Original subtitles

Usually, at about six o'clock, I get up.

But it was raining. I was listening to the rain on the house.

Must have rained all night.

I can't lie in bed and just think. I do that at night yet.

I think that's what Barbara does, too.

The lawyer...

I don't know. I think she's doing good, though.

But it takes time. Everything takes time.

Just hang on.

Hang on.

I think that people that are wrongfully incarcerated...

It's like the coal miners

when there's some type of explosion in the mine,

and they're stuck underground.

And so, you can communicate with them,

but you know that they're eventually gonna run out of air.

And so, you're in that, you know, with them,

trying to reassure them, trying to give them hope.

When you leave someone like that,

you always feel like you're sending them back,

you know, like underground.

And so, there's that really terrible feeling

that you might not make it in time

or your efforts to rescue them...

might not work.

- Have you got the tube for the blood? - I do.

I'm used to dividing evidence, so I have the tube to take the blood.

Great.

I've brought another syringe and a set of needles.

And, of course, it just goes into a container

that's essentially unbreakable.

OK, perfect.

It's kind of a shot in the dark in that this stuff's been there ten years.

We don't know exactly what the condition is.

- We do not. - We just don't have any idea.

So, we'll have the first cutting, the carpet.

Then we'll have the swab.

Then we've got a second cutting,

and then there's a swab of a bloodstain from a CD case.

The key...

A swab used on the hood latch?

I'm excited just to see what we see, because we've been speculating,

- looking at these pictures. - Right.

So, you'll go in.

I'm gonna wait with the special prosecutor

because we don't want to contaminate anything.

Nope.

So...

I left with eight items,

because, remember, one item was not divided.

Yes.

So, each one of those was individually sealed and labeled,

and then I put that into a paper bag,

and put that paper bag into another paper bag,

which is with me here.

Yeah.

So, A7 was a two-mil blood microfuge tube,

and inside the microfuge tube were a few, literally, one-millimeter,

or maybe one-and-a-half-millimeter-sized flakes.

There were approximately seven such flakes.

That would've been the best blood sample from the evidence

for doing whatever additional testing you might want.

Sounds like that's probably gonna be enough.

I...

I don't see that there's enough to do anything with.

- OK. - It's really small.

- Alright. - Um...

- But at least we know where we stand. - We know what we have.

We didn't know what we had before, and now...

- Now we know. And we've got the key. - Now we know.

- The key is certainly there. - Yeah.

And I think this... the hood latch swab.

Correct.

I'll tell you what was interesting, is that that lab did not take photographs.

So, she had examined the evidence before we got there

and had made notes on the seals,

but there was no images taken of the items,

there was no images taken of the seals.

That's unusual, don't you think?

Yes.

The description will tell you that it's been opened four times.

It's been opened four times?

Should be the analyst's initials and the date on each seal.

There. I don't know.

I see something. There you go.

There's an orange... developed along the edges.

You can't see it very well in this picture.

- They show up as whitish spots. - Yeah.

It needs to be filtered.

- There's definitely residue on it. - Maybe bleach.

Now you start to see the orange. Now you see the orange.

We'll do the other side in the same condition.

Orange or green?

Well, it looks green here. It's orange, though.

The most vulnerable piece of evidence to attack is the key,

and that's because of the evidence the State presented.

So, the key isn't found until there'd been repeated searches of Avery's trailer.

All of that was highly suspicious.

But overriding that is the DNA of Steven Avery on the key.

When I received the key, it was in a sealed brown paper bag.

I opened it up.

I had gloves on.

And I held the metal part of the key in one hand,

and I swabbed the black...

I should show you up here.

This black rubberized part of the key with a sterile cotton swab.

There were no visible indications of any staining,

so I was primarily interested to see if I could recover DNA

that had been left behind by possibly touching.

And did you compare the profile that you developed

from your swabbing of this key

with the DNA profile that you developed from the buccal swab of Steven Avery?

Yes, I did.

The same 15 markers.

These are the types at each one of these markers,

and you can see, at every type,

the profile from the evidence sample is consistent

with the profile from Steven Avery.

Now, when you tested this swab from the key,

you used the entire swab, didn't you?

Yes.

Normally, you'll try and just cut a swab in half,

use half, save half?

Well, I felt that, um, being what we refer to as a "touched item,"

um, and there being no visible indication of a biological fluid like blood,

that, yes, I would probably have a low amount to start with.

OK.

