Return to Transcripts main page
Dr. Drew
New Information About "Making A Murderer"; Some Angry at Sean Penn After Secret Meeting with El Chapo; Steven Avery`s New Attorney Says She Knows Who the Real Killer Is; Inside the Jury of Steven Avery. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 11, 2016 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
[21:00:16] DR. DREW PINSKY, HLN HOST OF "DR. DREW" PROGRAM: Coming up, there is new information about "Making a Murderer." It might in fact
change your mind about the case. But, first, Sean Penn feeling some heat tonight. Some are calling for him to be prosecuted; somehow, they are
frustrated. They are angry after a secret meeting with El Chapo, the Mexican drug lord whose criminal activities have been linked to many, many
murders. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: In a two-minute clip posted to RollingStone.com over the weekend, notorious drug trafficker, Joaquin El
Chapo Guzman gives an interview to Mexican actress, Kate del Castillo and Academy award winner, Sean Penn. El Chapo speaking while on the run,
follow-up questions to a face-to-face meeting he had with Penn.
This photo of the two taken just three months after the drug Kingpin escaped out of a maximum security prison in central Mexico. Guzman`s
desire to talk to the actress about making a bio pic about his life could have been a slip-up that led to Friday`s capture. Now, Mexican officials
want to question the Hollywood A-Lister, along with this famous Mexican actress, Kate de Castillo.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: In the article for "Rolling Stone," Sean Penn writes, quote, "I take no pride in keeping secrets that may be perceived as protecting
criminals." Joining me, Areva Martin, Attorney and legal commentator; Anahita Sedaghatfar, Attorney, Of Council to the Cochran Firm; Mike Slater,
radio talk show host, KFMB in San Diego and Jim Clemente, former FBI Profiler.
Now, Areva, Mexico says the interview was, quote, "essential in capturing El Chapo. Now, I have a bunch of questions. Does Sean Penn have any
liability for having done this -- sort of interfering with international legal activities, international relations?
AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY AND LEGAL COMMENTATOR: What we know now, Sean Penn has not committed any crimes. Let us face it, journalists review and
interview bad people. And, the question about a crime is whether he did something to hinder the capture of El Chapo, whether he somehow conspired
with him or did something else to prevent the government from arresting him, obstructing justice.
And, from what we know right now, he did not do any of those things. So, as frustrated as people are about his interview and about him making this
so public, I do not think there is any criminal liability they can attach to it.
PINSKY: Jim, why are we so frustrated with him?
JIM CLEMENTE, FORMER FBI PROFILER: Well, I do not think we should be frustrated. In fact, I think he helped us. I think the feds were
following him. And, I think they were keeping tabs on all of his communications. And, I think --
PINSKY: But, there are pictures of him. There was people yhen surveying his activities in Mexico.
CLEMENTE: Yes, absolutely. And, I think he was foolish, stupid to think that he was not being followed. He probably did not intend this
consequence, but it actually in the end helped us capture him.
PINSKY: And, yet, Mike, we are frustrated with him, why?
MIKE SLATER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, I am actually more concerned with "Rolling Stonse" and why they have this weird fetish and desire to take
some of the worst people in the world and make them like folk heroes. You think of the Tsarnaev brother, putting him on the front of "Rolling Stones"
like a member of "One Direction," glam them up and all the rest. And, then, they do the same with El Chapo, make him see -- he is like, "Oh, he
is just a regular guy trying to make it out in the world."
PINSKY: Well, yes --
MARTIN: Yes, that really bothers me. This is a really violent criminal, and we are somehow revering him or at least this article seems to normalize
his activities --
SLATER: Yes.
MARTIN: -- like he is a modern day Robin Hood, taking from the rich and giving to the poor and giving to charity. That really bothers me.
ANAHITA SEDAGHATFAR, ATTORNEY, OF COUNCIL TO THE COCHRAN FIRM: Look at the author of the article, Dr. Drew, let us not take away from that. And, I
agree with Areva. There is no criminal liability at this point --
PINSKY: Wait, wait. Look at the author, meaning, Sean Penn.
SEDAGHATFAR: Sean Penn, correct.
PINSKY: What do you want us to look at?
SEDAGHATFAR: Well, I mean, you are basically giving this drug kingpin a murderer a platform that he does not deserve. You are giving him the
celebrity status, the limelight that he is creating. He was telling people that he thought they should make a movie out of his life.
PINSKY: Because -- because -- wait, because awe shucks, he was just a farmer that was meeting the demands --
SEDAGHATFAR : Right. Helping the poor.
PINSKY: -- of the U.S. Marketplace. Those U.S. citizens and their damn drug problems --
SEDAGHATFAR: Talk about a narcissistic --
PINSKY: -- what are you going to do?
SEDAGHATFAR: It is right. Talk about a narcissistic --
PINSKY: No. No. Listen. Sean is the narcissists. This guy is a sociopath.
MARTIN: Sociopath.
SLATER: The article, before Sean Penn ever mentioned El Chapo is because, I am the difference with narcissism and the rest --
PINSKY: Well, think of the grandiosity. Listen -- Listen, I sort of feel like Jim does not command Sean Penn for going to do this. It worked out
great, but imagine the grandiosity to feel like "Hey, no big deal. It is me, man! I do not care if I am surrounded by guys in Kevlar with automatic
weapons. Hey, man, it is me." But, apparently, in the article he talks how at one point he got a little freaked out. A little, a little freaked
out.
