that and You know just that if you're going to make somebody a protagonist and a hero, you need to make explain away an incident where somebody douses a cat with gas in Tusc, is it into a fire. You have a hard time convincing an audience to feel very sympathetic about a person like that, and they knew they had to include it, but the way they portrayed it- and you know, ask the listeners if there if they think I'm full of it. You know go back to that episode and see. If I'm right,
and the thing about it was really down played an doesn't mean he did the murder. No, I absolutely not but does it mean making a murderer or maybe was, was a little too sympathetic toward one side, and Take it as it were, the other acts I think it does. You know, get real briefly, as I just talk about it. The the incident with RAM his pick up truck into the car. I mean, if you listen to making a murder if you, from their point of view, Stephen, was almost like the victim. In that case, sort of getting back at the woman. Who was, you know prejudicial tord him and his family. Apparently it didn't, have you know I had a kind of a he tried about her, but they suggested that that was his attempt attempt, but it just
attempt to get back at her for spreading rumors about him and his family. In fact, Steven Avery had been watching her with a pair of binoculars for weeks. If not, months. Actually, as she got into her car down the road early in the morning, he had sexually gratified himself as she drove by outside on his pig truck is she drove? By is how should he ran into the road naked in front over once I mean this is not just the person he wasn't the victim. In that case he then held her at gunpoint after that one particular incident when he ran to pick. Truck. She lost control of her car after you and pick up truck into it. He held her at gunpoint and only let her go after. She begged him because of her maybe in the back car would have frozen sea in Avery six of the eighteen years that he did in prison on the
full conviction case. He would have done anyhow because of ad a he pled guilty or no contest, I don't remember which, to a charge associated with that event, not a sexual assault charge, because it wasn't a sex assault. He he he backed off. He did not do what he wanted to do with her, and you know Can I prove he wanted to do that with her know, but somebody watching her with binoculars for months get into the car and running out naked in front of her and masturbating. While she drove by and then one day he happens to Ramir RAM is pick up in your car and hold.
A gun, a rifle letter point senator and holds our complaint act. You know I'd I'd, take that to a jury if he is services and tentacles, but so it's it's a messy messy case and it's a messy document. So, let's get to one of the more serious issues, too. Is that the a documentary intimates that there your bones or yeah: there were bones of Teresa Halbach found in someplace other than the burn pit, which was in the backyard twenty feet away from Steven Avery's trailer tell
about this issue. Whether this is true or not yeah. Well, I think there were other locations and the Avery premises where there were bones that were leave to be Teresa Ha Box, a few others, and then there was some other. I think a Cory or something further away from the premises where there were bones, but it was never really determined whether those were animal bones. Are human bones, much less Teresa's phone But there was more than one location to be sure where it appeared that Teresa Halbach's remains were located. So you know again that
s as well. What what we draw from that you know, and I I think what what the defense tried to say is one thing with that state. Trying to say is another of the defense said. Well that meant that somebody had you know planted that had moved. Teresa's remains from a different location to the to the burn the burn barrel or the Birm pep up in. And the states there He was that. Well, what that really shows is that Steven Avery, you know the source of the burning was was right outside his house, his trailer. And then he was gradually trying to move out, move those phones to other locations. So I don't know that that you know it's
but two edged sword, I'm not sure which way that cuts necessarily. But it's one more thing that at first look would convinced people that, especially with everything else that you know there's some police shenanigans going on here. They do you have a point in the documentary too. That's very dramatic in that uh. They have some report of the disappearance of Teresa Holbach or you can. Correct me on this, but they are asking the question. Is he in custody yet so see seems to be that he wouldn't be there wouldn't be grounds for him to be arrested at that point in custody. And yet, if you can address that yeah, I I think um
