Return to Transcripts main page
Dr. Drew
The Netflix Documentary "Making A Murderer" Cast Doubt On Steven Avery`s Conviction In The Death Of Teresa Halbach; A Dr. Drew Exclusive With The Private Investigator Hired By Steven Avery`s Lawyer; Brendan Dassey`s Statement Was Based On The Book He Read Called, "Kiss The Girls". Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 20, 2016 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
[21:00:13] DR. DREW PINSKY, HLN HOST OF "DR. DREW" PROGRAM: The Netflix documentary "Making A Murderer" cast doubt on Steven Avery`s conviction in
the death of Teresa Halbach. But, tonight, we got his ex-fiancee who had once defended him, now she says he is a monster, and in fact, he is the
murderer. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN AVERY, CONVICTED OF MURDER OF TERESA HALBACH (via phone): The best thing? Probably when I met Jodi. Then I felt that I could be loved again
and I could love somebody again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(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. He threatened to kill me and my family and a friend of mine. He beat me all the time.
Punch me. Throw me against the wall.
He told me once -- excuse my language, "All bitches owe him," because of the one that sent him to prison the first time. He started hitting me, so
I called the police. Then he choked me. He was dragging me out the door, so we could leave before the police got there. He is like Dr. Jekyll and
Mr. Hyde.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Joining me, Vanessa Barnett, HipHollywood.com; Erin Foster, Psychotherapist; Darren Kavinoky, Attorney, host of "Deadly Sins" on
Investigation Discovery and Jim Clemente, former FBI Profiler and finally Natisha Lance, HLN Senior Producer. She is in Wisconsin digging deep into
this case. Natisha, you have been also digging into Avery`s past arrest and police record. What have you found?
LANCE: Yes, Dr. Drew. We obtained his full police record history. It dates back to 1982. And, on that record list, there are over a dozen
different things that he was arrested for, from driving infractions, which are minor, to domestic violence, to threats, to harassment, to theft, as
well as writing threatening letters.
So, I think the point was raised recently that if Steven Avery had come out of jail, would he have committed these crimes again? It seems like he was
on this path of having a criminal history building over and over again. But the interesting thing about his police record also is that he was
calling police and reporting things pretty often.
There were several instances where he would report things that were minor, like deer accidents, as well as child abuse, which is a major instance
here. So, it begs the question of if he had this strange relationship with law enforcement, why he was even reporting things to them, if there was a
mistrust there.
PINSKY: Well, I will just say that -- listen, I do not know this piece of the story has not come out at all, but Erin, I will challenge you with
this. Populations of patients that call the police all the time, paranoid, right?
ERIN FOSTER, PH.D., PSYCHOTHERAPIST: Yes.
PINSKY: Meth.
FOSTER: Yes.
PINSKY: Number 2.
FOSTER: Yes.
PINSKY: So, it makes me wonder about meth. We have heard nothing about that, Darren.
DARREN KAVINOKY, ATTORNEY: But just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.
(LAUGHING)
PINSKY: If you are taking meth, it means it is the meth. I am just telling you. It is what it is.
(LAUGHING)
KAVINOKY: That is true. I think I am guilty --
PINSKY: And, by the way, if you are taking cocaine, you get freaked out about the police, but the meth addicts call the police. I do not know. We
are going down a rabbit hole here. I do not know if it is appropriate or not. But, I will show you a letter of one of the viewers wrote us.
She lived about a mile from the Averys. Here is a part of that letter. Quote, "He was a mean and frightening individual. I remember my mother
warning us (back in the `80s), to STAY AWAY from that junk yard." Vanessa, I have not heard your opinion in this case here. Have you seen the
documentary?
VANESSA BARNETT, HIPHOLLYWOOD.COM: I have seen it. And, in the very beginning, I was like, "Free Steven Avery." I almost made a shirt. I was
like, "This guy has got to get out."
PINSKY: Yes.
BARNETT: Again, I could not believe it. And, as time has gone on, yes, I question myself, and I still am on the fence. But the man should not be in
jail, because there is so much reasonable doubt there --
PINSKY: All right.
BARNETT: -- that I do not think is fair.
PINSKY: The question then become -- that is a position that a lot of people take. And, Jim, what do you say?
JIM CLEMENTE, FBI PROFILER (RET.): Yes. Well, I do not think the issue was reasonable doubt, though. I think the issue is, were there procedural
errors, constitutional errors that means he did not get a fair trial?
PINSKY: Both.
BARNETT: Absolutely.
PINSKY: It was both, right?
CLEMENTE: It could be, but the jury decided on reasonable doubt. But, I do not think, actually, the actual decision has been made on whether or not
his federal civil rights were violated.
KAVINOKY: Right, but we get to Monday morning quarterback now about whether the jury got it right on the issue of reasonable doubt. And, as
criminal defense lawyers sometimes say to their sadly convicted clients that criminal conviction is just the first step towards a successful
appeal. But, whether or not that appellate process is going to play out favorably --
PINSKY: No, it is already done. It is over. They are going to federal court now.
