MAKING A MURDERER-Michael Griesbach

the case, The Innocent Killer. Making a Murderer documentary writers and producers made a strong case that Avery and co accused nephew Brendan Dacy, convicted of the murder of Teresa Hallback, deserve another trial. Michael and I will discuss Making a Murderer, the trial of Stephen Avery and Brendan Dacy and the murder of Teresa Hallback. The title of the program this evening is making a murderer the need for a retrial

with my special guests, journalist and author Michael Greesback. Welcome back to the program, and thank you very much for a green to this interview.

now that's just really blown up. But tell us some of the personal antidotes that I was just reading recently about protests at the courthouse and involving with your Facebook page. So tell us a little bit about those kinds of things before we get right into this.

how you look at it. We can get to that later and also in that new version, The Innocent Killer is and afterward by Keith Findley, the head of the Wisconsin Innocence Project, and Keith actually went on to serve as the president of a national Innocence Project. I'm on the board of advisors at the Wisconsin Innocence Project at

the Diversity of Wisconsin and 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 as sort of a tool of the state and of prosecutors, which really is to me a very interesting development because I spent a lot of years talking about the infirmities of the criminal justice system, specifically on proscatorial misconduct issues in terms of withholding evidence and in terms of an

over zealousness on their part. But so yes, The Innocence.

The American Bar Association picked up the book republished it in the summer of twenty fourteen, with those changes in the PostScript, the afterword, and some additional things here and there that I added to the book to speak to a few issues that I left out, not with regard to Terresa Holbach's murder most of the book, although that's not the interest right now, of course, but the first two thirds or maybe even three quarters of the book have to do with mister Avery's wontful conviction and not

his trial for the murder of Theresa Hoboch real quick Dan. Of course. More recently this thing is taken off like wildfire my book to some extent, but much more so just the Avery story, I mean, your listeners, and you don't need to be reminded of that. It's a worldwide phenomena, and in some sense I think that's good because it speaks to the criminal justice system and people are looking at it more clearly and seeing its shortcomings. It's a system badly in need of reform, no question about that.

to the White House with this. In terms of asking Barack Obama, and Barack Obama and the White House have issued a statement that they can't can they can aren't capable of pardoning Aver even if they wanted to. So it's really interesting. So let's go back to the Wisconsin Innocent Project just to establish beyond all doubt your credibility here and your objectiveness. So talk about we can't go through the original trial and that is just a done deal.

And again, like you mentioned, the emphasis is on the Halback murder and the second part of your book really or the second murder or pardon me second trial. So with the innocence Wisconsin Innocence Project, just take us back to where you became involved, where you were an advocate for Stephen Avery before we talk about the deposition you made on behalf of Stephen Avery and then the turn of events with the disappearance and the murder of Teresa Hallback.

name of Gregory Allen and not 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 on the receiving end to carefully work with them, not to put up roadblacks some DA's fight the most obvious evidence of innocence. I never thought of our roll that way. Our role, you know, is it's important. It's just as important to make sure the innocent go free them to convict those who are guilty,

perhaps even more important. So you know, my role was very I had to make sure that it wasn't just the publicare but at other evidence also showed clearly that

mister Avery did not commit the crime. And as I looked into that quickly because he had been serving already 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 in Lake Michigan here in Wisconsin, he not only didn't do it, but the authority specifically the DA, former district attorney here in Manitaa County and a former

sheriff in Manitoac County, if not intentionally, certainly recklessly sent him to prison while knowing he was innocent. You can't

get much more corrupt than that. Now hastened to add, as I always do in these interviews, that the Wisconsin Attorney General, in conducting her independent review back in two thousand and four, late two thousand and three or early two thousand and four, after myself and another prosecutor took it to her to conduct a review to see if there were any ethical or criminal violations on the part

of the former sheriff and district attorney. She, that is, the Attorney General, concluded that now mister Avery was the victim of bad police communication, maybe sort of narrow tunnel vision, but nothing unethical or criminal on the part of the sheriff and DA. I called her opinion a whitewash in my book. She's the top law enforcement officer was at

the time in Wisconsin. Her report was nothing but a whitewash of the authorities in my county in nineteen eighty five for what they did to mister Avery and his family.

