Return to Transcripts main page
Dr. Drew
Outrage Growing Over The Netflix Series "Making A Murderer"; Steven Avery Is Suggesting That The Brothers Suddenly May Have Been Involved; Steven Avery`s Nephew Is A Key Player In This Case; Human Lie Detector Tells How Avery`s Behavior Gives Her Clues As To Innocence Or Guilt. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 06, 2016 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
[21:00:13] DR. DREW PINSKY, HLN HOST: We are picking up where Nancy had left off. Outrage growing over the Netflix series "Making A Murderer." I
believe Steven Avery, like Nancy, I believe he is guilty. I believe he is the killer.
But, the filmmaker, as most of you think I and Nancy are dead wrong, and what about his brothers? He, Steven Avery, is suggesting that the brothers
suddenly may have been involved. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA RICCIARDI, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER OF NETFLIX "MAKING A MURDERER" T.V. SERIES: We never intended to have an impact on the actual events that are
depicted in the story. We were there to document what was unfolding and to do our best to document that accurately and fairly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN KRATZ, FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CALUMET: I think it is irresponsible to suggest that both sides of this case were presented in any fair way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: There was in fact a great deal of evidence that was left out at this documentary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT WALKER, WISCONSIN GOVERNOR: Just because a documentary on T.V. says something does not mean that, that is actually what the evidence shows.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST OF "NANCY GRACE" PROGRAM: Mr. Avery, do you feel like you are being framed in any way?
AVERY: Yes?
GRACE: Why?
AVERY: Because every time I turn around, the county is always doing something to me.
GRACE: In this case, do you think you are being framed?
AVERY: Yes, I am being set up
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICCIARDI: If it is true that her murderer is on the streets, I think it is important that, that murder be solved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Joining me, Rolonda Watts, host of the podcast "Rolanda on Demand"; Anahita Sedaghatfar, Attorney and Of Council to the Cochran Firm;
Maz Jobrani, author of "I Am Not A Terrorist But I Played One On T.V" and David Swanson, Psychotherapist.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
Couple things -- Couple things here. Is she freaking kidding me? What, there is a murderer on the loose for the last ten years since this case was
adjudicated and we got to go get him? It sounds like O.J. Simpson, I am going to find the murderer of my wife. And, Anahita, what percentage of
people, criminals, you defended said they were not guilty? What percentage?
ANAHITA SEDAGHATFAR, ATTORNEY AND OF COUNCIL TO THE COCHRAN FIRM: Well, I would say most of them --
PINSKY: What percent -- No, no. Bah, bah, bah --
SEDAGHATFAR: I would say most of them, Dr. Drew --
PINSKY: What percentage?
SEDAGHATFAR: 100 percent.
PINSKY: Thank you. Thank you.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
ROLONDA WATTS, HOST OF "ROLANDA ON DEMAND" PODCAST: They are also calling people more innocent --
SEDAGHATFAR: As a defense lawyer, though, you have to remember, your job is to present whatever defense, whatever facts or evidence you can bring
that would possibly give rise to reasonable doubt.
PINSKY: Yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: So, I understand why his attorneys wanted to blame the brothers. You have to do that. But, the interesting thing is, the judge
in this case did not allow that in his evidence.
PINSKY: Well, no, no. The brother thing is a new revelation.
SEDAGHATFAR: No. It was part of court documents filed by his prior attorneys.
PINSKY: Originally.
SEDAGHATFAR: The original. Right. And, the judge held that, that evidence is excluded. The attorneys could not make that argument, which is
perplexing, because we do that all the time in criminal trials.
PINSKY: All right. Let us talk about other evidence not presented in the documentary. First of all, Mr. Avery, so-called, purchased handcuffs and
leg irons in the week before the murder. It is like not anyone would. He claimed they were for his girlfriend, Jody, again, as anyone in an intimate
relationship.
She had once gotten a restraining against him. She, herself, involved in the legal system, repeatedly. During Mr. Avery`s initial prison sentence,
he told another inmate about a torture chamber he planned to build. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST OF "NANCY GRACE" PROGRAM: Behind bars, he is festering and talking about his dream torture chamber for women that he
wants to kidnap, rape, torture and kill. Was that ever mentioned by Netflix?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: No, that was not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: And, Rolonda, in the documentary, they did mention one of his relatives. Again, there is a whole bunch of them on that compound, where
he had sort of assaulted a woman and --
WATTS: He ran her off the road.
PINSKY: And, then sexually sort of mis-inappropriately stimulated himself.
WATTS: And, this was his cousin.
PINSKY: His cousin.
WATTS: That is right.
PINSKY: Like any -- again, as anyone would, any normal person would --
(LAUGHING)
WATTS: And, there are allegations that he had molested his nephew who is in jail.
PINSKY: Yes, there are.
WATTS: So, that is the thing about it. You know, I got to give it to this documentary. It is interesting to watch, but it is a film.
PINSKY: It is a film. It is a television show.
WATTS: And, as a journalist, I am like there is so many holes in this. It is a doughnut documentary. I mean, because there is so much crucial
evidence that is missing. We do not see the cross-examination. There is evidence of DNA that is missing there. We have allegations of rape. I
mean, it is just amazing.
PINSKY: I am going to keep going through it, because people are angry with me for suggesting that he is guilty.
WATTS: I am with you. I am with you.
SEDAGHATFAR: I am one of those people who are angry at you, Dr. Drew --
PINSKY: Good, good. That is why I have you.
WATTS: I got your back.
(LAUGHING)
PINSKY: Thank you, Rolonda. That is why I have you here. Maz, I am not sure why I have you here.