KAVINOKY: Well, federal court now --
PINSKY: Yes.
KAVINOKY: But that is still -- we are still in this area of post- conviction --
PINSKY: Ten years! It has been going on for ten years!
BARNETT: But for them to even be the jury, I feel like was wrong and unconstitutional. It should have been moved out of that county.
[21:05:00] PINSKY: I will break that down a little bit later. But I want to persuade you, Vanessa, not only -- I do not have a strong opinion about
him, necessarily, needing to be in jail, should he be in jail. I guess my question is, does he need to be in jail?
Because listen to a little bit more of what Jodi, the ex-girlfriend -- the ex-fiancee tells the filmmakers. She did not want to be in the
documentary. She has a lot of data that leads me to believe he could reoffend if he is let out. Take a look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STACHOWSKI: She called me and asked me if I wanted to do another interview before the documentary came out, and I told her "No." And, that is when I
asked her, "I wanted nothing to do with it, I do not want any part of it, and I do not want to be in it". I said, "It is all lies." Because Steven
called me and told me that if I did not say anything good and nice about him, I would pay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Not only that, but Natisha, you have brand-new information. Jodi showed you a letter Steven Avery had written to her. What did it say?
LANCE: Yes. This letter came as he has been behind bars. He has written her four letters. This is the first one that she opened and read.
Somehow, he was able to find her address, even from behind bars. In this letter, you read that he is threatening her. We do see in the documentary
that she had an issue with alcohol abuse.
And, he is threatening her to report her to law enforcement for driving under the influence. Also driving with a dirty license or a license that
he believes is suspended. And, also, demanding that she pay him money, and if she does not, then he will report these infractions against her.
PINSKY: Is there anything even sort of more threatening or ominous in this letter? Or just like, "Hey, you are a bad person. You drive drunk, I am
going to get you?"
LANCE: There are other things that he says about her character. He says that she is dirty. He says that guys only want her for sex. He says that
she is just mad because he is better than her that is why he stopped loving her. But, he does not threaten her in a physical type of way. It is more
so that he is demanding money and threatening to report her to law enforcement for driving drunk.
PINSKY: But see to me, Erin, that is a little more telling. The reporting her for driving under the influence, if indeed she is, he may be doing her
a favor to do that or somebody else a favor, frankly. I am sorry about the no-cuffs thing, Erin. But somebody`s life may be saved for this. But the
fact that he is manipulating and vicious and that kind of stuff, that is much more telling.
FOSTER: Well, I am hearing some access, too. I do not know about you.
PINSKY: Both of them. It is called personality disorder, yes.
FOSTER: Yes.
PINSKY: How are you going to characterize that access too problem?
FOSTER: Well, there seems to be a lot of push/pull here. I am not sure that he is actually borderline. I do not think that he is advanced --
PINSKY: Is he a sociopath?
FOSTER: I think so.
PINSKY: OK.
FOSTER: I think so.
PINSKY: So, every psychologist I have spoken to has called him a sociopath or a psychopath. Every single damned one. Everybody. Counselor, that is
what the professional assessments are.
(LAUGHING)
KAVINOKY: But the issue is not is Steven Avery a bad guy or does he have mental health problems? The issue is about the quality and competence of
the evidence that convicted him.
PINSKY: Yes.
KAVINOKY: And, I do not say this as a fan or Steven Avery. I say this as a fan of justice and transparency and integrity in the justice system.
And, fundamentally, I think the problem is, if you cannot trust the messenger, you cannot trust the message.
BARNETT: Exactly.
KAVINOKY: And, there is too much about the messengers of this case that makes it untrustworthy. And, that is what people are having in a challenge
way.
BARNETT: They are super suspect. And, if we are being honest, this letter is kind of lighthearted compared to the one he wrote his first wife when he
was in prison.
PINSKY: That is true.
BARNETT: He said he was going to do all kinds of crazy things to her. So, this letter does nothing to me.
PINSKY: But, Jim -- Mr. Counselor, I understand you want the system to work, and so do I, and that is what we are so outraged about.
KAVINOKY: Yes.
PINSKY: But, Jim, you are a profiler. If this guy gets out, he is going to reoffend.
CLEMENTE: Yes. There is behavioral indicators here that are very important to look at. I mean, clearly, this is not the relationship that
they purported to have in the documentary.
PINSKY: Thank you.
CLEMENTE: That definitely skewed it towards this was a loving relationship and everything was wonderful day or they were mutually supportive and
everything. This clearly shows behind the scenes, there is a lot more going on. And, I think it bolsters other information that we have gotten
about him behaviorally that says, "This is a dangerous man."
And, 18 years in prison -- he did not know he was getting out in 18 years. He thought he was going to be stuck there for a long, long time. And, he
definitely built up a resentment towards women, a resentment towards the system and I think it came out.
KAVINOKY: The man was in prison for 18 years, but we do not lock people up prospectively because they fail certain mental health profiles. And,
certainly, if he is a dangerous guy or he has gotten these issues, all of that should be dealt with, but not in the context of having him convicted
of murder. That is based on the evidence of what transpired on a particular date at a particular time.