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 book is the 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 one more tragedy to this whole thing, and a long list of tragedies. I mean, they were sued. There was a thirty six million dollar lawsuit filed by Steven Avery against the sheriff and the district attorney and the county where I'm still employed as tistrict attorney. I was deposed in that runful conviction lawsuit, testified as to what I knew, certainly did not try to fudget one way or the other.

I wasn't going to try to help mister Avery, but I wasn't going to try to help the county.

myself included, and not enough reason. Sometime, as people's people's passions become involved, and I think for what it's worth, my thought is that, including for myself, it's probably time to step back and stop 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 feeling that the other

side is against anybody, even though sometimes they are. We all are susceptible to that, but we need to fight against that because this is important stuff. You know, if it's important for mister Avery, of course, it's important for mister Darcy, of course, but it's also important for the Hallback family. It's also important for the Burnston family, and I know some of your listeners don't want to hear about the Burnston's and the Hallbacks. It is perhaps even

more important for Stephen Avery and and Brenda Dacy. Certainly it is if if you know, if you were to believe that they didn't did not do this, but it is important for a lot of people, and finally, it's important for the criminal justice system. And I guess, as a kind of an observer of this, a person who wrote this book and has lectured about this and served on panels about wrongful convictions and Stephen Avery's case in particular,

my concern is also for the criminal justice system. The documentary, you know, 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 be allowed to do them, especially when there's a young, developmentally disabled young man. It brought out the you know, the disparity in in justice that is achieved sometimes between those on the lower of

society and those on the upper run. There's 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 in in not just entertainment but well intended, meaningful you know, examination of something but not balanced, and the role that that has on an actual criminal case with real people, real victims, real defendants,

real police were accused of 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 and think, yours truly included, myself included, think a little more carefully and wisely for we to shout out our latest feeling about this.

the way that video and film can be. And also, these people are not the uninitiated to how stories are told very much like fictional writing when it's really good in that it's very mister, you know, there's a lot of mystery left to it, and the writing is on the same level in terms of keeping on the edge of your seat. And so I think that these people that will listen to this program tend more to be people who have read a fair amount of true crime,

and so they are looking for more answers. They're not as naive as the people that maybe have never watched a documentary before Netflix, before the Hoopla, and before them not understanding that's still filmmaking as opposed to a book, is more level headed and more expansive, more information provided.

So what I'm saying is in that regard, what I think this audience wants, and what we would try to do with this program is to address some of the things that I think that after I have watched this series, and after I've read your book and interviewed you, that I still have some burning questions too that brought on by this documentary. And so I think the person to ask would be you.

audience about that. But when we get to the point of of making decisions about what we think in in in a particular case, I think overwriting, that should be some sense of of reason, in some sense of of of tolerance, I guess, and some sense of humility on

everybody's part, mine included. But I will do my best to answer the questions you have, Dan, I'm well aware that there's there's a lot of passion out there about my position on this and what I have written and said, and I I'll, you know, admit 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 is worthwhile, too.

not all bad. The criminal justice system that has huge problems that I've worked to try to do my part to point out. But that's still I think is you know, is the best is the best we have. But I guess enough of my my philosophizing out. Let's let's see, uh, let's see what what we can what we can accomplish here.

good thing. I think I'm in the first episode for a minute or two or something. And I agree with a good portion of their agenda, which is to use the Avery case to draw lessons about the criminal justice system, including some of those things I spoke to earlier interrogations, When is enough enough? When is too much? Too much? And and I can't weigh in too much on that issue. I'm still a prosecutor. I'm speaking tonight, as you know, the author of this book, But i still am a

prosecuting attorney in Wisconsin and 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 in the interview during making a murder of mister Dascy. You know, that's a technique, the read technique. It's called I believe it's our ei

D that's used all over the United States. I'm not sure about Canada, but in in law enforcement interrogation and and there's good reason to question the validity of that. I mean, it's basically it assumes that the police know the truth and they know the guilt of the person, and it's designed to elicit a confession, not you know, objectively to search for the truth. I am not an expert in that. There will be police officers who will be very upset that that's the way I care or

tries it. And you know, from their perspective, they do that once they feel they have enough evidence that there is no question the defendant is guilty, so therefore their job becomes to to do whatever, frankly the law allows, which is way too much.

