Making A Murderer (2015) s02e10 Episode Script
Trust No One
I believe that they are convinced that these issues that we've raised and the scientific testing we've done and the assertions we're making have got to be litigated.
We have to have an evidentiary hearing.
And so, then we talked about the scheduling of it.
They want the chance to try to refute the evidence in court.
I could care less about what they think they can do.
I'm not worried about that.
Um The main thing is that Steven gets another chance in court.
We agreed that we wanted the alleged human pelvic bone from the quarry microscopically examined to determine whether or not this bone was a human pelvic bone.
We also talked about the car.
The logistics are lifting it out of the ground, it's in this container, but letting us have access to it and examine it.
There was blood on the outside of the rear cargo door that Sherry Culhane said she couldn't link to Steven Avery.
There's also male DNA on the license plates that they said was insufficient quantity for them to test in '05.
But this is 12 years later.
Steven was saved by a single hair on the rape case, so I just feel like we have to do that.
We didn't reach an agreement on the parking light.
They are very resistant to having it tested.
Their position is that she did have that front-end damage prior to the 31st of October.
Of course, they don't want it to be damaged afterwards because it indicates the car was taken off the property.
We think, when we examine it, we can figure out what she ran into, what the speed was, what the impact whether she's running into it.
I think it's much more likely the police crashed it into something trying to get it back on the property.
It's of note to me that they're balking.
What it is, for me, is a red flag.
There's something about the parking light they don't want us to discover.
[STEVEN.]
This time, we won't leave no stone unturned.
Little bit longer and it'll be done.
I think, once we go to court, I think it should be pretty well over, you know, because there will be enough there that I might just be walking free.
I'm not really worried about that, once I get into court and that, or if I gotta testify.
I ain't got no problem with none of that.
I think it would be terrific being in the courtroom with Kathleen.
She's working hard, and it's all gonna pay off for her.
Especially for me, my freedom.
[THEME MUSIC PLAYS.]
[NEWSCASTER.]
New information just in to the Action 2 newsroom.
Steven Avery's latest attempt at a new trial has been denied.
The judge turns down a request Denying Steven Avery's request for a new trial.
A Sheboygan County judge's six-page decision dismissed several claims, saying, "The defendant has failed to establish any grounds that would trigger the right to a new trial in the interests of justice.
" [REPORTER.]
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel says, "I am pleased with the judge's decision, which brings us one step closer to providing justice to Teresa Halbach's family.
" [REPORTER 2.]
Avery requested a new trial, claiming he was set up, after filing a $36-million lawsuit against Manitowoc County.
But today, a Sheboygan County judge issued a decision and order saying that no further consideration will be given to this issue.
We've got to get those dates diaried.
You've got to do the appellate date, the motion to reconsider date.
[SCOTT.]
OK.
This one.
[TELEPHONE RINGS.]
[SEAN.]
I got your email and I read the opinion.
What a disappointment.
Well, I mean, I think that there's a bunch of things wrong with it, because there's five issues that we raised that she didn't even address.
And then, within those issues, there's specific allegations that total over 50 different items that she hasn't addressed.
Um We had an agreement with the prosecutors for the Attorney General that we were gonna amend, that we were going to do an evidentiary hearing.
We're even talking about the scheduling of it.
And then she just abruptly issued this very cursory opinion.
[SEAN.]
That is 'cause she probably didn't yet know about the agreement - with the AG, did she? - No.
[SEAN.]
OK, so, I don't know what the AG is willing to do with you now, but the best option, I think, would be if you get the AG on board with an agreed stipulated order to withdraw this opinion.
OK.
Yeah, I think that's what our plan Well, we communicated with them.
We sent an email out as soon as we got her order, and they responded, saying that they would talk to us tomorrow.
[SEAN.]
So, I'd be drafting up a motion that you'd be confident they would sign onto as well.
- [KATHLEEN.]
OK.
- [SEAN.]
And, uh And have that ready to go for your discussion tomorrow.
Yeah, that's what I think, that we've got to file it, like, right away.
[SEAN.]
Yeah.
[KATHLEEN.]
OK, thank you.
[KATHLEEN HANGS UP PHONE.]
So, I think we ought to go ahead and start drafting a motion to vacate based on the agreement.
You know, I would like to be diplomatic about this opinion, but it's hard to do that when I've got somebody's life at stake, and on the receiving end of it is someone who obviously doesn't Who's making fundamental mistakes about the underlying facts in the case, and then is trying to go one-on-one with our scientist.
It's just not at all what a judge should be doing.
She should be having a hearing, weighing the evidence and determining credibility.
Then she can decide.
If she wants to deny it, fine.
But then we all have the benefit of the appropriate record to take up on appeal.
But the message we're getting is, "We want you and your team and your experts to go away, and we want Steven Avery to die in prison quietly.
Please, quietly.
Stop looking at it.
Stop talking about it.
" [TELEPHONE RINGING.]
- [KATHLEEN.]
Hello? - [STEVEN.]
Hey.
Hi.
- [KATHLEEN.]
How are you? - [STEVEN.]
Ah, pretty good.
[KATHLEEN.]
Good, good.
So, you haven't actually seen the opinion, right? [STEVEN.]
No.
[KATHLEEN.]
Yeah, 'cause what the judge is trying to do is say, because you, in your pro se petition, uttered the words "ineffective assistance of counsel," she wants to bar all future references to that in our petition.
So, I may be raising your ineffectiveness in your petition.
[STEVEN LAUGHS.]
Isn't that crazy? I mean, really, when you think about it.
The main thing, though, is tomorrow, I'm gonna talk to Tom Fallon about our agreement to do this additional testing.
And that's when we'll find out, are they going to try to deny we have an agreement? Are they What are they gonna tell us? So, that will be kind of key.
If they agree that we have the agreement, which we did, in fact, get from them, then we would try to file the motion to vacate her order.
[STEVEN.]
Yeah, that would be good.
That's the quickest way to correct this.
[STEVEN.]
Unless they're back-dooring us, the DA is.
[KATHLEEN.]
Yeah, that's the thing that we have to clarify tomorrow.
The prosecutor, Tom Fallon, is acting as surprised as we are that the judge issued this ruling.
But you know what this is like.
I mean, you went through this before.
[STEVEN.]
Oh, yeah.
Well, you think something's gonna happen, and you just get shut down.
Yeah.
[STEVEN.]
I'm kind of used to that.
That's why I didn't get worried about nothing.
Me, either.
'Cause [BOTH LAUGH.]
'Cause I've been in so many situations where I mean, I guess, just like this, where you look You know, a trial judge does something, and you're just perplexed by it.
But you can't let it get to you emotionally.
- Don't you think? - [STEVEN.]
No.
Well, yeah, because, you know, you figure the DA didn't file nothing, so why is she ruling, you know? It didn't make no sense to me.
Yeah.
So, what I want to do is just get this record in shape for the appellate court.
Because my experience has been it's the appellate, it's the higher courts that make the decisions to exonerate someone.
[STEVEN.]
Yeah.
- [KATHLEEN.]
OK, we'll talk tomorrow.
- [STEVEN.]
Alright, then.
- Take care.
- [STEVEN.]
Have a good one.
Bye-bye.
Let's get going, OK? We've got stuff we need to do.
So, what we have to finalize is, we have to present it to the prosecutors in a certain way, so they don't I don't want them to feel like we're trying to backdoor them in any way.
It's got to be presented exactly like it went down at the meeting.
- [DOUG.]
Yes.
- Yeah.
[INAUDIBLE DIALOGUE.]
Then we need to put in a paragraph about today's conversation.
We ought to say, "Prosecutors stated that they would not stated that they would not join in the motion, uh, but they would not object to it.
" OK, on ten: "Additionally, prosecutors and defense counsels agreed that if an evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve the issues in the amended petition, the evidentiary hearing could last four weeks or more.
" We could say, "The defendant did not anticipate " [DOUG.]
"The current order.
" Yeah, "The court filing its order before the defendant - could notify the court.
" - [DOUG.]
Yeah.
So, Kurt, I've got the file stamp, so it's on there.
He forwarded it to you.
So, send it to all of the media outlets.
- [KURT.]
You got it.
- I'll put up a tweet.
[KURT.]
The email is ready, and I'll have the attachment.
[KATHLEEN.]
OK, so, now we'll see what happens.
At least we know we've done our part.
Now we'll come at her with an amended petition.
- [DOUG.]
Yeah.
- Like, right away.
We'll just The idea is just to make her feel like [DOUG LAUGHS.]
She's being bombed.
- [DOUG.]
Yeah.
- We're doing [DOUG.]
I think it will work.
Yeah.
Well, it'll give her something to think about.
Is she really gonna preclude the testing, you know, that we've agreed to? [DOUG.]
Yeah.
I don't think so.
Yeah.
But you never know, so We may have to go to Plan B.
[KATHLEEN.]
Does it, you know, deter me? No, it renews my focus.
Something much more devastating happened in the Ryan Ferguson case.
And I remember I was sitting in Doug's office, and when I stood up, it just kind of It was like someone had punched me in the stomach.
Um, but then, that feeling, like, lifted, and then I just felt a very controlled rage about what I was gonna do to undo it.
[KATHLEEN.]
In the Wisconsin statute, motions to reconsider can be filed even years later, uh, with new evidence.
So, we put all of the new evidence in.
We focused on these porn searches and on Bobby Dassey.
We attached the affidavit of his brother, Bryan, which just flatly contradicted Bobby's trial testimony.
We focused on all the suspicious activities with Scott Tadych, and we had our Brady witness that placed the car close to Scott Tadych's residence.
So, we packed all the new evidence into our motion to reconsider.
Steven Avery's attorneys pushing once again for a new trial.
[REPORTER.]
In this motion, Avery's attorneys claim Bobby Dassey's computer had pictures on it of dead bodies of young women.
She also claims Halbach and her vehicle left the Avery property.
[REPORTER 2.]