If you could look at your notes, maybe refresh your recollection.

If you can give me some estimate from your records

about just what the level of DNA you found on that key was.

My quantitation is .17

for one microliter.

The thing that's suspicious about the DNA is the quantity of it,

because she said it was touch DNA,

and Dr. Reich felt, just looking at it,

that there was too much DNA on the key to have been just the result of handling.

But the defense had no DNA-expert rebuttal

to that testimony.

On cross, it's very difficult to make those points

because the State's witness isn't gonna concede anything,

and you don't have the scientific expertise to really refute it.

So, once again, the jury is sitting there

without any way, any framework, any context to understand,

what does it mean?

What does it mean there's no mixture?

What does it mean that the person that owned the key's DNA isn't on it?

There are some studies

that talk about how the last person who touches an item

may leave the major portion of DNA that's left on there, right?

Yes.

But most often, when that happens, there's still a mixture,

and there's a minor contributor as well, right?

Um, no, I would disagree with that.

- OK. - In some cases, yes.

If you have someone who's a good shedder and sheds a lot of DNA...

...when they touch something, a lot of the studies show

that the last person is gonna be the DNA that you pick up.

If you don't shed a lot of DNA, then you may not find any at all.

For a number of years, a long time ago in forensics,

there was a hypothesis

that there were individuals who were called "secretors"

and individuals who were "non-secretors."

And it turns out that that particular designation

has no basis in science.

It was junk and we can ignore it.

But that idea has promulgated, because that's what people wrote

and that's what people thought for many years.

And so I think some of that incorrect thinking

is still out there, in terms of "shedder" versus "non-shedder"

and who would be first and did they leave more behind.

The answer is, nothin' doin'.

An identical vehicle was obtained,

and an identical key was obtained,

to try and reproduce what the State came up with,

in terms of the amount of the DNA that was recovered.

Ms. Zellner went up to Mr. Avery's prison

and was able to bring in a key

and have Mr. Avery hold a key,

and that was timed for 12 minutes.

So, we can measure how much DNA we got from the same kind of key

held for what we'd imagine is the same amount of time

by the same person.

The State got 0.17 nanograms per microliter.

The amount of DNA that we recovered from the exemplar key

is a tenth or so of the amount of DNA

that the Wisconsin lab obtained from their key.

Not half, not 80 percent, but a tenth.

Why did we recover so much less?

Maybe we weren't as efficient.

Or maybe the key had some other history

than simply being held by Mr. Avery.

Mr. Buting, I believe it was, had the imagination, let's call it,

to suggest to you that maybe officers were taking a toothbrush

and were kind of rubbing Mr. Avery's toothbrush on the key,

and that's how the DNA got on the key.

Common sense should tell you that these kind of motions,

what are called "furtive motions,"

or, for laypeople, for people like you, it's called "suspicious-looking things,"

is something that you should probably discard.

Because if they take Mr. Avery's toothbrush

and start rubbing it on the key, then kind of hold it behind their back,

that becomes almost cartoonish.

That becomes something that is not at all plausible.

Could you improve the item of evidence by rubbing it on a mouth swab,

on a buccal swab, or with a toothbrush?

And the answer is, those would be great sources of DNA.

You would get lots of DNA transferred simply and rapidly

by rubbing an item of evidence against either one of those.

A recurring theme in the case,

and something that's so suspicious and such a red flag,

is that there are never mixtures on any of these items.

So, once again,

we can't duplicate what the State claimed happened,

and we should've been able to duplicate that easily,

over and over and over again.

So, how could we have all of these scientific aberrations in one case?

Tammy and Kevin,

we don't expect to see Brendan Dassey here in court this morning.

Instead, Laura Nirider with the Center for Wrongful Convictions of Youth

will argue on his behalf.

The State Attorney General's office

has assigned attorney Luke Berg to this case.

First order of business is to find out who our panel is.

I think it could be the game-changer.

Good morning to you, Rachel.

Yes, we are here outside the federal courthouse in Downtown Chicago,

where the US Court of Appeals will hear the case of Brendan Dassey.

The big question is, will Dassey's conviction remain overturned?

Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Mr. Berg.

May it please the court.

Brendan Dassey chose to confess,

to release those terrible images of Teresa Halbach

that were haunting him.

The investigators encouraged him to get it out,

but did not apply any improper pressure.

Mr. Berg, help me with this.

If a police officer says to someone who is being interrogated,

"Let's get it all out today and this will be all over,"

what would the average person think this means?