Chumbuckcasino dot com to claim your free welcome bonus. That's Chumbu Casino dot com and live the Chumba Lane.

of who they were. Legitimate points an agenda, to be sure, But when you take a specific case and 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 that police planted evidence that he is as as you know, as an unjust he is a

victim of the system. There's no no other conclusion you can and you can make almost after watching that he's a victim of the system.

way because they didn't. I'll say that. I'll say that as confidently and as firmly, and if people think it's arrogant, so be it. They did not present and an objective portrayal, an objective view of the evidence in the homicide trial of Stephen Aby. They didn't.

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 and an entire courtroom try to influence as is their job their task. And wouldn't they then have an agenda to present a case at the further this case, since we're talking about two thousand and five, it is twenty and fifteen. He's been in ten years now for this if he were to be wrongfully convicted, So isn't that part of

the agenda that 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 and criticize the interrogation techniques used on Brendan Dassy and a lot of that information was we'll say, more than influential in the Stephen Avery case.

whether he had an effective assistance of counsel. And I think I think that that is one of those questions that it's hard to stay say with with with with a lot of sincerity, frankly, that that at least one of his attorneys was effective. The question is whether that

affected his trial, would it have turned out differently? And that that turns on on the interrogation, and that is something that that a court is going to have to really wrestle with and something that I, frankly haven't you know, done the research on the law as much if I were his attorney, if I were prosecuting the case in federal court right now, I would, But more importantly, it's not something I should really weigh in right now as it is specifically pending on that issue. So I'm not

going to weigh in on that. But but Stephen ab yes, I do believe you had a fair child. I think what you're what you're raising, Dan, I started to say, and I do think that there are a few agendas here by them. Some of 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 that serial was going to come out, that that there would even be a Netflix you know, So they were My impression of them was that they were idealistic, young people from from New York, one a recent law school grad, one I think in film, two women that were concerned about the justice system and saw this as a good case to sort of explore that, and who liked film. I mean, how could you argue with that that that's

a that's an excellent thing to do. And to that extent, I agreed 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, and you know, to be clear, it's not to anybody to decide. I guess you know what agenda someone has, however, if they are going to try to affect a case. And and this is the point, I think you're getting it when I say it's agenda driven. That's when I and other people I think have have

kind of bristled back at it. And the reason is, Yeah, defense lawyers their job is to zealously represent their client and to to make the state prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, and to do everything they can to protect their client from any kind of misuse of power by the state, and to make sure they're treated fairly. You know, that's not so much an agenda. That's their job, and it's it's as important or more important than my job

as a prosecutor. But those things are done in the court of law with rules of evidence and and a referee being a judge and a jurors that see the

whole trial. And I guess I think the danger is here that and I guess we'll have to get into details, because 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 one side of the story such that viewers would end up being like jurors who only saw the defense side of the case, or who when they saw the prosecution side, only saw the

parts where the defense poked holes in the prosecution. And that's intellectually dishonest. It's it perhaps they have a larger agenda, you know, Stephen Avery got to use you know, to use in sense legal non legal. You got screwed over severely by the police and the prosecutor in the first time. And police misconduct and prosecutor misconduct is 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 gonna if you're gonna present something, you need to present it evenly for people to decide. Then whether that's what happened in case number two, And just because it happened in case number

one doesn't mean it happened in case number two. And in this case, I firmly believe I just because I think that's at the facts show that it didn't happen in case number two, that that indeed Stephen Avery did commit h the murder. Indeed the police did not plant evidence. As hard as that is to believe, if all you've seen is the documentary, I think an honest look at all of the evidence will show you as much as

anything can in this case. Where As they've said, truth is elusive, and it is at the Stephen Avery case. That's why it's tough. You got to you gotta weed your way through it, but you don't get to the truth by just seeing one side of the story.

what historically had just happened. How on earth could you have the same county involved at all, and if they were involved at all under any circumstances, isn't that can't you see what people are looking at. They're saying, well, they did a convincing job, as you did in showing that, Yeah, there was what people don't want to believe, that the 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 retroal? I think that's what people are seeing.

just so difficult because that is a legitimate 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. We wouldn't have it if it weren't for the first wrongful conviction, and we wouldn't have it had Probably we wouldn't have had it had manitoa County Sheriff's department completely withdrawn from the search. So I do understand why people think the way they do.