Zellner alleges Bobby Dassey and his now-stepfather, Scott Tadych, gave false testimony to cover up that they assaulted Halbach on a highway after she left Avery's property.
[BARB SCREAMS.]
[SCOTT SCREAMS.]
[BARB SOBS.]
[BARB SOBS.]
[KATHLEEN.]
We filed the motion to reconsider, and that resulted in a really revealing, but extremely hateful, hostile phone call.
Steven calls to talk to Barb, and then all of this, you know, yelling and name-calling starts, with Scott Tadych, uh, you know, yelling at Steven 'cause he's so furious that there's been any scrutiny of him.
And it led to Scott and Barb making these really amazing admissions.
They admitted that they knew that Teresa had left the property that day.
That, for some reason, provoked Barb into talking to Bobby about exactly what he had said, uh, you know, what he was claiming about Teresa's visit to the property.
A new version emerged, according to Barb, which she posted on Facebook, from Bobby, that he actually had never seen Teresa walk towards Steven's trailer, which, of course, means he committed perjury at the trial.
We then took that information and that phone conversation and we filed a supplement on November 1st.
[PEN SCRATCHING.]
[PEN SCRATCHING.]
[KATHLEEN.]
What she's saying is Steven Avery's postconviction efforts are over.
She wouldn't care what we filed.
I could have filed a videotaped confession.
She's relying on this 1994 case to say, "There can be no successive petitions.
" Well, there can be, and that's how most people ultimately get relief.
It's on successive petitions.
And the Wisconsin statute provides for filing a motion, amending it, supplementing it, whatever.
But we've got a very politicized situation here, and this is very political, and I saw what happened with Brendan Dassey.
I mean, Brendan Dassey's judge at least had the hearing and then he ruled against him.
And then the appellate court did a per curiam opinion.
And then the Supreme Court didn't take it.
So, I'm not expecting a warm welcome in Wisconsin.
I'm really not.
Um But I'm just going to stay in Wisconsin until I get them to recognize that this forensic evidence, which resulted in Steven Avery being convicted, has been fabricated.
And so, I'm just gonna keep banging on the door.
[TELEVISION PLAYING IN BACKGROUND.]
[DOLORES.]
That would be this burner.
[MURMURING.]
Nope, that's not the right one.
Allan, would you come in here? Your stove is stupid.
[TV BLARING.]
[DOLORES.]
Allan, come here! [TV CONTINUES BLARING.]
[DOLORES BREATHING HEAVILY.]
[DOLORES.]
Hey, can you get up and help me here? - [ALLAN.]
Huh? - [DOLORES.]
Come and help me! [ALLAN.]
I can't.
[DOLORES.]
Well, just get up, then, if you can't.
[ALLAN.]
I think she's worse now than she was before.
I think she takes too many pills.
That can do it.
What do you want it on? - [DOLORES.]
Is it hot? - Huh? [DOLORES.]
Is the burner hot? - Put it on? - [DOLORES.]
Yeah.
Is that the right one for that? Huh? [DOLORES.]
Is that the right one for that burner? [DOLORES.]
Don't act stupid.
I ain't gonna stand here and stir.
[DOLORES COUGHS.]
It would help if Stevie was home.
I don't think Stevie would want to live here at home, you know? But I know it would help her.
I know that.
I think it would help her tremendously.
[INDISTINCT CHATTER.]
[KATHLEEN.]
Winning cases requires that the attorney presenting the case knows the case better than anyone who's in the courtroom, anyone that ever picks up, you know, the documents and looks at the case.
It's incumbent upon the attorney to know every single detail.
And it's sort of a joke in my office.
I let my clerks do a lot of analysis and work and give me memos and all that, and I trust no one.
And so, I always go back.
I had never looked at the underlying reports of Eisenberg.
And so, I was going through her notes, and what caught my eye was the numbering of the tag numbers.
I, of course, knew 8675 was the quarry pile with the pelvic bone in it.
But then I saw on the sheet of paper a different numbering sequence in the 7400s.
This was different evidence.
These were different bones.
And then I started reading the content of it where, in great detail, Leslie Eisenberg has documented that there are more human bones.
And then I'm noticing not only that, but she's documenting that they have cut marks on them.
There's no indication that these bones belonged to more than one person.
They're not duplicate bones.
We don't have three different pelvises or scapulas or femurs.
We don't.
And so, then I went back to my clerks and said, "Take these numbers, these tag numbers, and trace them.
" One of my clerks came back and said, "Well, there is further documentation of the coordinates.
" I told them to get the coordinates, to make a map for me.
I wanted to understand where those bones were coming from.
[TYPING ON KEYBOARD.]
[KATHLEEN.]
There are many, many more human bones over in the Manitowoc gravel pit.
The two new piles are even further away.
They're closer to Highway Q than they are to the Avery salvage yard.
And then a little distance from them is the pile with the pelvic bones, but lo and behold, there's another bone in there, too, that she described as being human.
So, all three piles of bones are all on the Manitowoc gravel pit.
That discovery would have changed everything at trial.
If the jury had heard that there were numerous human bones over in the Manitowoc gravel pit, not one possible pelvic bone, it would have changed everything.
All three quarry piles have human bones with cut marks.
Yes.
Again, this points away from what the State's theory was, because the State's theory is the body isn't cut at all.
[STEVEN SYMES.]
Ah.
- Not at all.
- Not at all? - [KATHLEEN.]
Nope.
- Even though it's in the report? - The anthropology report.
- [KATHLEEN.]
It's not cut.
I mean, the State's theory was that the body was burned, not dismembered, it was burned, in the Steven Avery burn pit.
So, what does this list mean? [SYMES.]
When you find sharp trauma and then burn, that's highly suspicious you got some dismemberment going on or alteration of the evidence or the victim, and that's extremely important in a case like this.
When people suddenly figure out that there's a dead body in front of them, they need to get rid of them, they're hard to move.
And so, that's when a lot of my cases get involved, is just to dismember, to transport the body easier, or to fit it someplace it couldn't fit otherwise.
You can actually see some cut marks here.
So, there is some tool marks.
And then there's a couple other features.
I put a scale in it.
That black thing is just a piece of my scale from down below.
OK, so, this one I recognize.
This is from the Dassey-Janda burn barrel.
- So you think Where's the ? - [SYMES.]
I'm glad you keep up with it.
Anytime you see a straight edge manipulation of bone, it's usually a cut mark.
That looks like a very thin saw, so I'm thinking the narrowest possibilities.
So, I tested three or four hacksaw blades and a meat saw.
So, the hacksaw is pretty much your narrowest saw, except for some really unusual jewelers' saws and things like that.
So [KATHLEEN.]
One of the interesting things about the dismemberment in this case: the people that are our Denny suspects are deer hunters.
And in deer hunting, when a deer is dressed, it's what you're saying It's a nice way of saying you're dismembering, and the meat's removed and then you're dismembering the skeleton.
So, hacksaw blades are used, sharp knives are used, and a person would have some awareness of anatomy, of cutting into a joint and how to do that effectively.
So, they would be It's different than the average person who might be repulsed by the idea of dismembering.
It's still hard to imagine anyone could dismember a human body.
But certainly they have some of the mechanical skill that would be necessary for dismembering that you wouldn't see in other cases.
Dr.
Eisenberg documents the equivalent I think it adds up to 1.
7 pounds of skeletal remains.
Yeah.
And on a cremation, what's the weight of a body when you don't have missing bone? It's around ten pounds or so, depending on the person and the cremation technique and everything else.
So, we've got We're looking at 10 or 20 percent, and that's nowhere near the real story.
And I think the jury's getting the same thing.
I don't think they're getting everything.
Obviously, a lot of the body is represented, but a lot of the bones are not there.
And when you burn up a body, for example, the ribs You've got 24 ribs, and they're fragile, but they're hard to burn up.
There should be rib fragments everywhere.
And, uh, I just don't see that.
So, I think And vertebra.
I don't see The vertebra bodies are spongy bone.
They survive a fire quite well, even after they're calcined.
Uh, they stand up pretty well.
We're just missing bones that hold up in a fire.
I don't see them.
I don't see much.
What would be the explanation for bones being missing? It wasn't the fire that destroyed them.
Well, I can tell you what I see over and over.
People think it's easy to burn a body up, and it's not.
And when they get frustrated, and you still have the whole core body left after you burned off everything else, you take that and dump it someplace else.
I've seen that in this country numerous times.
I've seen it internationally numerous times.
[KEN.]
These bones in the quarry I'm gonna take about 20 seconds to talk about, because the best anybody can say is that they're possible human.
What does "possible human" mean? Well, it means we don't know what it is.
Alright? The best anthropologists in the world don't know what these bones are, even through testing, what's called mitochondrial DNA testing, whether they're human or not could not, even by the FBI, be determined.
So, the bones in the quarry are really not evidence in this case.
And so, Mr.
Strang's made a big deal out of showing you maps and a little flag and things like that about possible bones.
Again, speculation, conjecture, is not part of this case.
Facts are gonna be what decides this case.
[KATHLEEN.]
You know that in the defense, you've got to establish that she was killed elsewhere.
And here are a pile of human bones in the gravel pit where the suspected pelvis is.
And those bones have been documented by the State expert as being human.
Not possibly human, but human.
And then some of them have cut marks on them.
So, between the defense attorney and their expert, that's what you really call "dropping the ball.
" So, the jury's sitting there, having the State just minimize the pelvic bone.
I mean, Kratz said that he would spend no more than 20 seconds on it.
But he would have had to have spent a lot more time on numerous human bones over there, some of which had cut marks on them, that might've given him pause past 20 seconds.
But certainly with the jury, that would've been a huge part of the argument that was made, that she wasn't killed on the Avery property.
She left the Avery property.
She was killed, dismembered, and burned over in the gravel pit.
Which is right where her cell phone activity puts her.
All of it fits.
And cases always fit.
When you find out what the truth is, it all fits.
