All language subtitles for Making.a.Murderer.S02E10.Trust.No.One.720p.NF.WEB-DL.DD5.1.x264-NTG

I believe that they are convinced
that these issues that we've raised

and the scientific testing we've done
and the assertions we're making

have got to be litigated.

We have to have an evidentiary hearing.

And so, then we talked
about the scheduling of it.

They want the chance
to try to refute the evidence in court.

I could care less about
what they think they can do.

I'm not worried about that. Um...

The main thing is that Steven
gets another chance in court.

We agreed that we wanted the alleged
human pelvic bone from the quarry

microscopically examined

to determine whether or not
this bone was a human pelvic bone.

We also talked about the car.

The logistics are lifting it out
of the ground,

it's in this container,

but letting us have access to it
and examine it.

There was blood on the outside
of the rear cargo door

that Sherry Culhane said
she couldn't link to Steven Avery.

There's also male DNA
on the license plates

that they said was insufficient quantity
for them to test in '05.

But this is 12 years later.

Steven was saved by a single hair
on the rape case,

so I just feel like we have to do that.

We didn't reach an agreement
on the parking light.

They are very resistant
to having it tested.

Their position is that
she did have that front-end damage

prior to the 31st of October.

Of course, they don't want it
to be damaged afterwards

because it indicates the car
was taken off the property.

We think, when we examine it,
we can figure out what she ran into,

what the speed was, what the impact...
whether she's running into it.

I think it's much more likely
the police crashed it into something

trying to get it back on the property.

It's of note to me that they're balking.

What it is, for me, is a red flag.

There's something about the parking light

they don't want us to discover.

This time,
we won't leave no stone unturned.

Little bit longer and it'll be done.

I think, once we go to court,

I think it should be pretty well over,
you know,

because there will be enough there that...

I might just be walking free.

I'm not really worried about that,

once I get into court and that,
or if I gotta testify.

I ain't got no problem with none of that.

I think it would be terrific
being in the courtroom with Kathleen.

She's working hard,
and it's all gonna pay off for her.

Especially for me, my freedom.

New information just in
to the Action 2 newsroom.

Steven Avery's latest attempt
at a new trial has been denied.

The judge turns down a request...

Denying Steven Avery's request
for a new trial.

A Sheboygan County judge's
six-page decision

dismissed several claims,

saying, "The defendant has failed
to establish any grounds

that would trigger the right
to a new trial

in the interests of justice."

Wisconsin Attorney General
Brad Schimel says,

"I am pleased with the judge's decision,
which brings us one step closer

to providing justice
to Teresa Halbach's family."

Avery requested a new trial,
claiming he was set up,

after filing a $36-million lawsuit
against Manitowoc County.

But today, a Sheboygan County judge

issued a decision and order

saying that no further consideration
will be given to this issue.

We've got to get those dates diaried.

You've got to do the appellate date,
the motion to reconsider date.

OK.

This one.

I got your email
and I read the opinion.

What a disappointment.

Well, I mean, I think that there's
a bunch of things wrong with it,

because there's five issues that we raised

that she didn't even address.

And then, within those issues,
there's specific allegations

that total over 50 different items
that she hasn't addressed.

Um...

We had an agreement with
the prosecutors for the Attorney General

that we were gonna amend,

that we were going to do
an evidentiary hearing.

We're even talking
about the scheduling of it.

And then she just abruptly issued
this very cursory opinion.

That is 'cause she probably didn't
yet know about the agreement

with the AG, did she?

No.

OK, so, I don't know what the AG
is willing to do with you now,

but the best option, I think,
would be if you get the AG on board

with an agreed stipulated order
to withdraw this opinion.

OK. Yeah, I think that's what our plan...

Well, we communicated with them.

We sent an email out
as soon as we got her order,

and they responded, saying that
they would talk to us tomorrow.

So, I'd be drafting up a motion

that you'd be confident
they would sign onto as well.

OK.

And, uh...

And have that ready to go
for your discussion tomorrow.

Yeah, that's what I think, that we've
got to file it, like, right away.

Yeah.

OK, thank you.

So, I think we ought to go ahead

and start drafting a motion to vacate

based on the agreement.

You know, I would like
to be diplomatic about this opinion,

but it's hard to do that
when I've got somebody's life at stake,

and on the receiving end of it
is someone who obviously doesn't...

Who's making fundamental mistakes
about the underlying facts in the case,

and then is trying to go one-on-one
with our scientist.

It's just not at all
what a judge should be doing.

She should be having a hearing,

weighing the evidence
and determining credibility.

Then she can decide.
If she wants to deny it, fine.

But then we all have the benefit
of the appropriate record

to take up on appeal.

But the message we're getting is,

"We want you and your team
and your experts to go away,

and we want Steven Avery
to die in prison quietly.