Would that person think, "I can go home, it's done"?

Now imagine it is not an average person

but a 16-year-old with a very, very low IQ

who is extremely suggestible.

I think neither an average person, nor Dassey,

would interpret that statement as meaning that he could go home.

What if there were 20 such statements?

Thirty such statements?

Nothing the investigators said actually promised a specific benefit

in exchange for cooperation.

How did the investigators not act coercively

when they clearly showed frustration when he resisted

or disagreed with key details

and then offered praise, such as, "Now we believe you"?

I mean, I think if you watch the video,

they showed very little frustration or praise.

I did look at it,

and there were times, to me, that they seemed to be frustrated

with his answers and his resistance.

Their main concern was the truth.

The main message that they sent to Dassey was,

"Be honest, tell the truth, don't make anything up."

It seems to me that it only takes one incident,

one incident, of planting information to taint a confession.

You know, "Who shot her in the head?"

You think that's alright?

Obviously, it's preferable

for the suspect to come out with it on their own,

but it's not always possible,

and it makes a lot of sense

why Dassey couldn't think about that fact at that moment.

The conversation that they were having was about what happened in the bedroom.

The investigators didn't find out until later

that she was shot in the garage.

So, when they started asking about the head,

Dassey couldn't think of the shooting because his mind was on the bedroom,

where all of the other things happened.

So, I want to ask you, do you agree that age is a relevant factor

in determining whether a confession is voluntary?

I do, but the...

The Supreme Court said that juvenile confessions

must be evaluated with special care.

So I want to know exactly where the Wisconsin Appellate Court decision

considers Dassey's age and where it was given special care.

Dassey's age is listed in the opinion.

It's listed.

But special care is more than just listing, don't you think?

It said it was basing its opinion on the trial court's decision,

and the trial court's decision spent a lot of time on age,

so I think, on habeas especially, you can't assume

that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals did not consider age.

What's... Oh, I'm sorry.

During the videotaped confession,

Mr. Dassey comes out with a lot of details that he supplies.

The opposing side has explained that

as details that had been publicized.

I think there's a few minor points.

There's a few facts that we know had been released by the police officers,

but the vast majority of them had not.

But was there physical evidence of a rape

or of a wound to the throat?

Uh, no, because the body was totally destroyed.

So, those come only from Dassey's confession?

That's right, yes.

And weren't publicized ahead of time?

- That's right. - OK.

Now, obviously, there were vague promises of leniency, right?

I think there weren't even implied promises.

Also, there were specific warnings that contradicted any implications.

But let me just reiterate. We're on habeas review, right?

So, you're gonna have factors that cut in different directions in every case,

and where that's true, reasonable minds can certainly differ.

Reasonable minds could definitely conclude

that Dassey's confession was voluntary here.

He was Mirandized, even though he didn't have to be.

He was interviewed for three hours in the middle of the day.

He was offered food and breaks.

Both his mother and he consented to the interview.

He signed the Mirandawaiver.

He resisted the officers multiple times.

There's just no evidence that his will was overborne.

If anything, there's evidence to the contrary,

and all of the precedent supports the State here,

it doesn't support Dassey.

OK. Uh, Ms. Nirider?

Sixteen-year-old, mentally-limited Brendan Dassey confessed

in reliance on a false promise of leniency.

That promise was, "You're scared that you might get arrested."

But, "I'm thinking you're alright, OK?

You don't have to worry about things."

They told him this was true

even if he gave "statements against your own interest

that make you look more involved."

I want to ask you,

were the investigators aware of his intellectual or emotional limitations,

and if not, was that necessary?

I don't know whether they knew his precise IQ score.

But it's not important here whether they knew.

The question of voluntariness is not a referendum

on the state of mind of the officers.

The question is, what message was sent to Brendan Dassey,

and did it overbear his will?

I've watched it all.

I don't see a will being overborne.

Um, what was the source of the confession

to cutting Ms. Halbach's throat after raping her?

I'm not sure I understand your question...

It's not new sources, is it?

No, Your Honor.

So, it's either Dassey's memory or his imagination.

It's not in the media. You're correct.

It's either his memory or his imagination.

And it's that sequence

in which the interrogators are trying to get him to say...

Well, it's clear he's been very resistant up to that point.

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.

Your Honor, I would respectfully disagree.

Every step of that confession, every primary plot point,

is a result of suggestion.

It's true that after the interrogators introduce the plot point,

they allow Brendan to embellish.