I think what you're referring to is one of the officers is heard over the radio saying it in a kind of a tap type voice. You know it's Stephen Avery in custody yet or something like that, and I think that you know it raise that that issue of how people jump to conclusions and- and that was the problem in the first case- that they just assume from the get go without much evidence at all that it must have been Steven Avery that that raped her try enter a penny berntsen on the beach back in nineteen eighty five, because the description sort of matched up now in this case you know that officer. I think it, least had knowledge that steven- He had been the one to call for Theresa Hollaback to come out to the salvage yard. No, should this is bad enough to have him. You know suggests there in his mind or
included in his mind that it must be Avery. So is he in custody? I don't think so. You know that that was and that that that does makes sense at that point. Is Stephen Avery, I suspect right off the bat and in fact, with Stephen Avery, the number one suspect I think any times you know. A vehicle is found in somebody's residence concealed like this in the in the property, and that person is the one who had called her out. There specific He would certainly be one of the top suspects lacking other information at that point, so the es I think that does show effectively how police, like everybody else, jumps to some conclusions sometimes, but I know these shows too much more than that nothing. You know nefarious necessarily or or suggestive of some kind of conspiracy, just just kind of a cat
at the conclusion, which is a problem in its own right, but doesn't go to the issue of whether you know they actually planted evidence here. The way I look at it and you know Let's talk about those phone calls and the star six, seven to conceal his identity and then the one at four hundred and thirty, which they call said. Would establish an alibi where he doesn't use to star sixty seven and tell us. A little bit more about that, and what do you think that you can conclude from that? So with this star? Sixty seven is that is in our hearts that the state thanks and I I think it's a pretty fair inference- it doesn't prove anything but it it is, just one suggestion that he did not want to research to know that he was
the one that was calling or out to take to the salvage yard, that day to have pictures taken on this vehicle. One bit of evidence among the lots, and lots of other evidence. That's what gentleman I think for the state to look at you know now the call that you're referring to can you refresh my memory on that again Dan? I don't. I hope I know what we're talking about, but I will learn well. He made a call. He had used he had called. I mean it's not that unusual that he had called to resolve Jack had called her before, He wanted to sell his vehicle. There's many theories. Why in many reasons that don't prove my very much and so he's concealing his it. The number with the, but at four hundred and thirty He gives her not same number a call and doesn't use the star six, seven,
which again is on evidence in itself, but it is circumstantial evidence of yeah that would suggest she's calling her than you're saying was after the well? They don't know exactly when she was killed. I suppose, but but I guess that that could be used by defense to say no, he wasn't trying to hide her identity or if the timing is right, you know that that he didn't think she was she had been murdered. Yet I I'm not sure exactly what they're trying to say but you're absolutely right. All of these things at some point become, and I can't even keep up with them all, and I I I don't know I plan to get. You know at some point I'll try to keep up with what I can, but sometimes we become so speculative with Evan
that could go one way or the other that it just it gets to be a know, sort of an exercise futility, I guess right or wrong. What I like to do is take the main bits of since that are really meaningful, and that might mean thirty pieces of evidence and matches physical pieces of evidence, but you know meaningful entity whether it's physical or statements or circumstances, and really drill down on those to see where I think they lead, because you could end up with hundreds, if not thousands, of sub parts to analyze that might might lead in a couple different directions and Maybe it's just me, but my mind can't fit all that in
and I don't know if the one you're speaking to you know might might be a larger piece of evidence that I know the star. Sixty seven frankly is a piece of evidence. I don't know that I'd, throw it out there in the top thirty either itself. He says who had look at those those two pieces: No, there has been lots of talk about, and again I I I don't want to. We could never crossings I or re examine all of the bits of evidence to say, but I want to ask you this question because I think this is important was what did Steven Avery say when he was initially? questioned about Teresa Holbach and her appearance on his property in his into action wear with her. This is LE