CLEMENBTE: Yes. And, there was a lot of evidence that was collected at that --
BARNETT: Collected.
(CROSSTALKS)
CLEMENTE: Yes.
PINSKY: Yes, there are other issues. But, what you see is the documentarians have fallen under the sway of a manipulative sociopathic
subject and this collective system that is cap. Jim, reoffend, yes or no?
CLEMENTE: I think so.
[21:10:00] PINSKY: Absolutely. Reoffend, Erin? Yes or no.
FOSTER: Yes. Yes
PINSKY: We are at 100 percent now. Every mental health professional, every profiler I have spoken too, sociopath, reoffend. It does not mean he
should be in prison. How are you going to feel though when he gets out, everybody, and he reoffends.
Next up, a Dr. Drew exclusive with the private investigator hired by Steven Avery`s lawyer. That is right. We got the guy that Steven Avery`s lawyer
hired and what his gut told him about Steven Avery. Back after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE BAETZ, P.I. HIRED BY AVERY`S ATTORNEY: They teamed up and represented that the only DNA found on that key was Steven Avery`s. That is patently
ridiculous. And, it crevices anything else in that key would have retained her DNA. And, for them to be able to say only Steven`s DNA is on this
indicates to me that, that key was scrubbed, clean and his DNA was placed on it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:15:09] PINSKY: Back with Vanessa, Erin, Darren, and Jim. That was Pete Baetz. He is a private investigator hired by Steven Avery`s
attorneys. He joins me now by phone. Pete, you say that, that -- first of all, thank you for joining us. I really appreciate you being here.
BAETZ (via phone): I am glad to be here.
PINSKY: But, you say that it was scrubbed and cleaned. If they were really planting evidence, why did not they do a better job of, you know,
putting her DNA on and then his DNA?
BAETZ: Well, there is a couple of reasons for it. Number one, her DNA would have been extant on that key and fob had it been taken directly from
use. In other words, what I am saying is, she has been handling the key for years. The so-called sweat DNA, which does not exist, there is no such
thing as sweat DNA, are skin cells that flake off, that go inside sweat, et cetera.
But the sweat itself has no DNA in it. It got skin cells, all right? Those are placed on there and they just collect. It would be her DNA and
anybody else`s DNA that handled that, all right? But, what I am saying is, the DNA that was on that key, it was solely his, according to the report.
That is inconsistent with what happens. That means somebody swiped the key and the fob down and then placed that DNA on there.
Now, they have two ways of doing it. Scrub the key and the fob and then say, "Grab on to this, will you, Steve" or you can take anybody with a pair
of gloves, any tech, and swipe them across the table, in Steve Avery`s house. You are going to come up with his skin cells. Rub that glove
against the key, and what do you got? You got his DNA. It does not prove --
PINSKY: OK.
BAETZ: It is not like a fingerprint.
PINSKY: It is not proof. Does that make sense, Jim?
CLEMENTE: Yes, that does make sense. Because, normally, you would expect that the person who actually owned the keys would actually leave their DNA
and skin cells on it.
PINSKY: But if they were going to plant it, would not they have known that, left for a DNA on it?
BARNETT: These are not geniuses. I do not think these are super sleuths here. I think they are desperate and they are doing whatever they think is
enough to convict this guy. They are not being smart about anything they have done.
CLEMENTE: If they did plant that evidence, I mean and there are a lot of indicators that they may have, because of the number of searches that were
done. And, the really ridiculous testimony on the part of the officer that said, "Well, I manhandled that piece of furniture, and it could have fallen
out of the back because of that."
Well, if you look at the picture before it was found and the picture after, you see that it is in exactly the same place. And, there were actually
documents and books in the bottom of it that were not disturbed, that were not manhandles. So, it does not make that an honest statement.
But I think there is -- DNA is not a perfect science, in that -- when somebody`s DNA is on it -- is found on something, you do not know if it is
a primary transfer, a secondary, or a tertiary transfer.
PINSKY: Right.
CLEMENTE: There is a lot of -- because we can get down to one cell of DNA.
PINSKY: Yes.
CLEMENTE: So, he could have been -- Steven could have been breathing in the same room as that key fob and gotten his DNA on --
PINSKY: And, certainly, did not the lab tech`s DNA get on one --
KAVINOKY: Yes! But, the real problem is the context. And, I appreciate you mentioning that, because this was a key, this critical piece of
evidence that was found in a room, where Sergeant Lenk or Officer Lenk was not supposed to be there, did not sign the log.
It is totally improbable that that key was missed on all the other searches. And, then low and behold, it is here in plain view. That is
what makes everything so suspicious. That is what I mean by, if you cannot trust the messenger, you cannot trust the message. So, regardless of how
that DNA shows up, that is a real problem.
BARNETT: Right.
