All language subtitles for Making.a.Murderer.S02E05.What.+.Why.Who.720p.NF.WEB-DL.DD5.1.x264-NTG

I inherited this defense theory

that Steven Avery's blood in the RAV
had come from the 1996 blood vial.

So, I started focusing on the viability
of that theory

and if I wanted to continue with it.

We added one more experiment...

At trial, the defense got
totally sandbagged on it,

because the State tested for EDTA

and refuted the arguments
that the defense had made to the jury.

It's my opinion that the bloodstains
that were collected from the RAV4

could not have come from the EDTA tube
that was provided to us in this case.

So, we did an extensive investigation
on EDTA

and determined, talking to some of
the leading experts in the country,

that there was no point in retesting.

I also explored a method of determining
the age of the blood

to detect whether it was '05 blood
from Steven Avery

or whether it was from
the 1996 blood vial.

But Dr. Reich explained to me,

"You're talking about blood that degrades

and is in a car from a 2005 murder."

So, he was cautioning me
that it would be unlikely

that there would be enough blood,
or any test,

that could date this blood.

So, I began to explore other places
the blood could've come from.

They say they found
blood evidence in the car.

Why do you think the DNA evidence
is inaccurate?

Because somebody had to put it there.

I know I had a cut on my finger.

I know the blood was in my house
from that, and I didn't clean it up,

and it was cleaned up.

I don't know.
I'm still trying to figure it out.

How it all happened.

You know, it's puzzling.

He says an old cut
reopened and bled on his sink.

Only thing I can think of
is when I cut my hand,

when it broke open again.

And in the bathroom, I had...

There was blood on the sink.

You know, I woke up the next morning,
it was all cleaned up.

That's...

Until right now,
I'm still trying to think,

"Who cleaned it up? Who was in my house?"

For years,
I mean, all the way back to 2005,

he's talked about the fact
the blood was taken from his trailer

on the night of the 3rd,
that he was bleeding

and that he bled in the sink
and on the floor.

Hello?

- Hi.
- Hi.

How are you doing?

Alright, as long as I'm sitting down.

I know what you mean.
Do you feel bad? Like...

I hurt.

My legs hurt me. I can't walk hardly.

Really?

So you've gotten worse
since I was here last?

Yeah.

- Have you talked to Steven?
- Today, I did.

Yeah?

So, he and I went through this last week.

The order is going in to turn the stuff
over to me for the testing.

- Yeah.
- Good.

We did it by agreement,

because once you start litigating testing,
it could take us five years.

So, we seemed to...

I won't be around here in five years,
I don't think.

No, I don't want to be
working on this in five years.

I just got a screwdriver here.

- Oh, you brought your own tools?
- Yeah.

I'm a full-service law firm.

Yeah, so I want to go up to the trailer.

I'm gonna try to take the sink out
if I can.

And, um, you have the key?

I got a key here, too.
Chuckie brought it here.

Yeah. I could get it.

It's behind them paper plates
on the counter.

Yeah. OK.

So, I'm gonna go up there,
and then I'll come back by before I leave.

I'll just tell you what I find.

- Yeah. OK, then.
- OK.

Because he said
that he saw pry marks on the door.

Let me go talk to him.

- Hey, Kurt?
- Yes.

You know, this thing looks like
it's got a pry mark on it with...

- That door?
- Yeah.

See on here?

Yeah.

It's crazy, though,
that they would come to the front.

Probably somebody who's done it
a bunch of times.

Yeah.

Because I think cops,
they would have that.

- Because they find cars all the time.
- Yeah.

And they get into them.

- Like a slim jim.
- Yeah.

That's the official name for it.

- That's it?
- Duh.

Here it is.

I think we just have to disconnect it.

I have to... We gotta have that surface.

- Yeah.
- OK.

At least you popped it up.

Well, we'll see if the water's
gonna be connected still.

I just want the wrench
to actually take the pipe out.

Yeah.

- Is it moving? Good.
- Yeah. Should be pretty soon.

Alright. Voilà.

- You remember his cut finger?
- Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

I know it was always bleeding,
breaking open.

It bled in that sink.

Well, yeah, somebody cleaned it.

Do you remember him saying that?
That someone had cleaned it?

- He said something about it.
- Yeah.

Because he kept trying to tell
his trial attorneys

that they took the blood out of the sink,
but nobody was listening to him.

Yeah, so I think
that's the way it happened.

So, all that got done on the 3rd.

Oh, yeah?

Would there be any reason
that Steven would have a pry bar?