So, the goal here is to get to the truth of what happened to Teresa Halbach.
We're not trying to, um, just stir up trouble.
We're trying to find out what actually happened to her.
And what the State said happened to her isn't remotely close to what happened to her.
Significant evidence has been discovered over the past 24 hours at the Avery salvation salvage yard.
[DEBRA.]
I found out from the media that there was possibly some remains found on the Avery property.
There was a press conference that was on television.
I believe it was November 9th, around 3:00 p.
m.
, that that was confirmed.
They feel that the evidence that they are that has been collected and that they are analyzing is that of human in nature.
Prior to that, I had no knowledge or reports given to me by police or detectives.
I did keep some notes when things started, with hearing things in the media, phone calls.
Um, so, I did keep notes, dates, times.
I called, um, Officer Wiegert, Detective Wiegert, that evening of the 9th.
And at that point, he told me they just overlooked calling me.
Um, and I told him I wanted to come out to the scene.
They told me the scene was closed for the night.
And I said, "OK, that's fine.
But why didn't you give us some kind of report, some kind of a heads-up as to what was going on?" And then he commented to me at that time, very rudely, "Well, I don't have to call or tell you about bones.
" And I said, "Oh, yes, you do.
" It's the law, it's the statute, 979, when there is a deceased body or remains, that a coroner or medical examiner are always notified.
They handle the medical forensic side of the body.
The next day, in the morning, I was going to go out to the scene, and I was called to a meeting by Sheriff Peterson.
I thought, "Oh, good, I'm finally getting I'm finally getting a meeting.
I'm finally going to get an update on what's going on and when I will be able to come out to the scene.
" But when I got there, at that time, I was told I will not be going out to the case, I will not be going out to the scene, and if I do, I will be arrested.
[DEBRA.]
And actually, in the State of Wisconsin, the coroner is the top law enforcement official when there is a body or remains.
And the coroner is the one who can arrest the sheriff.
So, he's threatening to arrest me? I could tell he meant it, and when he told me that, I left.
I walked out.
And then, shortly after that, I got a call from the county exec: "You need to stay out of this conflict of interest because of the Avery case and the $36-million lawsuit.
" And then it was a few minutes later I got a call from the county attorney: "Deb, you need to stay out of this case because of the conflict of interest and the $36-million lawsuit.
" And I questioned them.
I said, "What are other officers doing out there from Manitowoc County when they should not be out there?" I said, "I've never been involved in a previous Avery case.
My office is separate from the Sheriff's Department.
" And it just ended by that.
I never did get out to the scene.
I was never given any information.
I was never allowed to do my job.
I was supposed to be an advocate for Teresa.
That was my goal.
And when you can't do that you just have this bad feeling that you failed, you failed that person.
[DEBRA.]
To my knowledge, there was no coroner there.
There was no forensic anthropologist or medical examiner.
The defense calls Ms.
Debra Kakatsch.
[DEBRA.]
When I walked into the courtroom and took the stand, Attorney Kratz, he just looked at me, just staring me down.
That told me the whole story.
Did you, um, in November of 2005, come to learn of some suspected human bones found on or near the Avery property in Manitowoc County? - Yes, I did.
- [DEAN.]
How did you learn about that? From television.
[DEAN.]
What did you do after you saw on television something about the discovery of possible human remains? Well, I got a few phone calls, and particularly from my deputies, as to what the plan of action would be.
[NORM GAHN.]
Your Honor.
I'm sorry, Your Honor.
I think we need to be heard outside the presence of the jury.
[JUDGE WILLIS.]
At this time, the court will excuse the jurors for a few minutes.
[NORM.]
I would ask, what is the relevancy of this? The Manitowoc County Corporation Counsel wanted to remove all Manitowoc County officials from this investigation.
And to come in now because, perhaps, some disgruntled Manitowoc County employee didn't like that decision.
I don't see the relevancy at all of this.
[DEAN.]
Neither Ms.
Kakatsch, nor the Office of Coroner, nor anyone in the coroner's office, had any prior involvement in Steven Avery's civil lawsuit.
Um, hadn't been deposed, hadn't been interviewed, had no statutory responsibilities for the 1985 crime.
And, um, yet her office was walled off entirely from performing its lawful duties in connection with the discovery of human remains.
I don't see how anything the coroner would've done, um, would've somehow contributed to a less biased investigation in this matter.
The court is not going to allow it.
[DEBRA.]
I wasn't up there long on the stand at all.
I loved my job.
But I couldn't do it anymore.
When was gonna be the next threat of arrest, intimidation? I didn't feel safe going out on calls at night.
So I had to end it.
[REPORTER.]
This morning, the court ruling that could have led to freedom for Brendan Dassey.
Instead, a federal appeals court narrowly decided to uphold his conviction, keeping him in prison.
Brendan Dassey won two court battles before this new ruling, which could keep him in prison for the rest of his life.
That federal appeals court finding he was not intimidated or coerced into confessing to rape and murder.
[HAMILTON.]
It's clear he's been very resistant up to that point.
Very reluctant.
He's telling a contradictory story that doesn't make any sense, and they're calling him on it.
It comes out very slowly and painfully, but he volunteers it.
[WOOD.]
The investigators made my skin crawl watching this video, this lulling behavior that they conveyed, which was so dishonest, so dishonest.
[ROVNER.]
Now imagine it is not an average person, but a 16-year-old with a very, very low IQ who is extremely suggestible.
[STEVEN.]
It's been overturned two times already.
You know, if you overturn it one time, and then the other two, three judges overturns it, you know, if it was anybody else, he would've been out, walking away.
With this case, it's different.
You know, you ain't walking out.
[KATHLEEN.]
Why do you think it's so difficult? [STEVEN.]
Well, because they don't want to be wrong, and it's a high profile case.
It's gonna be more harder for the State to let it go because they are wrong.
I still believe that it's going to happen.
'Cause they can't stop the development of science, and they can't stop the information that we have, that it will fall apart on that.
That should make Brendan's case fall apart, too.
[STEVEN.]
Well, yeah, it's gotta collapse.
When you're innocent, it's gonna break down sooner or later.
[KATHLEEN.]
That's what I think, too.
[STEVEN.]
I ain't gonna give up.
No, you can't.
I was just reading a book about postconvictions, and they said the biggest problem was that people eventually just stop.
You know, they just stop filing stuff.
[STEVEN.]
Yeah.
Well, they know - They know me by now.
I don't stop.
- Yeah.
- [LAUGHS.]
No, I think - [STEVEN LAUGHS.]
I think I think they might've gotten that.
- You know? - [BOTH LAUGH.]
[LAURA.]
Since we learned that we lost before the en banc 7th Circuit, we have begun taking steps to get Brendan's case before the US Supreme Court.
[LAURA.]
The United States Supreme Court gets thousands of requests to take cases each year.
And out of those thousands, they take about 80 cases.
This case has never been about the odds, it's about overcoming the odds.
So, to increase the chances that the court will take the case, we decided we would seek out the best lawyers we could find to help present the case to the Supreme Court.
[REPORTER.]
Seth Waxman was the US Solicitor General under President Clinton, in charge of that administration's cases before the Supreme Court.
[LAURA.]
He's argued 80 cases before that court.
He knows what they need to hear.
[SETH.]
A day does not go by when I don't hear Janet Reno's voice in my head saying, "You're gonna be criticized no matter what, so why don't we just do the right thing?" [REPORTER 2.]
He is the person who had the juvenile death penalty declared unconstitutional.
[ANTONIN SCALIA.]
There are not that many lawyers who appear with any regularity before the Supreme Court.
Seth Waxman is one.
The Supreme Court views its most important function as ensuring the uniform and harmonious application of federal law throughout the United States.
If you look at cases involving juveniles or persons with limitations and how the voluntariness of their confession is being evaluated, you can see an astonishing degree of inconsistency in how the special how or whether the special care standard is being applied.
[STEVE DRIZIN.]
Back in 1948, the Supreme Court said courts must analyze confessions from juveniles and from the mentally impaired with special care, with the greatest care.
Since that decision, there has been silence, for the most part, from the court, and it's left, um, a lot of confusion in the state courts.
It's not confusion because the law is unclear.
It's confusion because the courts are either ignoring or misapplying what is clear Supreme Court precedent.
It's been 40 years since the United States Supreme Court even looked at the question of juvenile voluntariness.
[LAURA.]
Since 1979, so much has happened.
There's been an explosion of knowledge about the problem of false confessions, a realization from social science and psychologists, and lawyers who have proven their clients innocent through DNA, that children are more likely to falsely confess to crimes they didn't commit, and that the courts are not doing enough to protect kids when that happens.
[SETH.]
It's really very, very important that the court take this case and model for state and federal courts how one evaluates a confession by a juvenile, and a juvenile with rather significant intellectual and social deficits.
I think the entire country has an interest in having the Supreme Court hear this case.
I mean, every one of us wants a system of criminal justice that ferrets out the perpetrators of crime and punishes them appropriately, but that also respects the individual liberties on which our country was founded.
[LAURA.]
We need only four of the nine justices to agree to take the case.
[KATHLEEN.]
After a bunch of back and forth, all of the sudden, on April 17th of 2018, Mr.
Fallon has mailed to my office, in an original evidence package, with evidence tape on it, the CD.
So, he disclosed it to me as if it were an original disclosure.
[KATHLEEN.]
Brady requires a timely disclosure.
So, if you look at the fact that the Velie report, the forensic analysis of the computer, was completed on May 10th of 2006, the Fassbender report was not turned over even mentioning the CD until December of 2006.
And the Fassbender report says, "The disc received from Detective Velie, as well as the hardcopy pages of instant message conversations, were maintained in Fassbender's possession.
" So, 2,400 pages of evidence is kept by Fassbender and not given to the defense.
[KATHLEEN.]
It was never, ever given to the trial team, the appellate team.
It was not disclosed until it was given to me.