Like what? "You went inside?"

"You went inside the house?" Yes.

And then you're holding them responsible

for all the details that come after that?

I'm not holding them responsible but I'm pointing out

that what happened was they used false promises of leniency,

combined with fact-feeding at every crucial step of...

What's the fact-feeding?

I guess I'm just having trouble with that in the early stages of the interview.

Absolutely. "I think you went over to Steven Avery's house."

That's separate appendix 54.

"You went back in that room." Separate appendix 61.

"Does he ask you to rape Halbach?" Separate appendix 60.

"You were there when she died." Separate appendix 67.

After they give him each step,

they allow him to try to tell a story on his own.

And what does he do in those moments?

He provides information that is provably untrue.

Is there any physical evidence at all

that ties Dassey to the murder?

No, Your Honor, there is nothing that did not come

from the fact-feeding that occurred during this interrogation.

I expect you'll hear the State suggest

that he led them to a bullet in the garage.

That's not the case.

Brendan has the shooting at first happening outside by the bonfire pit.

And the officers say to him...

Because they know. They've found ten shell casings in that garage already.

They say to him, "No, no, Brendan. We know something happened in that garage.

We need to get the honesty about the garage."

That's when he moves the murder into the garage.

Then they research the garage and discover this bullet.

That corroborates not Brendan Dassey's account,

but the interrogators' account.

Thank you. Mr. Berg...

Would you please give Mr. Berg three more minutes?

The details that Dassey provided that are most telling

are his memories of Teresa.

He remembers her screaming, "Help me,"

and seeing her naked and chained up to the bed.

He remembers her crying and pleading with him to stop

while he raped her.

He remembers her breathing after Avery stabbed her in the stomach

and that she's still struggling to breathe after he cut her throat.

He remembers that her belly wasn't moving as they carried her out to the garage,

and he remembers the awful smell as her body burned.

None of those memories were planted.

They were raw and real.

Dassey wanted to get them out, and he did so voluntarily.

I would ask this court to reverse the District Court's unprecedented order.

The federal court is a sanctuary of sorts,

a place where generally the best lawyers practice.

The arguments that are made are elevated.

It's a very dignified place.

And I think when the arguments were happening in court,

it was at a very high level and it respected the process.

And then we came downstairs, and there was all this commotion.

And I went over and walked over to see what was happening.

And Ken Kratz was holding a press conference.

My name is Ken Kratz. I'm the former special prosecutor in the Dassey case.

I am hopeful, on behalf of the State,

that this decision will affirm

what it is that the state courts of Wisconsin

have consistently held in this case,

that there was no improper influence,

no coercion.

If we wants to hold a press conference, we all know about his press conferences,

if he wants to do that, do it on his turf.

Don't come into the federal district court

and the federal appellate court in Chicago and soil the process.

- Can you spell your name? - Kratz. K-R-A-T-Z.

And tell us again your title.

I'm the former Calumet County DA.

I was the prosecutor in both the Steven Avery case

and the Brendan Dassey case.

Ken, can you tell us about your book? We hear that you have a book coming out.

Yeah, I do. We're not gonna talk about that today, though.

Today, I think, is, and has to be...

focused on this really, really important case.

We'll have a lot of time to talk about all those kind of things later.

Ken, if the conviction is overturned and they try to do a retrial,

without a confession, do they have much of a case against Brendan Dassey?

If this thing goes back to trial,

let's not forget or kid ourselves

that the State's not gonna have lots of, um...

opportunity to make their points in this case.

Is your book better than Jerry's?

Yes, much better.

You've really stayed silent through this firestorm.

Why are you sitting here today?

I finally realized that someone needed to speak out,

to bring forward the truth of what happened.

Just have a seat, Brendan.

This was seen by many as a false confession.

Do you see it as a false confession or a real confession?

I feel it was a real confession.

Fassbender resists charges

that he and his partner inappropriately planted ideas in Dassey's head,

like in that exchange about the hood latch.

What did he do under the hood, if that's what he did?

What did Brendan say?

Uh, he agreed that Steven had gone under that.

You used the word "agreed."

- Yes. - So, you brought it up first.

Yeah, I believe so.

And that's one of the areas that you came under fire for.

Yes.

Is that you were planting things in his mind.

Yes, that's what they said.

And there were instances that we did ask him specifically about things, yes.

What about his IQ?

Because when you watch him, you can tell that he has a lower IQ.