Because it looks like a pry bar was used
to open up his trailer.

You might call it a nail puller.

OK.

Don't close it.
I'm gonna put it back in there.

Hang on a second once.

- That is a nail remover.
- That's what you call it?

- Yeah.
- OK.

- Alright.
- I just found out something.

- What?
- This is Carla, my daughter.

- Yeah?
- Brendan's getting released?

- Is he? Today?
- I don't know.

- You want to... Here, talk to her.
- Yeah. OK.

Yeah, because maybe the judge...

Yeah, Carla. It's Kathleen. How are you?

It just came online
that Judge, uh, Judge...

Duffin.

Are they gonna...

Are they gonna do it today?

Um, as soon as they get an address
of where he's gonna be tonight...

- I believe so.
- OK.

I don't know if it's today or
tomorrow, but, yeah, it just said online.

Are they gonna release him
from where he is incarcerated right now,

or are they gonna move him
and then release him or can you tell?

Um, I didn't fully read the brief yet.

OK. I'll pull it up online.

Thank you. That's a...

That's great news.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

It sounded like
she was gonna cry to me on the phone.

Who?

Kayla. What are you gonna do, cry?

Maybe she...
Maybe it was gonna be a happy cry.

So, I just saw the court order.

They're gonna let Brendan out.
He should get out today.

They're just getting
the probation officer approved.

I bet Barbara's crying
if she hears it already.

Does she know?

- I don't know.
- You have a number?

Seems like she'd want to know.

I think her phone stays in the car.
She can't take it in.

- Oh.
- Yeah.

- That's it.
- They're pretty strict there.

When was she supposed
to get off?

Three.

Because if he can get out today,
someone has to pick him up, right?

Yeah, they do.

Somebody probably wants to start driving,

because it's gonna take them a while
to get there.

- And she should be the one.
- She should be the one.

Well, we have to figure out
where she works.

Don't you think somebody
ought to go tell her?

Columbus Street.

Hmm?

Do you want to ride over there
and tell her?

This'll be crazy.

Should we go this way
or go straight?

Could you figure out what time
they need to be there?

Because it's a couple of hours.

Yes.

So, Columbia Correctional Center.

I'm working off what they do
in most places, but you never know.

Maybe they couldn't talk to her.

- Her boss will not let her leave...
- Are you kidding?

Ugh, jeez...

See, I'm a little...

I don't want to crowd Northwestern,
because I'm not the attorney.

Her boss is talking
to Brendan's lawyer right now.

- He is?
- Nirider is talking to Barb's boss.

I don't know what time it is now.
Two o'clock?

It's two o'clock.

She said she'd lose her job
if she walked out.

I just got home from work, and Brendan
was supposed to be getting released.

But that's all I know. I don't know when.

I don't know how. I don't know nothing.

So, fill us in, Ma.

Fill you in with what?
All I know is he's coming home.

That's the greatest feeling ever.

Did they say what day?

No.

Is it gonna be this week?

Don't know.

She's calling me back later.

27 News has been here
at Columbia Correctional all day

waiting on Dassey's release.

But we have learned that
the US Probation Office in Milwaukee,

which will supervise Dassey's release,

has to visit the home
where he plans to be living first,

before he can be released.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin
Attorney General Brad Schimel said

he plans to file an emergency motion
to stop Dassey's release.

No table.

Usually by twenty-five to, he'll call.

Yeah, it's getting close.

There he is.

Sit.

Hello. This is a collect call from...

Brendan.

...an inmate
at the Columbia Correctional Institution.

To accept charges, press 1.

Thank you for using CenturyLink.

You may start the conversation now.

- Hello, honey.
- Hello?

You hear the good news?

- Did you?
- Yes.

Yeah, but I didn't get to see it.

You didn't get to see it? Why's that?

'Cause they let me out for the showers

at the same time as that news was on.

Oh, really?

Hey, buddy, can you do us a favor
and talk louder?

Uh, yeah.

Yeah, but when are they gonna
release me, though?

We don't know yet.

I thought it would be tonight.

Like, I'm even wearing
my own personal underwear right now.

Really?

I'm wearing...

You planning on getting out?

Yeah, I...

I even put my sweatpants on.

You were really ready to go, aren't you?

So, I might...
I might be out by Friday, probably.

So we're hoping. Are you excited?

- Yeah.
- Yeah?

So am I.

I'll be more excited when you're here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That I know you're out.

Yeah, you'll be more excited
once I'm in your arms.