The Velie CD was withheld because it would have destroyed the credibility of the State's star witness.
[KEN.]
Bobby Dassey is an eyewitness, an eyewitness without any bias, is an individual that deserves to be given a lot of credit, because sometime between 2:30 and 2:45, he sees Teresa Halbach taking photographs.
Mr.
Dassey is looking out this window, a clear view, sees the pictures being taken of the SUV.
A clear pathway, and as she walks towards Mr.
Avery's, that's the last Ms.
Halbach is seen.
That's the last she's seen alive.
OK? So, that's the, um, timeline.
That's the, uh, pathway, if you will, towards what happens to Ms.
Halbach.
Mr.
Kratz, in the opening and the closing, talked about how credible Bobby Dassey was, there would be no reason for him to lie, that the jury should believe Bobby Dassey because he's just this independent witness that's got no motive to lie.
And so, it was imperative that that CD be withheld, because that CD showed the kind of demented, twisted, sadistic mind of somebody capable of committing a murder.
[KATHLEEN.]
So, from their opening statement, the defense would've told the jury that they were going to hear from a State witness that most likely was the person who had killed Teresa Halbach, and they would've talked about his opportunity, motive, and that he was going to be lying to them.
And then, when he got on the stand, they would've confronted him, and the jury would've seen these images.
I mean, do we really think a jury would've listened to Bobby Dassey describe anything if they had seen what was on the computer and what he was doing, that he's searching for these images of torturing young women, many of whom look like Teresa Halbach? He's got pictures of women blindfolded, gagged, tied up, dismembered.
And so, he would've been attacked with all of that.
He would've been totally discredited in his testimony that Teresa never left the property.
I can guarantee you, Steven Avery would never have been convicted if that evidence had come in that's on the CD.
[KATHLEEN.]
He would not have been convicted.
[JUDGE WILLIS.]
on count one is signed by the foreperson of the jury, dated today.
The other verdicts are also signed by the foreperson of the jury.
[KATHLEEN.]
The reason this ranks so highly on the scale of Brady violations is we will be able to show that this was deceptively withheld by the State.
[KATHLEEN.]
Kratz creates an index of discovery which doesn't match anyone else's index of what's been turned over.
But right at the end of it, he puts an entry that says, "Brendan Dassey's computer.
Seven CDs.
" Well, bunch of things wrong with that.
It's not Brendan Dassey's computer, and there were never seven CDs.
There were seven DVDs and a CD, and the CD is what has the analysis on it.
The CD is what you can just pop in a computer and pull up and look at, and you don't have to have the in-case program, like the DVDs require.
But I believe what he was doing is, he was trying to hide the fact that Fassbender still had the CD.
It had never been turned over.
So, he's thinking that Buting and Strang and their paralegals, and you're in this big flurry, getting ready for trial, you're gonna look at that entry and think, "Oh, well, we must have that.
By the way, it has to do with Brendan's computer.
We're not gonna get involved in looking at stuff on Brendan's computer.
We've got to focus on the rest of the evidence that pertains to Steven and the case.
" And so, it's just so slippery, the way that he did that.
[KATHLEEN.]
So, that's the first thing that Kratz does.
And then this stipulation proposal was sent by Mr.
Kratz on January 25th of 2007.
The trial started in the early part of February 2007, so it couldn't be any closer to the trial date.
So, stipulations are pretrial agreements between each side about evidence that you both agree on, and so you don't need to bring witnesses in to testify.
It's a way to streamline the trial.
So, in paragraph R, Mr.
Kratz says, "Computer analysis of Steve, Teresa, and Brendan's computer " Of course, this is not Brendan's computer.
"Mike Velie of the Grand Chute Police Department analyzed the hard drives of these three and found nothing much of evidentiary value.
" "This stip eliminates Officer Velie as a witness.
" "Nothing much of evidentiary value"? Yeah, for the State, there's nothing much, but there's something huge for the defense that he's kept from them.
Of course, where the deception is, is in labeling it as Brendan's computer.
It's not Brendan's computer.
Brendan's the person using it, you know, less than anyone in the family.
But Kratz knew It's very clever.
He knew if he told them, "Oh, Brendan's computer.
We did a forensic analysis.
And, oh, you guys are really lucky.
There's nothing on there of evidentiary value.
" You're not going to say, "Wait a minute.
You know, we want to dive deeper into this and really start looking at what's been disclosed.
" So, it was just a complete They were completely duped.
It's This isn't just an academic discussion.
This is about depriving someone of their life.
Because being locked up, life without parole, um, in a little cage for the rest of your life, it's just about as bad as it gets.
And when you find out that you're there because the other side tricked and lied to your attorneys, um, it doesn't get much worse than that.
It's hardly the prosecutors seeking justice.
You can't tell one lie without it getting uncovered.
And their one lie snowballed into a whole bunch of other stuff, and I just don't think the county knows how to get out from under that.
Good things are coming.
The future is gonna hold good things for Steve and Brendan.
They're gonna get out, they're gonna live happy, healthy lives and and put this all behind them.
That's what they need.
The whole family needs that.
[CROWD CHANTING.]
Free Steven Avery! Free Brendan Dassey! Free Steven Avery! Free Brendan Dassey! - [TRUCK HORN HONKS.]
- [CHEERING.]
- [WOMAN.]
That was awesome.
- [WOMAN 2.]
Justice! [WOMAN 3.]
Free Steven! [SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
[WOMEN 3.]
Free Steven [INDISTINCT CHATTERING.]
[CAR HORNS HONKING.]
[MAN.]
The implications of this case has a much wider reach than just Wisconsin, and certainly wider than Manitowoc.
So, to me, it's about the bigger issue of how did this happen, and how can we prevent it from occurring again in the future? [CAR HORNS HONKING.]
[MAN SHOUTS.]
Guilty! [WOMAN.]
Innocent! [MAN.]
I got two bullets for them! [SUPPORTERS CHANTING INDISTINCTLY.]
[WOMAN 2.]
For Justice! [SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
- [WOMAN 2.]
Free Brendan! - [WOMAN.]
Free Brendan! Free Steven! Until all is changed and they start holding prosecutors accountable for their actions, this will continue to happen, to not only Steven, but to more children.
[MARK.]
How's the boy? - He's hanging in there.
- [MARK.]
Yeah.
- [BARB.]
It would be better if he was here.
- Yes, it would be.
[MARK.]
He's gonna be home soon.
I have a good feeling - He is gonna be.
- [BARB.]
I sure hope so.
Yeah, next week, the Supreme Court is gonna be reviewing whether or not they're gonna take Brendan Dassey's case.
Um, and, man, I really hope they do, you know? And I hope they really take their time and look through the evidence and and see the truth.
[CAR HORNS HONKING.]
[SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
[WOMAN.]
Free Brendan! Free Steven! I want my son home and I want my brother home.
[WOMAN.]
Free Steven Avery! Free Brendan Dassey! [SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
My family did not do anything.
Meaning Scott, my son Bobby, Brendan, Steven.
I know they didn't do nothing.
They're all innocent.
My whole family's innocent.
So, I think they ought to let them out and let us go on with our lives.
[CAR HORN HONKING AND SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
[SUPPORTERS CHANTING INDISTINCTLY.]
[CAR HORNS BLARING AND SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
[CAR HORNS CONTINUE BLARING.]
[CAR HORNS QUIETEN.]
[CAR HORNS STOP BLARING.]
[INDISTINCT CHATTER.]
Today, you're right, we had a couple more non-decisions.
The court deciding not to take up two disputes, that there had been some real thinking that the court might wade into [REPORTER.]
The Supreme Court said it's not going to take the case of a young man.
He was convicted in a brutal murder, and the only evidence against him was his own confession.
[REPORTER 2.]
Today's Supreme Court decision not to hear Dassey's appeal means that lower court ruling will stand, as does his sentence of life in prison.
[REPORTER 3.]
Justices did not say why they won't take the case.
It was Dassey's last option for appeal.
[REPORTER 4.]
Wisconsin's Attorney General saying he hopes Teresa Halbach's family can now find some comfort and closure with the court's decision.
[BRENDAN.]
Dear people in the world.
Thank you for listening to me.
It means a lot to know there are many people who believe in me.
I am innocent of the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach.
My confession is false.
It always has been.
I thought I finally had a chance at life.
I am going to keep fighting to go home.
I still hope that someday the people in charge would realize they made a mistake.
Until then, I am staying strong for myself, my mom, and my friends.
Thank you for helping me stay strong.
Sincerely, Brendan Dassey.
This story you know, the story of Steven Avery's life, whether I win in court or just making known what happened to him if he doesn't survive, um, is something that I'm completely committed to doing.
Because it is such, um, a tragic story.
So, it's a difficult thing to know that we're so far down the road on it and that everything's mobilized against us.
But it can be done.
It still can be done because there's so much evidence.
It's not just the jury that didn't hear the evidence in this case.
It's the judges.
They have yet to be given the true story of what happened to Teresa Halbach.
They're just responding to what they have.
They can't go out and investigate.
They can't hire a scientist.
And so, you can't fault them at this point.
I still believe in the fundamental fairness of the courts if you give them the evidence.
No one's done that yet.
No one has done that.
And that's why we're taking it up on appeal.
We're trying to give them this evidence.
And if they say, "No, it isn't enough," or "It isn't, it's partial," then I'll go back and I'll get more.
But, I mean, it just It is what it is.
He's been wrongfully convicted twice, and my job is to prove that.
[STEVEN.]
The supporters don't know what to do because it's taking so long.
When you're fighting for your innocence and you need the truth out, it takes time.
You got to give the lawyer time so she can doit a good job, so we can just throw it out, you know? It's just one, two, three, you're locked up.
And then it takes forever to get out.
You know, and that's the way it is.
Hurry up and get in, and take your time on the way out.
But then, when you got the proof there, that's one, two, three, you're out.
Like the first time.
They ran the DNA, and then boom, I was out.
