Return to Transcripts main page
Dr. Drew
Steven Avery`s Ex-Fiancee Firmly Believes He Is In Fact A Murderer; Teresa Halbach`s Family Speaking Out For The First Time; The Brendan Dassey`s Interrogation, Attorney Claims his Confession Was Coerced; New Details About The Affluenza Case. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 13, 2016 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
[21:00:14] DR. DREW PINSKY, HLN HOST OF "DR. DREW" PROGRAM: Tonight, an HLN exclusive. Steven Avery`s ex-fiancee is telling us, she now believes
firmly he is in fact a murderer. She says for the first time publicly that he is, quote, "Not innocent." Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NATISHA LANCE, HLN SENIOR PRODUCER: Do you believe Steven Avery killed Teresa Halbach?
JODI STACHOWSKI, STEVEN AVERY`S EX-FIANCEE: Yes, I do.
LANCE: Why?
STACHOWSKI: Because he threatened to kill me and my family and a friend of mine. I was in a bath and he threatened to throw a blow dryer in there,
and he told me that he would be able to get away with it. He beat me all the time -- punch me, throw me against the wall.
I would try to leave, he smashed the windshield out of my car, so I could not leave him. He is like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Semi-nice person, then
behind closed doors, he is a monster.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Joining me, Lisa Bloom, Civil Rights Lawyer at the Bloom Firm and legal analyst for Avvo.com; Judy Ho, Clinical Psychologist and professor at
Pepperdine University; Joseph Phillips, actor and conservative commentator and Laura Richards, Criminal Behavioral Analyst. She trained as a profiler
with New Scotland Yard.
And, joining us from Wisconsin, Natisha Lance, Senior Producer at HLN. She is the very person who interviewed Jodi. Natisha, she seemed to defend
Avery in that documentary. She was somebody who you -- During the documentary, you look at her, you go, "Why is she staying with this guy?"
Then her alcoholism comes up. Her run-ins with the law come up and now she is singing an entirely different tune. Why the switch?
NATISHA LANCE, HLN SENIOR PRODUCER: And, we were still asking why did she stay with this guy when we spoke to her. So, the switch here is what she
is saying is now the truth. She says that the documentary was all lies. She even asked to be removed from the documentary, going to the filmmakers.
They came to her asking her she wanted to do one last interview and she said, "No." And, she actually asked to be taken out of the interview
completely.
But, the bottom line is that, she says that she suffered abuse at the hands of Steven Avery for many years. We pulled police reports that corroborate
the thing that she was saying. We also spoke to the prosecutor, who told us that she was a witness on the prosecution witness list. She was not in
the trial, but he said that she was a witness on that list because of the longstanding abuse between the two of them.
PINSKY: Did you find her believable? Did you believe what she was telling you, Natisha?
LANCE: It is so hard to say. You know, my job is to get all the information on both sides. Listen to what Jodi is saying. Get all the
information from law enforcement. Check out the things that she is saying and then present it to viewers and let them decide for themselves.
PINSKY: Now, there is something she said, Natisha, that caught my attention. She said she was so desperate to get away from Avery. She,
actually, tried poisoning herself with rat poison. If this is true, it is rather dramatic. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STACHOWSKI: I ate two boxes of rat poison just so I could go to the hospital and get away from him, and asked them to get the police to help
me. We did not have a phone. He ripped that out of the wall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: All right. So, if my viewers remember, I was calling this man guilty from the beginning. He fit a profile. Lisa, any changes in
opinion?
LISA BLOOM, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY AND LEGAL ANALYST: You know, this is a fantastic interview and it is very interesting, but it would not be
admissible in court.
PINSKY: Why? Why?
BLOOM: That is probably why the prosecutor did not call her?
PINSKY: Why?
BLOOM: Because first of all, her opinion about whether he is innocent or guilty is not admissible in court. OK, but, her abuse, it might be --
PINSKY: Might be?
BLOOM: -- in some places it is strikingly similar or substantially similar, but it is not similar to what he is alleged to have done in this
murder. So, I do not think it would be admissible and this woman got some credibility issues. She probably has some mental health issues if she is
eating rat poison, I am sorry to say that and she lied -- what she is saying now is she lied in the documentary when she defended him. You know,
she said that on tape in the documentary. Now, she is saying, "Well, none of that was actually true."
PINSKY: And, she really did not defend him in the documentary but she certainly seemed persuaded to defend him if she needed to. Judy, what do
we call this? We are going to put a name to this?
JUDY HO, PH.D., CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: The defense that she is putting on for him as well as switching --
PINSKY: Well -- No, what are we going to call her? I mean she is an alcoholic.
HO: Yes.
PINSKY: We know she is an alcoholic, so is she liar, liar, pants on fire? Is that the whole story here or is this a borderline who is switching now?
--
HO: Yes.
PINSKY: -- because she is angry with him and who know where the truth lies?
HO: Absolutely. There is a mental health issue here, just like Lisa said. She probably is on the borderline spectrum somewhere. But, that does not
take away from the fact that she was abused and that he does fit that profile of what we would define as a psychopath or somebody with anti-
social personality disorder.
PINSKY: OK. So, we have somebody who lit a cat on fire. So, it is fire, animal torture and now domestic violence. Laura, is that fitting profiles
for you?