I don't...

I don't assess IQs. I mean, I'm not...

But could you tell that he maybe wasn't like other boys his age?

More socially, probably.

I don't want to cross the IQ-social line, but he could think.

And he knew right from wrong.

We speak with former prosecutor Ken Kratz,

who's written a new book which reveals his provocative theory

that Steven Avery made himself a murderer.

Steven Avery started planning this event

the very first day he went to prison.

Kratz tells Dateline

he believes Steven Avery had set his sights on Teresa Halbach

in the weeks leading up to her murder.

As we move closer towards October 31st,

we see Steven's behavior changing.

He starts making calls directly to Teresa Halbach,

rather than going through AutoTrader.

Why would Steven Avery do this

when he was on the verge of getting this big windfall,

potentially millions of dollars?

That's a great question. You know, I don't know.

We know that he's a psychopath. We know that he has...

Do we know that?

I...

Let's say I allege that, OK?

I believe that deep down.

You paint a very damning picture of Steven.

You bring up previous allegations of sexual assault and rape,

none of which were ever prosecuted.

This seems to have really been a personal case for you,

at least became a personal case for you.

Looking back, do you think you could've approached this

from a more professional standpoint,

as opposed to not characterizing Steven in certain ways that you have?

These are all observations that I made well after the fact.

- After he was convicted. - Did you think so then?

I thought that he was a...

a bad guy in the sense of,

he certainly had violence against women histories.

He had injured just about everybody that he was ever in a relationship with.

So, the characterization at the time, knowing that he's violent,

that doesn't make him a murderer, of course,

but it isn't too far of a characterization or determination

of what I think he is now, which I would suggest was a psychopath.

I think that it's, um, really unprecedented...

that Mr. Kratz in 2017

is still on some type of active character-assassination tour.

He's talking about crimes

that he wishes Steven Avery had been charged and convicted of,

but he wasn't.

And I think it is going to come back to haunt him.

Because I think he's crossed over from what would just be regarded...

well, certainly gone from being just in incredibly bad taste to...

you know, doing things that are unethical under the canon of ethics,

to now really interfering in Mr. Avery's efforts

to have a court reexamine constitutional violations.

So, he just... He's like a moth to the flame.

And he just cannot stay away from the case.

And the more he talks, the more ammunition he's giving us,

because he's made so many statements that are just false.

Are you afraid of Kathleen Zellner?

No. I'm not involved in the case anymore. I shouldn't be afraid of anything.

My involvement, uh...

- She could... - Go ahead.

She could unravel your work

if what she's saying has some weight to it.

- You don't think she has a chance? - I don't.

When you look at a prosecutor's duty of silence

and how prosecutors are supposed to act with regard to past convictions,

they have to be very careful.

So, if they are talking openly about a case,

what is their purpose?

Here we have someone talking about a past conviction

who isn't a prosecutor anymore and is writing a book,

and that does not seem to be a necessary and legitimate interest

that could cause one to go out and talk about a past conviction.

And there does seem to be some precedent

for if the violations of the canons of ethics,

or of what a prosecutor is supposed to do...

if they're so egregious, then we possibly could bring that as a claim on its own.

Looking back,

were there certain things you would've done differently in this case,

knowing now what you do?

Yeah, certainly.

The one big thing I would've done

is not give a press conference on the 2nd of March

after Brendan made his statement and after he was charged.

I provided that information that was in the criminal complaint orally.

But I could have, and should have, just released the complaint,

let all the reporters repeat the facts.

I didn't have to do that.

- Obviously, if I had to do it again... - Why did you?

I was trying to keep more information out of the public.

It sounds a little bit unusual,

but there were so many horrific facts in this case

that I thought by providing the sound bite myself...

Control the situation.

I could lessen the impact on the family and on the community.

I was resoundingly criticized for it. I see why.

But I made that decision.

It was a conscious decision that I made to do that.

I would've done it differently.

Six months ago, after the Lynn thing had heated up,

Steven was very upset about just about everything.

He was angry, he was nervous, he was overwhelmed,

and this is when Steven decided to take me off the visiting list.

He was still calling me.

We just weren't...

We didn't fight anymore.

But I ended up crying my eyes out when I hung up.

We have been good now for months.

We're past all that mess that went on last summer and into the fall.

We're friends.

And that's what it is.

Hi.

Hi. What are you doing?

Oh, just sitting here doing a lot of nothing.

Yeah, me too.

You know, there ain't shit to do around here.