Please, quietly.

Stop looking at it.
Stop talking about it."

Hello?

Hey. Hi.

- How are you?
- Ah, pretty good.

Good, good.

So, you haven't actually seen
the opinion, right?

No.

Yeah, 'cause what the judge
is trying to do is say,

because you, in your pro se petition,

uttered the words
"ineffective assistance of counsel,"

she wants to bar all future references
to that in our petition.

So, I may be raising your ineffectiveness
in your petition.

Isn't that crazy?
I mean, really, when you think about it.

The main thing, though,
is tomorrow, I'm gonna talk to Tom Fallon

about our agreement
to do this additional testing.

And that's when we'll find out,

are they going to try to deny
we have an agreement?

Are they... What are they gonna tell us?

So, that will be kind of key.

If they agree that we have the agreement,

which we did, in fact, get from them,

then we would try to file the motion
to vacate her order.

Yeah, that would be good.

That's the quickest way to correct this.

Unless they're back-dooring us,
the DA is.

Yeah, that's the thing
that we have to clarify tomorrow.

The prosecutor, Tom Fallon,

is acting as surprised as we are
that the judge issued this ruling.

But you know what this is like.
I mean, you went through this before.

Oh, yeah.

Well, you think something's gonna happen,
and you just get shut down.

Yeah.

I'm kind of used to that.

That's why I didn't get worried
about nothing.

Me, either. 'Cause...

'Cause I've been
in so many situations where...

I mean, I guess, just like this,
where you look...

You know, a trial judge does something,
and you're just perplexed by it.

But you can't
let it get to you emotionally.

- Don't you think?
- No.

Well, yeah, because, you know,
you figure the DA didn't file nothing,

so why is she ruling, you know?

It didn't make no sense to me.

Yeah. So, what I want to do
is just get this record in shape...

for the appellate court.

Because my experience has been
it's the appellate,

it's the higher courts that make
the decisions to exonerate someone.

Yeah.

- OK, we'll talk tomorrow.
- Alright, then.

- Take care.
- Have a good one. Bye-bye.

Let's get going, OK?
We've got stuff we need to do.

So, what we have to finalize is,

we have to present it to the prosecutors
in a certain way, so they don't...

I don't want them to feel like
we're trying to backdoor them in any way.

It's got to be presented
exactly like it went down at the meeting.

- Yes.
- Yeah.

Then we need to put in a paragraph
about today's conversation.

We ought to say,
"Prosecutors stated that they would not...

stated that they would not join
in the motion,

uh, but they would not object to it."

OK, on ten: "Additionally,
prosecutors and defense counsels agreed

that if an evidentiary hearing
was necessary

to resolve the issues
in the amended petition,

the evidentiary hearing
could last four weeks or more."

We could say,
"The defendant did not anticipate..."

"The current order."

Yeah, "The court filing its order...

before the defendant

- could notify the court."
- Yeah.

So, Kurt, I've got the file stamp,
so it's on there.

He forwarded it to you.
So, send it to all of the media outlets.

- You got it.
- I'll put up a tweet.

The email is ready,
and I'll have the attachment.

OK, so, now we'll see what happens.

At least we know we've done our part.

Now we'll come at her
with an amended petition.

- Yeah.
- Like, right away. We'll just...

The idea is just to make her feel like...

She's being bombed.

- Yeah.
- We're doing...

I think it will work.

Yeah.

Well, it'll give her something
to think about.

Is she really gonna preclude the testing,
you know, that we've agreed to?

Yeah. I don't think so.

Yeah. But you never know, so...

We may have to go to Plan B.

Does it, you know, deter me?

No, it renews my focus.

Something much more devastating happened
in the Ryan Ferguson case.

And I remember I was sitting
in Doug's office,

and when I stood up, it just kind of...

It was like someone had punched me
in the stomach.

Um, but then, that feeling, like, lifted,

and then I just felt
a very controlled rage

about what I was gonna do to undo it.

In the Wisconsin statute,

motions to reconsider can be filed
even years later,

uh, with new evidence.

So, we put all of the new evidence in.

We focused on these porn searches

and on Bobby Dassey.

We attached

the affidavit of his brother, Bryan,

which just flatly contradicted
Bobby's trial testimony.

We focused on all the suspicious
activities with Scott Tadych,

and we had our Brady witness
that placed the car

close to Scott Tadych's residence.

So, we packed all the new evidence
into our motion to reconsider.

Steven Avery's attorneys
pushing once again for a new trial.

In this motion, Avery's
attorneys claim Bobby Dassey's computer

had pictures on it of dead bodies
of young women.

She also claims Halbach and her vehicle
left the Avery property.

