All language subtitles for Making.a.Murderer.S02E06.Everything.Takes.Time.720p.NF.WEB-DL.DD5.1.x264-NTG

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.