So, now we gotta do the same thing on this.
[THEME MUSIC PLAYS.]
We have to have an evidentiary hearing.
And so, then we talked about the scheduling of it.
They want the chance to try to refute the evidence in court.
I could care less about what they think they can do.
I'm not worried about that.
Um The main thing is that Steven gets another chance in court.
We agreed that we wanted the alleged human pelvic bone from the quarry microscopically examined to determine whether or not this bone was a human pelvic bone.
We also talked about the car.
The logistics are lifting it out of the ground, it's in this container, but letting us have access to it and examine it.
There was blood on the outside of the rear cargo door that Sherry Culhane said she couldn't link to Steven Avery.
There's also male DNA on the license plates that they said was insufficient quantity for them to test in '05.
But this is 12 years later.
Steven was saved by a single hair on the rape case, so I just feel like we have to do that.
We didn't reach an agreement on the parking light.
They are very resistant to having it tested.
Their position is that she did have that front-end damage prior to the 31st of October.
Of course, they don't want it to be damaged afterwards because it indicates the car was taken off the property.
We think, when we examine it, we can figure out what she ran into, what the speed was, what the impact whether she's running into it.
I think it's much more likely the police crashed it into something trying to get it back on the property.
It's of note to me that they're balking.
What it is, for me, is a red flag.
There's something about the parking light they don't want us to discover.
[STEVEN.]
This time, we won't leave no stone unturned.
Little bit longer and it'll be done.
I think, once we go to court, I think it should be pretty well over, you know, because there will be enough there that I might just be walking free.
I'm not really worried about that, once I get into court and that, or if I gotta testify.
I ain't got no problem with none of that.
I think it would be terrific being in the courtroom with Kathleen.
She's working hard, and it's all gonna pay off for her.
Especially for me, my freedom.
[THEME MUSIC PLAYS.]
[NEWSCASTER.]
New information just in to the Action 2 newsroom.
Steven Avery's latest attempt at a new trial has been denied.
The judge turns down a request Denying Steven Avery's request for a new trial.
A Sheboygan County judge's six-page decision dismissed several claims, saying, "The defendant has failed to establish any grounds that would trigger the right to a new trial in the interests of justice.
" [REPORTER.]
Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel says, "I am pleased with the judge's decision, which brings us one step closer to providing justice to Teresa Halbach's family.
" [REPORTER 2.]
Avery requested a new trial, claiming he was set up, after filing a $36-million lawsuit against Manitowoc County.
But today, a Sheboygan County judge issued a decision and order saying that no further consideration will be given to this issue.
We've got to get those dates diaried.
You've got to do the appellate date, the motion to reconsider date.
[SCOTT.]
OK.
This one.
[TELEPHONE RINGS.]
[SEAN.]
I got your email and I read the opinion.
What a disappointment.
Well, I mean, I think that there's a bunch of things wrong with it, because there's five issues that we raised that she didn't even address.
And then, within those issues, there's specific allegations that total over 50 different items that she hasn't addressed.
Um We had an agreement with the prosecutors for the Attorney General that we were gonna amend, that we were going to do an evidentiary hearing.
We're even talking about the scheduling of it.
And then she just abruptly issued this very cursory opinion.
[SEAN.]
That is 'cause she probably didn't yet know about the agreement - with the AG, did she? - No.
[SEAN.]
OK, so, I don't know what the AG is willing to do with you now, but the best option, I think, would be if you get the AG on board with an agreed stipulated order to withdraw this opinion.
OK.
Yeah, I think that's what our plan Well, we communicated with them.
We sent an email out as soon as we got her order, and they responded, saying that they would talk to us tomorrow.
[SEAN.]
So, I'd be drafting up a motion that you'd be confident they would sign onto as well.
- [KATHLEEN.]
OK.
- [SEAN.]
And, uh And have that ready to go for your discussion tomorrow.
Yeah, that's what I think, that we've got to file it, like, right away.
[SEAN.]
Yeah.
[KATHLEEN.]
OK, thank you.
[KATHLEEN HANGS UP PHONE.]
So, I think we ought to go ahead and start drafting a motion to vacate based on the agreement.
You know, I would like to be diplomatic about this opinion, but it's hard to do that when I've got somebody's life at stake, and on the receiving end of it is someone who obviously doesn't Who's making fundamental mistakes about the underlying facts in the case, and then is trying to go one-on-one with our scientist.
It's just not at all what a judge should be doing.
She should be having a hearing, weighing the evidence and determining credibility.
Then she can decide.
If she wants to deny it, fine.
But then we all have the benefit of the appropriate record to take up on appeal.
But the message we're getting is, "We want you and your team and your experts to go away, and we want Steven Avery to die in prison quietly.
Please, quietly.
Stop looking at it.
Stop talking about it.
" [TELEPHONE RINGING.]
- [KATHLEEN.]
Hello? - [STEVEN.]
Hey.
Hi.
- [KATHLEEN.]
How are you? - [STEVEN.]
Ah, pretty good.
[KATHLEEN.]
Good, good.
So, you haven't actually seen the opinion, right? [STEVEN.]
No.
[KATHLEEN.]
Yeah, 'cause what the judge is trying to do is say, because you, in your pro se petition, uttered the words "ineffective assistance of counsel," she wants to bar all future references to that in our petition.
So, I may be raising your ineffectiveness in your petition.
[STEVEN LAUGHS.]
Isn't that crazy? I mean, really, when you think about it.
The main thing, though, is tomorrow, I'm gonna talk to Tom Fallon about our agreement to do this additional testing.
And that's when we'll find out, are they going to try to deny we have an agreement? Are they What are they gonna tell us? So, that will be kind of key.
If they agree that we have the agreement, which we did, in fact, get from them, then we would try to file the motion to vacate her order.
[STEVEN.]
Yeah, that would be good.
That's the quickest way to correct this.
[STEVEN.]
Unless they're back-dooring us, the DA is.
[KATHLEEN.]
Yeah, that's the thing that we have to clarify tomorrow.
The prosecutor, Tom Fallon, is acting as surprised as we are that the judge issued this ruling.
But you know what this is like.
I mean, you went through this before.
[STEVEN.]
Oh, yeah.
Well, you think something's gonna happen, and you just get shut down.
Yeah.
[STEVEN.]
I'm kind of used to that.
That's why I didn't get worried about nothing.
Me, either.
'Cause [BOTH LAUGH.]
'Cause I've been in so many situations where I mean, I guess, just like this, where you look You know, a trial judge does something, and you're just perplexed by it.
But you can't let it get to you emotionally.
- Don't you think? - [STEVEN.]
No.
Well, yeah, because, you know, you figure the DA didn't file nothing, so why is she ruling, you know? It didn't make no sense to me.
Yeah.
So, what I want to do is just get this record in shape for the appellate court.
Because my experience has been it's the appellate, it's the higher courts that make the decisions to exonerate someone.
[STEVEN.]
Yeah.
- [KATHLEEN.]
OK, we'll talk tomorrow.
- [STEVEN.]
Alright, then.
- Take care.
- [STEVEN.]
Have a good one.
Bye-bye.
Let's get going, OK? We've got stuff we need to do.
So, what we have to finalize is, we have to present it to the prosecutors in a certain way, so they don't I don't want them to feel like we're trying to backdoor them in any way.
It's got to be presented exactly like it went down at the meeting.
- [DOUG.]
Yes.
- Yeah.
[INAUDIBLE DIALOGUE.]
Then we need to put in a paragraph about today's conversation.
We ought to say, "Prosecutors stated that they would not stated that they would not join in the motion, uh, but they would not object to it.
" OK, on ten: "Additionally, prosecutors and defense counsels agreed that if an evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve the issues in the amended petition, the evidentiary hearing could last four weeks or more.
" We could say, "The defendant did not anticipate " [DOUG.]
"The current order.
" Yeah, "The court filing its order before the defendant - could notify the court.
" - [DOUG.]
Yeah.
So, Kurt, I've got the file stamp, so it's on there.
He forwarded it to you.
So, send it to all of the media outlets.
- [KURT.]
You got it.
- I'll put up a tweet.
[KURT.]
The email is ready, and I'll have the attachment.
[KATHLEEN.]
OK, so, now we'll see what happens.
At least we know we've done our part.
Now we'll come at her with an amended petition.
- [DOUG.]
Yeah.
- Like, right away.
We'll just The idea is just to make her feel like [DOUG LAUGHS.]
She's being bombed.
- [DOUG.]
Yeah.
- We're doing [DOUG.]
I think it will work.
Yeah.
Well, it'll give her something to think about.
Is she really gonna preclude the testing, you know, that we've agreed to? [DOUG.]
Yeah.
I don't think so.
Yeah.
But you never know, so We may have to go to Plan B.
[KATHLEEN.]
Does it, you know, deter me? No, it renews my focus.
Something much more devastating happened in the Ryan Ferguson case.
And I remember I was sitting in Doug's office, and when I stood up, it just kind of It was like someone had punched me in the stomach.
Um, but then, that feeling, like, lifted, and then I just felt a very controlled rage about what I was gonna do to undo it.
[KATHLEEN.]
In the Wisconsin statute, motions to reconsider can be filed even years later, uh, with new evidence.
So, we put all of the new evidence in.
We focused on these porn searches and on Bobby Dassey.
We attached the affidavit of his brother, Bryan, which just flatly contradicted Bobby's trial testimony.
We focused on all the suspicious activities with Scott Tadych, and we had our Brady witness that placed the car close to Scott Tadych's residence.
So, we packed all the new evidence into our motion to reconsider.
Steven Avery's attorneys pushing once again for a new trial.
[REPORTER.]
In this motion, Avery's attorneys claim Bobby Dassey's computer had pictures on it of dead bodies of young women.
She also claims Halbach and her vehicle left the Avery property.
[REPORTER 2.]
Zellner alleges Bobby Dassey and his now-stepfather, Scott Tadych, gave false testimony to cover up that they assaulted Halbach on a highway after she left Avery's property.