Zellner alleges Bobby Dassey
and his now-stepfather, Scott Tadych,

gave false testimony to cover up
that they assaulted Halbach on a highway

after she left Avery's property.

We filed the motion to reconsider,

and that resulted in a really revealing,

but extremely hateful, hostile phone call.

Steven calls to talk to Barb,

and then all of this, you know,
yelling and name-calling starts,

with Scott Tadych, uh,
you know, yelling at Steven

'cause he's so furious
that there's been any scrutiny of him.

And it led to Scott and Barb
making these really amazing admissions.

They admitted that they knew that Teresa
had left the property that day.

That, for some reason,
provoked Barb into talking to Bobby

about exactly what he had said,

uh, you know, what he was claiming
about Teresa's visit to the property.

A new version emerged, according to Barb,

which she posted on Facebook, from Bobby,

that he actually had never seen Teresa
walk towards Steven's trailer,

which, of course, means
he committed perjury at the trial.

We then took that information
and that phone conversation

and we filed a supplement on November 1st.

What she's saying

is Steven Avery's
postconviction efforts are over.

She wouldn't care what we filed.

I could have filed
a videotaped confession.

She's relying on this 1994 case to say,
"There can be no successive petitions."

Well, there can be, and that's how
most people ultimately get relief.

It's on successive petitions.

And the Wisconsin statute provides
for filing a motion,

amending it, supplementing it, whatever.

But we've got
a very politicized situation here,

and this is very political,

and I saw what happened
with Brendan Dassey.

I mean, Brendan Dassey's judge
at least had the hearing

and then he ruled against him.

And then the appellate court
did a per curiam opinion.

And then the Supreme Court didn't take it.

So, I'm not expecting a warm welcome
in Wisconsin.

I'm really not. Um...

But I'm just going to stay in Wisconsin

until I get them to recognize
that this forensic evidence,

which resulted in Steven Avery
being convicted,

has been fabricated.

And so, I'm just gonna
keep banging on the door.

That would be this burner.

Nope, that's not the right one.

Allan, would you come in here?

Your stove is stupid.

Allan, come here!

Hey, can you get up and help me here?

- Huh?
- Come and help me!

I can't.

Well, just get up, then, if you can't.

I think she's worse now
than she was before.

I think she takes too many pills.

That can do it.

What do you want it on?

- Is it hot?
- Huh?

Is the burner hot?

- Put it on?
- Yeah.

Is that the right one for that?

Huh?

Is that the right one for that burner?

Don't act stupid.

I ain't gonna stand here and stir.

It would help if Stevie was home.

I don't think Stevie would want
to live here at home, you know?

But...

I know it would help her. I know that.

I think it would help her tremendously.

Winning cases requires
that the attorney presenting the case

knows the case better than anyone
who's in the courtroom,

anyone that ever picks up, you know,
the documents and looks at the case.

It's incumbent upon the attorney
to know every single detail.

And it's sort of a joke in my office.

I let my clerks
do a lot of analysis and work

and give me memos and all that,

and I trust no one.

And so, I always go back.

I had never looked
at the underlying reports of Eisenberg.

And so, I was going through her notes,

and what caught my eye
was the numbering of the tag numbers.

I, of course, knew
8675 was the quarry pile

with the pelvic bone in it.

But then I saw on the sheet of paper
a different numbering sequence

in the 7400s.

This was different evidence.
These were different bones.

And then I started reading
the content of it

where, in great detail,
Leslie Eisenberg has documented

that there are more human bones.

And then I'm noticing not only that,

but she's documenting
that they have cut marks on them.

There's no indication that these bones
belonged to more than one person.

They're not duplicate bones.

We don't have three different pelvises
or scapulas or femurs. We don't.

And so, then I went back
to my clerks and said,

"Take these numbers, these tag numbers,
and trace them."

One of my clerks came back and said,

"Well, there is further documentation
of the coordinates."

I told them to get the coordinates,
to make a map for me.

I wanted to understand where
those bones were coming from.

There are many, many more human
bones over in the Manitowoc gravel pit.

The two new piles are even further away.

They're closer to Highway Q

than they are to the Avery salvage yard.

And then a little distance from them
is the pile with the pelvic bones,

but lo and behold,
there's another bone in there, too,

that she described as being human.

So, all three piles of bones

are all on the Manitowoc gravel pit.

That discovery

would have changed everything at trial.

If the jury had heard
that there were numerous human bones

over in the Manitowoc gravel pit,

not one possible pelvic bone,

it would have changed everything.

All three quarry piles

have human bones with cut marks.

Yes.

Again, this points away
from what the State's theory was,

because the State's theory
is the body isn't cut at all.

Ah.

- Not at all.
- Not at all?

- Nope.
- Even though it's in the report?