I know.

So, just go to chow or the library.

Yeah, well...

Or a visit.

Has your mom and dad been there? Or your mom anyway?

- No. She can't walk. - She hasn't.

I know.

Last time I was with her, I thought, "Boy...

I don't know how she can make it in the prison like that."

- It's... - Yeah.

Time is coming. She won't have to do it.

Yeah.

Kathleen, work faster.

Yeah.

Kathleen is doing an absolute wonderful job.

I don't think she could do any better.

In fact, she's even better than we thought she was.

I mean, she leaves no stone unturned, and I love it.

But I'm sure that the State isn't going to lie down and die.

They're going to fight just like what's happened with Brendan.

Examining all of the options, there are a number of different...

And in the end, Kathleen's gonna win. I swear she is.

But when is another story.

I think it's gonna take a lot longer than what Steven thinks.

I got Earl out there.

He's helping the most,

you know, with Ma and Dad.

So, that puts a little pressure off of me.

You're only supposed to take half of your insulin.

- Yeah. I know that. - That's it.

- That's it? - Yeah, that's the only thing.

No pill?

Well, yeah, you gotta take your pills.

- I don't got to. - Huh?

Read that on there.

I told Earl, "You're responsible.

You help them. Give them what they need.

You know, make sure Ma's got her pills and all of that."

This one, you take a third.

Her shots.

The other one, you gotta take a six.

- This... this one, huh? - Huh?

Or that one?

Same-day surgery, ain't it?

- Or do you get to stay there tonight? - Huh?

Do you get to stay there tonight?

- I hope not. - You don't know?

Six hours, I think, I'm supposed to stay there...

before I can walk.

And what'd they tell you?

Did they say they were gonna just clean the veins out,

or they were gonna put plastic veins in?

Just clean them out, I think, so they're opened up.

- Huh? - So they're opened up, I think.

That's gonna be a change, then.

You might be able to do something then after that.

- Like what? - Well, you can walk.

We need a chair.

I got it.

Alright.

You take everything now tonight, all the same as normal.

- Do I take these at night? - Yeah, take your eight.

- Oh, my eight, out of this one. - Yeah.

You must've filled that up.

- It's not this. - Let me see this.

You did it again, Mother. You didn't take last night's pills?

I don't know. Did I?

Most definitely.

It was Wednesday yesterday.

Yeah, well, you didn't take your last night pills then again.

- Maybe I... - Don't take them again, now.

But leave them in there.

I don't want to come back on...

on...

next week and they'll be gone.

- I won't. I'll go to these, then. - Yeah.

Yeah, tonight you take Thursday. It's Thursday today.

- Yeah. - OK.

I think she's losing it.

You know, I mean, her memory and everything.

And Stevie's got a lot to do with it.

You know?

I don't... I don't know what's gonna happen.

I wish something would happen pretty quick.

That's all I can say on that deal, you know?

Brendan's mother, Barbara...

she's gone through hell.

Just like her mother.

That's not easy for Barbara.

The defendant tells us

that Steven Avery opened the hood of that vehicle.

How do we know?

Well, based on that statement on March 1st,

they swabbed the hood

and obtained a DNA profile on that hood,

a DNA profile...

of Steven Avery.

Only the killer and his accomplice would know that,

to look there,

because law enforcement had not looked there before.

And not until he told them to is when they found this.

Counsel will make a big deal about,

"Well, they suggested to him that he went under a hood."

Well, let's take their argument at face value.

My response is, so what?

They went and swabbed the hood and, jeez, guess what?

Steven Avery's DNA is on that hood.

I requested in the motion for scientific testing

that we be allowed to do source testing

that was developed at Dr. Reich's laboratory.

So, we picked up the hood latch swab from the Attorney General,

and then Dr. Reich did that testing at his laboratory.

In the forensic world, there's only four body fluids.

We can test for blood, saliva, semen, or urine.

And so, we made an extract

from the fraction of the swab we were provided

and did four individual tests,

and all of those tests were negative.

The saliva test was negative.

It's not saliva that was put on the hood latch.

So, then I wanted to do Microtrace testing.

When it was tested by a Microtrace chemist,

he confirmed that it was completely dissimilar

to hood latch swabs that he'd gathered for purposes of comparison.

His sample, that was actually taken from a hood latch

of a car of similar vintage...

there were dark marks on it,

and there was absolutely nothing like that on the Avery hood latch swab.