out of the documentary. If getting this correct, What did he initially say that the police about his interaction or any interaction with trees a whole back? Well, I thought he just said that she was there and and- I think he admitted he starred in the and then and then she left there was some inconsistency later but again, if we, if you can refresh my memory, well my sources, my sources and again I I was dead was just recent in that. For my research was that initially said to police that he had not seen her and that's of the parts of the documentary that was missing in that they contend that he changed his story when out
second time he was questioned about. It then said that he had called her and that he hadn't seen her was his initial statement to police. Now, unless I and that completely wrong. I think I saw that some or two you know, I'm not going bet the farm on that- but I know there were some inconsistencies in his early statement- is initial statements to the police quite a few actually- and I don't know the exact details on that? Can I speak to it, but You know, I guess I've I've. I was convinced enough
that I knew for my own purposes that this was not an objective. Look at this that there were some things that I knew were left out that at some point I lost interest in proving that and that you know I'm not going to go on some mission. Two to prove it. I Yes, I've been speaking out a lot about the justice system in about that making a murderer was Matt accurate in a and I've tried to pick four or five things that I think pretty much establish that there's a lot more that I know I could find, but you know I always like to come back to the point I started with and because here we are talking about you know
so what they did and what they didn't do. And that is a big part of this but a larger part of it. To me is that it's not going to be making a murderer that determines whether Steven Avery should have a new trial or Brendan Dassie, both of those things should be really really thoroughly worked out in court, with aggressive attorneys on the defense side, both of whom have them Steven Avery's attorney very kind return to an aggressive attorney, I'm sure she would look at that as a compliment key please owner and likewise Brendan D'Assise attorneys at the wonderful connection center in Chicago so they're. The ones
who will come forward with as much evidence as they can garner in arguments that they can go and law, supporting their arguments. That can garner to ask the courts. In the case of Steven Avery it'll, be back in the trial court in a post conviction motion to grant him Steven a neutral and in the case of Mister DHA City, it's already in federal court. I think the briefs is already been filed. They've already asked that not exactly that they grant a new trial 'cause, it set a different pasture. It said a Habeas petition of federal court, which means his state remotes have been exhausted, but he is asking
federal court to take a look at the interrogation to take a look at his deprivation of liberty right now and this and that it's an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty, because of the of a interrogation that coerced him to give up his due process right, not to self incriminate himself. So these are issues that the courts are going to wrestle through that the state has right and a duty to suggest if they believe it and I can assure you they believe it and I believe it and only speak King about Mister Avery's case here right now that that he did get a fair trial and that all of the evidence that they are,
to bring to bear and all the arguments that they're going to bring to bear suggesting that he didn't are not sufficient to grant to move the trial in that that Mr Avery remain where, where he is rate fully convicted. This time in serving the rest of his life in in prison. In light of the extreme incredible injustice that he injured in law of the seemingly set of impropriety. I know you great job explaining why manage officials were involved. In light of the public's interest and the public cry specially when he had some Hollywood actors behind it
right is not a trial. Maybe entitled to a trial is maybe the state may be in their best interest to have another trial since of the really Conf. With the evidence. That really is there not the evidence. That's not portrayed in the documentary right is it just a way of spying flying everybody weather. Even if it's legally not really sound, just give his character another trial, but it's You know that's a really. That is an interesting question. It's a different way of looking at it. It's a uh, it's a question that could come. I think natural, the people, if it were just you know if this word just a an event to national, events event in the media in among true crime circles in and amongst people feel strong about these issues,.