- The anthropology report.
- It's not cut.

I mean, the State's theory
was that the body was burned,

not dismembered, it was burned,
in the Steven Avery burn pit.

So, what does this list mean?

When you find
sharp trauma and then burn,

that's highly suspicious
you got some dismemberment going on

or alteration of the evidence
or the victim,

and that's extremely important
in a case like this.

When people suddenly figure out
that there's a dead body in front of them,

they need to get rid of them,
they're hard to move.

And so, that's when
a lot of my cases get involved,

is just to dismember,
to transport the body easier,

or to fit it someplace
it couldn't fit otherwise.

You can actually see some cut marks here.

So, there is some tool marks.

And then there's a couple other features.
I put a scale in it.

That black thing is just a piece
of my scale from down below.

OK, so, this one I recognize.
This is from the Dassey-Janda burn barrel.

- So you think... Where's the...?
- I'm glad you keep up with it.

Anytime you see a straight edge
manipulation of bone,

it's usually a cut mark.

That looks like a very thin saw,

so I'm thinking
the narrowest possibilities.

So, I tested three or four hacksaw blades
and a meat saw.

So, the hacksaw is pretty much
your narrowest saw,

except for some really unusual
jewelers' saws and things like that.

So...

One of the interesting things
about the dismemberment in this case:

the people that are our Denny suspects
are deer hunters.

And in deer hunting,
when a deer is dressed,

it's... what you're saying...

It's a nice way of saying
you're dismembering,

and the meat's removed
and then you're dismembering the skeleton.

So, hacksaw blades are used,
sharp knives are used,

and a person would have
some awareness of anatomy,

of cutting into a joint
and how to do that effectively.

So, they would be...

It's different than the average person

who might be repulsed
by the idea of dismembering.

It's still hard to imagine anyone
could dismember a human body.

But certainly they have
some of the mechanical skill

that would be necessary for dismembering

that you wouldn't see in other cases.

Dr. Eisenberg documents the equivalent...

I think it adds up to 1.7 pounds
of skeletal remains.

Yeah.

And on a cremation,

what's the weight of a body
when you don't have missing bone?

It's around ten pounds or so,
depending on the person

and the cremation technique
and everything else.

So, we've got...

We're looking at 10 or 20 percent,

and that's nowhere near the real story.

And I think
the jury's getting the same thing.

I don't think they're getting everything.

Obviously,
a lot of the body is represented,

but a lot of the bones are not there.

And when you burn up a body,

for example, the ribs...

You've got 24 ribs, and they're fragile,
but they're hard to burn up.

There should be rib fragments everywhere.

And, uh, I just don't see that.

So, I think... And vertebra.

I don't see...
The vertebra bodies are spongy bone.

They survive a fire quite well,
even after they're calcined.

Uh, they stand up pretty well.

We're just missing bones
that hold up in a fire.

I don't see them. I don't see much.

What would be the explanation
for bones being missing?

It wasn't the fire that destroyed them.

Well, I can tell you
what I see over and over.

People think it's easy to burn a body up,
and it's not.

And when they get frustrated,

and you still have
the whole core body left

after you burned off everything else,

you take that and dump it someplace else.

I've seen that in this country
numerous times.

I've seen it internationally
numerous times.

These bones in the quarry

I'm gonna take about 20 seconds
to talk about,

because the best anybody can say

is that they're possible human.

What does "possible human" mean?

Well, it means we don't know what it is.

Alright?

The best anthropologists in the world
don't know what these bones are,

even through testing,
what's called mitochondrial DNA testing,

whether they're human or not could not,
even by the FBI, be determined.

So, the bones in the quarry
are really not evidence in this case.

And so, Mr. Strang's made a big deal
out of showing you maps

and a little flag and things like that
about possible bones.

Again, speculation, conjecture,
is not part of this case.

Facts are gonna be what decides this case.

You know that in the defense,

you've got to establish
that she was killed elsewhere.

And here are a pile of human bones
in the gravel pit

where the suspected pelvis is.

And those bones have been documented
by the State expert as being human.

Not possibly human, but human.

And then some of them
have cut marks on them.

So, between the defense attorney
and their expert,

that's what you really call
"dropping the ball."

So, the jury's sitting there,

having the State just minimize
the pelvic bone.

I mean, Kratz said that he would spend
no more than 20 seconds on it.

But he would have had
to have spent a lot more time

on numerous human bones over there,
some of which had cut marks on them,

that might've given him pause
past 20 seconds.

But certainly with the jury,

that would've been a huge part
of the argument that was made,

that she wasn't killed
on the Avery property.

She left the Avery property.

She was killed, dismembered, and burned
over in the gravel pit.

Which is right where
her cell phone activity puts her.

All of it fits.

And cases always fit.

