Original subtitles

I went out to my deck and just sat down and then I

heard bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

Gunshots.

I saw movement from off to my left.

And then I saw a head looking around, you know, to see if anybody was

watching, I guess.

I'm going to ask you to point at that person and tell me what they're wearing.

Okay. Yeah. Black jacket.

This new witness, for the first time in any proceeding, identified Dana Chandler

from the crime scene.

You're on your deck, and before midnight, you hear these gunshots,

correct? Correct. And before midnight, you see this person around at the house.

Yes. No question in your memory, correct?

Well,

I mean, there's always a little question, but no. I mean, that's what I

recollect. But the story she told could not possibly be true.

A normally quiet Topeka neighborhood turned into a crime scene Sunday

afternoon. Instead, it's the day Chandler was sentenced for killing her

ex-husband Mike Sisko and his new love Karen Harkness. Chandler was sentenced

to life in prison.

But soon that verdict would be called into question. The Kansas Supreme Court

was critical of Spradling in the prosecution of Chandler. The court

overturned Chandler's two murder convictions.

Live from the Shawnee County Courthouse, the retrial of Dana Chandler is back in

session today after that three-day recess that was actually out of session

on Thursday.

Ms. Anderson, do I understand?

All of this comes to light in the last 10 or 12 days. Is that fair?

That's fair. Okay. I had a client come in, and we were talking.

One of us brought up this case because it had been on the news, and she

mentioned that she knew the daughter.

Your client says, oh, I happen to know Haley because I went to church with her.

Is that right?

Yeah. Right. And you say, oh, I have information.

I saw a person on a certain night, correct?

Well, not exactly like that, but yes.

And the client then reached out to Haley.

You then met with the police, and they talked to you, and then you agreed to

meet with our investigator. And that all happened last week, right?

Yes. Right. You called 911 that night?

Yes. Your memory is you would have called no later than 12-15.

Maybe not. I mean, yeah, yes, probably.

It would have been by then.

There's no question.

You were in your bedroom by 1.30 a.m., correct?

Yes. So what you saw, what you heard, what your memory is on all of that

happened hours before that, didn't it?

It happened earlier than that. I don't know if it was hours, but yeah.

Yes. It was by midnight.

Yes. Ms. Anderson, is it possible that you might be off a little bit on the

times of the day that this event happened?

You mean the shooting? Yes.

I could be off.

I mean, I suppose it's possible because I didn't have a clock right there.

Her account is that she calls 911 after hearing the gunshots just a little bit

maybe after midnight.

Well, there's no record of that.

So you looked for a phone call for July 6th before midnight. Is that right?

That is correct.

And did you find a call?

I did not.

You looked for calls by Ms. Anderson by her landline?

Correct. A cell phone?

Correct.

Address? Correct. In other words, we're searching soup to nuts to see if we can

find a July 6th phone call by Anderson, correct?

That's correct.

And again, there wasn't any call, was there?

No, sir.

There's no record of a 911 call. There's no record of police responding to a call

from her.

But the prosecution decided that they were going to put her on.

even though they had in their possession a documentary record that established

that the story she was going to tell was just not true.

Would you please introduce yourself to the jury?

Detective Lance Green.

Were you involved in the new information from Terry Anderson?

I was.

How long did you meet with her for?

About a half an hour.

Okay. And she gave you information, allegedly seeing something on July 6th

at between 10.30 and... p.m and midnight correct it was 11 30 and midnight but on

july 6 yes okay were you aware that karen and mike were at the casino until

1 30 a.m yes so the information that anderson gave you that she heard saw

something on july 6 11 30 is inconsistent with what you know other

evidence tells us is that fair yes this is a pretty important witness if she's

telling the truth isn't it uh sure yeah There's no other witness that places

Dana Chandler in Kansas except for this witness, right? Not that I'm aware of.

Sometimes between 11.30 and 12, you hear the gunfire and you see who you believe

to be Dana Chandler.