Sure but it is an actual case where someone lost her life or somebody else is in prison. We where police have been drug through the mud police who devoted themselves to many many years of honest service. There are some horribly dishonest cops out there. There are in every state, These two guys are, in my opinion, two of 'em, but neither here nor there. The point I'm trying to make is we can't just the system can't afford that financially. But this system can't operate by going sort of outside the constitutional principles that have guided it for since the 1700s you know since England, or wherever we get our our
rules of evidence in Manchester. The rules of evidence are right to a trial and write to proof we had a reasonable doubt into a good lawyer, there's a whole system of complicated stuff, but ultimately rational stuff. I think that determines these issues you know, and it does give a defendant a right to a new trial, but not every under just because you know he got the he was there. This is a horrible injustice perpetrated upon him in a prior case. The lot, I guess It says two rational, maybe at some level, but the one really really stands on reason in reason is connected to justice and in a way, maybe that emotion, isn't or entertainment, isn't or interest isn't. So I suppose I'm a defender of the law
even though I often find myself in presentations and in my writing, especially the first book and in other articles, I've written a big critic of the current status, the state of the criminal justice system, United States, but that's not the law. It's the way. It's the way. Sometimes things are done more than the actual LA law, answer, but no, I really don't think it would serve any it would it would I think it would be a real disservice in this uh
really is seven no idea. It's members, her name though, but I seem to be a real disservice for Stephen Avery to get a second trial. Another trial short of some type of evidence that newly discovered evidence- that is what it's it's called under the law that suggests that the the the that is material that that is it Woods would suggest that the the matter really wasn't tried fairly. That there's something else, that a jury should have heard that could result in a different result could lead to a different result, certainly physical evidence. What if there was a new blood test and it did show EDTA preservative. My goodness. You know he should have a second trial in a minute or what if there was an alternative suspect that really looked like you know, Natchez some. You know,
speculation that this guys a bad guy and maybe he did it, but that there was a connection- an emotive map to Nitti in something beyond speculation, that this person could have been the assailant, absolutely to get a new trial. So I guess you never say never in the Steven Avery case. But short of that kind of evidence I don't believe that Steven Avery should or will obtain a new trial. Well, I don't want to disagree with you, but I I think that just my ideas and pardon me if I say this is that I think that it would be be a very good learning too for everybody for the media to understand. The media. And to understand its role in its limitations and again, the idea of everybody having a bias 'cause, you know there's
There's some organisations who pretend they don't have one you know they they state there isn't there isn't one, but I think that if he were to be entitled to another trial the media and again this is backed up by investigation discovery. Time magazine they're, coming from this from the position that you are from believing that Avery Maine have gotten a fair trial. They they're not really, but definitely he's guilty and so and then they and they do they- have around the idea that making a murderer has been skewered It has left things out and has been advice Biased in is certainly see, to be agenda driven, now, so I think that if they were to have another trial, the intense scrutiny because of this entertainment, as you call it yeah, that everybody, the media, would have an opportunity to really
scrutinize the trial and see if it was conducted this time properly, because I think I disagree with you in one way in that. You think that Brendan Dassie is title to another trial because or possibly or potentially because of the interrogation, but yet at the same time, some of the story that was, he confessed to. Created charges that Avery was charged with we're talking about restraining where there was no blood The evidence again further complicating this and. Giving rise right back in that if Brendan D'Assise deserves another trial. Because of the fashion and part of the confession is statements that aren't supported with forensic it that are at least I would think prejudicial to Steven Avery. I think
just have a couple trials, show how interrogation techniques really work, and the record I gotta say for research- this program. I watch the entire fifty six minute. Interrogation and to be fair what you're saying to give credence to what you're saying it look like in atrocious interview technique. And yet when I saw the entire fifty six minutes, Rather than making a murderer version, I thought it was fair. I thought it was Fair interrogation, I don't know about that technique that they used. I think it works on people of a little bit simpler nature, but sometimes that's what you're dealing with yeah. They didn't so the whole thing, your larger issue. You know programs like this, where we're talking about these issues, you know
and there is a lot of media attention played right now and what did making a murder or do you know, sort of reflecting after it. I suppose you're saying no, that that only goes so far that only a trial would would really show these massive amount of people that have seen you know. The legions of people have seen Netflix the documentary making a murderer Only a trial would show that number of people, the true evidence. You know it's it's it's an interesting, I thought I mean it is I just I'm coming at this very much in that you know from I guess: creature of my profession, which is you know, we don't do trials for those those kind of reasons for purposes of you know showing the public anything we just, although there is a political, almost a political element to this one. At this point, it's like a so ia