What I don't understand is, well, I understand it, but what I don't agree with is the producers of the not the producers, but the creators of the documentary. And I guess the producers too desire to well, I understand it, frankly, to make it look like that initial suspicion is more than just an initial a suspicion that it's true. But I don't think it's it's right 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. Uh, to 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 Dan, your listeners are much brighter than that. You can without saying directly this is what I want you to believe. By the way 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

perpetrate a horrible injustice upon mister 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 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, and maybe this is just sort of a microcosm or as an example of how you know, all these pieces of evidence need to be looked at and

considered in total and thoroughly each single allegation. Okay, so we have Lincoln Colburn why, you know, why would Manitoac, even before we get to Lincoln Core, why would Manitoac at all Sheriff's department be involved in the search at all. You know, shouldn't they have been completely withdrawing. Okay, now, let's look at what happened. Though it's a Manitoc County case. Okay,

she was killed in Manitoac County. In Wisconsin and the United States everywhere, the county where it happened is the venue the law enforcement agency from that 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 what they did right or wrong, the Sheriff's department

recognized 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 we're going to do is we're not going to have Manitoac County cops they're searching alone. We're always going to have somebody else with them. And that'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, Lincoln Colburn. Those two guys were portrayed in the documentary as basically being on the hook for the money in the runful conviction lawsuit. They weren't. They weren't defendants in the runful conviction lawsuit. They were witnesses. They weren't even here when Avery was wrongly convicted in nineteen

eighty five. Well, I take that back, Colburn might No, I don't think either of them were on the force even in nineteen ninety five when they got the call. And the listeners who really have gotten into this will recall when Lincoln Colburn received the telephone call from the Brown County Jail, Green Bay, from a jailer 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 Manitoa County in nineteen eighty five, but they weren't ninety five. And when they got that call, they did just what they should have. They sent it up the line the chain of come in and they're working third shift, I believe, and get this call. You know, are they supposed to drop everything

and themselves take on an investigation. No, they're not even detective. So they send it up the line the chain of command. It comes back down saying, ah, that's a bunch of boloney. We got our guys's been in prison forever. The Court of Appeals has has affirmed the conviction. Tell green Bay, you know, we don't have time to waste that. I don't know if that came from the sheriff, it might have all the way up to the sheriff some higher up.

But it wasn't Lincoln Colbert who manipulated and hid evidence against that would have freed Stephen Avery. They did what their job required 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 have knowing nothing about the case.

And you know, I hate to say it right or on, but if law enforcement hears police here out of the blue that some guys saying that he did some crime that somebody's already been in prison for ten years, there won't be taken much more seriously than put it up the chain of command to somebody who might know. And then if the people up the chain of command said there's 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 they have been there? I think the ideally the Mantoh County officials, the Sheriff's department should have just said no searching by Manitoa County. But just as a practical I know you want to move on here, But as a practical matter, Kelly met County is maybe a fourth of the size of Manitoac County and the Sheriff's department is probably even less than that.

county cops search it alone. They thought that would do it. And I believe that search in the bedroom was like eight weeks after the initial searches. They really didn't expect. My understanding is to find substance of criminal evidence at that time they were looking through mister Avery had a stack of pornography. Actually in that in the bookcase. The shelves that they showed empty by the way making a murder folks showed empty with the key, It wasn't empty

when Lincoln Kobra 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 or fell partially off, and the key

fell out. And if you think about it, Avery, but 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'd want to hide that key really well in a place like that. So you know, you look at this and you're thinking, oh my gosh, how you know, how could they be the ones that find the key after so many searches, How could it just