Yep.

It's probably gonna be just me
and your mother.

I think they would bring
my stuff to you guys first

before they release me.

You know, because
when Steven was coming out,

he had Mom's hand in one hand,
and the other one in...

- Jenny's.
- Oh, yeah.

Jenny's.

I don't know
if he even brung anything with him.

I think he left everything there.

I don't know. I don't remember.

I thought he brought
his typewriter with him, didn't he?

Oh, God. I don't know.
That's been too long ago.

Yeah.

So, is there a different way
in there besides the front door?

Um...

Just that sally port's
just right in the front, so I don't...

I don't think there is.

We're just trying to figure out a way
to get you out here safely, that's all.

Yeah.

Without any news media.

- Yeah?
- Yeah.

People are really frustrated.

The media is making him out
as kind of a rock star and a victim,

when the real victim is Teresa Halbach.

I mean, come on, now.
He's not a rock star. He's a killer.

They did what they did,
and he should never get out,

and I had to pull over and call you
because it just upsets me.

If there's some legal issue, OK, fine.

But these guys did it,

and, somehow, along the way,
we've lost that.

Megan, we just learned about an hour ago
that the Wisconsin Department of Justice

has filed a motion
trying to stop Dassey's release.

He's gonna be behind those bars here
for at least one more day,

as the State filed an emergency order
to stop him from getting out.

Wisconsin Attorney General
Brad Schimel notes

Dassey's lawyers claim
his confession was coerced.

Schimel says, even if it was,

that doesn't mean Dassey didn't
actually sexually assault,

kill, and mutilate Teresa Halbach.

"Accordingly, Dassey's release
should be regarded

as a serious public safety issue."

And Schimel is asking the court
to make a decision on this by tomorrow.

Of course, Dassey's family has said
they hope to have home by Thanksgiving.

In Portage, Nick Bohr, WISN 12 News.

This morning, Judge Duffin reviewed
the State's motion

and concluded that they just rehashed
what they had said before

and there was no reason
for him to change his mind.

So, Judge Duffin, in his decision,

based upon the home visit, the interviews,
the review of Brendan's records,

uh...

based upon all of that,

ordered that Brendan be released
no later than Friday at eight o'clock.

The family is over the moon.

Brendan and his mother have spent
ten Thanksgivings apart.

And the idea that he could be home
by Thanksgiving is...

I mean, talk about tasting gratitude.

Some wonder why
current Attorney General Brad Schimel

is fighting so hard to keep Dassey
locked up.

I approach this from the perspective
of the family of Teresa Halbach.

And, um, they...

they've had no opportunity
to hug her on Thanksgiving.

And this is, um...

Until we sort out with certainty

whether that jury's verdict
against Brendan Dassey will stand or not,

um, we need to keep him where he is.

Basically, the State is doing
whatever they can

to keep this from happening.

Right now the ball is in the 7th Circuit.

Uh, good afternoon.
This is Bob Dvorak calling from Milwaukee.

I'm wondering who the duty judge is
this week.

I'm calling about the Dassey case.

Yeah, yeah, OK.
So we don't know who it's going to.

OK, thanks.

Bye.

This is Breaking News Now

from Today's TMJ 4.

Brendan Dassey will remain in prison

pending the outcome of an appeal.

The US Court of Appeals in Chicago
just made that ruling.

Now, the three-judge panel out of Chicago

didn't offer an opinion
on why it issued the stay,

it simply granted it.

This is the same court
that will ultimately decide

whether or not to overturn
the August ruling by Judge William Duffin

that overturned Dassey's conviction.

In response to today's order,

Dassey's legal team released a statement
that said,

"We are disappointed
more than words can say.

The fight goes on."

Meanwhile, Steven Avery's attorney...

Brendan has to stay in prison
until his appeal is resolved.

It was a blow, but, you know,
Brendan's a rock here.

He's our rock.

And his faith in us, and his optimism,

is what keeps us going forward.

This is one skirmish
in a series of battles

that is gonna end in the 7th Circuit,

and we're ready to fight for Brendan,

and we're confident
that we're going to prevail.

Dassey and his attorneys
were expecting his release

from the Columbia Correctional Institution
here in Portage by Friday at 8:00 p.m.

But right now,
it's clear that's not going to happen.

Steven Avery
is still serving a life sentence.

He's currently being held
at Waupun Correctional.

He, of course, was the focus
of that documentary, Making a Murderer.

Avery's current attorney,
Kathleen Zellner...