That can't really be true because at 11.30 or 12 o

'clock... Mike Sisko and Karen Harkness were very much alive.

God, I don't know. Maybe it was later. I don't know.

I mean, I'm second-guessing myself right now, and I'm thinking, could it, you

know, could I have misremembered something?

I wish the prosecutors would have shown me this prior to me testifying.

Would it have affected your desire to testify?

I would have asked to be excused.

I would not put myself out there if I was going to tell a blatant lie about

anything.

Doesn't that trouble you, though? It does trouble me.

I mean, God.

Why should I have to sit in a courtroom and watch?

a prosecutor put a surprise witness on the stand that he knows full well is

going to tell a story implicating dana chandler that cannot possibly be true

dana chandler may have killed her ex-husband and his girlfriend and maybe

she deserves to pay a price for that but like fairness is

paramount

They rested their case without presenting a scintilla of evidence that

she committed this time, not a scintilla.

And then they get to essentially reopen it and bring in a surprise. I can't even

call her an eyewitness.

She wasn't a witness to anything. She's a fake witness.

I mean, we're throwing BS flags right and left here.

That this happened in the first trial was bad enough.

But who would think that they would do the same thing Jackie Spradling did?

This is 2.0. I mean, this is deja fricking vu.

The evidence in this case shows that the defendant clearly hated Karen and Mike.

She was obsessed, she was jealous, and she was angry about it.

It's all in God's hands.

That's what the defendant was saying after Mike and Karen were killed.

Ladies and gentlemen, now it's in your hands.

We see time and time again the police ignored evidence. They didn't follow the

evidence. They just followed their bias. If somebody said something bad about

Dana, they just accepted it.

Witnesses just get up on the stand and say whatever they want.

Terry Anderson's a perfect example.

It's insulting.

That's the kind of evidence they're asking you to rely on.

It's really like out of a movie. This wasn't so serious. It would be

laughable. There is reasonable doubt at every turn, and we ask you to return a

verdict not guilty, not proven.

Thank you.

So, after about a month of legal combat, the jury was given their instructions

and went off to deliberate.

The Dana Chandler retrial, they had a full day of jury deliberations today.

Jury deliberations have dragged into another day. The jury is out, you know,

one day, two, three. Now it gets a little interesting.

It's clear that they're, you know, at odds. The judge...

you know, keeps on sending them back for further deliberations.

Five full days of jury deliberations have ended with still no verdict. Jury

deliberation and the retrial of Dana Chandler resumed today, but there is

still no verdict.

27 News reporter Max Dutton has been... And then, after six days, a result had

arrived.

Jury comes in.

Dana Chandler is there.

The families of the two people who were killed are there, as they had been

throughout.

Members of the gallery, I would ask that you just please refrain from any

outbursts at this time.

On behalf of myself, my staff, the state, and the defense, we want to tell

you how much we appreciate the hard work that you've put into this.

The foreman is asked, have they reached a verdict?

I understand that the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict at this time.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

You got your vest.

But really?

A hung jury?

The breakdown was seven for conviction, five for acquittal, and indeed, a

mistrial was declared.

Well, after six days of deliberations, the jury could not reach a decision in

the Dana Chandler double murder retrial. They were unable to come to a decision,

and a hung jury was announced. Anybody willing to talk?

Willing to talk?

Willing to talk?

Any chance?

Later date?

Okay.

Explain to me what got you there.

What got me there was doubt.

The prosecution never proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed the

crime. They could never put her in Topeka. They couldn't put her in Kansas.

So I couldn't vote that she was guilty.

When the prosecution put on the late witness, did you judge the prosecution

harshly for having even put her on?

The defense said it best in their closing arguments.

It seemed to hail Mary.

Now, what's next? A status hearing September the 29th. Shawnee County DA

can, of course, either go ahead to retry the case or dismiss the charges.

Almost 20 years the state of Kansas had been coming for Dana Chandler, but the

case has always been a thin one.