PINSKY: So, let us get into the real sort of, the issue at hand is. The previous segment, we all said, probably did this, probably going to re-
offend. And, yet, we are all so disturbed by the way this investigation was conducted and the way reasonable doubt seemed to have been sort of
ignored and the -- there is also issues about how the judge, you know, sort of adjudicated things. Is it so problematic that we are willing to let a
guilty guy, who may reoffend get out of jail.
CLEMENTE: I think that --
PINSKY: Or are we obliged to do that?
CLEMENTE: I think when you look at all these issues together and you add on the tainting of the jury pool by the prosecutor, which I believe was
unconscionable. I believe, when you take Brandon Dassey`s statement --
PINSKY: Do we have that? Do we have that tape? I know it is further down the line. Can you guys pull that up where -- yes, I am going to get it for
you in a second.
CLEMENTE: OK.
PINSKY: Tell them what this is.
CLEMENTE: When you add that the D.A., right after he gets Brandon Dassey`s statement --
PINSKY: A coerced statement.
CLEMENTE: -- which is questionable.
PINSKY: Not questionable. Coerced statement.
CLEMENTE: Certainly manipulated.
[21:20:00] PINSKY: Yes, manipulated statement. Yes.
CLEMENTE: And, when you have that and he does a press conference and he gives out intimate details, during the investigation. He tainted not only
the jury pool, but potential witnesses. And, I believe he tainted, for example, Brendan`s cousin, I guess it was, who testified and then withdrew
her testimony on the stand, during the trial. She heard it on the news. And, then she wanted to be a part of it. She was pissed off at her cousin,
so she wanted to be a part of it.
PINSKY: Do you have that video for me? They are still looking for it in there.
KAVINOKY: But, I think what Jim is referring to is that this process was so infected, was so warped by what was an outrageous statement. I mean,
really, for prosecutors that are dedicated to seeking the truth, that was a statement, that press conference. That was not a statement made by a truth
seeker. That was a competitor who wanted to win.
BARNETT: Right.
KAVINOKY: And, remember that jurors in a court of law are first drawn from the court of public opinion. Everybody that is out there. And, that was
just foul on so many levels. I think Jim has got it absolutely right --
CLEMENTE: And, what do you think about the fact that he -- that the prosecutor did not end up charging him with the crimes that he then -- that
he had talked about in this press conference?
BARNETT: There is no proof. That is the mob.
PINSKY: Here is that press conference. Here it is. Let us take a look at it. My producers are tremendous. They pulled this right up.
(LAUGHING)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN KRATZ, FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CALUMET COUNTY: There is a couple of things that I have never said at a press conference, at least not that I
can recall ever saying at a press conference that I am going to say right now. I know that there are some news outlets that are carrying this live
and perhaps there may be some children, unfortunately, that are watching this.
I am going to ask that if there are children watching this and you are under the age of 15, that you discontinue watching this press conference,
because of the graphic nature, the detailed nature of the facts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: So, he goes on to tell this dramatic story that infects not just the jury pool locally, but anywhere within the vicinity of the television
broadcast.
CLEMENTE: They are doing the investigation. They have not yet corroborated this information and yet they are telling the world, "This is
what happened."
KAVINOKY: Right. And, there is no independent evidence to support what he says. And, in fact, that the absence of evidence seemed to have been
abandoned. You know, if she had been shackled to the bed and her throat slit as he said it at that press conference, then there would have been
evidence to support that. And, obviously, that was never there.
PINSKY: Now, this whole idea of them planting evidences and people have gone so far as to say the bones were moved to the backyard there, where
this woman`s bones were found. Look what Nancy Grace said. She made an interesting point about Teresa Halbach`s bones. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY GRACE, HLN HOST OF "NANCY GRACE" PROGRAM: 270-plus bones in her body are found burned there in his salvage pit, along with her tooth and the
rivets off of her blue jeans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Every single bone in her body was represented in that fire pit. It is very unlikely that somebody is going to gather up, and count every
bone and make sure that is what is represented.
CLEMENTE: Right, but the defense did make a pretty good point, which was, there was also bone fragments in the burn barrel, across the yard, behind
Brendan Dassey`s home and in the gravel pit way, way, way at the back end of their property. So, there was some bone movement around.
And, whether that was because a certain piece of the body did not burned all the way and they put it in a burn barrel to burn it more. But, I think
that is also where the camera and her cell phone were found. I think there was definitely bone movement. So, it does not exclude that somebody put
the --
PINSKY: Every bone in her body was found in the backyard of this Steven Avery --
CLEMENTE: I think it is very compelling.
PINSKY: Yes.
CLEMENTE: But there are still some problems with it.
PINSKY: There are problems, yes. And, again, even though, I think, it is absurd -- well, not absurd. Highly likely that he did this, highly likely
he will reoffend, we are all so offended by the way this case was conducted and the way our system has played out that still want him out of jail. It
is terrible.
BARNETT: You came in prison on the what ifs.
PINSKY: It is crazy. But, it is an interesting -- I have this terrible feeling, but, OK -- next we have heard from Steven Avery, the nephew, the
ex-fiancee, but it is what they are not saying that may speak volumes.