and I do I just think, because there are people involved and- and there is there, you know a criminal case we it takes. What is liberty away and where you, where you also were a victim, has a right to sort of see, perhaps some kind of closure on something there. There has to be even more protection for a defendant. You know that's even more important than closure for a victim. It is people who say well, it's just as much this person's trial, victims families trials is the defendant. That's not true. Is that really it's the defendant's trial? We say that for a reason, it's his liberty we're looking to take him away. Take away. That isn't to say Treasa how blacks not more important than Steven Avery and should not be forgotten. One of the things
we lose in this so many times, but it's Steven Avery's child's his liberty, but there is rules and there. Are we don't want to get to the point? Where depends on the public's view of something I guess whether somebody gets a new trial 'cause next time it might be the Stephen Avery, you as the public against you know, and then the that would have protected him for us, Allow him to have a new child doesn't permit it, but this is, I guess. Our discussion is just showing how strange this case is it's taken on. At different level, almost beyond just another criminal case has, and it it's it's like an event. It's a political. Radiological event, cultural event, whatever you want to call it and from my purse, it all comes back, so is interesting, is all that is and is necessary. I guess is at all is to to a case an actual cases. Real people
victims, real defendants and the real law. So I guess I guess that's where I, where I'd be coming down. Anyhow on that on that issue, Well, you know the thing is again: I hate to predict what's going to happen, but I just saw a red something today about the new attorney. And some of the strategy, and so The claims already are that the bullet never passed through her head and so I think you're going to have an edta there's my prediction Michaelanne. I hope not, but I think you can have an edta expert. On the stand and I think and I think you may have, because it depends on what happens with this aggressive attorney in the sex. Season of making a murderer because If you want to see the machinations of something you know a force to be reckoned with and a force
that you can't stop right and that might be the interest in this case. But when you get, successful documentary, as you know, they're going to try to have a second I mean if there, if it, Senator Gramm right now, yeah, I don't well, I think, they're they they're they're, correct and they're being sincere, here. In that events will determine whether there's a second activity. I don't think they can push that in general. So much, I think at this point the events will push that and I think you're right I mean Miss Zellner will you know she is determined It is very confident in her ability to to to to get in another trial. For Mr Avery- and I guess we just have to see what she has she's she's talked a lot to use said there's this there's that the other thing and there may be. I am I don't know now
nobody. He knows. I know it is. You know it it's, it's not hard to say that the old technology was sold in the forensic testing was lousy and and and ours is going to be so much better. That may all be true, but the evidence is what it is. So the best forensic testing in the world won't show something that doesn't exist unless it does, and if there is the blood preservative in that blood I'll be singing a very different tune. I tell you that much. I love the quote where they the whoever said it. I think it was the film makers themselves. That said in an interview that the truth is elusive in the Steven Avery it's hard to get at exactly what happened, because
you just look at the circumstances like you were, we were discussing before you know: what's the chance, Lincoln Clover and find the key, you know, what's the chance, these police, who never you know, are you the shouldn't even be in there anywhere after the horrible injustice that happened last time. You know dozen he just looked terrible right off the bat and it does. But that's the point. Truth is elusive. You have to keep digging further down in this thing and you never know. I think that's the whole lesson throughout even the first day. We kids have to keep an open mind and you have to be honest and objective about and see where the evidence weights it's all we can do. I guess it's very interesting to the phenomena of people now row bring up their sleeves and trying to participate. I did a program. I was hunting a cycle path about the east area, EAST area, rapist, original night stalker and how many people had,
in amateur sleuthing, this thing for years and years really very, very, very serious people and on all the refer all- and I guess the Zodiac. Of course as well so there's a there's, a bunch people, a legion of people, I guess that just like they binge watch or how you know, have some really big trust in the law and some of this and enjoy in and a hooked, on trying to find inclusion, I've read about other suspect and they must be a little active in all of us. I guess you know absolutely absolutely. I think that that's what it is it is, it always seems like the the fine. As of some of the media find it surprising that people are interested in true crime but, like I say, in the Bible's, true crime, every single I mean JFK and Martin Luther King and the Titanic Girl Wellness, math Titanic I'm gone too far.