When you find out what the truth is,
it all fits.

So, the goal here is to get to the truth
of what happened to Teresa Halbach.

We're not trying to, um,
just stir up trouble.

We're trying to find out
what actually happened to her.

And what the State said happened to her

isn't remotely close
to what happened to her.

Significant evidence has been discovered
over the past 24 hours

at the Avery salvation... salvage yard.

I found out from the media

that there was possibly some remains found
on the Avery property.

There was a press conference
that was on television.

I believe it was November 9th,
around 3:00 p.m.,

that that was confirmed.

They feel that
the evidence that they are...

that has been collected
and that they are analyzing

is that of human in nature.

Prior to that,
I had no knowledge or reports

given to me by police or detectives.

I did keep some notes when things started,

with hearing things in the media,
phone calls.

Um, so, I did keep notes, dates, times.

I called, um, Officer Wiegert,
Detective Wiegert,

that evening of the 9th.

And at that point, he told me
they just overlooked calling me.

Um, and I told him I wanted
to come out to the scene.

They told me the scene
was closed for the night.

And I said, "OK, that's fine.

But why didn't you give us
some kind of report,

some kind of a heads-up
as to what was going on?"

And then he commented to me
at that time, very rudely,

"Well, I don't have to call
or tell you about bones."

And I said, "Oh, yes, you do."

It's the law, it's the statute, 979,

when there is a deceased body or remains,

that a coroner or medical examiner
are always notified.

They handle the medical forensic side
of the body.

The next day, in the morning,
I was going to go out to the scene,

and I was called to a meeting
by Sheriff Peterson.

I thought,
"Oh, good, I'm finally getting...

I'm finally getting a meeting.

I'm finally going to get
an update on what's going on

and when I will be able
to come out to the scene."

But when I got there, at that time,

I was told I will not
be going out to the case,

I will not be going out to the scene,

and if I do, I will be arrested.

And actually, in the State of Wisconsin,

the coroner is the top
law enforcement official

when there is a body or remains.

And the coroner is the one
who can arrest the sheriff.

So, he's threatening to arrest me?

I could tell he meant it,
and when he told me that, I left.

I walked out.

And then, shortly after that,

I got a call from the county exec:

"You need to stay out
of this conflict of interest

because of the Avery case
and the $36-million lawsuit."

And then it was a few minutes later
I got a call from the county attorney:

"Deb, you need to stay out of this case
because of the conflict of interest

and the $36-million lawsuit."

And I questioned them.

I said, "What are other officers doing
out there from Manitowoc County

when they should not be out there?"

I said, "I've never been involved
in a previous Avery case.

My office is separate
from the Sheriff's Department."

And it just ended by that.

I never did get out to the scene.
I was never given any information.

I was never allowed to do my job.

I was supposed to be
an advocate for Teresa.

That was my goal.

And when you can't do that...

you just have this bad feeling
that you failed,

you failed that person.

To my knowledge,
there was no coroner there.

There was no forensic anthropologist
or medical examiner.

The defense calls Ms. Debra Kakatsch.

When I walked into the courtroom
and took the stand,

Attorney Kratz, he just looked at me,
just staring me down.

That told me the whole story.

Did you, um, in November of 2005,

come to learn
of some suspected human bones

found on or near the Avery property
in Manitowoc County?

- Yes, I did.
- How did you learn about that?

From television.

What did you do
after you saw on television

something about the discovery
of possible human remains?

Well, I got a few phone calls,

and particularly from my deputies,
as to what the plan of action would be.

Your Honor.
I'm sorry, Your Honor.

I think we need to be heard
outside the presence of the jury.

At this time, the court
will excuse the jurors for a few minutes.

I would ask,
what is the relevancy of this?

The Manitowoc County Corporation Counsel

wanted to remove all Manitowoc County
officials from this investigation.

And to come in now

because, perhaps, some disgruntled
Manitowoc County employee

didn't like that decision.

I don't see the relevancy at all of this.

Neither Ms. Kakatsch,
nor the Office of Coroner,

nor anyone in the coroner's office,

had any prior involvement
in Steven Avery's civil lawsuit.

Um, hadn't been deposed,
hadn't been interviewed,

had no statutory responsibilities
for the 1985 crime.

And, um, yet her office
was walled off entirely

from performing its lawful duties

in connection with the discovery
of human remains.

I don't see how anything
the coroner would've done,

um, would've somehow contributed

to a less biased investigation
in this matter.

The court is not going to allow it.

I wasn't up there long
on the stand at all.

I loved my job.

But I couldn't do it anymore.

When was gonna be the next threat
of arrest, intimidation?

I didn't feel safe
going out on calls at night.

So I had to end it.

This morning,

the court ruling that could have led
to freedom for Brendan Dassey.