[BARB SCREAMS.]
[SCOTT SCREAMS.]
[BARB SOBS.]
[BARB SOBS.]
[KATHLEEN.]
We filed the motion to reconsider, and that resulted in a really revealing, but extremely hateful, hostile phone call.
Steven calls to talk to Barb, and then all of this, you know, yelling and name-calling starts, with Scott Tadych, uh, you know, yelling at Steven 'cause he's so furious that there's been any scrutiny of him.
And it led to Scott and Barb making these really amazing admissions.
They admitted that they knew that Teresa had left the property that day.
That, for some reason, provoked Barb into talking to Bobby about exactly what he had said, uh, you know, what he was claiming about Teresa's visit to the property.
A new version emerged, according to Barb, which she posted on Facebook, from Bobby, that he actually had never seen Teresa walk towards Steven's trailer, which, of course, means he committed perjury at the trial.
We then took that information and that phone conversation and we filed a supplement on November 1st.
[PEN SCRATCHING.]
[PEN SCRATCHING.]
[KATHLEEN.]
What she's saying is Steven Avery's postconviction efforts are over.
She wouldn't care what we filed.
I could have filed a videotaped confession.
She's relying on this 1994 case to say, "There can be no successive petitions.
" Well, there can be, and that's how most people ultimately get relief.
It's on successive petitions.
And the Wisconsin statute provides for filing a motion, amending it, supplementing it, whatever.
But we've got a very politicized situation here, and this is very political, and I saw what happened with Brendan Dassey.
I mean, Brendan Dassey's judge at least had the hearing and then he ruled against him.
And then the appellate court did a per curiam opinion.
And then the Supreme Court didn't take it.
So, I'm not expecting a warm welcome in Wisconsin.
I'm really not.
Um But I'm just going to stay in Wisconsin until I get them to recognize that this forensic evidence, which resulted in Steven Avery being convicted, has been fabricated.
And so, I'm just gonna keep banging on the door.
[TELEVISION PLAYING IN BACKGROUND.]
[DOLORES.]
That would be this burner.
[MURMURING.]
Nope, that's not the right one.
Allan, would you come in here? Your stove is stupid.
[TV BLARING.]
[DOLORES.]
Allan, come here! [TV CONTINUES BLARING.]
[DOLORES BREATHING HEAVILY.]
[DOLORES.]
Hey, can you get up and help me here? - [ALLAN.]
Huh? - [DOLORES.]
Come and help me! [ALLAN.]
I can't.
[DOLORES.]
Well, just get up, then, if you can't.
[ALLAN.]
I think she's worse now than she was before.
I think she takes too many pills.
That can do it.
What do you want it on? - [DOLORES.]
Is it hot? - Huh? [DOLORES.]
Is the burner hot? - Put it on? - [DOLORES.]
Yeah.
Is that the right one for that? Huh? [DOLORES.]
Is that the right one for that burner? [DOLORES.]
Don't act stupid.
I ain't gonna stand here and stir.
[DOLORES COUGHS.]
It would help if Stevie was home.
I don't think Stevie would want to live here at home, you know? But I know it would help her.
I know that.
I think it would help her tremendously.
[INDISTINCT CHATTER.]
[KATHLEEN.]
Winning cases requires that the attorney presenting the case knows the case better than anyone who's in the courtroom, anyone that ever picks up, you know, the documents and looks at the case.
It's incumbent upon the attorney to know every single detail.
And it's sort of a joke in my office.
I let my clerks do a lot of analysis and work and give me memos and all that, and I trust no one.
And so, I always go back.
I had never looked at the underlying reports of Eisenberg.
And so, I was going through her notes, and what caught my eye was the numbering of the tag numbers.
I, of course, knew 8675 was the quarry pile with the pelvic bone in it.
But then I saw on the sheet of paper a different numbering sequence in the 7400s.
This was different evidence.
These were different bones.
And then I started reading the content of it where, in great detail, Leslie Eisenberg has documented that there are more human bones.
And then I'm noticing not only that, but she's documenting that they have cut marks on them.
There's no indication that these bones belonged to more than one person.
They're not duplicate bones.
We don't have three different pelvises or scapulas or femurs.
We don't.
And so, then I went back to my clerks and said, "Take these numbers, these tag numbers, and trace them.
" One of my clerks came back and said, "Well, there is further documentation of the coordinates.
" I told them to get the coordinates, to make a map for me.
I wanted to understand where those bones were coming from.
[TYPING ON KEYBOARD.]
[KATHLEEN.]
There are many, many more human bones over in the Manitowoc gravel pit.
The two new piles are even further away.
They're closer to Highway Q than they are to the Avery salvage yard.
And then a little distance from them is the pile with the pelvic bones, but lo and behold, there's another bone in there, too, that she described as being human.
So, all three piles of bones are all on the Manitowoc gravel pit.
That discovery would have changed everything at trial.
If the jury had heard that there were numerous human bones over in the Manitowoc gravel pit, not one possible pelvic bone, it would have changed everything.
All three quarry piles have human bones with cut marks.
Yes.
Again, this points away from what the State's theory was, because the State's theory is the body isn't cut at all.
[STEVEN SYMES.]
Ah.
- Not at all.
- Not at all? - [KATHLEEN.]
Nope.
- Even though it's in the report? - The anthropology report.
- [KATHLEEN.]
It's not cut.
I mean, the State's theory was that the body was burned, not dismembered, it was burned, in the Steven Avery burn pit.
So, what does this list mean? [SYMES.]
When you find sharp trauma and then burn, that's highly suspicious you got some dismemberment going on or alteration of the evidence or the victim, and that's extremely important in a case like this.
When people suddenly figure out that there's a dead body in front of them, they need to get rid of them, they're hard to move.
And so, that's when a lot of my cases get involved, is just to dismember, to transport the body easier, or to fit it someplace it couldn't fit otherwise.
You can actually see some cut marks here.
So, there is some tool marks.
And then there's a couple other features.
I put a scale in it.
That black thing is just a piece of my scale from down below.
OK, so, this one I recognize.
This is from the Dassey-Janda burn barrel.
- So you think Where's the ? - [SYMES.]
I'm glad you keep up with it.
Anytime you see a straight edge manipulation of bone, it's usually a cut mark.
That looks like a very thin saw, so I'm thinking the narrowest possibilities.
So, I tested three or four hacksaw blades and a meat saw.
So, the hacksaw is pretty much your narrowest saw, except for some really unusual jewelers' saws and things like that.
So [KATHLEEN.]
One of the interesting things about the dismemberment in this case: the people that are our Denny suspects are deer hunters.
And in deer hunting, when a deer is dressed, it's what you're saying It's a nice way of saying you're dismembering, and the meat's removed and then you're dismembering the skeleton.
So, hacksaw blades are used, sharp knives are used, and a person would have some awareness of anatomy, of cutting into a joint and how to do that effectively.
So, they would be It's different than the average person who might be repulsed by the idea of dismembering.
It's still hard to imagine anyone could dismember a human body.
But certainly they have some of the mechanical skill that would be necessary for dismembering that you wouldn't see in other cases.
Dr.
Eisenberg documents the equivalent I think it adds up to 1.
7 pounds of skeletal remains.
Yeah.
And on a cremation, what's the weight of a body when you don't have missing bone? It's around ten pounds or so, depending on the person and the cremation technique and everything else.
So, we've got We're looking at 10 or 20 percent, and that's nowhere near the real story.
And I think the jury's getting the same thing.
I don't think they're getting everything.
Obviously, a lot of the body is represented, but a lot of the bones are not there.
And when you burn up a body, for example, the ribs You've got 24 ribs, and they're fragile, but they're hard to burn up.
There should be rib fragments everywhere.
And, uh, I just don't see that.
So, I think And vertebra.
I don't see The vertebra bodies are spongy bone.
They survive a fire quite well, even after they're calcined.
Uh, they stand up pretty well.
We're just missing bones that hold up in a fire.
I don't see them.
I don't see much.
What would be the explanation for bones being missing? It wasn't the fire that destroyed them.
Well, I can tell you what I see over and over.
People think it's easy to burn a body up, and it's not.
And when they get frustrated, and you still have the whole core body left after you burned off everything else, you take that and dump it someplace else.
I've seen that in this country numerous times.
I've seen it internationally numerous times.
[KEN.]
These bones in the quarry I'm gonna take about 20 seconds to talk about, because the best anybody can say is that they're possible human.
What does "possible human" mean? Well, it means we don't know what it is.
Alright? The best anthropologists in the world don't know what these bones are, even through testing, what's called mitochondrial DNA testing, whether they're human or not could not, even by the FBI, be determined.
So, the bones in the quarry are really not evidence in this case.
And so, Mr.
Strang's made a big deal out of showing you maps and a little flag and things like that about possible bones.
Again, speculation, conjecture, is not part of this case.
Facts are gonna be what decides this case.
[KATHLEEN.]
You know that in the defense, you've got to establish that she was killed elsewhere.
And here are a pile of human bones in the gravel pit where the suspected pelvis is.
And those bones have been documented by the State expert as being human.
Not possibly human, but human.
And then some of them have cut marks on them.
So, between the defense attorney and their expert, that's what you really call "dropping the ball.
" So, the jury's sitting there, having the State just minimize the pelvic bone.
I mean, Kratz said that he would spend no more than 20 seconds on it.
But he would have had to have spent a lot more time on numerous human bones over there, some of which had cut marks on them, that might've given him pause past 20 seconds.
But certainly with the jury, that would've been a huge part of the argument that was made, that she wasn't killed on the Avery property.
She left the Avery property.
She was killed, dismembered, and burned over in the gravel pit.
Which is right where her cell phone activity puts her.
All of it fits.
And cases always fit.
When you find out what the truth is, it all fits.
So, the goal here is to get to the truth of what happened to Teresa Halbach.
We're not trying to, um, just stir up trouble.