(LAUGHING)
Avery -- as we said, has a history of violence against women. The film shows that he once held his female cousin that Rolanda was talking about at
gunpoint. The newspaper reports that he then raped the young girl as well and threatened to kill her family if they spoke out.
[21:05:00] So, here is -- So, David, you are a clinical psychologist. So, we have this ark of a guy who -- I have not presented this yet, but he had
abused of animals. He lit a cat on fire, not when he was an adolescent. He was finally convicted of that when he did it when he was 20.
So, an adult. He has an I.Q. of 70 or so. He has repeatedly assaulted women and been involved in the legal system. He was wrongfully accused of
a rape he did not commit and spent some time in prison.
And, now, again, we have all this evidence we have been presenting now of the same kind of behavior that we have seen since young adulthood and late
adolescence. Would not that -- if you were doing an assessment of that patient, would not you think there is a high probability that he at least
would have done this sort of thing again?
DAVID SWANSON, CLINICAL PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Yes.
(LAUGHING)
PINSKY: OK. Thank you.
SWANSON: Look, the big deal here is if he was not wrongfully convicted, it would be a whole other discussion right now. He got a long pattern of this
type of behavior. Intellectually, he is challenged to kind of think straight, think of the consequences.
His coping mechanisms are probably limited. And, you would start to think that, "Yes, this is a man who is capable of these crimes," but again, being
wrongfully convicted makes us kind of question, "Was this another setup?" That is the only reason we are having this conversation.
MAZ JOBRANI, AUTHOR OF "I AM NOT A TERRORIST BUT I PLAYED ONE ON T.V": And, also I would say, when you watch the documentary, his defense does a
great job of showing that the police who had a history against him, they did not pursue other suspects because at one point in one of the episodes,
the -- his defense asks the police, they say, would you normally suspect possibly someone that was close to this woman who was killed?
Maybe an ex-boyfriend, maybe the roommate. Did they look into any of these? Or, for example, what you were saying about if his two brothers had
a history of assault on women --
WATTS: And, they did.
JOBRANI: Yes. You would have thought the police might have at least looked at them as suspects, but it does not look like they did.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
SEDAGHATFAR: Well -- yes. And, I agree with you, but Dr. Drew, the prosecution should hire you for their P.R. that you are doing for them
because, yes, the fact is there was certain evidence and facts that were left out from the documentary, but if you look at the defense attorney`s
explanation, he explains the way a lot of purported evidence that links him away --
PINSKY: Like what? Tell me.
SEDAGHATFAR: Like in terms of the DNA, the sweat DNA that was supposedly found under the hood of the car. The defense attorney said that was never
there. So, there are various things that were --
WATTS: But, what about the ballistics.
SEDAGHATFAR: Let me just finish this. I do agree, though, that we should not be making judicial determinations based on a documentary. It is a
film.
PINSKY: Right.
SEDAGHATFAR: It is a film. It is a documentary.
PINSKY: It is on television.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
WATTS: Why let the facts get in the way of a good movie?
(LAUGHING)
PINSKY: Right. And, they did their job. Their job was to get us talking about it and watching the documentary. They did it. They did what they
set out to do. Now, how dispassionate were they and how evenhanded were they? Look, they did not get a chance to interview the prosecution because
they did not want to be a part of it.
SEDAGHATFAR: Well, they are part of it now. They are all over the media complaining that this was biased, that the filmmakers did not put in the
prosecution perspective. It was filling the defense narrative. So, really, it does not make sense to me. I think that they should have
probably participated, because now it is after the fact.
JOBRANI: And, they do a good job of showing that the prosecution -- you know, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution
came right out holding press conferences saying that this guy is guilty. This is the guy. He did it. He did it in a crude fashion. And, so, it
does not seem like they really gave him the benefit of the doubt at all, Steven Avery.
WATTS: And, it does not help that the lead prosecutor got busted for sexting a victim of domestic violence.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
PINSKY: Yes.
WATTS: So, yes, there is all kinds of questions going both ways.
PINSKY: But, listen.
WATTS: And, leaving evidence out, crucial evidence --
PINSKY: There were problems with this investigation.
WATTS: Yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: Clearly.
PINSKY: Yes. Clearly. We are in small town USA, right? I mean, this is not the forensic capital of the United States, right? I am just saying.
(LAUGHING)
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
PINSKY: There is potential for some, you know, things to be a little shoddy. And, they were. They were shoddy. But, my God, David, when you
look at this guy`s pattern, I understand why the investigating officers would go, "Why do not we pay a little attention over here. And, by the
way, before he does something like takes off, let us hang onto him."
SWANSON: Yes.
PINSKY: What is wrong with that?
SWANSON: Look, you know, this whole thing -- I think you are onto a point here in the sense that there is too much conflict of interest here. I
mean, it is almost like you want a bigger organization to come in. And, look, I am not a lawyer, I am a psychologist. But, it is so up in the air
in terms of what people subjected experiences are with the law, with people they subjected experiences with this particular county. Like you almost
want somebody to come in and investigate. Know if he has been psychologically assessed, I do not think.
WATTS: No.
PINSKY: Well, if they had, we have not heard about it. Now, that to me -- I will get back to it. That is one of the most disturbing features of this
entire thing.
SEDAGHARFAR: The nephew.
PINSKY: We have two guys. The nephew, we will get into it a few minutes, and this guy who have severe neuropsychiatric problems. I mean, severe.
And, no evidence that either they were getting treatment or proper assessment. And, it did not end in the court room, which you got to
explain to me to that. Why that stuff does not get in makes me crazy. You want to finish your thought?