[21:05:02] LAURA RICHARDS, CRIMINAL BEHAVIORAL ANALYST: Absolutely. I mean, that is the classic triad. And, I absolutely disagree. I think she
gives a very clear insight into the type of person Steven Avery was. And, I agree with the fact that, actually, it does not tell us about guilt or
innocence of the murder, but given that insight, ex-partners know the perpetrator the best, and these people around the perpetrator. And, I
absolutely think it was an authentic account and it is a really important account.
PINSKY: Joseph, have at it.
JOSEPH PHILLIPS, ACTOR AND CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Well, I wonder whether she was -- In this interview, she was telling the truth with as
much authority as she was telling the lie in the documentary.
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING AND APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: I will tell you what. I am going to give you a chance.
PHILLIPS: But --
PINSKY: I am going to give you a chance to --
PHILLIPS: But, I do want to say this.
PINSKY: Please.
PHILLIPS: I want to say this. Profiling does not mean innocent or guilt.
PINSKY: Yes.
PHILLIPS: And, even if he was a wife beater, which is a horrible, horrible thing --
PINSKY: Yes.
PHILLIPS: -- and, he is a horrible person. Horrible people still deserve due process. And, it seems to me that this film is about whether or not he
received due process, and if he did not, it does not matter whether he beat her or not.
PINSKY: Well, unfortunately -- you are right. I do not disagree with you at all. And, that is what we have been debating on this show for quite some
time. But we are beginning to get a picture that this film is about making a documentary and nothing more.
HO: Yes.
PINSKY: And, it is not a court proceeding, it is a documentary. And, as such, some people participated, some people did not.
HO: Right.
PINSKY: They had to put a story together.
HO: Yes.
PINSKY: And, they gave one version to the story. Now, we are starting to hear the other version.
PHILLIPS: But she did participate.
PINSKY: Well --
PHILLIPS: She participated --
PINSKY: You are right.
PHILLIPS: And, she did defend him. She said that when she called him, he did not sound like he was rushed or that he had just been committing rape
and murder, which I do not know how one sounds when one does that.
RICHARDS: Exactly. How does one sound?
PINSKY: Well, let me show you the footage you are talking about or some of the same footage. Here we go. This is Jodi defending Mr. Avery in the
documentary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STACHOWSKI: I called Steven at 5:36, supposedly when all this murder, whatever, was supposedly happening. And, we talked for 15 minutes. And,
the conversation was normal. He did not sound rushed or like he was doing anything. And, if he was in the middle of doing something, we would not
have talked for 15 minutes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Natisha, did you address that particular claim with her and how in fact did she explain it away or did she?
LANCE: She did. She did. We addressed that specific claim. She said that he did actually sound funny to her. He did not sound rushed, but she
said he did not sound normal. And, she also said because she was in jail the day that this murder happened, when she saw it on T.V., something in
her gut told her that he was guilty and that he did this.
And, she ,also, carried a lot of guilt, because she was supposed to be getting out of jail that day. Steven Avery was supposed to pick her up to
go to an alcoholic drinking class. She was not able to get out of jail that day, and she feels like if she was out, then maybe Teresa Halbach
would still be alive.
But, one more thing I also want to say is that the reason she says that she said the things in the documentary is because she was afraid of Steven
Avery. She said that he told her to make him look good otherwise she would have to pay.
BLOOM: But, he is incarcerated at that time.
RICHARDS: Exactly. Pay how?
(LAUGHING)
BLOOM: He is incarcerated for life without the possibility of parole.
PINSKY: At the time of this stuff was --
RICHARDS: Well, he was in jail without -- he had not posted bail at this time. At least that was my understanding watching the documentary. So,
she was going to pay how? He was just going to continue make collect calls to her phone over and over and over again? I do not know.
HO: But, then, again, when somebody has been abused for that amount of time, and there is a lot more than just a profile of a physical abuser
here, there is a profile of somebody who has, actually, had a long string of manipulative behavior, torturing animals, multiple threats of other
people`s lives. It is not just hers. And, so, that gets into the psychological aspect of a woman who has been abused. And, she has her own
mental health problems.
PINSKY: It becomes like a Stockholm-type syndrome. But, hang on. Natisha asked why Jodi did not tell the filmmakers about the abuse and here is that
footage. Look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP0
LANCE: Did you tell the filmmakers about how you were being treated?
STACHOWSKI: No.
LANCE: Why not?
STACHOWSKI: Because Steven told me to make him look good.
LANCE: And, if you did not make him look good, what would happen?
STACHOWSKI: I would pay for it.
LANCE: How?
STACHOWSKI: Knowing him, he would beat me. He told me once if I did leave him that he would burn down my mom`s house with them and my daughter in it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Lisa, it is like Patty Hurst asking her, "Why you did not talk about the abuse by the SLA," because she was a Stockholm Syndrome.
BLOOM: Well, that is true. And, what I love about this interview and this whole "Making a Murderer" story is it shows the criminal justice system as
it really is. So, you know, I practice civil and criminal law every day.
PINSKY: Yes.
