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