SWANSON: Well, it is just like being in a rat wheel. This is like, you know, we are talking about gun violence. Everyone gets really upset but
nobody does anything about it. Yes, you almost want to have an answer here, a solution here. You want somebody to come in and investigate, look
at all sides, somebody independent, somebody who does not have a feeling at stake here. Let us go from there.
[21:10:11] SEDAGHATFAR: They brought in a special prosecutor to prosecute this case and it seems to me they colluded with the original prosecutors in
the case. If you look at the searches that were done in his home, they were advised -- the initial prosecution team was advised not to go into the
home.
PINSKY: They went in.
SEDAGHATFAR: They did, repeatedly.
PINSKY: Yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: And, guess what? It was the time they went in that they found that supposed key with the defendant`s DNA. That was in plain sight,
by the way, which none of the other investigators found when they were sweeping the house --
PINSKY: I got to go to break. But, is there such a thing as Dr. Swanson is suggesting, like the FBI or some federal? Is there somebody other than
a special prosecutor who can come in ten years after the fact and look at everything again?
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes. There is always someone that can overlook it and see that I do not think it is going to happen in this case.
PINSKY: Netflix.
SEDAGHATFAR: It has too far gone.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: Netflix. These are the legal experts. They are the mental health experts. Let the documentarians find the truth. That is what bothers me
also about this. You are allowing your passions to be stirred by a documentary that is designed to do just and only that.
Next, Avery has two brothers, who are they? And, why has he suggested now that they may, in fact, be the murderers? Back after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KEITH OPPENHEIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT, (voice-over): Since October 31st, Wisconsin police have been searching for this woman, Teresa Halbach, a 25-
year-old photographer. She was shooting pictures of cars that day for "Auto Trader" Magazine. She had an appointment at Avery`s Auto Salvage,
the junkyard owned by Steven Avery`s family.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[21:15:00] AVERY: I hope she shows up soon so then it will be all over with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OPPENHEIM (voice-over): During the search, Steven Avery was giving interviews, telling reporters he was innocent. That he believed, once
again, police were out to get him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AVERY: I worry about every minute. I look out the window, is there a squad car here? Are they going to pick me up? When are they going to pick
me up? When I am sleeping, are they going to come in? I always got that fear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PINSKY: That was Steven Avery in 2005. Worried that the police would blame him for Teresa Halbach`s disappearance. During that time, he had an
exchange with a different reporter who asked about his brothers. Now, look at that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: There has been speculation around who has access to the yard. Do you think your two brothers could have had anything
to do with this?
AVERY: No, no, not at all. Anybody can go down the road at nighttime. When everybody is sleeping, just drive in. My brother ain`t going to hear
nothing.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: So, who do you think did something with her?
AVERY: I got no idea. The county did something, or whatever, and trying to plant evidence on me or something. I do not know. I will not put
nothing past the county.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: And, now, according to legal documents obtained by TMZ, we have learned that Avery did, in fact, think his brothers may be guilty, both
have rap sheets -- both the brothers. That includes sexual assault.
Back with Rolanda, Anahita, Maz, and David. Older brother, Chuck Avery`s criminal record includes sexual assault, bail jumping, a restraining order
violation. Rolonda, what are the specifics cited by Steven Avery?
WATTS: You know, they just keep waffling with these stories so much. And, according to TMZ, Steven is laying it heavy on his brother, throwing his
own brother under the bus with examples of female customers, who would come to the salvage lot, who said they were being harassed, sexually harassed by
Charles.
He said that -- the TMZ is reporting that at times Charles would show up at these women`s homes asking them out on dates, calling them, sending them
flowers even. One said that Charles told her, he driven by their home and seen her in a bathing suit.
PINSKY: And, then the younger brother, Earl, includes -- his rap sheet includes sexual assault, using a surveillance device to, quote, "Capture
image of nudity." What the --
WATTS: Yes. The thing of the allegations against Charles is that all of this happened within three months of Teresa`s disappearance. But, at the
same time the documentary points out or the evidence is pointing out that was not in the documentary that Steven had actually been harassed, so-
called harassing or making Teresa feel creepy, as she said. She was creeped out.
He came to the door one time when she went to take pictures in a towel and she felt very uncomfortable and word is she had said something to people at
work that she did not want to go back there anymore.
PINSKY: So, counselor, what are the limits to the length you guys will go to cast reasonable doubt? How many people will you pull into the web of
guilt, your own brothers --
SEDAGHATFAR: Exactly.
PINSKY: -- the law enforcement.
SEDAGHATFAR: You, as a defense attorney --
PINSKY: There is no limit to who else, who other`s lives you will affect with that guy`s behavior?
SEDAGHATFAR: Well, look at it this way. I mean that is your ethical duty as a defense lawyer.
PINSKY: That is what I am talking about is ethics, Anahita. What the ethics does?
SEDAGHATFAR: And, would you not agree that this evidence -- would you not agree that this evidence would have been relevant about the brothers? If
you were a juror in that case, would you not want to know that his own two brothers both had a history of sexual assault?
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: If I -- If I.
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes or no, Dr. Drew.
PINSKY: If I were the guilty party ready to pull my brothers in, no, I would not want --
(CROSSTALK)
SEDAGHATFAR: If you are in the jury. If you are in the jury.
WATTS: Yes. But, the brothers -- but Anahita, the brothers, that was three months before the murder. This guy, Steven, was contacting the
victim the day of the murder, three times. Taking his I.D.
SEDAGHATFAR: But the juror should be able to consider this information, Dr. Drew, and you really have to question why did the judge exclude this
evidence? This is relevant evidence. And, as a defense attorney, we do this all the time. You are entitled to be able to raise reasonable doubt.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
JOBRANI: And, also -- And, also --
SEDAGHATFAR: That is true.