SEDAGHATFAR: There is no redeeming value in the article. I read it. I think there is no redeeming value. And, I agree with you -- look at
"Rolling Stone." I mean look at their history of putting the Boston bomber on the cover, glamorizing him.
And, then, there is that article they wrote about this alleged gang rape at U of A, which was completely false. It was essentially a work of fiction.
So, I think this really is about "Rolling Stone" magazine trying to get publicity, trying to sell magazines more than anything else.
[21:05:00] PINSKY: And, undermining their legitimacy is what you are saying.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right. They undermine the legitimacy of this in a sense.
PINSKY: But, you, guys, think about it. We live in a time, if they sell papers, Jim, they sell magazines. It does not matter about their
legitimacy, their goal is achieved.
CLEMENTE: Well, their goal is achieved but fortunately in this case, what happened was, law enforcement was able to take advantage of this slip up on
the part of El Chapo. He, obviously, was sort of had stars in his eyes and was not looking past the fact that he was actually exposing himself, and
this is how we actually caught him. This is not a bad result, but the methodology that was used was really very self-centered.
PINSKY: How about the Mexican actress, and how naive she is --
MARTIN: I think she is --
PINSKY: Like I trust this man more than I trust my Mexican government.
SLATER: Wow.
PINSKY: And, by the way, if my understand is right, the extradition issues, the reason it has taken so long is, there is such intrigue between
him and other maybe law enforcement officials and Mexican government officials. They do not want that all to come out in our courts.
MARTIN: Well, you talk about this actress, she is tweeting to El Chapo saying, "Use your drug cartel for good." As if you can somehow take drug
money and clean it up, and become this big philanthropist. And, that is the naive to say here and the eagle that I think has us all felt appalled.
SEDAGHATFAR: And, some people in Mexico share that sentiment, actually.
SLATER: Well, because he is --
SEDAGHATFAR: They are calling him a Robin Hood. They are saying, you know, "Our government is so corrupt, at least he is helping build roads.
He is helping give money to people who are ill that do not have money. But, I thinks, it is just disrespectful.
CLEMENTE: But, he is the one corrupting the government. He is the one using those billions of dollars to pay off these companies and these
soldiers and these politicians. He is causing it to be corrupt.
SLATER: Yes. Before we praise Sean Penn too much for maybe meeting us to this guy.
(LAUGHING)
PINSKY: Yes.
SLATER: We also got to keep in mind, I have no problem with interviewing of -- interviewing El Chapo.
PINSKY: El Chapo, yes.
SLATER: But, if you are going to go, put yourself in harm`s way, if something did go wrong, then that is going to put other law enforcement in
harm`s way. Maybe the FBI would feel the need to go in and rescue his butt.
PINSKY: Right.
SLATER: Because he put himself in a much dangerous situation. It is irresponsible.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
PINSKY: Well, a marine -- A marine did that -- Two marines, now, have died in the act of going after El Chapo. Now, to be fair, they were the ones
going after him. It was not rescuing Sean Penn --
SLATER: It could have -- sure, but it could have been that situation. And, that is inappropriate.
PINSKY: CNN Money interviewed "Rolling Stone`s" publisher, who said he thinks anyone who would have encouraged Sean Penn to meet -- anyone,
meaning any publisher would have encouraged Sean Penn to meet El Chapo saying, quote, "I think some people would have given their first born child
to get this story."
SLATER: Yes, but you do not need to give El Chapo editorial control of the article too.
SEDAGHATFAR: Exactly.
SLATER: You do not need to praise him and make him seem like a God.
SEDAGHATFAR: Here is the journalistic integrity here. "Rolling Stone" Magazine allowed El Chapo to have a final say --
SLATER: It is crazy.
SEDAGHATFAR: -- in what was published. So, they say he did not change anything, that the article stands as the way it was written. But the mere
fact that they gave him that option just destroys any credibility in my opinion.
PINSKY: And, Anahita, your colleague, defense attorney, Mark Geragos, told the entertainment website, raf.com if there is a reward for El Chapo`s
capture, Sean Penn may be the one given --
MARTIN: He does not get the reward. He was trying to hide the fact that he went to meet with him.
PINSKY: Come on now!
MARTIN: You give a reward to someone who calls the police and say, "Look, I am giving you a tip on a criminal."
PINSKY: He put himself in harm`s way to be the bait, to get El Chapo.
MARTIN: But, he went so far to hide it. He was not trying to pursue the reward. So, to give him money or to somehow reward him from misconduct is
just plain sick.
SLATER: The article was so hard to read. I feel like I should get a reward for finishing it.
SEDAGHATFAR: I know, right.
PINSKY: I just love the fact that we have a real life Don Corleone.
(LAUGHING)
SLATER: Yes.
PINSKY: It is like, "Hey, no! I did not know. I have not hurt anybody." "Well, if they come after me, I might take some action. It is just
business. It is just business."
(LAUGHING)
MARTIN: That is what scary, Dr. Drew. People say, "Wait a minute. We have Sopranos and we have Scarface, but those are fictional stories on
television. These are real life people. Five people, five or six people died even in his capture. So, people are dying even as this guy is being
captured again. So, we cannot lose sight of the thousands of people that have died because of his conduct.
PINSKY: And, the fictionalized characters we are talking about are horrible psychopaths. Yes, we have ambivalent feelings that we connect to
them. We make them feel human beings. But do not forget, the character as well as this El Chapo character, these are not OK people. These are
criminals, who kill indiscriminately, if they are pushed. If they are aggresses against them.
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes, they are not the initial aggressor.