[21:10:00] BLOOM: This happens all the time. Witnesses change their stories. They want to recant. They want to add facts. They do not like
the way they look when testify the first time. They want to change everything. It is messy. And, what that boils down to in a criminal case
is not proving a case beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it creates a reasonable doubt when witnesses are not clear in their testimony.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: But, then you get experts like Laura, Judy, me to kind of help with the clarity because we deal with this stuff all the time and we do
know who fits the profile --
BLOOM: I appreciate that.
PINSKY: Hang on. I know, but let us get some more from this exclusive Avery ex-fiancee interview. And, also, the victim`s family is speaking out
for the first time. You will hear what they have to say and what they think of "Making a Murderer." We are back after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LANCE: Did you ever ask him straight out if he killed Teresa?
STACHOWSKI: Yes.
LANCE: What did he say?
STACHOWSKI: No.
LANCE: Did you believe him then?
[21:15:00] STACHOWSKI: No. He told me once -- excuse my language, "All bitches owe him, because of the one that sent him to prison the first
time." And, he could do whatever he wanted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Back with our exclusive, which might change what you think about the documentary "Making a Murder." Steven`s ex-fiancee describes him as,
quote, "A monster," who beat her on a regular basis during that two-year relationship. So, Laura, you wanted to say something here. What did she
say -- hoes owe him? Do you believe he said that to her?
RICHARDS: I, certainly, believe that he did say that. I think that was one of the things, you know, he has carried this grievance around. But, I
do think that there was a lot of coercive control in that relationship. And, that may sound like a new turn, but we have actually just the it in
the U.K.
And, it is all Jodi`s, all the psychological abuse, the paths and the drip, drip, drip, the eroding of self-esteem and how offenders do get threats out
from prison. So, it does not matter whether they are locked up or not. At some point, they will be coming out and that will invoke a huge amount of
fear.
PINSKY: And, it is interesting Laura brings that up, Judy, because we changed our terminology here, too. We do not talk about domestic violence
anymore as much as coercive relationships, controlling relationships kind of thing. We -- obviously, we used the term domestic violence, but we
prefer to switch the -- to really describe it for what it is, which is brainwashing. It is sort of a cult of two.
RICHARDS: It is about power and control.
PINSKY: Yes, absolutely.
HO: And, you cannot really do that without also having a superficial charm that hooked her in the first place. And, that really is the two sides of
an abusive relationship.
PINSKY: Yes.
HO: Because after somebody gets abused, there is the recanting and the, "I am going to do better" and "I love you and that is why I had to hurt you
because you hurt me."
PINSKY: No. And, "That is because I love you so much."
HO: Right.
PINSKY: And, then the intensity, the reunion rekindles all the feelings of love --
BLOOM: I cannot see the charm in Steven Avery, though. I am sorry.
HO: Well --
PHILLIPS: Well, not to you -- not to you.
(LAUGHING)
HO: Right.
PHILLIPS: To her, he was prince charming.
BLOOM: Right. I get it.
PHILLIPS: But, I absolutely agree. It is nothing new. We have seen it, you know, stories -- stories for years, decades, abused women who stay.
BLOOM: Yes, of course.
PHILLIPS: Who is a very famous man in the news right now, women are -- people are asking, "Why did you stay?" "Why did not you say something?"
HO: Right.
PHILLIPS: And, there is that element of fear. And, I just wanted to say one thing, because I do agree, he spent 18 years in prison.
HO: Yes.
BLOOM: Uh-huh.
PHILLIPS: That has got to do something to a man.
BLOOM: Uh-huh. Thank you.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PHILLIPS: And, he may have been charming before, he may not have been a psychopath before. But, I think 18 years in maximum security with a bunch
of killers and murderers --
PINSKY: Yes. I get what you are saying and I do not disagree. It does not make a psychopath, but it can make a psychopath act out.
PHILLIPS: Worse.
PINSKY: Or even worse.
HO: It could even worse.
BLOOM: Although, the interview he did after he got out, he was very gracious and said he did not hold it against the victim. And, she made a
mistake and he just wanted to move on and have a nice life. And, now, maybe he is a great actor?
HO: Yes.
PINSKY: Which is --
BLOOM: But, you know, he did not seem that way.
HO: Well, that is a part of the psychopathic profile. Like I said, there is that superficial charm.
BLOOM: But, is he smart enough to be this Oscar-winning actor?
PINSKY: Well, that is interesting.
BLOOM: I mean he is kind of a simple-minded guy.
RICHARDS: Yes, but he is just acting from his guts.
HO: Yes.
RICHARDS: He thinks women owe him and here he has an opportunity --
BLOOM: Well, he says one person.
PINSKY: Let us graduate to animals. That is your favorite topic.
BLOOM: Yes.
PINSKY: So, I know how -- what shall we say it? Passion by the animals.
BLOOMS: Yes.
PINSKY: And, Steven was arrested for lighting a cat on fire. Jodi believes that he also did something to her cat. Have a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STACHOWSKI: Steven liked to burn stuff. Anything he could, he would burn. When he was younger, he burnt-through a cat in a burn barrel. That is
probably what he did to my cat, too.
LANCE: What happened to your cat?
STACHOWSKI: I left it there while I was in jail. And, he was taking care of it. Two days before I got out, he said he got rid of it. Took it to a
farm and dumped it. I do not believe that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Natisha, you seemed as disturbed by that report that Jodi is giving you there as the rest of us. Did you go further into that?