Instead, a federal appeals court
narrowly decided to uphold his conviction,

keeping him in prison.

Brendan Dassey won two court battles
before this new ruling,

which could keep him in prison
for the rest of his life.

That federal appeals court finding
he was not intimidated or coerced

into confessing to rape and murder.

It's clear he's been
very resistant up to that point.

Very reluctant.

He's telling a contradictory story
that doesn't make any sense,

and they're calling him on it.

It comes out very slowly and painfully,
but he volunteers it.

The investigators made
my skin crawl watching this video,

this lulling behavior that they conveyed,

which was so dishonest, so dishonest.

Now imagine
it is not an average person,

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

who is extremely suggestible.

It's been overturned
two times already.

You know, if you overturn it one time,

and then the other two, three judges
overturns it,

you know, if it was anybody else,
he would've been out, walking away.

With this case, it's different.

You know, you ain't walking out.

Why do you think it's so difficult?

Well, because
they don't want to be wrong,

and it's a high profile case.

It's gonna be more harder
for the State to let it go...

because they are wrong.

I still believe that it's going to happen.

'Cause they can't stop
the development of science,

and they can't stop
the information that we have,

that it will fall apart on that.

That should make Brendan's case
fall apart, too.

Well, yeah, it's gotta collapse.

When you're innocent,
it's gonna break down sooner or later.

- That's what I think, too.
- I ain't gonna give up.

No, you can't.

I was just reading a book
about postconvictions,

and they said the biggest problem
was that people eventually just stop.

You know, they just stop filing stuff.

Yeah. Well, they know...

- They know me by now. I don't stop.
- Yeah.

No, I think...

I think...

I think they might've gotten that.
You know?

Since we learned that we lost
before the en banc 7th Circuit,

we have begun taking steps

to get Brendan's case
before the US Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court
gets thousands of requests

to take cases each year.

And out of those thousands,

they take about 80 cases.

This case has never been about the odds,

it's about overcoming the odds.

So, to increase the chances
that the court will take the case,

we decided we would seek out
the best lawyers we could find

to help present the case
to the Supreme Court.

Seth Waxman was the US Solicitor General

under President Clinton,

in charge of that administration's cases
before the Supreme Court.

He's argued 80 cases before that
court. He knows what they need to hear.

A day does not go by

when I don't hear Janet Reno's voice
in my head saying,

"You're gonna be criticized
no matter what,

so why don't we just do the right thing?"

He is the person
who had the juvenile death penalty

declared unconstitutional.

There are not that many lawyers

who appear with any regularity
before the Supreme Court.

Seth Waxman is one.

The Supreme Court views
its most important function

as ensuring...

the uniform
and harmonious application of federal law

throughout the United States.

If you look at cases involving juveniles

or persons with limitations

and how the voluntariness
of their confession is being evaluated,

you can see an astonishing degree
of inconsistency

in how the special...

how or whether the special care standard
is being applied.

Back in 1948,
the Supreme Court said

courts must analyze confessions from
juveniles and from the mentally impaired

with special care,
with the greatest care.

Since that decision,

there has been silence,
for the most part, from the court,

and it's left, um,
a lot of confusion in the state courts.

It's not confusion
because the law is unclear.

It's confusion because the courts
are either ignoring or misapplying

what is clear Supreme Court precedent.

It's been 40 years since
the United States Supreme Court

even looked at the question
of juvenile voluntariness.

Since 1979, so much has happened.

There's been an explosion of knowledge
about the problem of false confessions,

a realization from social science
and psychologists,

and lawyers who have proven
their clients innocent through DNA,

that children are more likely
to falsely confess

to crimes they didn't commit,

and that the courts are not doing enough
to protect kids when that happens.

It's really very, very important

that the court take this case

and model for state and federal courts

how one evaluates a confession
by a juvenile,

and a juvenile
with rather significant intellectual

and social deficits.

I think the entire country has an interest

in having the Supreme Court
hear this case.

I mean, every one of us...

wants a system of criminal justice

that ferrets out the perpetrators of crime

and punishes them appropriately,

but that also respects
the individual liberties

on which our country was founded.

We need only four of the nine justices

to agree to take the case.

After a bunch of back and forth,

all of the sudden, on April 17th of 2018,

Mr. Fallon has mailed to my office,
in an original evidence package,

with evidence tape on it, the CD.

So, he disclosed it to me
as if it were an original disclosure.

Brady requires a timely disclosure.

So, if you look at the fact
that the Velie report,

the forensic analysis of the computer,

was completed on May 10th of 2006,

the Fassbender report was not turned over

even mentioning the CD

until December of 2006.

And the Fassbender report says,
"The disc received from Detective Velie,

as well as the hardcopy pages
of instant message conversations,

were maintained
in Fassbender's possession."