...claims new testing of some
key pieces of evidence

will clear him of that murder.

Do you want this hamburger?

Get me off that goddamn camera!

I had a bad day.

Me, too.

I don't know what Barbara's
gonna do with her job.

I heard she took a whole month off.

How's she gonna live? She ain't.

She got over a $1,000 house payment.

A federal appeals court
has granted the State's request

to keep Brendan Dassey in prison.

Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel
filed that emergency motion yesterday.

This morning,
7th District Court of Appeals

approved the motion for the stay.

The timeline is the big question here.

Federal court records show
December deadlines for both sides

to file paperwork in the appeal
regarding Dassey's overturned...

That all sticks in my head.

How many years of it?

There's no specific date
for when a final opinion

would be issued by that three-judge panel,

but it could take several months
or longer.

Brendan Dassey will remain in prison
during the appeal process.

Today, the 7th District Court of Appeals
overruled...

It's just another day and...

the justice ain't there yet.

The State will keep on fighting
and they'll just show more stuff on TV.

He's going through the same thing I did.

You know, you got your hopes up,

and then the courts
just shut you down again.

Every time you turn around,
you think something's positive,

and then you just get kicked
in the face again.

So, the surface of the sink
is hard and flat.

And then, you know, roughly...

What was it the State expert said...
the amount of blood in the car?

I believe he estimated
two to three milliliters.

Something like that.

- I remember one to two milliliters.
- Yeah, something like that.

So, we've got six spots in the car,
but the spots are all small.

That's his estimate on it.

- Yes. I think one to two, he said.
- Right.

So, let's talk about the blood in the car.

We've got a description
by the Wisconsin Crime Lab

that on this carpet they found flakes.

And I'm talking about the carpet right,
uh, in front of the driver's seat.

So, there were blood flakes
on this carpet,

and the analyst picked those flakes up
with tweezers.

Unless you have a considerable amount
of blood on the carpet,

you're not gonna necessarily see flakes
or a drying effect,

because with one or two drops,
or three drops,

it's gonna absorb right into the carpet.

And to see flaking like that visually
would be probably not very likely.

What if we open one of our tubes

and drip onto this carpet, OK?

Let's just watch what happens
when we drip.

So, we're seeing very small drops
because they're absorbed into the carpet.

Now, do you want me to make
a larger amount?

Yeah, we could do another line larger,

and then we could drip in the sink.

So, let's try in the sink,
if we just drip in there

and then we'll let it sit
as we're talking,

and we can compare the two surfaces.

- Kind of like that?
- Mm-hmm. Yeah.

- Then we can...
- Yeah.

That's gonna take time to dry.

- Yeah.
- That's for sure.

Yeah, what you're seeing, basically,
is the blood drying on the fibers.

Right.

If someone were to be processing
this car for blood,

I would expect that they would've taken
the whole bloodstain.

- They're quite visible.
- Right.

You wouldn't be taking a flake
off one of these stains.

What the State has represented to me

is there were not bloodstains,
there were just flakes.

She's not describing stains.

She's not picking up flakes from stains.

She's just picking up flakes,

which tells you there's no stain there.

- Which means that...
- The flakes were put there.

They had to come from a different source,
whether it be from somewhere above...

Although, looking at the transfer stain
on the dashboard,

I don't see any evidence of that flaking.

And it's not... It would never land
where this carpet is.

This carpet is between
the console on the car.

The flakes are back under here.
You can't see it in this picture.

It's like, between the console
and the edge of the seat,

is where she's finding them, so...

That doesn't make any sense. I mean...

If there are flakes,
there's gotta be a source of those flakes.

Yeah.

Because she is not saying
there was a stain,

and that's highly suspicious.

I find it unusual, absolutely.

Yeah, I just think that's preposterous.

So, OK, then let's talk about
this blood which...

It looks like it's flowing down.
What is that?

Uh, it appears to be, to me,
to be an angular passive drip stain.

That just ran down like gravity?

Well, yeah, I mean...

Actually, I've got some
really good high-speed videos

that show how this is formed.

The blood drop
actually hits the surface here,

and then it just kind of runs down
like this and then finally stops.

That's pretty much
what we're seeing there.

- Let me ask you this.
- That's suspicious.

If you got into the trailer
and the blood was in the sink,

could you have picked a drop up
if you had this?

Because I'm trying to think
the removal to the drop.

Because swabbing,
you're not gonna create a drop.

Sorry to displace you again here.

- Yeah, I want to see.
- Here.

- So, let's see.
- Sure you can.