We are going to consult with our human lie detector. She is going to look at what they are saying in air quotes, and she is going to interpret it.
And, we are going to figure out the truth. We will be right back after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
[21:25:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CAPTION)
"Teresa Halbach`s charred remains were discovered on Steven Avery`s property in November 2005."
"His parents believe police set him up.
(END VIDEO CAPTION)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALLAN AVERY, STEVEN AVERY`S FATHER: They had Stevie picked, as far as I am concerned, right away. They set him up, right from the beginning. But
they said, "Oh, he is not no suspect." What was he? They did not find nothing down that trailer for three or four days. Then all of a sudden,
stuff start -- "Oh, we found this and we found that." And, then the Manitowoc cops found a key. They were not supposed to be investigating
this at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Steven Avery was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Teresa Halbach, but he has maintained his innocence since the initial
meetings with police. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE INVESTIGATOR: I know you are scared, Steve. I know you are scared.
AVERY: I am not scared.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE INVESTIGATOR: Because you did not mean to kill her --
AVERY: I did not.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE INVESTIGATOR: I do not think you meant to kill her --
AVERY: No. I did not do it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE INVESTIGATOR: This was not a plan thing.
AVERY: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE INVESTIGATOR: Did you plan it?
AVERY: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE INVESTIGATOR: OK. I did not think so. I did not think you are that kind of a guy after meeting you. I think what happened -- you
come out of prison for serving time for something you did not even do.
AVERY: I did not do it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE INVESTIGATOR: And, it screws you up in the head like four screws everybody up. They did not give you any counseling. You said
that before, they gave you no counseling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Back with Vanessa, Erin, Darren and Jim. And, now joining us, Janine Driver, the Human Lie Detector, author of "You Cannot Lie To Me."
Now, Janine, last time we spoke, you were 51 percent not guilty. Now, where are you?
JANINE DRIVER, THE HUMAN LIE DETECTOR: I am 50/50 again.
(LAUGHING)
PINSKY: OK, talk to me about what we just looked at?
[21:30:00] DRIVER: It is obsessing my whole life and my speaking engagements. I literally from the stage ask people to vote. Here is the
deal, you just -- in that clip, what we saw, he said, "I am not scared." But, you noticed, Dr. Drew, I am sure like I did. His shoulder shrugs.
So, that uncertainty there with the shrug could be, "Why do you think I am scared?"
Here is the problem. He then turns his body away. We lean towards people in ideas that we like and away from people we do not like. So, maybe he
just does not like this cop and then he goes in the fetal position. He closes up. See that right there? So, that is a hot spot for me.
However, his verbal is indicative -- his verbal statement is indicative of someone who is telling the truth. He says, "I did not kill her." That
statement is really strong. He does not say "Obviously," "I will be stupid to kill her." "What kind of person do you think I am." "I know you think
I killed her." He literally says, "I did not kill her." That is a strong statement.
PINSKY: Now, Erin, when somebody does not have anxiety or nervousness, fear, that is a tell, right?
FOSTER: Yes.
PINSKY: What kind of population does not have anxiety?
FOSTER: Psychotic.
(LAUGHING)
PINSKY: Psychotic, sociopaths.
(LAUGHING)
FOSTER: Sociopaths.
PINSKY: Psychopaths.
FOSTER: Yes.
PINSKY: Psychopaths do not have anxiety. They also lie with impunity. So, they may not give you the usual cues that the rest of us would. Steven
Avery, you are saying yes?
CLEMENTE: Yes, I agree. I agree.
PINSKY: Yes. OK. Steven Avery`s ex-fiancee alleged abuse. Take a look at what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STACHOWSKI: 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.
LANCE: Why did you stay?
STACHOWSKI: I could not leave. I had nowhere to go.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Janine, this woman has flipped back and forth, but you know, she has given one impression on the documentary. Now, she is saying this.
And, interestingly, she did a funny scratch on her nose at the end of the "I had nowhere to go." How do you interpret what she says? Is she telling
the truth?
DRIVER: OK. First of all, scratching the nose, we see baseball players do it all the time. We have erectile tissue in our nose, and when we get
nervous or excited, that is why you will see the athletes do it. You will see liars do the scratch. What we see with her is her eyes go down, right?
That is connected, typically, with someone who is emotional. She is thinking through emotions.
What I like about her statement and the reason I believe her statement is she is saying "I." When we say "I" or "Our" or "We," we take ownership of
what comes next. For those of you who believe in my innocence, I take ownership of what? Innocence. She is saying "I" here.
She could say, "Listen, you are in an abusive relationship. Your boyfriend is hitting you, you feel like you have nowhere to go." When we hear "You"
statements, those are people who are deflecting, and those are not people taking ownership. I believe that her statement is true. However, it does
not mean Steven Avery then went and killed Teresa.
PINSKY: Right, right. Yes.
DRIVER: My biggest issue, Dr. Drew, with Steven Avery is this. I used to watch this T.V. show called "House." I do not know if you have ever seen
it.
PINSKY: I know "House." Yes.