PINSKY: Confuse people.
JOBRANI: That is their job as a defense.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
JOBRANI: But even more peculiar thing here, again, goes back to why did not the police ever investigate any one of the brothers, anybody else that
-- these guys have a record. We just brought it up on T.V. It is right there. They have sexual assault history. So, why did the police not
investigate --
PINSKY: Now, wait a minute.
JOBRANI: And, one other thing.
PINSKY: Maz.
JOBRANI: One thing. Let me --
PINSKY: I assume they interviewed everyone in the family on both sides and the brothers said I have an alibi, and I got somebody who can prove my
alibi. That is the end of that.
WATTS: Because Steven was the only brother who had a $360,000 lawsuit against the police. And, there was reason. There was a motive.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
JOBRANI: And, that is where I am getting at too, Dr. Drew. Earlier, when you said this is a small town, you know, they did not have the best
forensics, all that stuff. The problem I think, one of the things that is interesting about this and what is getting people all captivated right now
is, that it shows that there is corruption within this police department, possibly.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
SEDAGHATFAR: Absolutely.
JOBRANI: And, we are in a world right now, where there is corruption we are seeing in other police departments. So, it does have bigger
repercussions because as much as I want to support the police, sometimes, you know, they are doing things that are not right.
[21:20:07] PINSKY: Right. That has been in the press these days, but Anahita is just on the record told us that her job is to confuse us. Then
the documentarians --
(LAUGHING)
SEDAGHATFAR: Hold on a second.
PINSKY: The documentarians take the counselors` information and put that out as a dispassionate sort of evaluation of the facts that you are
presenting intentionally to cloud and confuse the mind of the jurors.
SEDAGHATFAR: No, no, no, no, no.
PINSKY: That is your job, you said it.
SEDAGHATFAR: Well, no. The reality is there is reasonable doubt in confusion. There is.
PINSKY: OK.
SEDAGHATFAR: And, as a defense attorney, your ethical obligation --
PINSKY: OK. You fulfilled it. And, so, did these defense attorneys and then these documentarians present that as factual.
WATTS: Well, wait, as a journalist, my job is to get the facts, miss, nothing but the facts.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: Yes. Thank you.
WATTS: Deal with the evidence. Put it out there.
SEDAGHATFAR: Dr. Drew, I have a question for you. You think he is guilty, correct?
PINSKY: Yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: But, would you not agree that even if he believe he did it, he should have been acquitted because there was a ton of reasonable doubt
in this case?
PINSKY: You know what, I am glad you asked that question.
WATTS: It is a great question.
PINSKY: Yes. That is the question that gets everybody upset. So, when I say I think the guy is guilty, everybody gets angry with me. I do not know
whether he should be acquitted or not. Maybe he should. Maybe this is a - - Hang on, hang on. Maybe this is a massive failure of the system in which case I suppose he should. But, then, why did not that come out in appeals?
Have you seen his appeal documents? It was like 19 appeals.
SEDAGHATFAR: Well, we saw what was going on with the case. I mean I do not want to say that I am a conspiracy theorist, but the judge was making
certain rulings that were really surprising to me. You saw the attorney for Brendan, the young nephew, which we will get into later.
PINSKY: Yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: So, who knows? But, I mean if you look at the prosecutor`s own statement at trial where he said to the jury, even if the police
planted this evidence, ladies and gentlemen, you should still convict the defendant. That is built in reasonable doubt right there. They should
have acquitted him based on that statement, alone.
PINSKY: The audience is reacting. That is in fact --
SEDAGHATFAR: If you are following the law.
PINSKY: That is, in fact, the argument he made. But, of course, that is his ethical responsibility, right? To make an argument that fits his case.
SEDAGHATFAR: But, that gives rise to reasonable doubt.
PINSKY: It should.
SEDAGHATFAR: And, if those jurors have reasonable doubt, they have to acquit the defendant.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: And, there was crazy horse trading in the jury --
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
PINSKY: What do you call --
SEDAGHATFAR: Which we talked about that during the deliberation room.
PINSKY: The deliberation room, yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
PINSKY: All right. Next up, the nephew. Now, this nephew -- Steven Avery`s nephew is a key player in this case. I think there is a
possibility this guy could be psychotic. He could be violent. I will tell you more about that after the break.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[21:26:00] UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Told the officers that you were there and Teresa was alive.
BRENDAN DASSEY, STEVEN AVERY`S NEPHEW: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: She was alive?
DASSEY: But, it really did not happen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: You made that all up?
DASSEY: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: You made up the part that you raped her?
DASSEY: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: You made up the part that she told you not to do it?
DASSEY: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: To do the right thing?
DASSEY: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: And, to tell your uncle not to do it?
DASSEY: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: You made that up?
DASSEY: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: That is Brendan Dassey, sentenced to life in prison at nearly age 16 for allegedly having helped his uncle, Steven Avery, in the murder of
Teresa Halbach. Brenda was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, mutilation of a corpse, and sexual assault. He is eligible for parole in
2048. Back with Rolonda, Anahita, Maz, and David. And, this is the one that got us all upset, right?
WATTS: Yes.
PINSKY: Let me start with David. Now, looking at that guy`s behavior, and sort of our gut looking at him, we have a lot of problems here, right?
SWANSON: Yes.
PINSKY: Psychiatrically and neurodevelopmentally. What are your thoughts?
SWANSON: Well, I know that you said that you think maybe he could be a little delusional, possibly schizophrenic with the flat affect. But, that
clearly is a sign of that. I would disagree with you a little bit. This appears to me to be somebody who might be developmentally delayed. We have
heard of things like autism, Asperger, things like that.