LANCE: We did not go much further into the cat, because there was nothing that I could do to corroborate that, to confirm that that actually happened
with the cat. It is just what she is saying. We did reach out to Steven Avery`s attorneys. Both his attorney that was representing him during the
trial as well as his new attorney, and they gave us "No comment."
PINSKY: Did you change your opinion, Natisha, throughout this interview. In other words, did you come in with one point of view -- and take off your
journalist hat for just a second. Were your persuaded to change your opinion as a result of talking to Jodi? And, I hope you will permit me to
ask you that question.
LANCE: I think Jodi was very compelling. I also think the documentary was very compelling, and that is the thing. I think Lisa Bloom said it. It
highlights our justice system. There is so many things on both sides, and we really will never know the truth. The people involved know the truth
and there is always one side, the other side and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
[12:20:00] PINSKY: Natisha, thank you so much. Now, Lisa, you just -- and when this issue just -- reminding us, Mark Eiglarsh, he always say, the
legal system is not about proof. It is not about fact. It is not about what did or did not happen. It is about the burden of proof. You have
sufficient proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
BLOOM: Right.
PINSKY: And, this is why I think everyone is upset, because that did not seem to exist. Despite of all of this, we are all kind of terribly
uncomfortable with the reasonable doubt that seemed to be present in this case.
BLOOM: Our criminal justice has many flaws, but the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not one of them. And, cases are messy. We do
not know if people are lying or telling the truth. They are based on proof and if the proof is not there, it should be a not guilty. And, I think the
problem that we all have with this case is the way that the government prosecuted this case. It was done very poorly. It seemed to be very
biased. It really did look like the evidence is planted.
PINSKY: Well, it seemed in the documentary.
BLOOM: Yes.
PINSKY: Everybody is watching the T.V. show. I seem.
BLOOM: Yes, but it is based on video and audio of what happened at the time.
PINSKY: Well, from one point of view --
BLOOM: That is true.
PINSKY: And, from a snippet of a court case that went on for six weeks.
BLOOM: That is true.
PINSKY: Joseph, what say you? Do you have opinion about that? Because you seem to have issues with the reasonable doubt too.
PHILLIPS: I, absolutely, do. And, I was just -- she kind of stole my thunder, which is why I stop. Because that -- he may very well be guilty.
I do not know, but what I do know is in watching the documentary, I am putting myself in the place of the jury.
And, I am saying "I do not think I could send this guy to jail because there are too many questions I have. I have questions about the
investigation. I have questions about the motives of the state. I have questions about the evidence, the handling of the evidence, and all of this
says to me he may very well be everything everyone says he is, but I have reasonable doubt."
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: And, there you go. I do not think either the three of us, who is from with mental health side would argue with that. But, let us take a
little poll here of the three mental health professionals. If he gets out, probability he will re-perpetrate?
RICHARDS: Totally.
PINSKY: Probability. Yes or no. Yes or no. He will or he will not.
RICHARDS: Well, I mean, you know, he would have thought that he would go and do potentially what he did but --
PINSKY: I would vote for that based on his past, 100 percent.
HO: Yes.
RICHARDS: I mean he may want to come to basis. Lightning does not strike twice. So, three times -- so if he does get out.
PINSKY: A leopard does not change his spots. That is all I am saying.
HO: He is definitely going to reoffend.
PINSKY: Thank you. That is my opinion.
HO: At least 90 percent to 95 percent.
PINSKY: That is my opinion.
RICHARDS: Well, if I can ask a question. Does he reoffend -- do you think he reoffends because he is a murderer, a psychopathic --
BLOOM: Animal abuser, do not forget.
RICHARDS: -- Animal abuser or arson. Does he reoffend because he spent his life in prison and that is what a lot of prisoners do is reoffend?
HO: That is a good question. I think even though both things are weighed very heavily here. I think he is going to reoffend, because of the
behavior pattern, like I really do not think that he is going to be able to get out of that pattern.
PINSKY: I think he is going to harm another woman.
HO: Right.
PINSKY: This is not just criminal behavior. This is something else --
RICHARDS: In a relationship or outside of a relationship?
PINSKY: Great question. If he is able to get in a relationship, he will definitely cause that woman some problems.
BLOOM: Hell, he is!
(CROSSTALKS)
PINSKY: By the way, there are women --
BLOOM: There are women who love him.
PINSKY: -- that love him, waiting for him.
BLOOM: They are lining up.
PINSKY: Yes. That is right. They are lining up. Those men behind bars - -
HO: Something dangerous and bad boy about those guys.
PINSKY: Something about those guy behind bars.
BLOOM: Ladies, stay away from him.
PINSKY: You guys are just irresistible. I cannot keep my hands off him.
Next up, this is actually something that we all find terribly distressing. But, Laura, you have some new ideas about this. The Brendan Dassey`s
interrogation tapes. And, later, the victim`s family has a message for the "Making of a Murderer" -- or "Making a Murderer" producers. Back after
this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:27:38] (BEGIN VIDEO CAPTION)
"Following Brendan Dassey`s arrest for the murder of Teresa Halbach, he was questioned by an investigator hired by his defense team."
"Brendan confessed, but was it forced?"
(END VIDEO CAPTION)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL O`KELLY, DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR: So, the first question you have to ask yourself is, do you want to spend the rest of your life in prison?