It's all there's a lot of absolutely so now with The innocent killer you're getting much more attention, and some of it not very good, but hopefully you're going to get it balanced out. When all of these programs invest gation discovery. Time magazine have explored this and again, like I say there, basically on your side that, despite what it looks like at for everybody else's conscience. The Steven Avery is guilty of the Teresa Holbach murder. Tell us what's next for your book. It's released worldwide. Now. Is that the plan for the innocent killer? Yeah, the um the different groups are big separate publisher in the United Kingdom picked it up. I think it was penguin and somebody is doing a mass market
version of it paperback version I shouldn't just say somebody I'm supposed to know Kensington, I believe you know, but it's kind of funny, people think authors make a lot of money. Authors don't make a lot of money. Publishers make a Fairfield Inn. And you know it took me three years to write the innocent killer and I don't know frankly what's happening recently is the Amazon rankings. This is a book that was a four star for since it was out in the summer of twenty fourteen. Silent force are sometimes above the forced. Our people seem to. You know appreciate what I did with the book. The vocal, the most vocal critics,
just disagree with my position and I don't know how many of them actually read. The book have taken to posting reviews on Amazon. All of them one star, all of them basically same. You know horrible book, corrupt prosecutor, don't read it, don't buy it, so they might have been it down from like a four star. Do I think it to two and a half star, or something like that, I guess I can't do anything about it, and you know I frankly, it's Some point: I don't care. No, I I and I'm doing my best, I'm trying to do what I can and just all kind of kind of dealing with the events as they unfold here. I shouldn't say I don't care. I do care because I think it's it and it isn't the money. I mean there's some money, but there's not there isn't,
huge amount of money anyhow, but there is there's just something nasty about I get free expression and first amendment rights and I'm all for all that who wouldn't be. I mean you have to express here, your beliefs, but if you're just doing something to sabotage, somebody else is work, as you disagree with their conclusions that that's kind of ugly, So you know, but that's where I'm at now I I am I'm I'm just moving on like everyone else at this point, so. Well, I want to thank you very much Michael for coming on and it to testament that there is a far more people interested in reading this book rather Trashing! This book is the The release from Kensington and release in the UK with Penguin books, so This story has again
when I interviewed you. It wasn't such a well known story a few years ago, and I I was astounded that I had not heard of this story, so you who have been the person that has brought the story to the forefront now this documentary for people that really normally probably don't read so much. This is a United there imagination. I think there's going to another trial. Hopefully there will be so that the naysayers and the people that are attacking people like yourself and and are destroyed, their faith in all of the judicial system will see that they have to as many many true crime. Readers know he have to just be patient, get all the facts before you start making some solutions. So I want to thank you very much for coming on and talking about the very controversial, making a murderer and also help people that you are the author of the innocent killer and if you want to get the re
story of the person that helped exonerate Steven Avery, but then to this day, says Steven Avery deserved if got a fair trial and is guilty of the trees, the back murder so I want to. Thank you very much for coming on and talking about this this evening. Thanks for having me to thank you. You, too, and now I thought from Geico Motorcycle. It took fifteen minutes to take a spirit. Animal quiz online, please be the Cheetah Lee would be the cheetah and learn your animal. Isn't the cheetah but the far Appealing Blobfish Come on. To add insult to injury, you could have used those fifteen blobfish minutes to switch your motorcycle insurance to Geico Geico. Fifteen minutes could save you, fifteen percent or more on motorcycle insurance, and now I thought
from Geico Motorcycle. It took fifteen minutes to take a spirit, animal quiz online. Please be the cheetah we would be the cheetah and learn your animal isn't the cheetah. But the four is appealing Blobfish Come on to add insult to injury, you could have used those fifteen blobfish minutes to switch your motorcycle insurance to Geico Geico. Fifteen minutes could save you, fifteen percent or more on motorcycle insurance,
Transcript generated on 2019-10-31.