CLEMENTE: Or if there are business reasons.
PINSKY: For business, for business.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
PINSKY: Yes, yes of course, Jim. Thank you. They are just business. Just business.
MARTIN: We forgot that word. He is a businessman.
PINSKY: Yes. Next, we will continue this conversation. And, later, "Making a Murderer." We are going to get into it. We have new recordings
that may just change your mind about the case. Back after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
[21:10:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER: Mexican drug lord El Chapo is behind bars. Could actor Sean Penn be in trouble?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
This whole entire encounter with Penn and El Chapo was brokered by a Mexican actress named, Kate del Castillo. Back in 2012, that del Castillo,
issued a series of tweets that were critical of the Mexican government and praised El Chapo, who has eventually that relationship that led Penn to
meeting El Chapo.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(GUNFIRE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: What you are just seeing was shot from a go-pro on Friday night during the raid, which led to the capture of fugitive drug lord El Chapo.
Five people were killed, a Mexican marine wounded. Back with Areva, Anahita, Mike and Jim.
And, according to Forbs, El Chapo was responsible for the deaths of at least 70,000 people, not including those who died as result of addiction or
overdose. And, no doubt Hollywood will make a movie about this and portray him. But, I guess, Mike, the question is, will it be sympathetic or not?
SLATER: I am having flashbacks to when I saw the movie "Blow." Have you, guys, seen that?
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes.
SLATER: But, it ended as a tragic tale, and I hope this one does as well. Though, I think Chapo is probably going to break out of prison again?
[21:15:00] PINSKY: You think?
SLATER: Oh, sure, why would not he.
PINSKY: But, what takes so long to get him extradite, you, guys? What is up with the attorneys?
SLATER: Yes.
PINSKY: Come on, now.
MARTIN: Well --
PINSKY: He should be here this week, right?
MARTIN: Well, no. The attorneys are going to appeal. They are going to use every legal --
PINSKY: The extradition?
MARTIN: The extradition, they are going to fight it. That is why affluenza is not in a Texas jail, even though his mom is. The legal
process, you just cannot turn someone over. There are due process rights that he has and his lawyers are going to use every possible legal maneuver
that they can to keep this guy from coming to America. Because as long as he is in Mexico, I think he has a chance of escaping again.
PINSKY: Yes. Jim.
CLEMENTE: Yes. It is not like Mexico does not have a case against him. We are just one of the countries that wants him prosecuted. We do not have
any right to him. So, his lawyers will probably be successful, if they want to keep him there. I think the Mexican government has to want to get
rid of him for us to get there.
SEDAGHATFAR: Well, they have indicated that they do want to extradite him. The Mexican government has indicated that they do want to work with the
United States Government, but that it will take some time. And, that is because there are going to be numerous appeals.
PINSKY: Why would not they want to prosecute him down there?
MARTIN: I think the embarrassment. What we are seeing is that the Mexican president was so embarrassed by this guy`s escape --
PINSKY: But, forget the escape --
MARTIN: -- that he got to do something.
PINSKY: Why would not they want to have, I mean the --
MARTIN: This is the question, can they contain him? Given the corruption, given the ties, given the relationships that he has, I am really concerned
that they may not even be able to get this guy to a trial.
PINSKY: He is in the very prison he had escaped from, but apparently he is going to be there for a very short period of time. That is what I am
hearing, that the military may pick him up and presumably, the military have a greater discipline than --
CLEMENTE: Well, I do not know. I mean, if you believe what Sean Penn said, the military was at the check points that waived them through because
his son was driving the car or in the car.
SEDAGHATFAR: If you believe what Sean Penn said.
PINSKY: Well, speaking what Sean said, he asked El Chapo to answer whether he thought it was true that he, El Chapo is responsible for the high level
of drug addiction and for the fact that there are so many drugs throughout the world. Now watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOAQUIN El-CHAPO GUZMAN, DRUG KINGPIN (translated to English): No. That is false. Because the day I do not exist, there is not going to decrease
in any way at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: I am not sure I got that.
SEDAGHATFAR: But, of course not. He is saying, "If I was not dealing these drugs, somebody else would be dealing drugs."
PINSKY: Right. Right.
SEDAGHATFAR: And, really, to me, this seems like an editorial piece more than actually like a journalistic piece, because you are learning more
about the author`s viewpoints and ideologies than you are about El Chapo.
PINSKY: Little more, Sean asked if El Chapo thinks it is true that what they say about drugs are destroying -- well, some say destroying humanity
and bringing harm -- I say it is a massive medical problem. And, let us remember that pills are still a major problem -- the major problem in this
country. But, let us look at the tape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EL-CHAPO (translated to English): Well, it is a reality that drug destroys. Unfortunately, as I said, while grew up, there is no other way.
There still is not a way to survive. No other way to work in our economy, to be able to make a living.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: "No other way to make a living, except dealing drugs."
MARTIN: That is what is so disturbing to me about this whole piece. He tries to justify the poverty that he grew up in and that others in Mexico
grow up and some justification for becoming criminals and sociopathic. Lots of people have choices to make.
A lot of poor people decide to get a job. Decide to live on whatever, you know, small amount of money that they have without killing 70,000 people.
So, your poverty is not an explanation or an excuse for your criminal conduct.
PINSKY: Do we allow for poverty or extreme economic deprivation as a defense in our system?
SEDAGHATFAR: We actually -- it is not a defense, but it is used as mitigating factor. And, I think there is some truth, if anything to what
El Chapo said there about what is going on in that country, what is going on with the government.