So, 2,400 pages of evidence
is kept by Fassbender

and not given to the defense.

It was never, ever given
to the trial team, the appellate team.

It was not disclosed
until it was given to me.

The Velie CD was withheld because
it would have destroyed the credibility

of the State's star witness.

Bobby Dassey is an eyewitness,

an eyewitness without any bias,

is an individual that deserves
to be given a lot of credit,

because sometime between 2:30 and 2:45,

he sees Teresa Halbach taking photographs.

Mr. Dassey is looking out this window,

a clear view,

sees the pictures being taken of the SUV.

A clear pathway,
and as she walks towards Mr. Avery's,

that's the last Ms. Halbach is seen.

That's the last she's seen alive. OK?

So, that's the, um, timeline.

That's the, uh, pathway, if you will,

towards what happens to Ms. Halbach.

Mr. Kratz, in the opening and the closing,

talked about how credible
Bobby Dassey was,

there would be no reason for him to lie,

that the jury should believe Bobby Dassey

because he's just this independent witness
that's got no motive to lie.

And so, it was imperative
that that CD be withheld,

because that CD showed

the kind of demented,
twisted, sadistic mind

of somebody capable
of committing a murder.

So, from their opening statement,

the defense would've told the jury

that they were going
to hear from a State witness

that most likely was the person
who had killed Teresa Halbach,

and they would've talked
about his opportunity, motive,

and that he was going to be lying to them.

And then, when he got on the stand,
they would've confronted him,

and the jury would've seen these images.

I mean, do we really think a jury would've
listened to Bobby Dassey describe anything

if they had seen what was on the computer
and what he was doing,

that he's searching for these images
of torturing young women,

many of whom look like Teresa Halbach?

He's got pictures of women blindfolded,
gagged, tied up, dismembered.

And so, he would've been attacked
with all of that.

He would've been totally discredited
in his testimony

that Teresa never left the property.

I can guarantee you, Steven Avery
would never have been convicted

if that evidence had come in
that's on the CD.

He would not have been convicted.

...on count one

is signed by the foreperson
of the jury, dated today.

The other verdicts are also signed
by the foreperson of the jury.

The reason this ranks so highly
on the scale of Brady violations

is we will be able to show that this was
deceptively withheld by the State.

Kratz creates an index of discovery

which doesn't match anyone else's index
of what's been turned over.

But right at the end of it,
he puts an entry that says,

"Brendan Dassey's computer. Seven CDs."

Well, bunch of things wrong with that.

It's not Brendan Dassey's computer,
and there were never seven CDs.

There were seven DVDs and a CD,

and the CD is what has the analysis on it.

The CD is what
you can just pop in a computer

and pull up and look at,

and you don't have to have
the in-case program,

like the DVDs require.

But I believe what he was doing is,

he was trying to hide the fact
that Fassbender still had the CD.

It had never been turned over.

So, he's thinking that Buting and Strang
and their paralegals,

and you're in this big flurry,
getting ready for trial,

you're gonna look at that entry and think,

"Oh, well, we must have that.

By the way,
it has to do with Brendan's computer.

We're not gonna get involved
in looking at stuff on Brendan's computer.

We've got to focus
on the rest of the evidence

that pertains to Steven and the case."

And so, it's just so slippery,
the way that he did that.

So, that's the first thing
that Kratz does.

And then this stipulation proposal

was sent by Mr. Kratz
on January 25th of 2007.

The trial started
in the early part of February 2007,

so it couldn't be any closer
to the trial date.

So, stipulations are pretrial agreements
between each side

about evidence that you both agree on,

and so you don't need
to bring witnesses in to testify.

It's a way to streamline the trial.

So, in paragraph R, Mr. Kratz says,

"Computer analysis of Steve, Teresa,
and Brendan's computer..."

Of course, this is not Brendan's computer.

"Mike Velie
of the Grand Chute Police Department

analyzed the hard drives of these three

and found nothing much
of evidentiary value."

"This stip eliminates Officer Velie
as a witness."

"Nothing much of evidentiary value"?

Yeah, for the State, there's nothing much,

but there's something huge for the defense
that he's kept from them.

Of course, where the deception is,

is in labeling it as Brendan's computer.

It's not Brendan's computer.

Brendan's the person using it, you know,
less than anyone in the family.

But Kratz knew... It's very clever.

He knew if he told them,

"Oh, Brendan's computer.
We did a forensic analysis.

And, oh, you guys are really lucky.

There's nothing on there
of evidentiary value."

You're not going to say, "Wait a minute.

You know, we want to dive deeper into this

and really start looking
at what's been disclosed."

So, it was just a complete...

They were completely duped.

It's...

This isn't just an academic discussion.