Oh, that's...

Yeah, that would be
the better way to do it.

If it's still wet.
It's gotta still be wet.

Yeah, but they got in when it was wet,
so that's how you'd pull it up.

Well, here.
I pulled some blood up from there.

- Yeah.
- Let's see what we do here.

You'll get almost the same thing.
I haven't got the same amount.

It looks just like the one there.

In fact, I think the bottom of that
has probably been cut off.

That looks like
what you're seeing there, right?

- It does.
- Agreed?

Yep, I agree.

So, now I know that's how,

it was pulling up with a dropper.

Steven Avery described dripping
on the edge of the sink and then...

The blood should eventually, you know,
fragment after it...

You'll see cracks in the surface,
et cetera,

and we're waiting to see
when that will occur.

Alright.

- Alright.
- OK.

- Ready for the scraping episode?
- Yeah.

Those are a good size.

- And this one.
- Yeah.

Let's try...
This might be a little moist, but...

- Yeah.
- Yeah, it still broke up.

I think
that non-absorbent surface really...

Great.

- Quite a few in there.
- Yeah, you've got a bunch.

Look at that.

- Let's put...
- Yeah, I think that'll work.

If you put it in the car,

you should put it on some white paper
or something so it can be seen.

I will. Yeah, we'll take...
Yeah, I'll take...

Alright.

Now what we should do is what we did...
We could swab up.

Do you want this swab to go...?

Yeah, these swabs we're gonna do
by the ignition.

The officers that are suspected
in that activity were evidence techs

who carried swabs and distilled water.

Now let's see what I got here.

- Here we go.
- Oh, wow.

- How's that?
- Great.

On the seats.

And then I want to see up here what...

There it is.

Could that be true,
that it's just that simple?

Someone got in the trailer,
wiped up the blood,

and they dripped it into the car
and smeared above the ignition.

I think the defense attorneys
probably underestimated

what they were up against.

And...

I think that they...

I mean, the State just has
enormous resources.

They can bring in all these experts.
They can...

You know, they have three attorneys
at the table.

They've got all the cops working for them.

I mean, you are outgunned
when you come into it.

But I still believe,
if you just had a blood spatter expert...

You know,
I've won cases just on blood spatter.

So, if you could take...

You could've definitively taken down
one piece of evidence

and shown it was planted.

It isn't like this would've cost,
um, you know,

hundreds of thousands of dollars.

You could've gotten the experts,
I think, for 20 grand.

A lot of experts will help you,
just, if you're in that situation.

I mean, this was child's play
for Stuart James.

He could tell immediately
the blood spatter testimony

was just completely wrong.

It's hard to say
that someone's ineffective,

but when the State has got 14 experts
and you've got two,

there's something dramatically wrong.

People ask us about the verdict
and how we explain it,

and I think a lot of it
was the pretrial publicity

that this particular jury
just couldn't put aside.

That, and combined with the fact that...
the ruling shortly before trial

that said we weren't gonna be able
to point the finger at any other suspect

and present evidence of that.

Unlike a lot of cases,
we had suspects, other suspects,

who could very well have done this,

and tried to present that, and...

But the court ruled against us
by stretching the prior law

in a way that made it impossible
for us to do that.

So, you know, I think that really
handicapped us from the beginning.

Based on my research,

Wisconsin courts are more receptive
to ineffective assistance claims

than maybe they are in Illinois.

If you can show that something
the attorney did or did not do

undermines confidence in the outcome...

Right.

...then that's something
on which a court might grant relief.

So, for example, if an attorney fails
to present expert testimony

that could've supported the defense.

Or, you know, there are other cases that
talk about evidence that could have shown

that the prosecution's version of events
was false.

Um, you know, if that's something

a defense attorney
didn't adequately investigate

or present to the jury...

I think that'll definitely apply here.

Then the defense argued the Denny
standard was unconstitutional,

but it's been part of Wisconsin law
since 1984.

Exactly, they did a couple of things

that I think would go into
what you were discussing

about ineffective assistance of counsel.

One argument they had
was that Denny doesn't apply to us,

and there's no precedent for that.

And then secondly,
they said we don't have to prove motive,

uh, which there's no case law
to support that type of argument.

So, what's developing here is a pattern.

Uh, I'll give you some examples.

It's a failure on the forensic evidence
to follow up on what they've got.

It's a failure to follow up on leads

in the police reports
with certain individuals.

The dog tracks which...

You know, the scent dogs
are all over the quarry.