(A MOMENT OF SILENCE)
O`KELLY: So, is that a yes or no?
(A MOMENT OF SILENCE)
O`KELLY: I cannot hear you.
BRENDAN DASSEY, STEVEN AVERY`S NEPHEW: No.
O`KELLY: Do you want to get out and have a family some day?
DASSEY: Uh-huh.
O`KELLY: Well, that means you have to cooperate with me and help me -- help me work with you. Draw a picture of the bed and how she was tied
down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O`KELLY: -- draw a picture of the bed and how she was tied down? But, draw it big-sized, so we can see it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Brendan Dassey convicted also of first-degree murder, sentenced to life. His attorney says his confession was coerced. He has taken this
case now to federal court. And, Lisa, we have all been very uncomfortable. And, Joseph, I will get your comment a second, that this was not just
coerced but scripted almost in terms of his confession.
BLOOM: This is the most outrageous, unethical part of the case. First of all, his own attorney is not there when the investigator is talking to him.
The investigator takes his first statement where he says, "I did not do anything. Steven Avery did not do anything." And, forces him,
essentially, coerces him into writing a statement of completely the opposite. And, then the most shocking thing of all to me as an attorney
is, then they give that to the police. Are you kidding me?
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: Joseph, do you agree?
PHILLIPS: Absolutely. The first thing I thought is, with friends like these, these -- those people are representing him.
BLOOM: Yes.
PINSKY: Yes.
PHILLIPS: As you say, forcing him to confess. It was very sneaky, watching his attorney chitchatting with the prosecution and his
investigator, and then the next thing you see is this horrible, horrible interview --
HO: Yes.
PHILLIPS: Where you think, "Oh, we are going to get to the bottom of this and he is going to help him." No, he helps him right into federal prison.
PINSKY: And, Judy, again you and I have not shared ideas on this, but I know what you saw here. This kid has a 70 I.Q. He is sort of an autistic
or schizoid, something going on here and then the coercion.
HO: And, that is right. And, the I.Q. of 70 really puts him at an impaired level where he does not function above, basically, the age of a 9
or 10-year-old. So, let us that sink in a little bit. He looks like an adult, but his intellectual functioning of that is maybe a fourth or fifth
grader, possibly a fifth grader.
[21:30:00] And, the way that they interviewed him was in a way where they were asking the same question over and over again. You are not supposed to
ask the same question That is a big no-no in investigations. You got an answer, you are supposed to move on. But, they said, "Did he do it?"
And, he said, "Yes." "Did he do it? Yes or no?" They just kept asking him over and over again until they got the answer they wanted. And, that
is a big no-no in an investigation.
PINSKY: And, they gave evidence in the interview. They said, "All right, who shot her in the head?"
HO: Exactly.
PINSKY: "How did you shoot her in the head?"
HO: They are asking closed-ended questions and they are seeking an answer, and they are basically pushing him into giving that exact answer that they
want. And, remember, kids, because his developmental abilities are that of a child, are much more likely to be coerced by an adult because if their
developmental delay.
PINSKY: OK. So, Laura --
PHILLIPS: They at least --
PINSKY: Go ahead, Joseph. Finish please.
PHILLIPS: I am just really sad that -- the interview with the police, then he is, "Can I go back to school, I have a test?"
BLOOM: Yes.
PINSKY: Right.
PHILLIPS: So, you really know that he really does not have that mental capacity.
BLOOM: Thank God, this is on video.
PINSKY: He did not get what was going on.
BLOOM: This is why every interview with a juvenile should be taped.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: All right. -- So, Laura, we have all looked at that. We are all sort of shuttering and concerned about this particular case, but you say
you saw something a little bit different when you went back over it. What did you see?
RICHARDS: I mean we certainly saw the "C-word", again, the coercion and that is what we have seen with a very vulnerable person. But, when I saw
his original interview. And, of course, we do not know ----
PINSKY: Which one?
RICHARDS: With the police.
PINSKY: With the police. At the school
RICHARDS: With the police officers at the school --
PINSKY: Is not that at the school?
RICHARDS: And, we do not know how many times they had spoken to him before. But, I think his original account, the first part of it is
authentic.
PINSKY: What does he say.?
RICHARDS: He talks about seeing -- going on his bike, collecting the mail, hearing someone scream, going back to the house, Steven calling him up, him
going round, seeing a body in the car, in the booth of the car or the trunk as you would say, with a blanket over it.
And, he talks about some detail. And, these are details not offered to him, which of course we have the real problem with all the rest of the
interviews, as the interviewers are giving him more detail than actually what he is giving them. So, they are just leading him. But, I think, the
original parts of that account is authentic.
PINSKY: Is he just an observer? Is he part of the crime?
RICHARDS: I think he is just an observer. I do not think he has any guilt.
PINSKY: He did not participate. Even with that piece that you think is correct and authentic, if they had taken that as the confession, he could
have gotten off.
BLOOM: Well, he would be a witness.
RICHARDS: But, he had no idea why he was there, but he did talk about Steven Avery interfering with him and coercing him and that he was being
controlled by Steven Avery.
PINSKY: Would fits, would fits our understanding of Steven Avery, right?
RICHARDS: Absolutely.
PINSKY: OK, guys, can we admit there is an evil presence amongst us?