After you have hypothesized

that maybe an item of evidence has been improved or manipulated,

the question is, how is that done?

And we've discussed how you can physically do it,

but another way is to re-label an existing item.

So, from the unknown parts of the case, they are gonna get profiles,

whose profile is it?

So, you need to get a standard, you need a reference.

And so, there are reference standards from the defendant.

Then there's the actual evidence samples from the crime scene.

Most of the samples are swabs.

Suppose in a case that one of the reference swabs

doesn't make it into the proper envelope.

And now you re-label that swab

"Evidence Number 4."

So, now you've identified the defendant on an item of evidence

by simply changing the name on the swab.

You haven't physically manipulated anything.

You've just changed the name. That's very simple to do.

Now, you have to have the extra item, you have to lose it in the system,

but that happens in cases.

So, we started looking for other swabs

that might've been substituted for the hood latch swabs.

And, lo and behold,

we found that when Steven Avery was first taken into custody,

he was taken to a hospital,

and swabs were gathered from his body.

Two groin swabs were taken from Steven Avery.

Wiegert and Fassbender had a search warrant.

The nurse took the groin swabs, and then one of them said,

"Oh, the warrant doesn't call for us to take groin swabs."

And they documented that the nurse threw them into a receptacle.

The nurse, though, did not document that they'd been taken.

So, immediately you know something's wrong.

I think that they kept the swabs.

So, I wanted to investigate the chain of custody

on the so-called hood latch swab that was given to the crime lab.

The officers that photographed and swabbed the hood latch,

Tyson and Hawkins,

did not turn the swab over to the crime lab.

Wiegert did.

But when Wiegert turned it over,

in the custody transmittal sheet,

he signed Hawkins' name.

There may be two other investigators, Hawkins, Tyson,

that photographed and swabbed the hood latch,

but I don't believe that swab ever made its way to the Wisconsin Crime Lab.

I think Wiegert substituted the groin swab.

And then that swab would have a robust amount of DNA on it.

Of course, it never touched a hood latch.

It never was in the vicinity of the RAV4.

They just renamed the swab.

Hello?

- Hello? Hi. - Hey.

- How are you? - I'm pretty good.

Working and relaxing a little bit.

I just got done watching Dr. Phil.

I mean, no, uh, Dr. Oz.

Oh, you did?

Yeah.

Who's on there?

Kratz and Fassbender.

Oh, God. Are you kidding?

No.

What were they saying?

They were talking about the phone call to Barbara.

They were talking about the bullet.

Jeez.

Yeah.

It was just the two of them, though, right?

Buting wasn't on there?

No. Just them two.

OK. Um, so, yesterday I was talking to a really famous FBI profiler.

Somebody who's been right about a lot of cases

that other people couldn't solve.

So, he gave me a lot of information about who could've committed the murder

and how we can, uh, get that person identified

by getting people around them to help us.

So, it was like very good techniques and stuff to use.

- That's good. - Yeah, I thought that was really useful.

But other than that, we've got everything drafted.

We're just going back to editing and kind of restructuring.

Let me see. I'm just flipping through the petition.

Let me see if there's anything else I wanted to ask you.

Why don't you... If you can call me back on Friday,

I'm gonna have some more questions, OK?

- Yeah. - Why don't you give me a call back then?

Yeah, when I get my break, you know, I can do that.

Yeah, 'cause I'll be here.

OK, everything looks really good.

It was very interesting talking to the profiler.

- That's good. - Definitely. We know it's not you, right?

Yeah. I know.

He already knew that, so now we just have to get you out of there.

OK, well, have a good day.

I'll look forward to talking to you on Friday.

- Alright, thanks. Have a good one, then. - Bye-bye. Take care.

We got there today at 7:30.

But I didn't want to knock on his door at 7:30.

I wanted to see if there was activity.

It was about 8:20 when his wife came to the door,

she said, "Didn't he tell you he didn't want to talk to you?"

And I said, "Yes, but I have something very important that he needs to hear."

And then she went and got him, and he came out.

He was a little standoffish, but not... Like I say, he's not confrontational.

Does he seem nervous?

Yeah, he does seem nervous. He seems shook.

Um...

And he mentioned the other guy's name, like, right away.

- Hillegas? - Which I thought was interesting. Yeah.

So, I thought that was interesting...

What context did he mention it?

When I said we're gonna be naming a couple of people

as "alternative persons of interest," is how I phrased it.

And he said, "Oh." Then he mentioned his name.