The cumulative effect of that

would, of course, undermine, I think,
confidence in the verdict,

to just have so many things that
you didn't do as the defense attorney.

Absolutely.

And there are cases
that talk about cumulative error.

- Good.
- In Wisconsin.

And that's something
that the court will consider.

Yeah, I mean, they're successful
in getting the planted evidence theory

in front of the jury,

but it just has no impact because
it doesn't have any substance to it.

I mean, the blood spatter expert says
he will testify

that the blood by the ignition
was put on with an applicator.

You know?

I can't believe that didn't have one.

Yeah, it's...
When you look at this...

Blood is planted.

When I've done murder trials,

what I want the jury to hear
is my story of what happened,

and my story is gonna involve
a different scenario

of who killed the victim.

And I'm going to push that.
That's at the top of my list, to do that.

Because if I can convince the jury

that someone else
could have committed the crime,

I'm gonna win.

When I spent time with Josh Radandt,

he was very forthcoming with me

and really went beyond what
he needed to do to answer my questions.

And I believe
that he was completely credible.

So, based on his alibi,
which we thoroughly checked out,

based on my interview with him
and the additional evidence he gave me,

I ruled him out as a Denny suspect,
so I crossed him off the list.

The other thing I learned
that was extremely important

was that the suspected human pelvic bones
weren't on his private property.

They were on
the Manitowoc gravel property.

So, we could then broaden
the investigation.

It's "what" plus "why" equals "who."

What happened? Why did it happen?

If we understand why it happened,
we'll know who did it.

- Mm-hmm.
- I risk oversimplifying that.

But, basically,
that's the pattern you want to go down.

So, doing a real thorough victimology,

you want to know everyone
she's been in touch with,

um, and who they are

and what's the nature
of their relationship and all of that,

especially close in time to the homicide.

Do you see, um, any risk factor elevation

with the type of job that she had?

Yes, she was going out,
she was doing these AutoTrader things,

shooting photos of cars
in different places and different people.

She's gonna go out
and meet people she doesn't know.

But 70 to 80 percent of people
who are murdered

are murdered by someone they know.

So, it's a combination
of looking at that particular victim

and then looking at the people around her.

If someone's in their twenties,
um, sexual relationships,

boyfriends, whatever, how many.

Right.

All those sorts of things.

Because it's when...

Those are the things that can be emotional

and trigger people to do bad things.

So, those are the areas that you want
to concentrate in

and look into those private parts
of her life.

You know, intimate relations and so forth,

and, you know, she's sleeping
with somebody's husband.

I mean, that's a risk factor.

You know, all those things
you have to really understand

to move in the right direction,

to make sure
you're not on the wrong tangent.

And do families...
Like, with victims of families...

Families are emotional. I understand that.

That's a delicate part, dealing with...

These are the vicarious victims
in a homicide,

are the family members and friends.

And you have to deal with that artfully
and compassionately with them.

But you've got a job to do,

and you've got to get in there
and find out what was going on.

Otherwise, you're doing a disservice
to everybody, including the victim.

So, yes, everybody close to her,
in contact with her, uh, even remotely,

at the beginning has to be looked at
as a potential suspect

until you can rule them out.

One of the things that we did
was we created a chart

of who did they get an alibi from.

So, if we start with, you know,
the married man who's getting a divorce

that she had the sexual relationship with,

and then a friend of hers described
that she wanted to break that off,

but he kept calling her.

He described it as
they were still great friends.

And then, of course,
he provides information

that she's had sexual relations
with her roommate.

Her roommate is best friends
with her ex-boyfriend, so...

First of all, ex-boyfriends
have to always be in the suspect pool.

The ex-boyfriend is never asked...

He says at trial, he's very forthcoming,

"No, I was never asked
to provide an alibi."

The roommate was never asked
to provide an alibi.

And she goes missing on the 31st,

but nobody reports that
until the 3rd of November.

So, it isn't like when
she doesn't come home,

the 31st, the 1st, the 2nd,

that anybody's reporting it.

It's her business colleague
that finally calls the mother

and says, "I'm worried."

So, would that make you comfortable
with eliminating them?

No, not at all.
You can't eliminate anybody based on that.

It's a lack of investigation.

Each of those individuals have to be
looked at as potential suspects.

The first thing we did was start with

who was Teresa Halbach
and who was she in relationships with.

And we checked out, from her phone records

and everything we could gather,
her emails,

everyone that she had had contact with,

and we did criminal background checks
on them,

and then we looked at potential alibis
for that day, possible motives,

the nature of the relationship.