HO: Yes.
PINSKY: It is not Brendan Dassey. That poor kid is ten years in prison already. What is going to happen in federal court when they get there?
BLOOM: I hope they win. Because as I said, thank God we have it on videotape, so we can see every question and we can see what his own lawyers
did to him. I mean that is just the most appalling of all.
PHILLIPS: Outrageous.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
BLOOM: But, you know, listen, this is America, folks. This is just one case that we are looking at in depth. But, this is not unusual. Remember,
the central park five?
PINSKY: Yes.
BLOOM: And, that was a group of teenage boys, who were all made to falsely confess to the rape of the central park jogger to the long, long time.
PINSKY: But, Lisa.
BLOOM: It was many years before they were exonerated.
PINSKY: You know what, though, it makes me think, "Well, if they all just had money, they could hire Lisa Bloom. They can hire Mike Geragos and they
can all be fine." But, that is not what we have here.
BLOOM: Right.
HO: Right.
PINSKY: People that do not have money do not get access to a good defense.
BLOOM: But, we can force every player in the system to play by the rule.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: All right. Now, after Teresa Halbach`s murder, Brendan Dassey`s defense team told that he was ready to confess. Then Brendan says this.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: At what point did you put her cell phone and camera and purse `s stuff in the burn barrel?
DASSEY: I did not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: OK, who did?
DASSEY: Probably, Steven.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Not probably, who did? If you know, you need to tell me. You were over there.
DASSEY: Steven did?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Did you see him do it?
DASSEY: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE SPEAKER: Honestly, yes or no. Did you see him do it? Do not lie about it. If you did, good. If you did not, good. Did you see
him do that?
DASSEY: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: You know, Judy, based on what the girlfriend Jodi just said, based on what Laura`s assessment is of the original confession, it all kind of
start to fit together for me in terms of who Steven Avery is, and who Brendan Dassey is not.
HO: That is right.
PINSKY: Right.
HO: That is right. Steven Avery is somebody who manipulates other people for his own gain and for his own wishes and goals. And, Brendan and Jodi
are prime victims. Jodi had some of her own issues, attachment issues.
PINSKY: Brendan, too.
HO: But, wait a minute. Brendan too. He is an intellectually disabled individual who will do whatever Steven says, because he is an adult
authority figure who is threatening him with things that little children actually do care about.
PINSKY: Next up, the victim`s relatives have their say for the first time. They are slamming "Making a Murder" and the people who produced it. We
will tell you about it after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
[21:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
KEN KRATZ , FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CALUMET COUNTY: There is a side to this case, the side of Teresa Halbach. The side that she has been the one
and only victim of this case, that needs to be told. You know, Steven Avery has gotten enough free publicity from the Netflix and from all the
other organizations that he has been given. I think we should probably start referring to this as the Teresa Halbach case, not the Steven Avery
case.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
PINSKY: So, that is the question, should we stop focusing on Steven Avery? Some of our viewers say, "Yes, the only real victim in this case after all
is Teresa Halbach." I am back with Lisa, Judy, Joseph and Laura. And, Teresa`s family is speaking out for the first time.
Her aunt told "People" magazine what she thought of this documentary. She says, quote, "It is not even close to what really happened. This is the
Avery family`s side of the story. I would not expect it to be different. They think he is innocent. I am not surprised. I am surprised that
someone would put that together in the way -- in that way and have it be so one sided." Meaning the filmmaker. Again, as we have said over and over -
- what? You are saying no, Judy?
HO: No. I am agreeing. They are making a project.
PINSKY: A documentary.
HO: They are making a story.
PINSKY: Yes.
[21:40:00] HO: It is their side of the story. It is still entertainment, guys, like let them off the hook for that. That is not their purpose, to
provide all the evidence together and for you to actually weighed in your opinion with --
BLOOM: No. They wanted to talk to the prosecution as far as I can tell.
HO: Yes.
BLOOM: The prosecution elected not to do that.
PINSKY: And, the filmmakers reached out to the Halbach family, but they declined to participate in the series. The documentarians never give,
though, the alternative point of view --
BLOOM: But you have to feel for the family. I do feel for the family.
PINSKY: Hell, yes!
BLOOM: They got -- I hate to use the word, closure, but they got some resolution when he was convicted. He is off in prison. And, now, this is
all dredged up again and everybody is talking about it. This has to be so painful for them.
PINSKY: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: So, mine is more of question. I do not know what the law is about this, but why should not he still get the money?
I mean he was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years --
PINSKY: The first time.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: They buried evidence.
PINSKY: He could not got out earlier.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Did not he settle and he used the money for the defense of this case.
BLOOM: Yes. So, he settle -- it is a good question. So, listen, I do these kind of wrongful imprisonment cases. They are not slam-dunks. He
may have sued for $36 million. They are just a number they put on the complaint. But, you have to show that it was done intentionally not just
that, you know, mistakes were made, because there is immunity when mistakes are made. We allow police and prosecutors to make mistakes --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, what about when they buried the evidence when it came out eight or ten years and they still like -- like
they buried it.
BLOOM: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: But you can prove that that happened.
BLOOM: It was not the easiest case.
PHILLIPS: In the documentary, I think in the first episode, he settles for $400,000 and then he just gives it to his attorneys who are defending him.