- Interesting. - Yeah.

I said, "This isn't gonna go away.

They're gonna be filing these papers,

and it's gonna be public record,

and you really ought to..."

I said, "Just as much as if the police came to talk

and you told them you didn't want to talk,

you have that right, you have the right not to talk to us,

but then, we have to do what we have to do."

Then he said that he was going up to visit his parents.

And then I said, "Well, what about Monday?"

He said, "What time? Anytime after six."

- I said, "I'll be here at six." - Hmm.

Here's what doesn't make sense in what Bloedorn is saying.

He's saying that she's never gone overnight.

And yet she's gone for three nights.

Yeah, I've got that in there.

I've got questions regarding that, why he didn't call,

why... did anybody call him, did he worry about her,

those sorts of things.

Yeah. Um...

I've got 11 pages of notes to talk to him about,

so it's gonna be a thorough interview.

If he sits for it, it's gonna be an hour-and-a-half interview, at least.

What do we do if he calls back and says, "I don't want to talk to you"?

I'll tell him that, "I'm sorry to hear you say that.

Um, this isn't going away. You can either...

You know, you can either talk to me now,

or you'll eventually be on the stand answering these questions under oath.

And again, you're, you know...

I have no control over how this gets out into the public."

One thing I'd like you to tell him is that we started out

with a list of probably, I would say, five suspects,

potential suspects under the Denny standard.

We've gone to them,

and the people that were forthcoming, answering questions,

and we thought the answers fit the evidence that we have,

that we did remove them.

We're not naming them in the petition.

But to us... to me, it's a big red flag if somebody won't sit down and talk.

That's what I told him this morning.

I said, "Look, we want to be fair to you and..."

Yeah, exactly.

Because once he explains these things that haven't ever been answered,

then that's exactly what I'm gonna do.

Because I don't want to name somebody that we can't meet that standard.

We had to get rid of about 400 cars to make things go here,

to pay the telephone bill, to pay the electricity bill.

And this is the stuff that we got off of them in a quick hurry.

The die cast and aluminum and the wiring and the brass, the copper.

We can sell some of that stuff.

If we run out of money that we had with the cars and that,

then we got something to back us up a little bit anyway, you know,

when that's all taken care of.

You know?

We got a truck down right now with a transmission out of it.

We can't afford to put a transmission in it, in a wrecker.

We can't afford to change the oil in the loader

because we don't got money to change the oil in the loader, you know?

We're $400 over the due date on that already.

Yeah, that's really stressful, you know?

My dad worries about all of that.

He'd like to keep it going,

you know, because him and my grandpa started this from nothing.

I forgot when that was taken.

Let me see.

It's too bad it wasn't wrote on the back when it was taken.

Oh, this is Steven's picture.

Well, that's like 40 acres. See?

It goes all the way down and comes back over this way.

And along here. Yeah.

They ain't got it quite all on there. It comes back over this way more.

I started in 1965.

My first wrecker was a '59

or a 1960 Ford four-wheel drive, you know?

There was a crank on the side.

But it worked.

We hauled in quite a few cars back then,

350 to 370 in one week.

That's... That's moving.

I know...

Dolores would steer one,

and I'd take one with the wrecker.

Sometimes we'd come in with five cars at one time.

All day long and...

Until we couldn't, you know?

A lot of old Buicks.

Yeah.

Dad always wanted a big junkyard,

big salvage yard.

I remember when Dad got that accident,

'74, I think it was...

'cause Chuckie was working.

He worked at Hamilton's.

Earl was too young, you know?

So I said, "Well, I'll quit school and run the business

until he gets better."

So that's what I did.

You know, we had to put food on the table.

Ma would help me a little bit and do the paperwork.

It worked out alright.

I don't think I ever remember when it was real small.

The whole yard was full. You couldn't put no more in there hardly.

Because that one year we... I know we crushed 3,049 cars.

You know, and that barely made a dent in there at that time.

When Steve got out the first time,

then business was going good.

I mean, we had customers after customers here.

We were doing really good.

But then, when the stuff happened now, this time,

it just... it took a toll on us.

He keeps on telling me it'll get better.

But, you know, it's been, what, 12 years now?

And it got worse.

You know?

Um, other than that, I don't know.

I think pretty soon what's gonna hurt us

is we're gonna run out of vehicles to get rid of,

and then, you know, in the long run, we probably will go out of business

if it don't get better.

Yeah.

Yeah.