And, we would be hypocritical to say that we in this government do not use someone`s upbringing and someone`s, you know, perhaps poor upbringing as a
factor when we are dealing this criminal defendant.
MARTIN: But, it always comes up when we get to a mitigating stage --
SEDAGHATFAR: Absolutely.
MARTIN: And, someone has been convicted of a crime. Now, we are looking at what the sentence should be. And, I do not see many African-American
men or Latino men growing up in urban communities being able to say, "Hey, look, judge, I was poor, I am sorry, that is why robbed that store and
killed all those people. So, let me out." It just does not work that way.
PINSKY: I am also looking at some of the -- the fans on Twitter he got. I mean he got people tweeting us from Mexico that we need to keep our mouth
shut.
SEDAGHATFAR: Oh my God.
PINSKY: And, I do not know.
MARTIN: Are some already on the set?
SLATER: I would argue most people in Mexico probably do not want this. So, I live in San Diego, and we are closer than L.A. to the border, but it
has been horrible for tourism in Tijuana and for business. They do not want this drug trade anymore than we want this drug trade.
In the New York Times, I had an interesting quote from a farmer in Mexico, and when El Chapo was captured, they went back to growing corn. And, then,
when he came back out, they had to go back to growing marijuana. Because if they do not, they are going to get beheaded.
PINSKY: That is interesting.
SLATER: You do not want to mess around with this guy, anymore.
PINSKY: Jim.
CLEMENTE: Yes. I think it is a major crime problem. I mean, it is not just in Tijuana, it is all across the Texan border as well -- Texas-Mexican
border as well, that there are violent crimes occurring every day. I think it is like 27,000 a year now that occurred border towns with respect to
just the drug trade.
[21:20:00] And, then, when you add on top of that, the people that have probably died digging those tunnels. Because they are not actually living
in luxury while they are doing it, they are acting as slave labor doing it.
PINSKY: You know, getting back to the sort of, the -- the grandiosity, let us call it, of people that are in the public eye, that are celebrities
injecting themselves into international relations. Does anyone see this in any way similar to what Dennis Rodman did with the North Korean leader?
You know, I am dying to know what Dennis feels about Sean Penn doing this. I am really am.
SEDAGHATFAR: But, I am sure they did really are good buddies, right?
MARTIN: Right.
SEDAGHATFAR: Again, I think it is more about them than it is the cause or learning the truth or actually finding out what is going on with El Chapo.
And, I agree, I think Dennis Rodman and Sean Penn probably have a lot in common from a mental perspective, right?
PINSKY: But, think about that. I will not say something bigger about -- it is like art imitating life, getting involved and really the complexities
of war and international relations in drug trafficking.
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes, because only he can understand it. Only Sean Penn can understand the inner dealings of El Chapo. Only Dennis Rodman -- It is
ridiculous. Like I said, yes, it is more about, I think, his own opinions than it is about anything that has to do with real journalism.
SLATER: I want to talk to you, Dr. Drew. If you were sitting across from someone, who is doing immoral things --
PINSKY: Yes.
SLATER: And, you asked, "Why they are doing it?"
PINSKY: Yes.
SLATER: And, they say, "Well, it was not me, someone else will be doing it anyway. So, it might as well be me."
PINSKY: Right.
SLATER: What do you respond back to that person?
PINSKY: Blah, blah, blah. That is what I say. And, I hear that kind of garbage all the time.
SLATER: Yes.
PINSKY: And, my thing is, "Stop it. Just stop it."
SLATER: What is their response?
PINSKY: "Oh, oh, what do you think?" "What I think is that you are a lying sack of you know what. And, listen, I got your record. Your
behavior tells me everything I need to know. And, that is that. If you want to change, you could change." And, we will hold you accountable to
the behavior; otherwise, do not even talk to me." That is how I get it.
SLATER: Sean Penn would make the same excuse about writing this article. If it was not me interviewing him, then it would have been --
SEDAGHATFAR: He did.
MARTIN: Well, that is what "Rolling Stone" has already said that anyone would die to get this interview.
PINSKY: People download BS on to me all day long. And, you too, Jim, I am sure you hear it all the time.
CLEMENTE: It is called rationalization.
PINSKY: Yes.
CLEMENTE: It is a way they allow themselves to do the bad things they want.
PINSKY: Right. And, I have people who have a condition that makes them do that. And, so, I dismiss it as you are ill. If you participate in your
treatment, we will see you start to be more honest and more realistic about your behavior. If you are a psychopath, if you are sociopath, this is not
going to change. And, if these two, they are going to see you next.
Speaking of that, next, "Making a Murderer." Hear from Steven Avery`s new attorney. She says she knows who in fact the real killer is. Back with
this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:26:32] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Steven, everybody is listening, what do you want to say today?
STEVEN AVERY, CONVICTED MURDER AND VIOLENT SEXUAL ASSAULT: I am innocent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN MANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: "Making A Murderer," it is the latest binge-watching obsession on Netflix.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Avery and his nephew are charged with the murder of 25-year-old Teresa Halbach.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN KRATZ, FMR. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CALUMET COUNTY: Mr. Avery`s blood was found inside of Teresa Halbach`s vehicle.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANN: Avery maintains he is innocent and defense lawyers say authorities planted evidence to frame him for murder.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: I think Steven Avery, guilty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN O`DONNELL, WISN RADIO HOST: There was in fact a great deal of evidence that was left out at this documentary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE SPEAKER: Over 400,000 people, now signing two online petitions seeking pardons for Avery and his nephew.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROLONDA WATTS, HOST OF "ROLONDA ON DEMAND" PODCAST: There are so many holes in this. It is a donut documentary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Steven Avery is serving a life sentence, but he has a new high- profile lawyer. She claims they have new evidence that will set him free. Back with Areva, Anahita, Mike and Jim. Areva, what is she likely to be on
to?