PINSKY: Also a possibility here, right?
SWANSON: Yes. And, you know, think about Adam Lanza, right? You think about somebody like that. Again, another person diagnosed with Asperger.
So, this people generally do not see the bigger picture. So, being interviewed, for example, they will not see what is coming down the road if
they answer one way versus the other.
PINSKY: Right, which is one piece of evidence, why when he was being -- should we call it interview? --
SEDAGHATFAR: Interrogated? How about that?
PINSKY: Well, yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: Interrogated.
JOBRANI: It is coercion.
PINSKY: I do not think those are strong enough words, frankly.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
WATTS: Disparage of justice.
PINSKY: It is more like a dental extraction.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
(LAUGHING)
JOBRANI: Coercion.
SEDAGHATFAR: thank you for saying that. Absolutely.
PINSKY: Well, I have a real problem with this one, too. But, in that interview, the first time when he is at school, he does not really
understand the implications of what he just said. He goes, "OK, I am going back to school now, all right. We are all done here. All right, see you
guys later." Like, that is it.
JOBRANI: Yes. You know, another thing I am going to disagree with. Again, this is not my client.
PINSKY: You are not speculating.
JOBRANI: You know, speculating, yes. You know, I would say this is probably somebody, who is more suggestible and somebody who is more of a
follower as opposed to somebody who could be very violent and start to initiate a crime like this.
PINSKY: Right. Right. Well, I said there is a possibility he is psychotic, because it could be psychotic depression.
JOBRANI: Yes.
PINSKY: It could be a million -- not a million. Could be 20 different reasons he looks the way he looks.
JOBRANI: Yes.
PINSKY: But, I agree with you. One of them --
JOBRANI: Clearly impaired, though, right?
PINSKY: What is that?
JOBRANI: Clearly impaired, though.
PINSKY: Clearly impaired.
JOBRANI: Not able to see the bigger picture.
PINSKY: Yes, very impaired. And, that is what bothering all of us is if he was interrogated in the context without his attorney, without his mom
and in such a way that the interrogators were not contextualizing whom they were speaking to.
WATTS: He confesses to this gross murder and then he says, "Can I go back to school now?" I mean, he just did not -- and it is clear there is
something wrong. At what point, do they say, well, we -- number one, we need his attorney in here. They are not going to say that, but he was
there without an attorney. But, at what point does a cop recognize that -- or are they treated differently when day recognize that there is cognitive
difficulty?
SEDAGHATFAR: It makes my blood boil what hopped to this nephew. As an attorney, I cannot stand watching this. Because it is clear, I mean he is
16 years old. He has a very low I.Q. I think after two sentences that he said, it is clear he does not understand what he is saying, what he is
doing there. Like Rolonda said, he is like, "Oh, are we going to be done soon? I have to go to class."
WATTS: I have a project.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
JOBRANI: And, the two men interrogating him are prosecutors. One of them you were saying was a prosecutor, I think that was -- they were not from
the police department --
SEDAGHATFAR: Correct.
JOBRANI: -- that supposedly had it out for him. There were two independent prosecutors.
PINSKY: There is another one.
SEDAGHATFAR: There was more than one interrogation.
PINSKY: I am going to show you the first one, that is his own attorney.
SEDAGHATFAR: The most coerced -- coerced confession I have seen in my career, Dr. Drew.
PINSKY: By his own attorney.
SEDAGHATHAR: Absolutely.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: We will go to that. Being interrogated by an investigator hired by his own defense team. He asks Brendan for details about the crime
scene. Now look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL O`KELLY, DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR: Why do not you draw another picture over here of him stabbing her? Why do not you draw a picture down here --
of you having sex with her there? And, why do not you do this --
DASSEY: OK.
O`KELLY: -- draw a picture of the bed and how she was tied down? But, draw it big-sized, so we can see it.
Thank you very much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: It looks terrible, Anahita, when you see that picture.
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes. And, if you understand that it was his own defense attorney that sent him to this private investigator and he once again was
coerced. He was told what to say, what to draw. That is absolutely unheard of. And, you know I do not like to second guess other attorneys.
I do not.
But, you really have to ask yourself, what was this attorney thinking? This kid kept saying, "I did not do it. I did not do it. I did not say
that." And, then, to add insult to injury, his defense attorney called the detectives after this interview, after this interrogation --
PINSKY: That particular one.
SEDAGHATFAR: That particular one and said, "By the way, detectives, you might want to interview my client once again." And, they go ahead and do
that on a Saturday and his attorney does not even show up.
WATTS: That is three times.
SEDAGHATFAR: With that interrogation.
WATTS: Three times he does not show up for that kid.
SEDAGHATFAR: That is grounds for disbarment, Dr. Drew. That is grounds for disbarment.
JOBRANI: And, here I think, again, the bigger picture that I think goes beyond just what we are seeing here is that you watch this and, again, they
were saying that there was -- in the documentary they show that there is possibly two sheriffs from the sheriff department, who might have conspired
to set up Steve Avery with the evidence. That is what they show in the documentary. But, these other investigators that go and they interrogate
this or coerce this, his --
PINSKY: Brendan.
JOBRANI: His nephew. When you watch that, you go, "Wait a minute, how much is this happening in our judicial system?" I am serious.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
SEDAGHATFAR: More often than we know. That is such a great point. And, I think one thing -- one thing that we can take away from this, Dr. Drew, is
that this does happen.
PINSKY: All right.
SEDAGHATFAR: We do not have a perfect system. We have one of the best systems in the world, but it is not perfect and these things happen. We
see this happen a lot of times.