We're trying to find out what actually happened to her.
And what the State said happened to her isn't remotely close to what happened to her.
Significant evidence has been discovered over the past 24 hours at the Avery salvation salvage yard.
[DEBRA.]
I found out from the media that there was possibly some remains found on the Avery property.
There was a press conference that was on television.
I believe it was November 9th, around 3:00 p.
m.
, that that was confirmed.
They feel that the evidence that they are that has been collected and that they are analyzing is that of human in nature.
Prior to that, I had no knowledge or reports given to me by police or detectives.
I did keep some notes when things started, with hearing things in the media, phone calls.
Um, so, I did keep notes, dates, times.
I called, um, Officer Wiegert, Detective Wiegert, that evening of the 9th.
And at that point, he told me they just overlooked calling me.
Um, and I told him I wanted to come out to the scene.
They told me the scene was closed for the night.
And I said, "OK, that's fine.
But why didn't you give us some kind of report, some kind of a heads-up as to what was going on?" And then he commented to me at that time, very rudely, "Well, I don't have to call or tell you about bones.
" And I said, "Oh, yes, you do.
" It's the law, it's the statute, 979, when there is a deceased body or remains, that a coroner or medical examiner are always notified.
They handle the medical forensic side of the body.
The next day, in the morning, I was going to go out to the scene, and I was called to a meeting by Sheriff Peterson.
I thought, "Oh, good, I'm finally getting I'm finally getting a meeting.
I'm finally going to get an update on what's going on and when I will be able to come out to the scene.
" But when I got there, at that time, I was told I will not be going out to the case, I will not be going out to the scene, and if I do, I will be arrested.
[DEBRA.]
And actually, in the State of Wisconsin, the coroner is the top law enforcement official when there is a body or remains.
And the coroner is the one who can arrest the sheriff.
So, he's threatening to arrest me? I could tell he meant it, and when he told me that, I left.
I walked out.
And then, shortly after that, I got a call from the county exec: "You need to stay out of this conflict of interest because of the Avery case and the $36-million lawsuit.
" And then it was a few minutes later I got a call from the county attorney: "Deb, you need to stay out of this case because of the conflict of interest and the $36-million lawsuit.
" And I questioned them.
I said, "What are other officers doing out there from Manitowoc County when they should not be out there?" I said, "I've never been involved in a previous Avery case.
My office is separate from the Sheriff's Department.
" And it just ended by that.
I never did get out to the scene.
I was never given any information.
I was never allowed to do my job.
I was supposed to be an advocate for Teresa.
That was my goal.
And when you can't do that you just have this bad feeling that you failed, you failed that person.
[DEBRA.]
To my knowledge, there was no coroner there.
There was no forensic anthropologist or medical examiner.
The defense calls Ms.
Debra Kakatsch.
[DEBRA.]
When I walked into the courtroom and took the stand, Attorney Kratz, he just looked at me, just staring me down.
That told me the whole story.
Did you, um, in November of 2005, come to learn of some suspected human bones found on or near the Avery property in Manitowoc County? - Yes, I did.
- [DEAN.]
How did you learn about that? From television.
[DEAN.]
What did you do after you saw on television something about the discovery of possible human remains? Well, I got a few phone calls, and particularly from my deputies, as to what the plan of action would be.
[NORM GAHN.]
Your Honor.
I'm sorry, Your Honor.
I think we need to be heard outside the presence of the jury.
[JUDGE WILLIS.]
At this time, the court will excuse the jurors for a few minutes.
[NORM.]
I would ask, what is the relevancy of this? The Manitowoc County Corporation Counsel wanted to remove all Manitowoc County officials from this investigation.
And to come in now because, perhaps, some disgruntled Manitowoc County employee didn't like that decision.
I don't see the relevancy at all of this.
[DEAN.]
Neither Ms.
Kakatsch, nor the Office of Coroner, nor anyone in the coroner's office, had any prior involvement in Steven Avery's civil lawsuit.
Um, hadn't been deposed, hadn't been interviewed, had no statutory responsibilities for the 1985 crime.
And, um, yet her office was walled off entirely from performing its lawful duties in connection with the discovery of human remains.
I don't see how anything the coroner would've done, um, would've somehow contributed to a less biased investigation in this matter.
The court is not going to allow it.
[DEBRA.]
I wasn't up there long on the stand at all.
I loved my job.
But I couldn't do it anymore.
When was gonna be the next threat of arrest, intimidation? I didn't feel safe going out on calls at night.
So I had to end it.
[REPORTER.]
This morning, the court ruling that could have led to freedom for Brendan Dassey.
Instead, a federal appeals court narrowly decided to uphold his conviction, keeping him in prison.
Brendan Dassey won two court battles before this new ruling, which could keep him in prison for the rest of his life.
That federal appeals court finding he was not intimidated or coerced into confessing to rape and murder.
[HAMILTON.]
It's clear he's been very resistant up to that point.
Very reluctant.
He's telling a contradictory story that doesn't make any sense, and they're calling him on it.
It comes out very slowly and painfully, but he volunteers it.
[WOOD.]
The investigators made my skin crawl watching this video, this lulling behavior that they conveyed, which was so dishonest, so dishonest.
[ROVNER.]
Now imagine it is not an average person, but a 16-year-old with a very, very low IQ who is extremely suggestible.
[STEVEN.]
It's been overturned two times already.
You know, if you overturn it one time, and then the other two, three judges overturns it, you know, if it was anybody else, he would've been out, walking away.
With this case, it's different.
You know, you ain't walking out.
[KATHLEEN.]
Why do you think it's so difficult? [STEVEN.]
Well, because they don't want to be wrong, and it's a high profile case.
It's gonna be more harder for the State to let it go because they are wrong.
I still believe that it's going to happen.
'Cause they can't stop the development of science, and they can't stop the information that we have, that it will fall apart on that.
That should make Brendan's case fall apart, too.
[STEVEN.]
Well, yeah, it's gotta collapse.
When you're innocent, it's gonna break down sooner or later.
[KATHLEEN.]
That's what I think, too.
[STEVEN.]
I ain't gonna give up.
No, you can't.
I was just reading a book about postconvictions, and they said the biggest problem was that people eventually just stop.
You know, they just stop filing stuff.
[STEVEN.]
Yeah.
Well, they know - They know me by now.
I don't stop.
- Yeah.
- [LAUGHS.]
No, I think - [STEVEN LAUGHS.]
I think I think they might've gotten that.
- You know? - [BOTH LAUGH.]
[LAURA.]
Since we learned that we lost before the en banc 7th Circuit, we have begun taking steps to get Brendan's case before the US Supreme Court.
[LAURA.]
The United States Supreme Court gets thousands of requests to take cases each year.
And out of those thousands, they take about 80 cases.
This case has never been about the odds, it's about overcoming the odds.
So, to increase the chances that the court will take the case, we decided we would seek out the best lawyers we could find to help present the case to the Supreme Court.
[REPORTER.]
Seth Waxman was the US Solicitor General under President Clinton, in charge of that administration's cases before the Supreme Court.
[LAURA.]
He's argued 80 cases before that court.
He knows what they need to hear.
[SETH.]
A day does not go by when I don't hear Janet Reno's voice in my head saying, "You're gonna be criticized no matter what, so why don't we just do the right thing?" [REPORTER 2.]
He is the person who had the juvenile death penalty declared unconstitutional.
[ANTONIN SCALIA.]
There are not that many lawyers who appear with any regularity before the Supreme Court.
Seth Waxman is one.
The Supreme Court views its most important function as ensuring the uniform and harmonious application of federal law throughout the United States.
If you look at cases involving juveniles or persons with limitations and how the voluntariness of their confession is being evaluated, you can see an astonishing degree of inconsistency in how the special how or whether the special care standard is being applied.
[STEVE DRIZIN.]
Back in 1948, the Supreme Court said courts must analyze confessions from juveniles and from the mentally impaired with special care, with the greatest care.
Since that decision, there has been silence, for the most part, from the court, and it's left, um, a lot of confusion in the state courts.
It's not confusion because the law is unclear.
It's confusion because the courts are either ignoring or misapplying what is clear Supreme Court precedent.
It's been 40 years since the United States Supreme Court even looked at the question of juvenile voluntariness.
[LAURA.]
Since 1979, so much has happened.
There's been an explosion of knowledge about the problem of false confessions, a realization from social science and psychologists, and lawyers who have proven their clients innocent through DNA, that children are more likely to falsely confess to crimes they didn't commit, and that the courts are not doing enough to protect kids when that happens.
[SETH.]
It's really very, very important that the court take this case and model for state and federal courts how one evaluates a confession by a juvenile, and a juvenile with rather significant intellectual and social deficits.
I think the entire country has an interest in having the Supreme Court hear this case.
I mean, every one of us wants a system of criminal justice that ferrets out the perpetrators of crime and punishes them appropriately, but that also respects the individual liberties on which our country was founded.
[LAURA.]
We need only four of the nine justices to agree to take the case.
[KATHLEEN.]
After a bunch of back and forth, all of the sudden, on April 17th of 2018, Mr.
Fallon has mailed to my office, in an original evidence package, with evidence tape on it, the CD.
So, he disclosed it to me as if it were an original disclosure.
[KATHLEEN.]
Brady requires a timely disclosure.
So, if you look at the fact that the Velie report, the forensic analysis of the computer, was completed on May 10th of 2006, the Fassbender report was not turned over even mentioning the CD until December of 2006.
And the Fassbender report says, "The disc received from Detective Velie, as well as the hardcopy pages of instant message conversations, were maintained in Fassbender's possession.
" So, 2,400 pages of evidence is kept by Fassbender and not given to the defense.
[KATHLEEN.]
It was never, ever given to the trial team, the appellate team.
It was not disclosed until it was given to me.
The Velie CD was withheld because it would have destroyed the credibility of the State's star witness.
[KEN.]