MARTIN: Well, what we do know is that both of them have exhausted their state appeal. So, there is no place else to go in terms of state court and
now --
PINSKY: Can I ask you something before you --
MARTIN: Yes.
PINSKY: If this documentary shows the egregiousness of the whole process, why have not any of those state appeals been successful?
MARTIN: Because appealing a conviction in this kind of case is very, very difficult and rarely are those convictions overturned.
PINSKY: OK.
MARTIN: So, I do not think we should read too much into that.
PINSKY: All right.
MARTIN: It is just the legal process.
PINSKY: Got it.
MARTIN: But, now, they got to get back into court. That is what these new high-powered lawyers do. Their specialists at taking these very difficult
cases and somehow turning them around. So, they are going to go into federal court and file a motion in federal court saying, "Look, the
constitutional rights of these individuals were violated."
And, the federal court needs to review what happened in the state court. And, that may be their shot to have a new trial and to have this new
evidence that we are hearing about, you know, reviewed before a judge and a jury. Long shot, but that is all they have. They are sitting in jail for
life.
PINSKY: Now, last week his lawyer tweeted, "Whoever deleted Teresa Halbach`s cell phone calls is either the murderer or part of the cover-up,
either way the killer is free." So, here is Teresa`s brother on the stand, talking about accessing these voicemail messages days after she went
missing. Have a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE HALBACH, TERESA HALBACH`S BROTHER: Teresa`s inbox was full. So, I guess what I was interested in was why it was full or when the first new
message was, you know, received in her inbox. I had a feeling that I might know her voice mail password, and so -- you know, that is why I did call
her voice mail.
KRATZ: Did you listen to at least some of those messages that day?
MIKE HALBACH: I did.
KRATZ: Did you listen to all of them?
MIKE HALBACH: I believe that I did.
KRATZ: Mr. Halbach, did you erase any of the messages?
JEROME BUTING, STEVEN AVERY`S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I do not believe I erased any messages.
MIKE HALBACH: I do not believe I erased any messages.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: You know, it seems to me, if somebody just listened to all the voice mail messages, they can easily just push -- I delete stuff by
accident all the time. Is not it possible, Jim, this was the guy who deleted things? Did you listen, he deleted --
CLEMENTE: I mean it is possible. It is certainly probable in fact. He is the only one we know of that actually affirmatively went in and listened to
those messages, and it is only one button to delete that. But, there could have been somebody else who had her cell phone or access code.
PINSKY: Is not it a leap to say, "Oh, that is the person who is either involved in this case."
CLEMENTE: It is a ridiculous leap to say that. I mean it does not rule him out, but it certainly is a leap to say, he is the one that murdered
her.
[21:30:00] PINSKY: Or somebody who did this, if he did not, is the one.
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes. I think that is just one of the arguments the defense attorney is making. And, I think it is great that Avery has retained this
attorney, because she has a track record of getting these convicted defendants exonerated. And, she has come out and she said, there is no
evidence she says. And, I think, frankly, his only hope at this point is if there is new evidence.
Now, she has not said what the evidence is, but I have read that they are trying to develop some type of test that can determine whether or not the
blood evidence that was found was in fact taken from the vile that was in police custody. And, I can tell you, if they are able to develop that
test, if the judge allows that in as evidence, then I think that he has a good chance here.
CLEMENTE: Well, that has already been done by the FBI. Now, I do not know if the test that the FBI did on it was absolutely determinative, but I know
Mark Lebow, he is the head of the chemistry unit in the FBI lab. And, I know that he is the one that testified in the original trial.
And, he said that it proved that the blood sample, he tested three of the samples, not all six, but in the three samples that EDTA was not present.
Now, there may come up with a test that actually has a lower threshold, and could detect smaller amounts of EDTA --
SEDAGHATFAR: Was not the prosecution though by the judge is ruling prevented from rebutting that testimony. It was my understanding that they
were not allowed to present their rebuttal to that testimony.
CLEMENTE: No. The prosecution called them --
SEDAGHATFAR: I mean the defense. I am sorry, the defense.
CLEMENTE: Maybe, I am not sure.
PINSKY: You are looking at a purple top tube here. And, those purple top tubes, those both tubes all have something called EDTA, which is something
that causes the blood not to clot. And, so, the purple top -- and that little dot of read, the defense here made big deal about that little dot
read, all of those stoppers have that red dot in it. That is how you get the blood into the tube in the first place. Now, Areva, the judge would
not allow the defense to use any other suspects into this case, why? And, is that normal?
MARTIN: Well, the issue was, is there any evidence, substantive evidence that leads you to believe that there is someone else that did this? And,
in this case, unfortunately, the investigators had tunnel vision. They did not investigate or follow leads for other potential suspects, and that was
a big problem in this case.
But, I think one thing we have to be clear about. These guys are already winning. They are both poor. They are out of money. No lawyer would
touch this case. Now, for this documentary and all of this media attention, they have high high-powered specialists that do nothing but
these intense murder cases like this on their team.
PINSKY: Hold on. Wait. Wait.
SEDAGHATFAR: I want to add on that.