DRIVER: Sometimes the thing that is missing is the most important element. And, for me, what is missing, and you are the therapist here, but for me
what is missing is the anger. So, the cops are accusing you, you are saying you are not fearful. There is no anger at all. Nothing. No anger
at all. That is the hot spot. To me, that is the smoking gun.
I would love to see him being interviewed by a female police officer. I would love to literally not only that, but I would love to hear him being
asked questions about being abusive to women. How does he respond then. That way we can get a baseline to how he talks when he does violent things
to women.
PINSKY: Jimmy, you are an interrogator. Would you do that?
CLEMENTE: Well, yes. Definitely, that would be good during an interrogation, but this person needs to be normed. And, basically, you
look at him when he got released, after spending 18 years unjustifiably in prison. Was he angry? Did he show angry? Absolutely, not. This guy does
not do that. Maybe it is because he is a sociopath.
(LAUGHING)
FOSTER: He is a sociopath
PINSKY: Right.
KAVINOKY: Or maybe it is that he spent 18 years confined in a prison and he understands how to speak to people who are in an authority position. He
knows how --
PINSKY: He has been institutionalized?
BARNETT: Exactly.
KAVINOKY: He knows that context. Yes.
CLEMENTE: And, he spent time in Crime University. He has learned a lot from that. Everybody who spends that much time in a prison is going to
learn from the people around.
BARNETT: He spent time angry though, and that got him nowhere. He was angry for a large part of that 18 years, and it got him absolutely nowhere.
So, why still be angry?
KAVINOKY: Is not that the other part of the big picture on this -- is not that the other big picture on this case though, that at the time that all
of this arose, that he was on the threshold of cashing in this multi- million dollar trial verdict or settlement, whatever that was. And, so the timing, does not that kind of just --
PINSKY: Well, that --
BARNETT: Right.
PINSKY: The conspiracy theorists get very involved in the timing of this. But, Erin, do you want to make a point about his anger?
FOSTER: He is manipulative.
PINSKY: Yes.
FOSTER: He is a sociopath. He is manipulative.
PINSKY: Yes.
FOSTER: I do not think that he believes he has done anything wrong. I do not think that he believes that he has actually committed acts of violence
against the ex-fiancee or other women.
PINSKY: Or he believes -- feels justified in everything he has done.
FOSTER: Yes.
PINSKY: Which is really scary.
[21:35:00] CLEMENTE: When we come back, can we talk about eustress.
PINSKY: Eustress?
CLEMENTE: Yes, eustress. Because, I think that is the answer to Darren`s question and the conspiracy theorist`s question. Yes, everything was going
right, but that creates stress in your life, too. It is euphoric stress.
PINSKY: Next up, we have unearthed new tapes of Steven Avery before his arrest for Teresa`s murder. We will look at that. We will look at more.
Stay with us. We will be right back.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CAPTION)
"In 2007, Brendan Dassey was convicted of murdering Teresa Halbach, but he denies ever meeting her."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KRATZ: Have you ever seen Teresa Halbach before?
BRENDAN DASSEY, STEVEN AVERY`S NEPHEW: No.
KRATZ: Now, you obviously know that name, correct?
DASSEY: Yes.
KRATZ: When was the first time that you recall hearing the name or seeing her picture?
DASSEY: When she was reported missing.
KRATZ: And, how did you come about hearing about her being missing?
DASSEY: My mom called. She told me to turn on the news.
KRATZ: So, you watched T.V.?
DASSEY: Yes.
[21:40:00] KRATZ: I have nothing else, judge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKEY: Brandan Dassey, whom you saw there, now 26, had been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of early release in 2048, when he will
be 58 years of age. His current attorney has gotten this case into federal court. Back with Vanessa, Erin, Darren, Jim, and Janine. Now, Janine,
Brendan says he had never seen Teresa Halbach until he saw what was going on, on television. Was that truthful?
DRIVER: I believe so, yes. Yes. You know, as a mother of three sons, this is the biggest travesty on this case, seeing what is happening to him.
The fact he is in jail is mortifying.
PINSKY: And, Jim, you said you looked at the entire tape of his -- the initial evaluation.
CLEMENTE: Yes. The initial videotaped interrogation, four hours. And, there are some really interesting things. He actually does, for a few
minutes, a free narrative. He actually answers an open-ended question, which all the questions should have been, but he answers one, and he gives
a narrative of going over -- being invited by Steve to come over to the garage to help him move something, he finds out that something was Teresa
Halbach`s body.
And, it was in the back of the car and there was blood, and he describes a stab wound in her stomach, and he helped -- he says at that point he helped
him put her body on the fire. That is the only time he does a free narrative in the entire four-hour interrogation. Now, I do not know if
they put that information in his head in the previous interrogation that was only audio taped, but if not, that is the thing that looks like it is
an accurate --
PINSKY: It also fits too, right? It kind of fits with how things went down. But, why did they let him just be a witness to the whole thing? Why
would they make him another criminal?
CLEMENTE: Yes, well. It was a major mistake on their part.