PLoP out there? Look what it looked like in the show. There was an empty bookcase for crying out loud. And these guys were the evil ones from ten years ago who blew off, you know, a claim that Avery was innocent. The details I just listed should at least give listeners maybe a pause. I am conceding that at first brushed this looks horrible. 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 what they showed, such as that empty bookcase with the key on the floor is the end of the story because it's not.

could that happen? Well, how do you address that?

test for DNA, they find all kinds of DNA. It's 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's what we call the CSI effect, where every that he expects there to be physical scientific evidence in every square inch of every crime scene, and it isn't that way.

Fingerprints are the best example of that. They have to find suitable prints, latent prints that can be lifted for comparison purposes. And things in life are messy DNA, biological material, fingerprints, blood. You know, it's not like there there. We're looking at this through some some you know, book or something where we can say this piece right here contains the whole truth. The truth is smeared together.

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 roundful convictions that in the United States have been proven by DNA testing since what nineteen eighty nine or so, that leads a whole slew of people or 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 physical evidence. And that's a tragedy on both sides, and finding guilty and finding innocence, it's just the way it is.

blood plant blood DNA from Steven Avery. What I got out of this entire ten hour documentary series for me was that it hinged on that that that was a very important hinge of this was that if it were plant did blood, then that blood that's in that vial that everybody saw in the documentary would have been had the preservative E d T A or as such that e d T A if tested to be at the crime scene in the rav four and if not, so can you speak to that ed T A test and

that issue of potential planting of blood.

the case. I I I there was a but there seemed to me, just from you know, an outsider's view, although I'm a prosecutor, but from an outside prosecutor's view of what was going on is it took a long time during the run up to the murder trial for the defense to decide if they're going to ask that they be allowed the blood, and they they only after they had brought the motion, but they didn't have it heard in court, and so that issue was sort of out there until close to the end of the trial

when all of a sudden, the defense the court granted the defense motion that they could claim, you know, essentially

that they were claiming the frame up defense. The state, as you know, quickly moved to get this test that the the eye I think Mark I forget his name right now, le Beau put together in short order, I think, within two weeks, working you know, around the clock, developed this this test, this protocol, and the test that he developed showed that there was, you know, the lack of the presence of the preservative that that would have been there had it come from the blood file in the

clerk co Court's office. Now that's the you know, sixty four thousand dollars question, right, was that test legitimate? Had it had it gone through peer review enough?

that the blood did not have the preservative. It's just one of those issues that, with everything else, the jury had to wrestle with and they did. Obviously they wrestled with it a lot. I think they were out to two and a half almost three days before reaching a verdict.

on prior occasions. He had two Stephen Abery had two prior appeals in his wrongful conviction case with that very blood vile So that thing had been sent back in force to the crime lab, but at least two times, maybe three, and for testing purposes.

So they had me by this selective use of evidence, which every documentary would have a certain position, we'll say in this because of the circumstances, because of their extraordinary access, and like you say, the charming and convincing defense team would be putting on their best show just naturally, not you acturally what they would do. So the thing is

now is that you have the the nexus is. But people have said, okay, or at least people that are criticizing making a murderer, tell us about the DNA that they did find under the hood latch, m.

opened the hood latch, and he moved Teresa's body. I don't think that was mentioned in there, and I think they made they suggested anyhow that the bullet found in Stephen Abray's garage with Teresa Hullbuck's DNA on it, which I know is controversial as well because the testing of that bullet. I believe that's the issue when whether Sherry Colheen at the crime web, whether that was contaminated or not.