MARTIN: That is major.
PINSKY: I will let you follow up, but I want to put a fine point on what she is saying. I think what you are saying is, if they are not guilty,
these people will get them off, is that accurate?
MARTIN: Well, what I am saying is, if there were violations -- we have to be clear about the criminal justice system. Guilt is important, but also
the process. Were their rights violated through this trial? And, if their rights were violated, they would be entitled to a new trial. Now, they
have these high-powered lawyers that have taken their case --
PINSKY: All right.
MARTIN: -- apparently, for not any money, that is going to challenge --
PINSKY: A lot of pr.
MARTIN: -- how this trial was handled.
PINSKY: But, Anahita, this is my thing about this case. I believe this man is guilty. I felt this way from the beginning. I have actually had e-
mails from neighbors and people in the community thanking me, because they have been dealing with him, this family for a long time.
MARTIN: Wow!
PINSKY: But, here is deal, I am not convinced he should be in prison for the very reason that Areva is pointing out. There is a difference between
guilt and --
SEDAGHATFAR: Reasonable doubt. I think you are talking about --
PINSKY: Well -- and you have enough to prove his guilt, which is the system.
MARTIN: And a constitutional trial.
PINSKY: Do you want to respond?
SEDAGHATFAR: I agree that whether or not you believe he did it or did not do it that he should have been acquitted, because there was a ton of
reasonable doubt. But, I want to touch upon the judge`s ruling by not allowing the defense attorneys to argue that perhaps the killer could have
been somebody else.
PINSKY: They eluded to lots of other people though.
SEDAGHATFAR: The judge excluded them from making that argument, Dr. Drew. And, I can tell you, as a defense attorney, that is a very common argument.
A defense attorney not only is allowed to make, you are almost compelled to make that argument for your client at trial.
So, this is one of those rulings that I found so perplexing in this case because as a defense attorney, we talked about this before. Your ethical
duty to your client is to be able to raise anything that could possibly give rise to reasonable doubt. But, the judge precluded them from arguing,
"Hey, it could have been somebody else."
PINSKY: Jim, you want to say something?
CLEMENTE: I agree. I mean I have never seen a case like this.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
CLEMENTE: Where the defense was prevented from pointing the finger at who they say is the real killer. I think it is outrageous. But, in addition,
it was all sorts of other things that the prosecutor did that were just outrageous. For example, having a press conference and my newly detailing
the horrific things they say that Brandon said were done to the victim.
You do not that in the middle of an investigation. You certainly -- you typically -- a prosecutor will say, wait for until the trial, you will hear
what my case is. They do not spill out all that information because what it would do in this case, it poisoned the jury pool in a very small town.
There is no way to get passed that.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: But, it is important to know -- we could imagine that all of these arguments were made in the multiple appeals that were filed. That just
shows how difficult it is in these cases to get an appellate court judge to undo what is happening at the trial level, because --
[21:35:00] SEDAGHATFAR: Even with all these mistakes --
MARTIN: -- with all these mistakes, these big holes that we hear, like a donut --
PINSKY: Yes.
MARTIN: -- describe all of these big holes, the appellate court upheld, upheld.
PINSKY: All right.
SLATER: I want to know when Dr. Drew is going to make his ten-part Netflix counter series.
PINSKY: That is right.
SEDAGHATFAR: I think they should hire him to do their PR, the prosecution team. I already said that, Dr. Drew, they should hire you.
MARTIN: Well, you got e-mails people thanking you. I got texts after -- you and I were here talking about it, and I was on the show talking about,
people saying Dr. Drew was too hard on the defendants.
PINSKY: Oh, no, they want to kill me too.
(LAUGHING)
SEDAGHATFAR: We want to kill you.
PINSKY: We are just talking about a television program, everybody. We are all falling for a documentary. Let us not forget that.
All right, next, we will go live to Wisconsin for today`s developments in this story.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[21:40:00] JUDGE JEROME FOX, MANITOWOC COUNTY CIRCUIT JUDGE: As to count one: We the jury find the defendant Brendan R. Dassey guilty of first
degree intentional homicide as partied to a crime.
As to count two: We the jury find the defendant, Brendan R. Dassey guilty of mutilating a corpse as partied to a crime.
As to count three: We the jury find the defendant Brendan R. Dassey guilty of second degree sexual assault as party to a crime on October 31st, 2005.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Brendan Dassey, now 26 was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of early release in 2048 at which time he would be 58 years of
age. Back with Areva, Anahita, Mike and Jim. And, joining me, HLN Senior Producer, Natisha Lance in Wisconsin. Natisha, today, you spoke with
Brendan`s current attorney. what would you find out?
NATISHA LANCE, HLN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I did. His current attorney is Steve Dursan. And, he is actually out of Chicago. He has been
representing him since 2007. He said what first made him to want to take on the case was the interrogation.
PINSKY: That is right.
LANCE: The interview that was done with Brendan Dassey. And, he said there were so many things within that interview that rose the level of
coercion. So, he also said that there were things that were left out on the documentary on the defense side as well. One of those things being
there was an expert, who is put on the stand to talk about that interview.
And, that was left out on the documentary, but he said that the expert says, there were numerous things that were wrong with the interview that
Brendan Dassey gave. So, at this point, this attorney also had a history of working with wrongful convictions as well as juveniles and as well as
confessions. But, at this point, Brendan`s case is in federal court.
PINSKY: Federal court.
LANCE: They are waiting for a response.
PINSKY: OK.