KAVINOKY: A huge -- and he is so compromised that being able to go back --
PINSKY: Intellectually?
KAVINOKY: Well, he is compromised intellectually and the evidence is so compromised by the way that he was handled that it is hard for me to look
at anything Brendan Dassey say --
PINSKY: What is going to happen in federal court? What are they going to do?
KAVINOKY: Well, ultimately, in the federal court system, now it is his federal habeas corpus petition, where you can bring in evidence that would
not be ordinarily brought in, in the appeals process.
CLEMENTE: But, unfortunately, it is probably time barred. The state of Wisconsin is going to have to agree to waive the time bar. So, because,
otherwise, it will just get thrown out of federal court.
PINSKY: Well, is the evidence going to be, look how they manipulated this case?
KAVINOKY: Frankly, I do not think that is enough to carry the day. Generally, speaking, when we are talking about evidence that is going to
make a difference in habeas, it is evidence that would not be generally obtained and available to people at the trial, and that certainly was.
CLEMENTE: Yes, there are new ED -- I am sorry, what --
BARNETT: The EDTA?
CLEMENTE: EDTA. I am sorry --
BARNETT: That nobody believe?
CLEMENTE: That are much more sensitive.
PINSKY: That may not work to their advantage.
BARNETT: I do not believe any of those tests.
KAVINOKY: Well, but that is the kind of material that can help them on habeas.
PINSKY: Yes.
KAVINOKY: Just to give some context to the viewers, when we are talking about a direct appeal, you are limited to the four corners of the
transcript. What gets introduced at trial.
PINSKY: Proceedings of the court.
KAVINOKY: And, whether or not it is fair --
PINSKY: Yes.
KAVINOKY: -- is really what we are looking at. When you are then moving into the federal system and we are talking about habeas, habeas allows you
to bring in material that is outside of the four corners of the transcript. But, it better be new and different, otherwise, it ain`t coming in.
PINSKY: Now, Brendan took the stand, as a -- to his own defense, but he recanted his previous confession. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE LAWYER: How is it you were able to tell the police officers so much detail about what happened to Teresa if you were not
there?
DASSEY: I do not know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE LAWYER: What do you mean, sir, you do not know?
DASSEY: I could have got it out of books.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE LAWYER: Out of books?
DASSEY: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE LAWYER: What book that you read, ever, had the story of a woman chained to a bed, raped, stabbed, and then her body thrown on a
fire? What book was that, sir?
DASSEY: I believe it was called "Kiss The Girls."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE LAWYER: All right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Now, in a second, I am going to show you a little bit about "Kiss The Girls." But before I do, Janine, I want to go to you. He did some
blinking there that was seemed sort of striking to me. Did you notice that?
DRIVER: Yes, yes. And, when we have a change in our blink rate, whether it is an increase in blinks, a decrease, you saw him kind of do those
double-whammies there, that indicates a peak in stress and anxiety right there.
PINSKY: OK.
DRIVER: But we do not know what the catalyst is.
PINSKY: Right. Now, "Kiss The Girls" was made into a movie. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASANOVA: That is one of the reasons I picked you, Kate. Your intelligence. I appreciate that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:45:00] PINSKY: Erin, what do you think about this case? Does this one disturbs you as much as the rest of us?
FOSTER: This disturbance me more.
PINSKY: Yes.
FOSTER: Even more, because this is a mentally-ill kid, who is being abused.
PINSKY: Right.
FOSTER: In this situation, this is abusive.
PINSKY: And, last time, did not we talk to you about this case once before, you said, in nowhere do we see people getting care, getting
assessed. We do not know what kind of mental health services either of these gentleman have gotten and they both need a ton.
FOSTER: Yes.
BARNETT: They have been completely abandoned.
FOSTER: And. quite frankly what upsets me more about this case is that we have two individuals who need appropriate mental health assessment and did
not get it.
KAVINOKY: There is no question that the system broke down. And, the trial lawyers sit here and chuckle because the question that was asked was on
cross-examination.
PINSKY: Yes.
KAVINOKY: Where, you know, "What book ever have you read?" And generally speaking, you never ask "Who, what, where, when, why" on cross-examination,
because you will get an answer that you were not expecting, just like that prosecutor did. Bad trial tactics.
PINSKY: Next up, Steven Avery in his own words about what happened to Teresa Halbach. What does he think happened? He, Steven Avery, will tell
us after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: How do you think her car ended up on that property?
AVERY: Someone planted it there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: Avery drew us a map of the property and says it would be easy for someone to drive a car on to it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: You can drive in anywhere on it?
AVERY: Correct, in anywhere in here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: He says last Thursday, he did see some suspicious taillights on the property. After he spent 18 years in prison
for a crime he did not commit, Avery says the thought of being investigated by police haunts him, but he says he has nothing to hide.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AVERY: I worry about it every minute. I look out the window, there is a squad car, are they going to pick me up?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PINSKY: That was a T.V. report from November 2005. Avery telling a reporter that someone could have planted Teresa Halbach`s car on his
property. Back with Vanessa, Erin, Darren, Jim, and Janine. And, Darren, Steven gave a bunch of interviews before and after his arrest. Not a good
idea? Good idea? His attorney flipping out?