I still, to this day, can't get my head around that she could make that kind of

journey, that she could have acquired that kind of weaponry, that she could

have shot so expertly, that she could have gained access to a home without

leaving behind any evidence.

A perfect crime.

It would have been a tall order for a criminal mastermind.

It seemed impossible they would choose to try her a third time.

Thank you.

The court at this time will call case number 11CR1329, State v. Dana L.

Chandler.

The court is in receipt of the defendant's motion for judgment of

acquittal as well as the state's response.

The state has indicated their intent to retry this case.

The court does find that there was sufficient evidence presented for a

reasonable mind to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Chandler

committed the crimes alleged.

In fact, seven of the 12 jurors did indicate to the court and counsel that

they would have voted to convict based upon the evidence presented.

Therefore, the court would deny the motion for judgment of acquittal.

Before we proceed... If people thought the last chapter had been written, well,

somebody ordered up rewrite.

The district attorney decided, indeed, he was going to seek to try her a third

time.

Jane, are you there?

Yeah, I'm still here.

How are you holding up?

My core beliefs have been shaken.

My whole foundation of my world view has been completely turned inside out,

upside down.

The DA to the police departments to the courts, they cover up each other's lies

and they make false records.

I feel like I'm on a rickety bridge is how I really feel.

As we found out today, so the prosecution's going to get, you know, a

third crack at this thing, right?

Eleven years after Dana Chandler's arrest, a decade after her conviction,

four years after those convictions were overturned, this most recent trial ended

in a hung jury.

But there's a new court date, a new trial set, a new 12

people to give it their all.

Let's find out.

Today is Friday, February 7th, and we are on our way to the courthouse for

opening arguments this morning at 9 o'clock in State v. Dana Chandler.

And then on the eve of Dana Chandler's third trial, I think we entered the

pantheon of fucking all-time true crime sagas.

Literally as opening arguments are about to begin, The judge summons her defense

lawyers to her chambers and informs them that Dana has fired them and will

proceed as her own defense attorney.

My name is Dana Chandler. I have been accused of committing a double homicide.

My ex-husband, Mike Sisko, and his girlfriend, Karen Harkness, were

murdered on July the 7th of 2002.

You will hear testimony that I have maintained my innocence throughout this

proceeding, and you will hear no evidence that I was in Topeka on July

the 6th or 7th of 2002.

And I thank you all for being here, for saving your time.

to hear the case.

Thank you.

I don't have a lot of words to say.

Dana stood up and said, Dana Chandler, pro se.

And we were just shocked beyond words.

So in deciding to represent herself in the third trial, a jury was actually

going to hear from Dana Chandler.

for the first time right she had never testified in her first trial she had

never testified in her second trial but now whether it's through her own

questioning of witnesses or her opening statement closing statement they were

going to hear from the woman accused of killing her ex and his girlfriend is it

your testimony that you don't know whether that's an accurate police report

or not well i can see that it's not accurate because i've obviously made an

error on that She knows her case better than anyone.

And so I thought, well, maybe this is actually fairly clever.

Mike Sisko did not tell you that he was afraid of me, did he?

I do not recall him saying that, no.

Dana was doing something very wise.

She would ask him just a very simple question. In your investigation, did you

uncover any evidence that put me in the state of Kansas?

Were there my fingerprints in the house?

No. Were there any of my hair in the house?

No. Was there any DNA in the house?

No. Did you conduct an investigation to determine whether or not I ever owned,

purchased, or possessed a 9mm firearm?

We could not find any evidence that you purchased again.

You did a thorough investigation with all negative results, right? Nothing

that connected me to the homicides of Mike and Karen.

No, that's not correct.

But there's a difference between knowing your case and arguing it effectively.

What else was there?

At that time, it was based on the fact that we had two dead bodies that had

been shot at Karen's house.

The past conflict with... Yes, question.

The past conflict with Miss Chandler, between her and Mike Sisko, and with

Karen Harkness.