All of that we sorted through

to refine it down to one person,
two people,

uh, that might meet the Denny standard.

And at the top of my list
was Ryan Hillegas.

There was tension between them.

During the summer,

she didn't even want
to photograph a wedding

that she knew
he was gonna be the best man in.

They broke up in 2001,

but Ryan was still coming over a lot,
visiting,

and Teresa even wrote in an email
in October

that she realized that Ryan
was still interested in her,

was still checking her out.

It's clear to me that she's over Ryan,

but Ryan still seems interested in her.

And then after she's murdered,
he's moved into her place

and he's there
where there's potentially evidence.

I found that just unbelievable.

And then he's providing
the most intimate details about her

to the investigators.

When you say you talked to the police,
who did you speak with?

Um...

uh, let's see.

I know, uh, Thursday night,
when we were at the house,

I went over after Scott called me,
I went to the house,

and we kind of started calling around
and calling friends then, but...

I believe it was Jerry Pagel and...

Detective Wiegert
who were at the house Thursday night,

collecting belongings
and asking questions.

Um, the family was there, also.

And so, did you tell Sheriff Pagel

that you had, sort of,
become the coordinator of all of this?

I don't believe so.
I think it was just kind of assumed.

I was kind of the contact
for the whole search.

If anybody wanted to help,
they were instructed to call me.

Basically, it, I guess, started with me.

Did you at some point ever go
to the property, the Avery property?

- Yes.
- When was that?

Jeez. Um...

We... When did we go there?

Saturday, cars. Sunday...

I'm not real sure on the dates. Um...

It was possibly that Monday or Tuesday,

which would've been the...

Let's see...

Third, fourth, fifth...

- Was that the 6th or 7th? That Monday?
- Let me ask you this way.

When you went to the property, was it...

was it still, to your knowledge,
in the custody of the law enforcement?

Yes.

Did you pass through any checkpoints?

Yes.

And did the officers who let you in

know that you had a relationship

as a former boyfriend
with the missing woman at that point?

I... I don't know if anybody knew
I was an ex-boyfriend.

Or, I guess,
I never saw the relevance in it, or...

- Did Sheriff Pagel know that?
- What's that?

Did Sheriff Pagel
know of your relationship with her?

At that time, I don't believe so.

I think everybody just assumed
I was a good friend.

He's got access
to Teresa's personal possessions,

to her residence,

and then he's on the Avery property,
crossing the checkpoints on November 7th.

The key, the sub-key, is discovered
on the 8th in Mr. Avery's bedroom.

We think there was a sub-key at her house,

and somebody who had access to her house
gave that key to the police.

We've made repeated efforts
to talk to him,

and we've told him the reason
we want to talk to him is to rule him out

if he can give me plausible explanations
for things.

But he doesn't respond.

And one of the most suspicious parts
of the case

is his story about
the parking light on Teresa's vehicle.

He told the police
that he had talked to family and friends

and had determined that Teresa
had broken out the parking light

before October 31st,

made an insurance claim,
taken a cash payout,

but she had kept the money
and didn't get the car repaired.

That's interesting
because that's elaborate.

And over the years, what you notice is,

people who lie
usually have real elaborate lies.

So, the first thing
that I checked out was,

was that parking light broken when
she visited the appointments that day?

Her client, Mr. Schmitz,
said that the car looked new.

The car is six years old.

Our interpretation of that
was he didn't see any damage.

The car wasn't banged up or anything.

So, then we went back
to the insurance company,

and they said she never made a claim
about the parking light.

She made a claim
about her windshield wiper,

this little, tiny expense,

but she didn't make a claim
about this really significant damage

to the front of her vehicle.

But the most important thing
is the missing poster,

because when you put out
a description of a car,

and it was a detailed description,

if it has any body damage,
you put that on there,

because that would've stood out
above everything else,

if people were seeing a RAV driving around

with that whole front parking light
knocked out.

So, the parking light was not damaged
before she was murdered.

It is part of the events of the murder.

And Mr. Hillegas connected himself
to the parking light.

And that is a huge piece of evidence

linking him to the crime.

That's not correct. I did call her...

Sorry to offend everyone,

but I'm very offended
by having a client who's innocent

and is now spending, you know...

has now spent 13 years locked up
for something he didn't do.

So, all of our feelings are hurt.
But I'm going at it.

Wherever the Denny road
and the evidence takes me,

that's where I'm going.

And if people want to get off the train,
give us a call.