Bobby Dassey is an eyewitness, an eyewitness without any bias, is an individual that deserves to be given a lot of credit, because sometime between 2:30 and 2:45, he sees Teresa Halbach taking photographs.
Mr.
Dassey is looking out this window, a clear view, sees the pictures being taken of the SUV.
A clear pathway, and as she walks towards Mr.
Avery's, that's the last Ms.
Halbach is seen.
That's the last she's seen alive.
OK? So, that's the, um, timeline.
That's the, uh, pathway, if you will, towards what happens to Ms.
Halbach.
Mr.
Kratz, in the opening and the closing, talked about how credible Bobby Dassey was, there would be no reason for him to lie, that the jury should believe Bobby Dassey because he's just this independent witness that's got no motive to lie.
And so, it was imperative that that CD be withheld, because that CD showed the kind of demented, twisted, sadistic mind of somebody capable of committing a murder.
[KATHLEEN.]
So, from their opening statement, the defense would've told the jury that they were going to hear from a State witness that most likely was the person who had killed Teresa Halbach, and they would've talked about his opportunity, motive, and that he was going to be lying to them.
And then, when he got on the stand, they would've confronted him, and the jury would've seen these images.
I mean, do we really think a jury would've listened to Bobby Dassey describe anything if they had seen what was on the computer and what he was doing, that he's searching for these images of torturing young women, many of whom look like Teresa Halbach? He's got pictures of women blindfolded, gagged, tied up, dismembered.
And so, he would've been attacked with all of that.
He would've been totally discredited in his testimony that Teresa never left the property.
I can guarantee you, Steven Avery would never have been convicted if that evidence had come in that's on the CD.
[KATHLEEN.]
He would not have been convicted.
[JUDGE WILLIS.]
on count one is signed by the foreperson of the jury, dated today.
The other verdicts are also signed by the foreperson of the jury.
[KATHLEEN.]
The reason this ranks so highly on the scale of Brady violations is we will be able to show that this was deceptively withheld by the State.
[KATHLEEN.]
Kratz creates an index of discovery which doesn't match anyone else's index of what's been turned over.
But right at the end of it, he puts an entry that says, "Brendan Dassey's computer.
Seven CDs.
" Well, bunch of things wrong with that.
It's not Brendan Dassey's computer, and there were never seven CDs.
There were seven DVDs and a CD, and the CD is what has the analysis on it.
The CD is what you can just pop in a computer and pull up and look at, and you don't have to have the in-case program, like the DVDs require.
But I believe what he was doing is, he was trying to hide the fact that Fassbender still had the CD.
It had never been turned over.
So, he's thinking that Buting and Strang and their paralegals, and you're in this big flurry, getting ready for trial, you're gonna look at that entry and think, "Oh, well, we must have that.
By the way, it has to do with Brendan's computer.
We're not gonna get involved in looking at stuff on Brendan's computer.
We've got to focus on the rest of the evidence that pertains to Steven and the case.
" And so, it's just so slippery, the way that he did that.
[KATHLEEN.]
So, that's the first thing that Kratz does.
And then this stipulation proposal was sent by Mr.
Kratz on January 25th of 2007.
The trial started in the early part of February 2007, so it couldn't be any closer to the trial date.
So, stipulations are pretrial agreements between each side about evidence that you both agree on, and so you don't need to bring witnesses in to testify.
It's a way to streamline the trial.
So, in paragraph R, Mr.
Kratz says, "Computer analysis of Steve, Teresa, and Brendan's computer " Of course, this is not Brendan's computer.
"Mike Velie of the Grand Chute Police Department analyzed the hard drives of these three and found nothing much of evidentiary value.
" "This stip eliminates Officer Velie as a witness.
" "Nothing much of evidentiary value"? Yeah, for the State, there's nothing much, but there's something huge for the defense that he's kept from them.
Of course, where the deception is, is in labeling it as Brendan's computer.
It's not Brendan's computer.
Brendan's the person using it, you know, less than anyone in the family.
But Kratz knew It's very clever.
He knew if he told them, "Oh, Brendan's computer.
We did a forensic analysis.
And, oh, you guys are really lucky.
There's nothing on there of evidentiary value.
" You're not going to say, "Wait a minute.
You know, we want to dive deeper into this and really start looking at what's been disclosed.
" So, it was just a complete They were completely duped.
It's This isn't just an academic discussion.
This is about depriving someone of their life.
Because being locked up, life without parole, um, in a little cage for the rest of your life, it's just about as bad as it gets.
And when you find out that you're there because the other side tricked and lied to your attorneys, um, it doesn't get much worse than that.
It's hardly the prosecutors seeking justice.
You can't tell one lie without it getting uncovered.
And their one lie snowballed into a whole bunch of other stuff, and I just don't think the county knows how to get out from under that.
Good things are coming.
The future is gonna hold good things for Steve and Brendan.
They're gonna get out, they're gonna live happy, healthy lives and and put this all behind them.
That's what they need.
The whole family needs that.
[CROWD CHANTING.]
Free Steven Avery! Free Brendan Dassey! Free Steven Avery! Free Brendan Dassey! - [TRUCK HORN HONKS.]
- [CHEERING.]
- [WOMAN.]
That was awesome.
- [WOMAN 2.]
Justice! [WOMAN 3.]
Free Steven! [SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
[WOMEN 3.]
Free Steven [INDISTINCT CHATTERING.]
[CAR HORNS HONKING.]
[MAN.]
The implications of this case has a much wider reach than just Wisconsin, and certainly wider than Manitowoc.
So, to me, it's about the bigger issue of how did this happen, and how can we prevent it from occurring again in the future? [CAR HORNS HONKING.]
[MAN SHOUTS.]
Guilty! [WOMAN.]
Innocent! [MAN.]
I got two bullets for them! [SUPPORTERS CHANTING INDISTINCTLY.]
[WOMAN 2.]
For Justice! [SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
- [WOMAN 2.]
Free Brendan! - [WOMAN.]
Free Brendan! Free Steven! Until all is changed and they start holding prosecutors accountable for their actions, this will continue to happen, to not only Steven, but to more children.
[MARK.]
How's the boy? - He's hanging in there.
- [MARK.]
Yeah.
- [BARB.]
It would be better if he was here.
- Yes, it would be.
[MARK.]
He's gonna be home soon.
I have a good feeling - He is gonna be.
- [BARB.]
I sure hope so.
Yeah, next week, the Supreme Court is gonna be reviewing whether or not they're gonna take Brendan Dassey's case.
Um, and, man, I really hope they do, you know? And I hope they really take their time and look through the evidence and and see the truth.
[CAR HORNS HONKING.]
[SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
[WOMAN.]
Free Brendan! Free Steven! I want my son home and I want my brother home.
[WOMAN.]
Free Steven Avery! Free Brendan Dassey! [SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
My family did not do anything.
Meaning Scott, my son Bobby, Brendan, Steven.
I know they didn't do nothing.
They're all innocent.
My whole family's innocent.
So, I think they ought to let them out and let us go on with our lives.
[CAR HORN HONKING AND SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
[SUPPORTERS CHANTING INDISTINCTLY.]
[CAR HORNS BLARING AND SUPPORTERS CHEERING.]
[CAR HORNS CONTINUE BLARING.]
[CAR HORNS QUIETEN.]
[CAR HORNS STOP BLARING.]
[INDISTINCT CHATTER.]
Today, you're right, we had a couple more non-decisions.
The court deciding not to take up two disputes, that there had been some real thinking that the court might wade into [REPORTER.]
The Supreme Court said it's not going to take the case of a young man.
He was convicted in a brutal murder, and the only evidence against him was his own confession.
[REPORTER 2.]
Today's Supreme Court decision not to hear Dassey's appeal means that lower court ruling will stand, as does his sentence of life in prison.
[REPORTER 3.]
Justices did not say why they won't take the case.
It was Dassey's last option for appeal.
[REPORTER 4.]
Wisconsin's Attorney General saying he hopes Teresa Halbach's family can now find some comfort and closure with the court's decision.
[BRENDAN.]
Dear people in the world.
Thank you for listening to me.
It means a lot to know there are many people who believe in me.
I am innocent of the rape and murder of Teresa Halbach.
My confession is false.
It always has been.
I thought I finally had a chance at life.
I am going to keep fighting to go home.
I still hope that someday the people in charge would realize they made a mistake.
Until then, I am staying strong for myself, my mom, and my friends.
Thank you for helping me stay strong.
Sincerely, Brendan Dassey.
This story you know, the story of Steven Avery's life, whether I win in court or just making known what happened to him if he doesn't survive, um, is something that I'm completely committed to doing.
Because it is such, um, a tragic story.
So, it's a difficult thing to know that we're so far down the road on it and that everything's mobilized against us.
But it can be done.
It still can be done because there's so much evidence.
It's not just the jury that didn't hear the evidence in this case.
It's the judges.
They have yet to be given the true story of what happened to Teresa Halbach.
They're just responding to what they have.
They can't go out and investigate.
They can't hire a scientist.
And so, you can't fault them at this point.
I still believe in the fundamental fairness of the courts if you give them the evidence.
No one's done that yet.
No one has done that.
And that's why we're taking it up on appeal.
We're trying to give them this evidence.
And if they say, "No, it isn't enough," or "It isn't, it's partial," then I'll go back and I'll get more.
But, I mean, it just It is what it is.
He's been wrongfully convicted twice, and my job is to prove that.
[STEVEN.]
The supporters don't know what to do because it's taking so long.
When you're fighting for your innocence and you need the truth out, it takes time.
You got to give the lawyer time so she can doit a good job, so we can just throw it out, you know? It's just one, two, three, you're locked up.
And then it takes forever to get out.
You know, and that's the way it is.
Hurry up and get in, and take your time on the way out.
But then, when you got the proof there, that's one, two, three, you're out.
Like the first time.
They ran the DNA, and then boom, I was out.
So, now we gotta do the same thing on this.
[THEME MUSIC PLAYS.]