Emails between...

miss chandler and haley describing mike being a monster and karen being a that

type of hatred contributed to my belief of the evidence did you or did you not

receive any leads for other suspects besides me for example jeff sutton uh

i wouldn't call it a lead it was a suggestion by a person by the name of

eileen umber who was married to keen umber who was a

Former trash man at Alma that had a disagreement with Jeff Sutton. So when

this person come to me with this crackpot theory that he had been

involved supposedly for insurance money, we investigated that, determined that

there was a longstanding feud between these two parties, Keene Umber and Jeff

Sutton. And it was a personal vendetta of Keene and Eileen to go after

Jeff Sutton.

He was easily eliminated as a suspect in this case. So whether he had a nine

millimeter or zero... Watching her conduct her own defense, it was sort of

incredibly impressive.

And also just, you know, profoundly embarrassing.

I'm looking at what's been marked as Defendant's Exhibit 3009.

It's a PowerPoint presentation that I've prepared.

I just need my battery. As soon as I unplug it, it starts dragging.

Move to Admit Defendants Exhibit 3009.

Objection, Your Honor. There's no foundation for this. This has never been

provided to the state.

Objection. Objection. Objection. Objection. Lack of foundation.

Objection. Hearsay, irrelevance, and lack of foundation.

Objection, Assistant.

That's a beginning.

of the trial i know that they renewed it at the bench indicating that they i need

to i'm sorry i'm miss chandler please don't interrupt i need to miss chandler

her before this chandler please because i have a note here from town of math

that says it's added to seven to twenty five miss chandler license are are off

be advised that you are warned that you must not interrupt the court again well

i need an opportunity to meet her please Miss Chandler, no one has ever refused

you the opportunity to be heard. And of course, Dana's daughter, Haley,

testified again.

Mike and I did have a strained relationship, right? We didn't co-parent

well together, true? No, true.

And I didn't want to put you and Dustin in the middle of a strained

relationship, right? I felt like you always put us in the middle of the

relationship. Is this a good setting to explain our personal relationship?

Well, that's a lot of what this trial is about, is my relationship with you.

That's what the accusers are trying to put in front of this jury, our

relationship or lack thereof.

So absolutely, this is a proper place. What have I done to throw you under the

bus? You're blaming me for a lot of your actions.

And you're making me, like this is about me.

And you're talking about how much I have been a mess.

and rebellious and not listening and being a problem.

And I was a problem for my dad and Karen.

And that's why you needed to interfere with my dad and Karen's lives so much,

because of Haley.

In that courthouse, with a daughter testifying against her mother, it just

felt like a room of broken people.

Once Dana Chandler announces that she's going to represent herself, there's a

laundry list of questions you have, like, how is she going to handle this?

How is she going to handle that?

As it turns out, all minor things to worry about, because she was going for a

fucking crazy... I don't know if there's something beyond a Hail Mary.

She decides she's going to put herself on the stand.

Start by stating my name. My name is Dana Chandler.

I, as everyone knows, have been accused of double homicide.

As a human experience in the courtroom, I was like, okay, maybe this isn't a bad

idea. Because what she does is she actually tells her life story.

Just to give you a little information about myself, I was born, I think it's

been shown, in Clovis, New Mexico.

There she is.

And moved to Colorado, where I met Mike Sisko.

Are you videotaping me?

And I had our first child, Haley. Let me see the video camera.

Oh, why?

It does.

And then we had Dustin.

Extreme close-up. And I was not happy. I started drinking wine in

December of 98.

And I really had been abusing alcohol for quite some time, and it was starting

to take a toll on me.

Mike and I's relationship was so broken and toxic that I could not get

sober and lord.

So I'd go to AA, and then I'd have to deal with Mike. And our relationship,

like I say, was so toxic that I would relapse.

And I kept relapsing. Could it make a jury less inclined to think that this

woman was capable of brutal and calculated killings carried out with

surprising weaponry?