We're totally reasonable.

But I have no explanations
for all of these things on Ryan Hillegas.

So, your attorney's
got the brief all done, I guess.

- Yeah?
- Yeah.

That's for the... the nor...
the regular appeal, right?

That's for the 7th Circuit.

Yeah. The one in Chicago.

Yeah.

Do you know how many pages it was?

No.

- No?
- No.

I haven't to Laura, so...

No, but she's good, so...

- Yeah?
- Yeah.

The process in the 7th Circuit
involves each side having an opportunity

to file briefs in front of the court

that spell out your argument
in written form,

and then the court
will review those briefs

and review the record of the proceedings
that happened below

in federal court and in state court.

And then comes oral argument,

at which point lawyers from both sides
will go into a courtroom

at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
in Chicago

and have an opportunity
to make their points out loud

to a panel of judges
who will ask questions of either side.

Brad Schimel.
Brad, thanks for being on the show.

Thank you for having me, Jamie.

Um, so, you've got several areas...

Just, you know, give our viewers some idea

of, like, how much is prosecuting
specific types of cases

versus government affairs and so forth.

Well, we have about 100 lawyers who work
in our Division of Legal Services.

About two dozen of them do
criminal prosecutions for the DA's offices

when they have a highly complex case

or a case that's gonna take
tremendous resources.

And they also do the criminal appeals
for the DA's offices.

And we have about 100 special agents with
the Division of Criminal Investigation

who handle complex cases.

So, investigators, not just lawyers,
as employees.

- Right.
- OK.

We also have the three crime labs.

So, I have about 200 people
that work in our crime labs

in Madison, Wausau, and Milwaukee.

We also have
our Solicitor General's division.

That's working on defending
our state's sovereignty

relative to the federal government.

The case is set for oral argument
on Valentine's Day, 2017,

and that means that both sides will get
to present their case in 20 minutes

to a panel of judges
of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is a federal court

that is one step below
the United States Supreme Court.

It's a very important day,

and that's why
we are putting so much energy

into preparing Laura for this case.

This is just the first
in a series of mock arguments.

What we're trying to do is to,
as best as possible,

replicate the experience
that Laura's gonna have

when she steps up
in front of the 7th Circuit.

One of our students is actually going
to argue the case for the State.

There will be a panel of judges
that I have selected,

leading law school faculty,

some who have experience in this area,
some who are fresh to this case.

Because we won
in the federal district court,

the State gets to go first.

He'll get questioned by the judges,

because we want to make this
as real as possible

so Laura can sort of pick up
on the questions

that the judge asks the State.

Laura will then get 20 minutes,

essentially defending the district court's
decision in Brendan's case.

This is a hugely important day
for Brendan Dassey.

When we won in federal court,
in front of Judge Duffin,

that was about a one in a hundred shot.

Each step of the way
you go into the court system,

the higher and higher levels of appeal,
the harder it is to win.

And if we lose in the 7th Circuit,

it just makes our climb
that much more difficult.

Brendan was the first case
that I got assigned as a law student,

and it changed my life.

When I got assigned to Brendan's case
and watched those videos,

I knew that's what I wanted to do,
I had to help people like this.

I now teach the same class
that I took ten years ago.

You know, it's kind of
come full circle for me.

These aren't just names on a page
or just legal arguments,

these are real people
with families and friends.

They deserve justice
and they deserve truth.

Brendan will not be in attendance
at this argument.

It's very unusual for defendants
to be present.

I think Brendan is, you know,
unsettled by this.

I think he is cautiously optimistic

that this will be one step closer
to freedom.

But he also realizes that there have
been disappointments all along the way.

What has this kid been through
from ages 16 to 26 now?

And, you know, it's not over.

It's not over until, um,
either the government says

that we're not going to prosecute you

or, you know, a jury comes back
with a not guilty verdict.

And actually,
there is no statute of limitations,

come to think of it, for murder.

So, it's probably the not guilty verdict
that is the only thing that's final here.

It's something Brendan's gonna live with
for the rest of his life, like it or not.

Hi, this Laura Nirider. I have a question.

I'm in the process of trying to e-file
my oral argument card.

There will be a panel of three judges.

We will not know that panel
until the morning of the argument.

So, part of what we are doing
is making sure

that she understands the viewpoints
of all 11 of the judges

on the 7th Circuit,

that she's read opinions
by all of those judges

on the areas
that we're covering in argument,

so that she can adapt her argument
if need be,

depending on who the panel is.