But in any event, they made it seem like that bullet fragment was again found by Manitoa County Police, and

it wasn't. There were no Manitoa County Police officers inside the garage when the bullet was found, and they showed, as I recall, kind of a close up of an evidence transmittle form with the bullet with the signature of Lieutenant David Remaker from the Manitoa County Sheriffs to our suggesting that Rimiker or just the sheriffs to Burnman had found the bullet, when in fact, that's that's a transmittal

form basically meaningless. It's it's packaged. It's when things are packaged and sent to the crime lab, somebody's got to sign it. So there was plenty of oh, I'm not sure what the right term is, but lack 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 Steve Vidaver ramming his pickup truck into the woman's car and then holding her

at knife point. Neither of those were portrayed, honestly, and people don't 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 in evidence, the reality of them versus how they were portrayed in the documentary, has everything to do with the question we're discussing now, which is whether making a murder was honest or whether it was

agenda driven and one sided. And you know, I think your audience is probably familiar enough with those two incidents, but you know that cat burning incident wasn't a prank when he was a kid with some friends where the cat accidentally ended up tossing the fire. Stephen Avery boused it with gasoline and threw it into the fire, watched it burn. You know, he applied guilty to animal cruelty and I think he got 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 explain away an incident where somebody douses a cat with gas and tosses it into a fire. You know, 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 they're if they think I'm full of it, you know, go back to

that episode and see if I'm right. And the thing on that it was really down played and doesn't mean he did the murder. No, I absolutely not, but doesn't mean making a murder or maybe was uh was a little too sympathetic toward one side and antagonistic toward the other. I think it does, you know, and real briefly because I just talked about it, the incident with ramming his

pickup truck into the car. I mean, if you listen to making a murderer, 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 prejudicial toward him and his family. Apparently didn't have any you know, had a kind of a hatred about her. But they suggested that that was his attempt, a poor attempt, but just an attempt to get back at her for spreading

rumors about him and his family. In fact, Stephen 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 pickup truck. As she drove by his house, he ran into the road naked in front of her once. I mean, this is not just a person. He wasn't the victim in

that case. He then held her at gunpoint. After that one particular incident when he rammed her pickup truck, she lost control of her car after he rammed his pickup chuck inhood. He held her at gunpoint and only let her go after she begged him because of her baby in the back car would have frozen Stephen avery six of the eighteen years that he did in prison on the wrongful conviction case. He would have done anyhow because

of that offense. 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 backed off. He did not do what he wanted to do with her, and you can I prove he

wanted to do that with her. No, but with somebody watching her with binaculars for months that 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 ram her, rams pick up into your car and holds a gun, a rifle, letter points an editor and holds her at gunpoint. I you know, I'd take that to a jury if he as far as his intent goes. But so it's a messy, messy case, and it's a messy documentary.

remains were located. So you know, again the question is, well, what do we draw from that, you know, And I think what the defense tried to say is one thing

and what the state tried to say is another. The defense said, well, that meant that somebody had you know, planted, had moved the Teresa's remains from a different location to the to the burn barrel or the burn pip and the states theory was that, well, what that really shows is that Stephen Avery, you know, the source of the burning was right outside his house, his trailer, and then he was gradually trying to move out move those bones to other locations. So I don't know that that, you know,

it's kind of a two edged sort. I'm not sure which way that cuts necessarily, but it's one more thing that at first look would convince people that, especially with everything else that, you know, there's some police Shenanigan's going on here.

to conclusions. And that was the problem in the first case, that they just assumed from the get go, without much evidence at all, that it must have been Stephen Avery that raped or tried to rape Penny Bertson on the beach back in nineteen eighty five, because the description sort of matched him. Now in this case, you know that officer I think at least had knowledge that Stephen Avery had been the one to call for Teresa Holbach to

come out to the salvage yard. Now should is bad enough to have him, you know, suggested in his mind or concluded in his mind that it must be Avery. So is he in custody? I don't think so. You know that that wasn't that that doesn't make sense at that point. Is Stephen Avery suspect right off the bat?

And in fact, with Steven Avery the number one suspect, I think anytimes you know, a vehicle is found in somebody's residence concealed like this in the property and that person is the one who had called her out there specifically, he would certainly be one of the top suspects lacking

other information at that point. So yeah, I think that does show effectively how like everybody else jumps to some conclusion sometimes, but I don't think it shows too much more than that nothing you know, nefarious necessarily or suggestive of some kind of conspiracy, just just kind of cats jump at the conclusion, which is a prown 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.