Maybe.

But now having put herself on the stand, having told the story of her alibi,

she's subject to cross-examination.

Ms. Chandler, are you ready?

I'm ready.

And it was withering, because in her testimony, she says, I only ever told

one story.

You've testified that you told Detective Volley the same thing that you told

Jeff Bailey, correct?

Yes. You told this jury the same thing you told Jeff Bailey and the same thing

you told Detective Volley, correct?

That's correct. My statements were consistent.

The story of this alibi is what I told Detective Richard Volley.

He's misremembering it if he says, I told a different story.

I told one story, and this is it.

Now, Ms. Chandler, you testified that you were confused during the interview

with Volley about what day he was talking about, correct?

Yes. When he says, what'd you do on July 6th?

You started talking about stores that you went to.

And then when he went on to say, what did you do after that? And you said you

went home, and you stayed home all night.

I didn't say I went home.

I didn't say that I went home after running the errands. Richard Boatley

started leading the interview and asked me, he just assumed I went home, and

asked me, what did you do when you got home?

Well, I hadn't got home until July the 7th, the following day.

You thought he was skipping to the next day? When I got home on July 7th, yes.

As this detective is trying to figure out where you were at on July 6th and

7th. It completely slipped your mind to tell him that, oh, yeah, I drove four

hours west out of Colorado?

No, it didn't slip my mind.

Are you sure?

I may have said, um, well... Do you want to change your testimony?

I'll give you a chance to do that.

The prosecutor actually has a transcript of the parts of that interview with

Bolle that were, in fact, recorded.

And she tells a different story.

You drove through Idaho Springs on I-70 out to Glenwood Springs. That's your

testimony that you gave to this jury, and that's what you told Jeff Bailey,

correct? Yes.

Now, when Sergeant Volley's asking you what you did the next morning, you're

telling him you woke up in Glenwood Springs and drove back to Dillon?

No, why did he drive back to Dillon?

It's either Denver...

and you drove an hour to Dillon, or Glenwood Springs and you drove an hour

to Dillon? Which one is it?

I woke up at 6 o'clock in Glenwood Springs and

drove from 10 o'clock

from Glenwood Springs on the rest of my drive in the mountains.

But you told Detective Volley you woke up.

You left at 10 a.m. and you went to Dillon.

And if you're confused on what day, you must admit you woke up in Glenwood

Springs and drove to Dillon, correct?

I was confused about that part of the, you know, because Richard Velley had

asked me, what did you do when you got home?

And I'm in the 7th, and I'm trying to get it straight in my mind.

Ms. Chandler, let me ask it this way. Was there a time you woke up at 10 a.m.

and drove to Dillon?

Um, no.

That's what you just told Detective Volley on that recording.

That's right.

So what you told Detective Volley is not consistent with what you told Jeff

Bailey, is it?

I would, that's true.

And it's not consistent with what you told this jury, is it?

Um.

I don't remember exactly what I said, but I do know that what I... Did you

testify to this jury that you woke up in Glenwood Springs at 10 a.m. and drove

back to Dillon?

No. So would you agree what you told Detective Volley is different than what

you testified to this jury?

As far as the part where I was confused from the... Ms. Chandler, is it

different? Yes.

So when you were testifying and you accused Sergeant Volley of making all

this up, what he said is actually what you told him, isn't it?

That was my statement in Mark Bennett's office, yes.

And after getting home and seeing that search warrant and realizing that your

story wouldn't hold up in court, you gave Jeff Bailey a different version,

didn't you? I absolutely did not.

And you've had...

23 years to figure out what story to tell this jury. Is that true?

That's absolutely not true.

Let me ask you just one question. She does tell two stories about where she

was over those days.

Yeah, I'd rather not comment on that.

Correct?

I really don't want to comment on that.

What do you mean you don't want to comment on that? I just don't. I just...

I don't want to... I just... You can't have it that way.