LANCE: Yes, they got the federal court. They are waiting for a response and they expect that a response to come back within the next year or so. I
asked them, "Since you have had a lot of experience with working with cases like this, what do you think the chances are with his case?"
And, he said, "I do not want to put a handicap on the case by saying that." But, he also wanted to say as well that Brendan Dassey is not a psychopath.
He is someone who is mentally challenged and someone who possibly got the short end of the stick here when it came to his case.
PINSKY: Thank you, Natisha. Great report. I agree with this. This one bothers us all. Everyone that looks at this one is very troubled by this
case. The coercion, the level of coercion. There is no doubt this kid has some neurocognitive problems. There is no doubt there maybe some
psychiatric overlay, not psychopathy. That is not what anyone is thinking about this kid.
And, let us -- I want to remind everybody again. Do not -- watching a court proceeding, you are watching a documentary. We all got to remind
ourselves of that. It is a murder trial that you are seeing bits and pieces of. We are not sitting in the jury watching what is being presented
to us by the teams, right? I mean it is different.
MARTIN: It is different -- and the documentary, the writers had to decide what they were going to put in, and what they were going to leave out.
Now, we are hearing from Brendan`s attorney that there were things that were supportive of the defense that did not make it.
Even though we now the prosecutors have been really up in arms and had been really upset about the documentary and saying, "Look, you have not told the
story from a prosecution standpoint. You have not given enough information," because there was, from their perspective, enough evidence to
find both of them guilty, which is what happened with the jury.
SLATER: Can I ask you, all, the psychology of the interrogators? What is their motivation to behave this way? Because this was very dramatic and
heartbreaking.
SEDAGHATFAR: It seems they were colluding.
PINSKY: Listen. Well --
SEDAGHATFAR: It seems to me, they were all colluding.
PINSKY: I got an expert here.
CLEMENTE: Well, let me just tell you --
PINSKY: I am so glad you asked that.
CLEMENTE: Let me just tell you. The point is, these investigators, the methods they use would be fine in normal circumstances.
PINSKY: Which is, by the way, almost hard to believe.
(CROSSTALK)
CLEMENTE: Yes. Well, the Supreme Court has approved. Yes, you can actually -- detectives can lie. As long as they do not make up evidence.
As long as they do not show a lab report that says, "Here, here is the FBI report that says your DNA is on the murder weapon."
As long as they do not do that, there is a limit to what they can actually lie about. However, they should never, as a general practice give
information, and then hear from the defendant back.
PINSKY: So, she was shot in the head, how would that happen?
CLEMENTE: Yes, exactly. That should ever happen.
SEDAGHATFAR: How about the fact --
CLEMENTE: They did it over and over and over again.
SEDAGHATFAR: You do not get to that, Dr. Drew. How about the fact that after two words out of this child`s mouth, it would be clear to anybody,
you do not need an expert that he did not understand what was going on.
PINSKY: Yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: He did not understand what he was saying. And, you are right, nothing angers me more about this documentary than what happened to
Brendan. He is 16 years old. He clearly is mentally, you know --
PINSKY: Challenged.
SEDAGHATFAR: -- challenged in this case, and these are series of the most coerced confessions I have seen in my entire career. And, then you look at
the fact that his own defense attorney, who is there to supposedly look out for him, defend him, also throws him under the bus, because one of the
confessions was at the hands of the defense attorney`s own private investigator. So, it is just mind boggling that the judge, which you just
showed on the screen right now --
[21:45:07] PINSKY: Yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: -- ruled, none of those confessions were coerced. They were all admissible, that is yet another ruling that we really have to question
yourself, what was this judge thinking, and were these parties all colluding?
CLEMENTE: In my mind, the detectives that did the original investigative interviews may not have intentionally coerced him. They may not have
understood what they were doing to him. But, certainly, his own lawyer`s investigator actually coerced him. He actually used coercive methods. If
any of that stuff was done by the detectives --
SEDAGHATFAR: Right.
CLEMENTE: It would have been thrown out.
SEDAGHATFAR: The initial investigators were interrogating him. I disagree with you, and he is saying, "Well, yes, I did. Well, no, I did not do it.
By the way, I have class in an hour." I mean does that take an expert to realize that?
MARTIN: I do not agree with you, Anahita.
SEDAGHATFAR: I think he should be evaluated. There has been no --
MARTIN: I agree on Jim on this.
SEDAGHATFAR: Yes, there has just been no -- let me quickly finish. Has he been evaluated?
PINSKY: I know.
SEDAGHATFAR: Has he had a mental evaluation?
PINSKY: I know.
CLEMENTE: No. They did not do those things.
SEDAGHATFAR: We have not heard about this.
PINSKY: Well, maybe they did. We do not know because we are watching a documentary. I do not know. I hope they did. To me, that is the most
disturbing part of the documentary.
SEDAGHATFAR: I agree.
PINSKY: Both these gentlemen had severe mental health issues, neither are being attended to, at least as far as we can tell based on documentary.
And part of that evaluation will be to contextualize these interviews.
CLEMENTE: Absolutely.
PINSKY: How these gentlemen, these interviewers, understand whom they are interviewing and how they adjust their interviewing techniques to adjust to
the context of what that young man could appreciate or not appreciate.
CLEMENTE: Right.