PINSKY: So, we are learning A. Have a bunch of money so we can hire a good defense attorney like Anahita.
SEDAGHATFAR: Like me, call me. Call me.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: Number two, stay out of trouble in Wisconsin. Here is that interrogation with those two investigators we were talking about. Take a
look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE INVESTIGATOR: Did you cut her hair off?
DASSEY: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE INVESTIGATOR: Where did that happen?
DASSEY: In the -- in the bedroom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE INVESTIGATOR: What did you cut the hair off with?
DASSEY: A knife.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE INVESTIGATOR: The knife you guys found in the garage? Does not make sense. That is impossible. You took her out to the garage
and that is when you got the knife. Explain how that can be. Did you cut her hair off?
DASSEY: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: And, they just keep going until he says yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: He has no lawyer there. He has no attorney there. That is the most egregious thing I have ever seen. And, they admitted that.
Sorry, they admitted that into evidence.
PINSKY: And, she is upset about the failure of the legal system. We are upset about the failure of the mental health system.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
WATTS: And, the penal system.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
PINSKY: Yes. Well, the mental health --
WATTS: You know, justice system.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
SEDAGHATFAR: At what point does that investigator say, "Hmm, maybe this kid is not understanding what is going on. Maybe we need to get an
evaluation." At what point does he not see that, Dr. Drew?
PINSKY: David.
WATTS: His constitutional rights were just --
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
SWANSON: We were talking about this before the show. And, the issue here is, like when you are a psychologist, psychiatrist, internist, you work
with people all time. You start to get a general sense of who you are dealing with very quickly.
PINSKY: Right.
SWANSON: Because you start to pick up on the signs. Police officers are not always trained that way and how many people who have had developmental
delays or have had issues have died at the hands of police just because they have not understood --
SEDAGHATFAR: I am sorry, I do not think it takes any special training to see, that kid had absolutely no idea what he was saying, what he -- he did
not even know where he was. I do not think it takes any special training, Dr. Drew.
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: Listen --
WATTS: But, that is why his attorney should have been there.
PINSKY: Hang on, let me just show you this last little piece. This is a phone call between Brendan and his mom from jail where he is worried about
the situation because he might miss "wrestle mania." He is not getting it. Here you go.
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes, he is not getting it. Oh, it breaks my heart --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DASSEY: Hey, mom.
BARBARA JANDA, BRENDAN DASSEY`S MOTHER: What?
DASSEY: When do I get another attorney?
JANDA: You will get a different one for Friday.
DASSEY: April 10th is "WrestleMania."
JANDA: Your dad is taping it.
DASSEY: Yes, but I do not get to see it.
[21:35:00] JANDA: When you come home, you can.
DASSEY: Yes. When is that going to be? Next year?
JANDA: No. We are going to get you out before that, because you are not guilty, hon.
DASSEY: Yes, I know that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Very disturbing, his case. Now, we are going to switch back to the Avery case. I am going to bring you the human lie detector next. She
is going to tell us how Avery`s behavior gives her clues as to innocence or guilt. Back after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CAPTION)
"Just days after Teresa Halbach, 25, went missing, a local reporter visited steven Avery`s home. It was the last place Halbach was seen alive."
(END VIDEO CAPTION)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF ALEXANDER, NARRATOR: Halbach is a professional photographer. One of her clients is "Auto Trader." And, police say she was in Manitowoc County
Monday afternoon at three different private homes taking pictures of cars. Ironically, Halbach`s last stop Monday was at Steven Avery`s home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: She was there to photograph this 1989 dodge caravan. Avery regularly advertises in "Auto Trader" Magazine and said
Halbach has visited his home on assignment several times in the past year.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: And just days after Teresa Halbach`s disappearance, a local report spoke to Steven Avery about her. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE LOCAL REPORTER: Did she mention appointments that day or anything like that?
AVERY: I do not think so. Because most of the time she takes a picture then she writes down the serial number, and she comes and collects the
money and that is about it.
[21:40:07] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE LOCAL REPORTER: OK. So, what kinds of questions are police asking you?
AVERY: Just when she was out here? What time around? That is about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Back with Rolanda, Anahita, Maz, and David. And, joining us, Janine Driver, the human lie detector and author of "You Cannot Lie To Me."
So, Janine, what do you see in that little tape there?
JANINE DRIVER, HUMAN LIE DETECTOR (via Skype): I see a lot, Dr. Drew. He says -- I hear, "I do not think so." So, "Are you pregnant?" "I do not
think so." Yes. "Did you kill her?" "I do not think so." So, I do not think so is very weak language. It is a hot spot. And, then he said,
"That is about it."
"That is about it" is equivalent to "That is all I can tell you" or "That is all I know" or "That is all I can say." Great, what cannot you say?
What do not you know? So, "That is about it" is a hotspot. When he says, "That is about it," his lips pull in. You see Steven Avery. He nods his
head, yes, though, which is indicative of someone being honest. Then he does a deep swallow, back to a hotspot of increasing stress.
PINSKY: And, Janine, I am seeing a lot of sort of partial shrugging of that left shoulder towards his ear. There is a lot of little weird shrugs.
DRIVER: Dr. Drew, the problem is he is uncertain when he is doing that shrug. So, when you are in that moment of uncertainty, we expect to see
those shrugs. And, I got to tell you. I told you the other night I was on the fence here back and forth. And, tonight reviewing this over and over
again, I am 50 -- you know, I am 51 percent believing this guy, Steven Avery, has been framed and only 49 percent that he is guilty.