This is about depriving someone
of their life.

Because being locked up,
life without parole,

um, in a little cage
for the rest of your life,

it's just about as bad as it gets.

And when you find out that you're there

because the other side tricked and lied
to your attorneys,

um, it doesn't get much worse than that.

It's hardly the prosecutors
seeking justice.

You can't tell one lie
without it getting uncovered.

And their one lie snowballed
into a whole bunch of other stuff,

and I just don't think the county knows
how to get out from under that.

Good things are coming.

The future is gonna hold good things
for Steve and Brendan.

They're gonna get out, they're gonna
live happy, healthy lives and...

and put this all behind them.

That's what they need.
The whole family needs that.

Free Steven Avery! Free Brendan Dassey!

Free Steven Avery! Free Brendan Dassey!

- That was awesome.
- Justice!

Free Steven!

Free Steven...

The implications of this case
has a much wider reach

than just Wisconsin,

and certainly wider than Manitowoc.

So, to me, it's about the bigger issue
of how did this happen,

and how can we prevent it
from occurring again in the future?

Guilty!

Innocent!

I got two bullets for them!

For Justice!

- Free Brendan!
- Free Brendan! Free Steven!

Until all is changed and they start
holding prosecutors accountable

for their actions,

this will continue to happen,

to not only Steven, but to more children.

How's the boy?

- He's hanging in there.
- Yeah.

- It would be better if he was here.
- Yes, it would be.

He's gonna be home soon.
I have a good feeling...

- He is gonna be.
- I sure hope so.

Yeah, next week,
the Supreme Court is gonna be reviewing

whether or not they're gonna
take Brendan Dassey's case.

Um, and, man,
I really hope they do, you know?

And I hope they really take their time
and look through the evidence and...

and see the truth.

Free Brendan! Free Steven!

I want my son home
and I want my brother home.

Free Steven Avery!
Free Brendan Dassey!

My family did not do anything.

Meaning Scott, my son Bobby,

Brendan, Steven.

I know they didn't do nothing.

They're all innocent.

My whole family's innocent.

So, I think they ought to let them out...

and let us go on with our lives.

Today, you're right,
we had a couple more non-decisions.

The court deciding
not to take up two disputes,

that there had been some real thinking
that the court might wade into...

The Supreme Court said it's
not going to take the case of a young man.

He was convicted in a brutal murder,

and the only evidence against him
was his own confession.

Today's Supreme Court
decision not to hear Dassey's appeal

means that lower court ruling will stand,

as does his sentence of life in prison.

Justices did not say
why they won't take the case.

It was Dassey's last option for appeal.

Wisconsin's Attorney General saying

he hopes Teresa Halbach's family
can now find some comfort and closure

with the court's decision.

Dear people in the world.

Thank you for listening to me.

It means a lot to know
there are many people who believe in me.

I am innocent of the rape and murder
of Teresa Halbach.

My confession is false.

It always has been.

I thought I finally had a chance at life.

I am going to keep fighting to go home.

I still hope that someday
the people in charge would realize

they made a mistake.

Until then, I am staying strong
for myself, my mom, and my friends.

Thank you for helping me stay strong.

Sincerely, Brendan Dassey.

This story...

you know,
the story of Steven Avery's life,

whether I win in court

or just making known what happened to him

if he doesn't survive,

um, is something
that I'm completely committed to doing.

Because it is such, um, a tragic story.

So, it's a difficult thing to know
that we're so far down the road on it

and that everything's mobilized
against us.

But it can be done.

It still can be done
because there's so much evidence.

It's not just the jury that
didn't hear the evidence in this case.

It's the judges.

They have yet to be given the true story
of what happened to Teresa Halbach.

They're just responding to what they have.

They can't go out and investigate.
They can't hire a scientist.

And so, you can't fault them
at this point.

I still believe
in the fundamental fairness of the courts

if you give them the evidence.

No one's done that yet.

No one has done that.

And that's why we're taking it up
on appeal.

We're trying to give them this evidence.

And if they say, "No, it isn't enough,"
or "It isn't, it's partial,"

then I'll go back and I'll get more.

But, I mean, it just... It is what it is.

He's been wrongfully convicted twice,

and my job is to prove that.

The supporters don't know what to do

because it's taking so long.

When you're fighting for your innocence

and you need the truth out, it takes time.

You got to give the lawyer time
so she can do it a good job,

so we can just throw it out, you know?

It's just one, two, three,
you're locked up.

And then it takes forever to get out.

You know, and that's the way it is.

Hurry up and get in,
and take your time on the way out.

But then, when you got the proof there,

that's one, two, three, you're out.

Like the first time.

They ran the DNA,
and then boom, I was out.

So, now we gotta do
the same thing on this.