PINSKY: Who then buries Dassey. All right, listen. Our viewers are hammering me on Twitter for my take or what a freeman daring to take this
case on. Let me response to some of your comments, and I want to point out that my producers have been very kind to me, guys. They are only showing
me the very polite Twitter slamming.
"Dr. Drew, no matter how you tried to psychoanalyze Steven Avery, he is still innocent and there is reasonable doubt." There is also another
Twitter slammer said, "Dr. Drew, I cannot believe how narrow-minded you are. He did not receive a fair trial. Too much reasonable doubt." But, I
think we are all seeing the reasonable is our concern here. Every single one of us, right?
BLOOM: Right.
PINSKY: There is none of us that is comfortable --
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
BLOOM: That is the concern.
PINSKY: Yes.
BLOOM: Yes. But, when you talk about him reoffending -- well, how do you know he offended the first time? He cannot be the reoffender if he is not
an offender, right?
PINSKY: Well, I am saying, you put him out -- Judy and I agree. I do not know Laura, I did not quite get your point of views. Do you think he is
going to reoffend if they get him out of prison, again?
RICHARDS: I mean they are very high likelihood.
PINSKY: High likelihood. OK. Judy says --
RICHARDS: Towards women in particular.
PINSKY: For sure, towards women. Judy says 99 percent or something. I say very likely. Here is more of my slamming. I just want to share -- why
not? "Judy never seemed so naive. Police and politicians screwed people over every day." You know what? I am naive and I sort of want to live in
that world.
BLOOM: Yes. Let us ask if the police and prosecutors are going to reoffend. Let us ask if they are going to continue to railroad people,
right?
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: And, then they are asking me on this Twitter -- what shall I call them? Slammers? "Please do not change careers. Your insights on crime
are unbalanced. Incarceration causes out of norm acts" which is what our audience members were saying there, which is reasonably so but it does not
create certain kinds of psycho pathology.
Anyway, next up, I am going to switch gears. We are getting to the affluenza case. I got the gentleman who treated the affluenza teen, Ethan
Couch. He is here with me. We are going to talk about it and get into this case after the break.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
[21:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: It was father` day weekend. A young woman with car trouble was stranded on the side of a road late at night. The
mother and her daughter had no inkling their decision to be good Samaritans to help out the stranded motorist would prove fatal, neither did the youth
pastor who also stopped to help. But, a teenager, who had been drinking heavily plowed into the group of people with his truck.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In this case, his blood-alcohol measured 0.24. Three times the legal limit in Texas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAYE: A psychologist and defense witness testified that the boy suffered from something called affluenza.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Have you ever heard of that as a defense?
PINSKY: No, it is disgusting. It is disgusting. There is no such term.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Couch was sentenced to ten years` probation and treatment. Two years later, this video resurfaced. In fact, if this video is showing
Ethan playing beer pong at a party, it would be a violation of his probation. This, of course, has not been proven. Last month he and the
mom skipped town, found now in Mexico.
Back with Lisa, Judy, and Joseph. And, joining us is Jamison Monroe, founder of Newport Academy, where Ethan Couch had been treated for his
addiction. So, Jamison, to my eye, like any young person, poly-drug, I mean -- not any young person, but a young person who gets deeply into this,
you are talking about multiple diagnosis, multiple drugs of abuse, poor prognosis, complex case. You had to testify in court about his care. What
did you say there?
JAMISON MONROE, TREATED ETHAN COUCH: Both I and the psychologist then also treated Ethan throughout this, both testified that -- well, personally, I
do not believe in affluenza diagnosis. We both know that is not a clinical diagnosis.
PINSKY: There is no affluenza in a diagnostic manuals. That was a BS hired gun reaching for cause and trying to defend this kind of story.
HO: Yes.
MONROE: And -- and --
PINSKY: Some crazy defense attorney, Lisa, got a hold of it.
BLOOM: Oh boy!
PINSKY: I am just saying.
MONROE: In Ethan`s case, as with almost every young person I see to commit this level of crime, you know, he was brought up in a very traumatic
household, you know.
PINSKY: Yes.
MONROE: And, the defense testified and I testified as well that he witnessed physical abuse between his parents back and forth, and he was
himself the victim of emotional abuse throughout his childhood. So, he suffered from a very traumatic childhood and then he started to self-
medicate with that at a very young age.
[21:50:03] HO: Yes.
PINSKY: Now, Judy, people are going to look at Jamison`s explanation, they will go, "Oh, you are defending this guy." We are not defending him. We
are just looking at how you end-up in the condition of this kid was in.
HO: Absolutely. And, his brain development was disrupted multiple times, not only from the emotional trauma and abuse, but also from all of that
early drug use and binge use.
PINSKY: Yes. OK.
HO: It went to change your neurodevelopment.
PINSKY: So, there we go. There is the story. It is poly-drug addiction. It is poly-diagnosis. It is trauma. These are treatable conditions if
somebody is properly motivated and you get the family all involved, but that was not the case in this young man.
MONROE: Actually, right after -- so, we treated Ethan during July and August 2013 at the public information. And, during that time his family
was, actually, very participatory.
PINSKY: Well, they did.
MONROE: Yes.
PINSKY: Both mom and dad.
MONROE: Both mom and dad, for only 60 days, though. And, we do not think that was not nearly long enough for the length of his history.