KAVINOKY: So, I love to remind people that the right to remain silent only helps you if you choose to exercise it. So, shut up.
PINSKY: And, Janine, I do not know if you saw the interview. We are looking at it again now. In terms of the eye movements, the nods, anything
here that concerns you? And, again, thinking about, we are sort of assessing him, again, we are all saying probably should not be in prison,
but we kind of think he is a sociopath. He would not feel anxiety. He would feel justified. He would feel invincible. In that context, does
that change the way you evaluate his body movement?
DRIVER: Well, there is a couple things here. He is bladed his body away from the interviewer, but he could be asked to do that to put a camera
shot. But, he is doing those shrugs we see. Those shoulder shrugs are the number one tell I see when someone is deceptive, but here is he is being
uncertain. "I do not know how someone got on the property." So, it becomes congruent.
You know, a big hot spot for me for telling the truth, something positive on Steven Avery`s behalf is when he says, "I did not kill her." A lot of
bad guys, a lot of people who kill people or rape people, they will use minimizing language.
And, I wanted to say this earlier. They will say, "I did not hurt her." I have watched a lot of footage of murderers, and they will say, "I did not
force myself on her." They minimize. But, we will very rarely see and hear "I did not kill her," and he says it.
PINSKY: Now, the Netflix series producers incorporated some really chilling home video of Teresa from three years before her murder. Take a
look at this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TERESA HALBACH, ALLEGEDLY MURDERED BY STEVEN AVERY: Let us say I die tomorrow. I do not think I will. I think I have a lot more to do. I just
want to know, whenever I do die, I just want people I love to know that whenever I die, that I was happy. That I was happy with what I did with my
life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Yes, Vanessa, it is a sad -- I mean there is one victim in this case, really.
BARNETT: Absolutely, it is one victim. And, I still feel, no matter whether Steven stays in jail or gets out, I feel like that family will
never have that closure that they absolutely are searching for, and it is disheartening. And, that video is -- whoo! That is too much.
KAVINOKY: You know, it is disheartening, but this conversation and the ferocity of the debate is exactly what reasonable doubt is all about. I
mean, not having an abiding certainty in the truth of what hass happened here, to me, is what reasonable doubt is.
BARNETT: But, I have a hard time believing that if, yes, let us say Steven does get out, I have a hard time believing that that county, that police
department will then tackle this case with the same ferocity to find out who actually did her.
PINSKY: But it has been ten years.
KAVINOKY: Well, from a prosecution standpoint, it would be almost impossible.
BARNETT: Exactly.
PINSKY: Yes.
KAVINOKY: Can you imagine defending that case? "Wait a second, Mr. Prosecutor, you sat here last time and said that was the guy that did it,
not this other guy."
PINSKY: And, it is ten years later.
CLEMENTE: What is really interesting, and Darren, maybe you can tell me what is going on here, but the prosecutor in Steven Avery`s trial said to
the jury, twice, "All the evidence, everything that you have heard about, everything points to one man doing it, and that is Steven Avery." And,
then he went and prosecuted Brendan separately.
PINSKY: Well, we will have to address that. We will get to that when we return. We will be right back, after this.
(MUSIC PLAYING)
[21:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PINSKY: All right. Welcome back discussing the Steven Avery case. Can you answer that Darren?
KAVINOKY: Yes, I will. There is nothing that can foreclose a prosecutor from arguing inconsistent arguments in two different cases. So, the
prosecutor is allowed --
PINSKY: He is entitled to do it.
KAVINOKY: He is absolutely legally to do it.
PINSKY: Why do not they show the documentary footage of him saying something inconsistent with what he is doing in the courtroom?
KAVINOKY: I am absolutely onboard with it. And, what this speaks to, to me, as a prosecutor that was less concerned about seeking justice than
about winning. And, that is fundamentally the problem that I have with this.
PINSKY: I just keep hearing that over and over again, from defense attorneys, that it is not about -- it is not about the truth, it is about
proof, right? Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt? No one really knows what the truth is.
KAVINOKY: Right.
PINSKY: Which those of us that are not in the legal system, I hate that.
KAVINOKY: Yes.
PINSKY: I hate that.
KAVINOKY: Right.
PINSKY: It drives me insane.
KAVINOKY: Right. The objective truth is really rendered irrelevant. What happens in court is a model of the version --
PINSKY: Which is why we are all going insane. Make your last comment about being a minority, thinking that they can railroad you.
BARNETT: Absolutely. You cannot --
PINSKY: Five seconds.
BARNETT: I do not want to be an assistant, especially as a minority, thinking that their justice system can get away with manipulating and
making me go to prison for whatever reason.
PINSKY: I think that is why we are all reacting so powerfully to this case. We will see you next time. Thanks for watching.
[22:00:00] (MUSIC PLAYING)
END