PINSKY: OK. Well let us look at a follow-up interviewed, where he feared his arrest was imminent. Have a look, everybody.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AVERY: It all comes back, and all memories and everything else, schedule me out again. Deep down it hurts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Janine?
DRIVER: This is what is pushing me over the edge to go more than 50 percent with this guy has been set up and he is totally screwed. Because
if you notice, Dr. Drew, inner eyebrows are pulled together slightly. We see this little muscle. It is hard. It is one of the hardest muscles to
fake.
We have 44 muscles on our face. It is one of the hardest muscles to fake. His inner -- You see it pulled together. His eyebrows pull up. That is a
microexpression of sadness. His eyebrows are slightly pulled up, which is surprise. So, we are seeing sadness and surprise.
What we usually see with someone who is guilty is fear. Cops knock on your door at 3:00 in the morning, you show fear. Eyebrows up straight and
straight across. Typically, when we see surprise, it is indicative of someone who is telling the truth. This pushes me over the edge here.
PINSKY: All right.
DRIVER: When I am back on the hotspots, you know, it is really concerning -- When he is later allowed to make a statement to the judge, you hear
Steven Avery say, "Well, your honor. I am sorry for Halbach`s family, Teresa Halbach`s family. Well, "Well" is a disowning technique and "I am
sorry" is typically something guilty people say.
Casey Anthony said it to 911 when she was talking to the police. So, that is why I am not 90 percent or 100 percent Steven Avery has been set up, but
I am at 51 percent that Steven Avery is just a guy with bad luck.
PINSKY: All right. One last piece of tape. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DRIVER: You know, we are all victims. They will not just leave us alone. They just keep it up, and keep it up. You know, it is -- you know, a
person only can take so much, you know? I am just right now, I got enough of them. You know, they can go somewhere else and just leave us alone.
Let us do our life and live normal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: There you go, Janine. Last time.
DRIVER: OK. Now, this is a hotspot. We see this sometimes with people when cops are about to be attacked. You will see this eye aversion, where
they will go and they are trying to weighing in. I do not know what he is looking at here, Dr. Drew. I do not know if he is looking at a family
member, a lawyer, another media person. I do not know if he is looking at safe spot.
But, that behavior of constantly looking away is a hotspot for me. He is looking towards his ears, which means he is going into auditory. He is
thinking of sounds. He is processing. He is in like a self-talk, internal dialogue. So, it is going back and forth. You will have to keep weighing
in with me. But, right now, 1, seven Avery, and 1 again for the police department.
PINSKY: All right. 1 percent tilted. I want to go to our -- Thank you, Janine. We will go to the audience. Yes, ma`am.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: You know, he may not be a really likable guy and maybe he harassed her. But, I think the reason this is
resonating with all of us is because we are seeing that justice does not always happen. And, we are seeing unless you have good attorneys and if
you are not in the right part of the country, you may not get the fair trial that you deserve.
PINSKY: And, I think we all kind of know that in some weird way. We all see how people with lots of money can pull off --
SEDAGHATFAR: In detail with the cameras.
WATTS: And, you know, even the documentary, it points out that this is bringing light to that, and that the reason that it is resonating so much
is because it could be any of us.
PINSKY: Uh-huh.
WATTS: It could be anyone in our family. It could be our kid, or our friend, or anybody who gets wrapped up in that system. Once you are in the
system --
{21:45:05] PINSKY: I think that is --
SEDAGHATFAR: Except if you are rich.
WATTS: Except if you are rich.
PINSKY: Well, I think that is unrealistic, though, Rolonda, respectfully. I think the fact is that if you do not have a long track record that cops
go, the probability here. You know what I mean? If somebody got trouble and been a drug addict or something, then if you have family members that
are in that situation, I would be very scared --
WATTS: But, I am just talking about a lack of even the loyalty within the attorney. I mean, there is always a place where there is weakness. And, I
think there is so many places here that shine light on that.
PINSKY: Yes.
WATTS: That we as citizens must take a look.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes.
JOBRANI: Along what you are saying -- along those lines, what is a little disappointing is that we are taught growing up, the cops are good, you got
to trust in them, let them do their thing. They are going to investigate. You know, if they pull you over, whatever, just cooperate, cooperate,
cooperate.
And, you see this documentary and you are like, wait a minute, these guys - - as David said earlier, if they had not wrongfully gone after him the first time, then this documentary would not be what it is, but they did.
So, this exists. This corruption exists. And, it is -- like you said, I cannot trust every time a cop comes and says something. I am like, "Maybe
the guy is up to something. Maybe he is lying." I do not know.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
WATTS: Stay out of the system.
JOBRANI: Stay out of the system.
WATTS: Stay out of the system.
PINSKY: Yes. Hands 10:00 and 2:00. Do what the officer tells you.
SEDAGHATFAR: Exactly.
JOBRANI: Yes. Exactly.
SEDAGHATFAR: Even then though, you just do not know like she mentioned the attorney, was the little boy`s attorney, Brendan`s attorney really
working for him?
WATTS: No.
SEDAGHATFAR: Can you imagine. I think even any person here that has no legal training can tell you that you do not allow a client to speak with
the authorities alone.
PINSKY: All right.
SEDAGHATFAR: Without an attorney present. That is like --
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: We got to take a break. We got to take a break.
SEDAGHATFAR: That is like knowledge 101.
PINSKY: We will be right back.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:28] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Did they ask you to take a polygraph or anything like that?