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 you're talking about, but I'll learn.

an exercise and futility I guess right or wrong. What I like to do is take the main bits of evidence that are really meaningful, and that might mean thirty pieces of evidence and not just physical pieces of evidence, but you know, meaningful entities, 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 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 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 throw it up there in the top thirty either, he said the way I would look at those two pieces.

This is left out of the documentary. If I'm getting this correct, what did he initially say to the police about his interaction or any interaction with Teresa Hallback?

were left out that at some point I lost interest in proving that. I'm not you know, I'm not going to go on some mission to prove it. I guess I've been speaking out a lot about the justice system and about that making a murder. It's not accurate and I and I've tried to pick four or five things that I think pretty much established 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, 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 Desci. Both of those things should be really, really thoroughly worked out in court with with aggressive attorneys on the defense side, both of whom have them. Stephen Avery's attorney, very competent and aggressive attorney. I'm sure she would look at that as a compliment. Kathleen Zelner and likewise Brendan Darcy's attorneys at the Wonderful

Conviction Center in Chicago. So they are the ones who will come forward with as much evidence as they can, garner in arguments that they can garner and law supporting their arguments that they can garner to ask the courts. In the case of Stephen Aby it'll be back in the trial court in a post conviction motion to grant him Stephen a new trial. And in the case of mister Dacy, it's already in federal court. I think the briefs have already been filed. They've already asked that not

exactly that they grant a new trial. It's at a different pasture. It's at a habeas petition at federal court, which means his state rooms have been exhausted. But he is asking the federal court to take a look at the interrogation, to take a look at his deprivation of liberty right now, and that it's an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty because of of a of a interrogation, that that 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 a right and a duty to suggest if they believe it, and I can assure you they believe it, and I believe it, And I'm only speaking about mister Avery's case here right now, that he did get a fair trial and that all of the evidence that they are going 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 tomdu trial.

Is maybe the state maybe in their best interest to have another trial since they're really confident with the evidence that really is there not the evidence that's not portrayed in the documentary. Right isn't it just a way of satisfying everybody, whether even if it's legally not really sound, just give this character another trial.

in every state. These two guys aren't, in my opinion, two of them, but neither here nor there. The point I'm trying to make is we can't just the system can't afford, not not financially, but the system can't operate by going sort of outside the constitutional principles that have guided it for since the seventeen hundreds, you know, since England or wherever we get our rules of evidence, and not just our rules of evidence, our right to it trial and our right to prove bean a reasonable doubt

and to a good lawyer. There's a whole system of complicated stuff, but ultimately rational stuff I think that determines these issues, you know, and that does give a defendant a right to a new trial, but not every not under just because you know, he got he was There was a horrible injustice perpetrated upon him in a prior case.

The law, I guess you could say it's too rational, maybe at some level, but the law really really stands on reason, and 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 here, 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 in the

United States. But that's not the law. It's the way. It's the way sometimes things are done, more than the actual law. Long answer, but I really don't think it would serve any It would it would? I think it would be a real disservice. And this will really hit some of the IDIO. It's members hard, I know, but

I think it'd be a real disservice. First, even Abery 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 that it's material that that is it would it would suggest that 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 results, 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, not just some you know, speculation that this guy's a bad guy and maybe he did it, but that there was a connection and a motive and an opportunity and something beyond speculation that this person could

have been the assailant. Absolutely he should get a new trial. So I guess you'll never say never in the Stephen Avery case. But short of that kind of evidence, I don't believe that Stephen Avery should or will obtain a new trial.

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 may not have gotten a fair trial. They're not really, but definitely he is guilty, and so

they and they do. They have rallied around the idea that making a murderer has been skewed and has left things out and has been biased and as certainly seems 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, that everybody that 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 Dacy is entitled 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 when we're talking about restraining where there was no blood evidence, again further complicating this and giving rise to speculation in that if Brendan Dassy deserves another trial because of the confession, and part of the confession is statements that aren't supported with forensic evidence 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 for the record, I got to say, for research for this program, I watched the entire fifty six minute interrogation. And to be fair to 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 a 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.

Netflix the documentary Making a Murder. Only a trial would show that number of people the true evidence.