PINSKY: Next up, inside the jury. Some who voted to convict Steven Avery are changing their tune tonight. Back after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[21:51:04] RICHARD MAHLER, EXCUSED AVERY JUROR: I felt that there was some biased jurors that did not, you know, keep an open mind and they had
their mind made up -- you know, before the trial started. I mean, to me, I believe we do not know for sure. I mean, I do not know for sure who killed
Teresa or how it happened.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Now, although, I was reminding you before the break that this is a documentary upon which we are basing all of our opinions. Areva pointed
out to me during the break that listen, the documentary may not be real, but there are two people in life, in prison for life, and somebody who is
dead, and that is as real as it gets. That is why the passions are flying with this case.
And, of course, all the armchair detectives, who watch this show saw ten hours of tape. The actual jurors in Steven Avery`s case listened to nearly
six weeks of testimony. So, the question is, are we in a position to say they got the verdict wrong? Back with Areva, Anahita, Mike and Jim. What
say you, Mike? Were you in that position?
SLATER: Well, I am thinking about the people on the jury. And, I think about where they are from. So, Manitowoc County Population, 80,000, and
this was held in a county with 50,000, which is about the population of this block that we are in here in Los Angeles, right?
So, almost everyone knew Steven Avery. So, I want to ask the ladies here, what does it take to get a trial out of a county to a group of people who
do not know who Steven Avery is from Adam?
SEDAGHATFAR: No. I am not sure if they filed the motions to get the venue transferred. But after that press conference that you referred to where
the investigators and DA are out there laying out the entire case for the jury pool, I would argue they were totally poisoned, at that moment.
CLEMENTE: Right.
SLATER: Which is not allowed in California.
MARTIN: It is a very high guard to move a case out of a venue. We are looking at some cases high profile cases now like, Freddie Gray in
Baltimore. They filed motion after motion to move the trial. Judges do not like to move cases out of their venue. Courts are backlogged. It is
very difficult. You start moving cases from venue to venue. It creates issues. So, it is a high bar to move a case.
SLATER: I understand I think this would need it, right? I mean 18 years out of prison, blah, blah --
PINSKY: And, there is more shenanigans.
MARTIN: Judge said no.
PINSKY: Apparently, more shenanigans went on in the deliberation room. And, according to one of the excused jurors, the initial vote was three
guilty, seven not guilty, two undecided. And, then they got to a unanimous guilty decision somehow. Jim, there is a horse trading back there.
CLEMENTE: Well, I think there is a little bit of mom mentality that goes on in the jury room. I think you generally go with whatever the trend is.
PINSKY: I sat -- I sat in a jury box once, much to my dismay. And, the judge goes, I need to know -- this is what kills me about our jury system.
He goes, "I need to know that if you were the only member of that jury that does not believe in the guilt of that person, you will not be persuaded by
your peers."
And, I said, "I am not sure I can say that. I do not think so." And, he goes, "What do you mean you cannot say." So, I said, "You were persuading
me now. You are doing exactly what I said could happen to me in the jury box." You get persuaded by people. That is what happens.
MARTIN: And, I will tell you this. Whoever the foreman is, if it is a strong personality, usually the foreman is selected by the jurors is a
strong personality, people are going to follow the lead of the leader. So, if the leader thinks guilty or not guilty, then generally that mob
mentality kicks in and everybody else will just follow.
PINSKY: And, yet, the attorneys -- I do not know if you two agree with this or not, always tell me that in spite of the short falls of our system,
they generally kind of get it right. That is what you always say.
SEDAGHATFAR: Well, I think --
MARTIN: Getting right means is a good system.
SEDAGHATFAR: Right. It is a great -- It is the best system in the world, I said in this on your show last week. But, it has flaws and I think one
takeaway from this regardless of your thoughts on his guilt or innocence, is that our system is flawed. There are coerced confessions. There are
false confessions, and there are even people who give false confessions that oftentimes start believing their confession.
PINSKY: Jim, I will let you comment on this. We got to take a break, be right back.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:55:00] PINSKY: Welcome back. We are discussing the Steven Avery- Brendan Dassey case, and Jim you wanted to comment.
CLEMENT: Yes. I wanted to say the juries do typically get it the right, if they are not tainted to begin with and if the evidence put in front in
them is legitimate. In this case, we have problems with both of those things.
PINSKY: And, I guess the next layer to that would be, if the judge is presenting things in an appropriate, legal, and rational way.
MARTIN: Wel,l the judge does not present --
PINSKY: But I mean allowing it to be presented.
MARTIN: Allowing it to be presented. There are a lot of rulings in this case that we are all shaking our heads, scratching our heads saying, "What
the hell is this judge doing?" And, again, when you go up on appeal, we just cannot understand his lawyers, how come this case was not retried.
So, lots of airs.
PINSKY: Mike.
SLATER: I want to remind everyone that there were a lot of, perhaps, corrupt people throughout this story. But, there is also a lot of great
people and a lot of people who are fighting for justice and wanted to do the right thing. But, let us not get too down and discourage on our
justice system. It is the best system.
MARTIN: Steven Avery`s lawyers are now rock stars on Twitter and social media. People love them.
(LAUGHING)
SEDAGHATFAR: Sex symbol.
MARTIN: Yes.
SEDAGHATFAR: Avery`s attorneys have become a sex symbol.
SLATER: No. Drew is the sex symbol. There he is. Dr. Drew.
SEDAGHATFAR: Of course. The number one sex symbol, of course.
PINSKY: They are after me. The mob.
MARTIN: Need not say that.
PINSKY: All right. You can DVR us, then watch the show any time. Good job, panel, thank you all for watching. And, of course, we are here every
night. We will see you next time.
[22:00:00] (MUSIC PLAYING)
END