PINSKY: Right. This should be like six months to a year.
MONROE: Exactly. Precisely. And, so, then, he had to go back to Texas by court order to do the case. And, then, unfortunately, we were not allowed
to treat him post the court case and he was sentenced to, in my opinion, a very substandard treatment facility.
BLOOM: Exactly.
MONROE: A state operated facility in the state of Texas, which has, you know, multiple violations of abuse going on with inside of it. And, he was
also very close to his family who as we know, through time has been his enablers. So, in my opinion he should have gone back out of state for at
least a year, two, three years and been able to get on his own feet.
PINSKY: All right. So, Joseph, there is the kind of clinical thing. What do you take from it?
PHILLIPS: In my opinion he should have gone to jail. But, I have --
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
PINSKY: Let me back you up. Let me back you up. Listen. Once somebody, you know, fails treatment and is enabled by his family and does not do what
they are supposed to do, yes, I agree with you.
PHILLIPS: And, hopefully, now that he has broken his parole, they will put him behind bars, as the prosecution said would happen. But, I have another
idea, because I do believe in affluenza and I have a treatment for it. It is called the United States Marine Corps.
(AUDIENCE LAUGHING AND APPLAUDING)
And, I think that maybe two years in the marines will cure this affluenza and we will not hear about it again and we will not hear about it from him.
HO: That should be the Marine Corps --
BLOOM: Yes.
PINSKY: You know what? If it is not oppositional defiance disorder, that tends to get worse in things like the marines. But if it is a situation
where they can hold him against his will and put him through a boot camp, OK.
PHILLIP: Well, his family -- trust me, his family will not be a problem when he is in the Marine Corps. And, I do not know about all this
operational, whatever. It sounds like spoiled brat syndrome to me.
(LAUGHING)
HO: I understand what you are saying.
PINSKY: Judy -- hang on, Lisa. Judy, Lisa respond, we are going to take a quick break. We got more. Back right after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(AUDIENCE APPLAUDING)
[21:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER (1): Tonya, do you have anything to say?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER (2): Tonya, are you happy to be released?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE REPORTER (3): Tonya, you get to live with your son, any words?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: That was affluenza mom out of jail after posting bond in Texas. She is required to go live with her 29-year-old son. This is Ethan`s half
brother. Back with Lisa, Judy, Joseph and Jamison. The families of the victim filed suit. Watch this from a deposition video obtained by ABC
news.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ETHAN COUCH, AFFLUENZA TEEN: I am taking Valium, hydrocodone, marijuana, cocaine, Xanax, Diovans. I tried ecstasy once.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: That is our affluenza child and his substance history. In her deposition, the mom acknowledged allowing that young man to drive by
himself when he was under 16. She could not remember ever disciplining him for anything. Judy, we were just talking about parenting adolescence.
That is not what you call parenting.
HO: No. I do not know what that is. I mean we used to call it permissive, but that is not even permissive. She is completely handoff.
There is really no interaction or no accountability whatsoever. And, we all know that parental monitoring is the number one predictor for how your
child does as they grow up. How they learn rules and how they succeed as an adult.
PINSKY: And, why all the extradition road blocks? Why cannot we get this kid back here?
BLOOM: We should be getting him back here. But, listen, I think affluenza is real. I think a lot of rich people are entitled, arrogant and mean.
Look at Donald Trump.
(LAUGHING)
HO: I saw the most amazing Donald Trump cartoon driving here on sunset. Somebody had drawn a picture, a caricature of Donald Trump with like a
bunch of money.
PINSKY: Jamison, you must treated people that have money. And, I did notice when I first started working in a psychiatric hospital, there is a
lot of similarities between the very poor and the very rich. They have similar mental health issues.
JAMISON: Exactly. I totally agree. I do not think mental health issues do not discriminate.
PINSKY: Yes.
JAMISON: We treat people at Newport Academy of all demographics. And, just because -- even if you do not have money, you can still spoil your
kids.
PINSKY: Or damage your kids.
JAMISON: That is why the boundaries come in. Spoiling a kid is not giving them all the money. It is not having any boundaries or consequences for --
BLOOM: Well, what is shocking is the criminal justice system comtinue the enabling, right? If the problem is mom and dad enabled him, and then the
criminal justice system gives him a pass and only gives him ten years` probation.
HO: Gives him the same lesson over and over again.
PINSKY: Well, I will give you one -- Paris Hilton.
BLOOM: Right.
PINSKY: And, who are the other young ladies -- what is her name?
HO: Lindsay Lohan.
PINSKY: Lindsay Lohan. That is enabling. But, Joseph has a solution, it is the marines. And, for the ladies, too?
PHILLIPS: Absolutely.
PINSKY: Of course. There we go.
HO: Yes.
PINSKY: All right.
PHILLIPS: We just had two women become army rangers.
PINSKY: Yes.
PHILLIPS: So, listen. They do not discriminate against gender in the armed services.
PINSKY: I like your idea. Thank you, guys. You can DVR this show then watch us any time. Audience, thank you for being here and participating.
And, this panel, good job. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Laura. Thank you, Dr. Jamison. DVR us again and you can watch us anytime, and we will in
fact see you next time.
[22:00:00] (MUSIC PLAYING)
END