AVERY: No. No. Tonight, cops come and they ask me if I remember anything, and I told them no. Then they asked me if they can come in the
house and check the house over. I said, I got no problem with that, come on in. So, they checked the house all over. Everything was fine and they
left.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: And, knowing her, I mean, what are your feelings for her parents and --
AVERY: They must be going through hell.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Back with my guest, in episode ten of Netflix series we meet Avery`s current girlfriend, Sandy Greenman. Take a look at what she is got
to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANDY GREENMAN, AVERY`S GIRLFRIEND: I started writing to Steven after watching the trial thinking that they could not possibly convict this man.
And, then when the verdict came back, I just wanted to let him know that I supported him and I truly did not believe that he did it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: So, like many murderers in prison, they find, what should we describe -- Love.
SEDAGHATFAR: Like Charles Manson who had more marriage proposals than I did while he was in prison, Dr. Drew.
PINSKY: That is right. And, that certain type of person that is interested in somebody who is incarcerated. They believe they have a
special insight and special relationship.
WATTS: She knows where he is.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: Insight into somebody -- preoccupied --
(LAUGHING)
SEDAGHATFAR: Oh my God.
SWANSON: You know, for some people, there is something strangely attractive about somebody who is in that type of position. Maybe it is a
rescuer. Maybe it is somebody who feels they can change the person that they are attracted to. Maybe there is a draw because of their own history.
But, yes -- no, it is very strange. They have definitely received more marriage proposals than you have.
(LAUGHING)
SEDAGHATFAR: Well, thanks a lot. You did not have to agree with that.
PINSKY: I believe the Twitter -- What is the twitter handle, Anahita?
SEDAGHATFAR: @anahitaseda.
PINSKY: Go ahead and send the marriage proposals through there on Twitter. Sandy, then this woman here we are looking at told CNN affiliate WBAY that
she had found a post-conviction attorney, who wants to retest the blood found in Teresa`s car.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANDY GREENMAN, AVERY`S GIRLFRIEND: She is terrific in post-conviction. The best in the country. And, that is why I have been trying to get her
for four years. And, almost four, just under four. In fact, I have stalked her.
The only way that this is going to happen is if somebody comes forward. And, that is something I have been praying for. That someone that knows
something about the real killer will come forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Yes, remember, everybody, you are watching a documentary. So, we are having a conversation about what we have seen in a documentary. We are
doing it to really look at our own systems and evaluate ourselves and learn something about people. Do not want to kill everybody involved in this
documentary, in the prosecution, or us for just merely having conversation about it. You had a comment?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, yes, the comment -- well, me, more like the question. We understand that he is guilty of these crimes.
He may have some really just terrible fetishes that we are all aware of.
But, my question is, does that absolutely make him guilty of this particular murder? And, that is what this trial is based upon. Not what
he has done prior to the trial leading up to the trial.
PINSKY: That is correct. Absolutely correct. And that is what when Anahita asked me that one question, that is what was at issue there. But,
the reality is he was found to be guilty.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
PINSKY: So --
SEDAGHATFAR: But, he is found to be guilty based upon what I perceived to be a very flawed trial, a very flawed investigation. You know, like I said
before, if you even take the prosecution`s own words to those jurors, that is built in reasonable doubt. And, if those jurors follow the law, they
had to have acquitted him, Dr. Drew.
PINSKY: Right. So, let us -- so, you are saying the system is flawed. I get it. I get what you are saying. And, we are all troubled by what we
have seen in the documentary, in the television program.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
PINSKY: May or may not be factual. As a journalist, you would say that, Rolanda.
SEDAGHATFAR: I agree with that.
PINSKY: What does your gut tell you? Is this guy guilty or not?
SEDAGHATFAR: It is hard to say --
PINSKY: You see. Just leave it there. I will let you leave it there. And, David, guilty or not? Gut.
SWANSON: I do not think --
PINSKY: Gut.
SWANSON: Listen. Contrary to what I said. I do not think he is guilt and I will tell you why. If I spent 18 months in prison, I would not go on
camera and give an interview.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: You may not have whatever cognitive impairments he had that may affect --
SWANSON: I totally get that.
PINSKY: Maz, guilty or not guilty?
JOBRANI: I watched ten hours and I was like "Guilty. Not guilty. Guilty. Not guilty."
(LAUGHING)
PINSKY: Back seat driver. Rolonda.
WATTS: All I can say is I hope he is guilty because it would be a horrible thing if twice lightning struck the same person and he was convicted.
[21:55:00] PINSKY: I like that. I agree with that. All right. We will be right back after this. I got more to say.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PINSKY: Well, there is a lot to be learned from this. It is a documentary as somebody reminded me on Twitter. Quit insulting our intelligence. You
keep saying "It is a documentary, you are coming off as a desperate douchebag."
(LAUGHING)
WATTS: Be nice.
JOBRANI: I did not mean to write that to you.
PINSKY: Thank you, Maz.
(LAUGHING)
PINSKY: Twitter is such a kind environment. But, the point I am trying to make is that -- listen, it is opportunity for us to discuss and look at
these things. But, generally, as Anahita said, our legal system does function well. It is one of the best in the world. It does function well.
In general, by general, I mean almost exclusively our law enforcement can be trusted. Our mental health system, if anything, is what is stressed
now, where our -- you will agree with me on this, David, where our law enforcement and our prison systems have become the mental health delivery
systems, not just of last resort, they become the primary delivery system. And, that has failed here, for sure.
And, I do not even see where they have gotten any of that evaluation. I hope they are getting some attention where they are now. We will continue
to discuss this. Good job, panel. Thank you, audience. DVR us then you can watch us any time.
[22:00:00] We are going to do a little after show over on our Facebook page. This same panel will be together. A little more casual environment.
You can find us there and sort of ring in on social media and give us your questions and responses. We will see you next time.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
END