Oh, well, I mean, you have to respect if I don't want to comment on that.

I don't want to, you know, I just don't, you know, I mean,

I just don't.

But we're talking about Eileen Umber, right?

Champion for justice.

Right. Truth-teller. I know. I'm just saying that, you know, there's not...

clear enough clarity for me to to speak to that

so

the defendant's story is all over the map literally

when you look at this case it's easy to jump to assumptions is this

revenge obsession jealousy what is this case really about

Why are Mike and Karen dead?

And the evidence shows one simple answer.

Control.

That is why Mike Sisko and Karen Harkness are dead today.

Because the defendant couldn't control it anymore.

And now you're in control.

You control everything at this point.

And I'm asking you to find the defendant guilty of these crimes because the

evidence overwhelmingly shows.

that she committed these crimes.

You are all to presume that I am innocent.

And I am innocent.

I did not kill Mike Sisco.

I did not kill Karen Hartman.

As part of that concept, my

liberty, my freedom is hanging in the balance.

There's no evidence I was in Topeka, Kansas on July 6th or 7th of 2002.

I wasn't.

There's no evidence that I ever owned, purchased, or possessed a 9mm firearm.

I submit to you that the state has woefully failed to meet its burden to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I killed Mike Sisko or Karen Harkness.

With the closing arguments done, the jury was sent to deliberate.

Relatives of Mike and Karen retired to a private room.

Keene and Eileen sat quietly.

And then, after just three hours, the verdict was in.

In the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Kansas, State of Kansas

Plaintiff v.

Dana L. Chandler, defendant.

We, the jury, find Dana Chandler guilty of murder, and the first degree is

charged in count one.

Verdict form count two.

We, the jury, find Dana Chandler guilty of murder, and the first degree is

charged in count two.

Okay, now I'm asking the jury, is this your verdict?

Dana sat in her chair and turned her back to the jury, maybe to send a

message of her disdain for the whole process.

But she was facing her family.

Dana Chandler gets slapped with two counts of first-degree murder. The Dana

Chandler case has spanned decades and received national attention. Dana

Chandler is headed back to prison after a jury found her guilty today. The next

step is to move forward with sentencing, and KG says that Chandler has every

right to appeal the conviction, and his team will be prepared just in case she

does.

Today, we don't interact with Dana on any level.

And the reason for that is it was a huge mistake for her to represent herself.

I don't like seeing Dana in jail for a crime, a horrific crime that she did not

commit. It hurts my heart. I pray for every night.

But, you know, I'm still disappointed and maybe I'm not sure anger is the

right word. I think the word I'm looking for is I'm hurt.

You know, I did so much work. And then for her, at the very end, to represent

herself, and in doing so, forfeited all the decades of work, not only Eileen and

I have done, but in the second trial and the third trial, that they were all

prepped, ready to go.

It's a mind, it's like a blender, just right into your emotions, just...

It's like she made the biggest mistake of her life and there was no turning

back.

That's right, she did something.

Irreversible.

Obsession.

It's a wicked little human trait.

Looking back on it all... maybe at its heart and in all of its sprawling

fucking tentacles, is the dangers of certainty.

Every character in this drama has chased their own sort of certainty.

The cops from the get-go, certain that Dana Chandler was the killer, lied to

any other possibility.

I could kill him.

I thought about killing him.

Keen and Eileen.

chasing their own personal certainty the real killer mike and karen are still out

there that they not only knew dana chandler was innocent but they knew who

had actually killed mike and karen i think this case is a character

assassination the certainty of dana chandler that she knew her case best

dana's biggest mistake was that she thought innocence was a

defense

It is not.

My own sort of certainty that, well, I could get to the bottom of it.

That's what I've done my whole life.

Later date?

Certainty, in the moment, it feels empowering and satisfying, right?

Because you have the answer. You don't need anything more.

It's a dangerous notion.

And now, at the end of a third trial, I think I know who did it.

But for the life of me, I can't tell you how.