We just although there is a political almost a political element to this one at this point, it's like, so I hear you, Dan, I do I just think because there are people involved, and there is there, you know, a criminal case where you take somebody's liberty away, and where you where you also where 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 enclosure

for a victim. It is people who say, well, it's just as much this person's trial that victims families trials is the defendant. That's not true. Is that really it's the defendants trial. We say that for a reason. It's his liberty. We're looking at ta take away. That isn't to say Teresa Hubach's not more important than Steven Aver and should not be forgotten one of the things that we lose in this so many times. But it's Steven

Avery's child, it's his liberty. But there's rules, and there are we don't want to get to the point where it depends on the public's view of something. I guess whether somebody gets a new child, because next time it might be there was a Stephen Avery who has the public against them, you know, and then the law that would have protected him for to 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 a different level, almost beyond just another criminal case, hasn't it. It's it's like an event. It's a political, ideological event, cultural event, whatever you want to call it, and from my perspective, it all comes back though, as interesting as all that is, and it's necessary, I guess, as it all is to a case and the actual case of real people, real victims, real defendants, and the real law. So I guess I guess said where where I'd be coming down anyhow on that issue.

And I think and I think you may have, because it depends on what happens with this aggressive attorney in the second season of Making a Murderer. Because if you want to see the fascinations 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 a successful documentary, as you know, right, they're going to try to have a second I mean, if they're if it isn't their dam right now.

a lot. She's said there's this, there's that, and the other thing, and there may be I don't know, nobody knows. I know it is. You know, it's not hard to say that the old technology was old and the forensic testing was rowsy 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 the preservative in that blood,

I'll be singing a very different tune. I tell you that much. I love the quote where they were the whoever said it. I think it was the filmmakers themselves that said in an interview that the truth is elusive. In the Stephen Avery case, it's hard to get at exactly what happened because if you just look at the circumstances like you were we were discussing before, you know,

what's the chance Lincoln cover and find the key? You know, what's the chance these police who never you know, arguably shouldn't even be in there anywhere after the horrible injustice that happened last time. You know, doesn't it just look 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 case.

You have to keep an open mind, and you have to be honest and objective about it and see where the evidence waits. It's all we can do.

a legion of people. I guess that, just like they binge watch are now, you know, have some really big interest in the law and some of this and join in and are hooked on trying to find new clues. And I've read my other Suspect and uh huh.

a lot of too brime. 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, Investigation, Discovery, Time Magazine have explored this and again, like I say, they're basically on your side that despite what it looks like, at least for everybody else's conscience, that Stephen Avery is guilty of the Teresa Hallback murder. Tell us what's next

for your book? It's released worldwide now? Is that the plan for The Innocent Killer?

the book. The vocal, the most vocal critics who 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 the same, you know, horrible book, corrupt prosecutor, don't read it, don't buy it. So they've driven it down from like a four star to I think a two and a half star or something like that. I guess I can't do anything about it, and you know,

I frankly at some point, I don't care. You know, I'm doing my best. I'm trying to do what I can, and we're just all kind of kind of dealing with events as they unfold here. I shouldn't say I don't care. I do care, because I think it's and it isn't the money. I mean, there's some money, but there's not There isn't a 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 your beliefs, but if you're just doing something to sabotage somebody else's work because you disagree with at their conclusions. That's kind of ugly, so you know, but that's where I'm at now. I'm just moving on like everyone else at this point.

the forefront. Now this documentary for people that really normally probably don't read so much, this has ignited their imagination. I think there's going to be an their trial. Hopefully there will be, so that the naysayers and the people that are attacking people like yourself and are destroyed their faith and all of the judicial system will see that they have to. As many many true crime readers know, you have to just be patient, get all the facts

before you start making some collusions. So I want to thank you very much for coming on and talking about the very controversial making a murderer and also tell people that you are the author of the Innocent Killer and if you want to get the real story of the person that helped exonerate Stephen Avery, but then to this day says Stephen Avery deserved god affair trial and is guilty of the Teresa Hallback murder. So I want to thank you very much for coming on and talking about this this evening.