Speaker 1: This is Alec Baldwin and you're listening to Here's the thing,
Speaker 1: My chance to talk with artists, policymakers and performers, to
Speaker 1: hear their stories. What inspires their creations, what decisions change
Speaker 1: their careers, what relationships influenced their work. At this point,
Speaker 1: it would be almost impossible not to have heard of
Speaker 1: Making a Murderer, the ten part Netflix series that launched
Speaker 1: last month, Stephen Avery Story, is a cultural phenomenon, with
Speaker 1: viewers launching petitions calling for a retrial and even a
Speaker 1: presidential pardon. It's a story with many detours and a
Speaker 1: wide range of characters. Here's what we know. Stephen Avery
Speaker 1: worked at his family's auto salvage yard in Manitoick County, Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: He had a few prior convictions before his arrest for
Speaker 1: sexual will assault in He served eighteen years for that
Speaker 1: crime until DNA evidence proved his innocence and he was exonerated.
Speaker 1: Just two years after his release, Avery and his nephew,
Speaker 1: Brendan Dacy, were arrested and subsequently convicted for the murder
Speaker 1: of a female photographer. The story is still unfolding. The
Speaker 1: series has provoked many of the lead characters to speak
Speaker 1: out Ken Kratz, the lead prosecuting attorney, recently accused the
Speaker 1: filmmakers of making a murderer, of leaving out important information.
Speaker 1: My guests today are those filmmakers Laura Richardi and Moira Dimas.
Speaker 1: They've spent the past ten years documenting Stephen avery story,
Speaker 1: which they first read about in the New York Times.
Speaker 1: This is Laura Richardi. We actually met in graduate film
Speaker 1: school at Columbia University. You know, we had no money,
Speaker 1: and that's moradems. I mean, we had negative money. This
Speaker 1: is we were borrowing money. So thening what what year
Speaker 1: you saw every on the Times was the beginning the
Speaker 1: day before Thanksgiving in two thousand and five. He had
Speaker 1: been arrested and charged in the Teresa Halbach murder. You
Speaker 1: know this the headlineman freed by DNA, now charged a
Speaker 1: new crime. It just seemed like, you know, he was
Speaker 1: this incredible window through which to look at our system.
Speaker 1: You know, if we followed this man's story, we would
Speaker 1: go from one extreme of the system to the other.
Speaker 1: So as I was saying, you know, we had no money,
Speaker 1: but what we what we could put into it was time,
Speaker 1: which is actually an incredibly valuable asset. And after doing
Speaker 1: a preliminary week of shooting in December, realized this was
Speaker 1: something we wanted to pursue, and we sublet our apartment
Speaker 1: in New York. We've got an apartment in mant Walk
Speaker 1: and we lived there, you know, more on than off
Speaker 1: for close to two years. So I think a lot
Speaker 1: of the access we had was you know, because we
Speaker 1: were there, because we weren't going anywhere. What was it
Speaker 1: like to live there? And how did the principles on
Speaker 1: either side treat you well? I would say there was
Speaker 1: definitely a range of responses. Um, there were some people
Speaker 1: who were wary of us. We were in an unknown
Speaker 1: um two individuals from New York City who you know,
Speaker 1: had descended upon Manitoa County, Wisconsin, and we were mysterious
Speaker 1: in a way. But we were collaborating with the local media.
Speaker 1: We were documenting the hall Buck cases. It was unfolding,
Speaker 1: so we were also very public, trying to be very collaborative.
Speaker 1: So we did whatever we could too to seem what
Speaker 1: we actually were, which was non threatening. You know. We
Speaker 1: were there simply to document events as they were unfolding.
Speaker 1: You know, we were not there to judge. We were
Speaker 1: there to listen and to witness law enforcement despised Stephen.
Speaker 1: Every Stephen Avery was a shiny example of their inadequacies. There,
Speaker 1: we reached out to um the two attorneys who represented
Speaker 1: Stephen Avery in his federal civil rights lawsuit against Manitoa
Speaker 1: County and two of its former law enforcement officers. And
Speaker 1: these were two individuals who were sort of at the
Speaker 1: opposite extreme of those who were wary. These individuals, Steve
Speaker 1: Glenn and Walt Kelly. I think, in a sense we're
Speaker 1: happy that we reached out to them because they were
Speaker 1: concerned that the history would otherwise be lost. Because of course,
Speaker 1: when we first met with them, Stevens civil lawsuit had
Speaker 1: already settled, and so to the extent they wanted, which
Speaker 1: he then had to give what one sixty two attorneys
Speaker 1: and the and then if I watched, because I did
Speaker 1: watch this very career and tried to think attention, and
Speaker 1: then the two forty was left to bankroll the other
Speaker 1: defense case. Correct, that's right. I mean the money never
Speaker 1: touched Steven's hands. Just to clarify for listeners, the money
Speaker 1: that he won in a civil suit for being falsely
Speaker 1: imprisoned for eight years was used. His net proceeds were
Speaker 1: used to fund his defense for the murder trial. You know,
Speaker 1: Steve Glenn expressed to us the actual heartbreak he felt
Speaker 1: when Stephen was arrested in this new crime. One of
Speaker 1: the reasons for that was he knew what Stephen himself
Speaker 1: and the Avery family had endured throughout Steven's wrongful imprisonment
Speaker 1: for eighteen years. Steve Glenn had actually represented Stephen avery
Speaker 1: Um in Steven's post conviction efforts in the mid nineties
Speaker 1: and fully believed in Steven's innocence. So, you know, he
Speaker 1: was a client, he had a long history with someone
Speaker 1: he really cared about who now found himself back in
Speaker 1: the system facing mandatory life. And so Steve Glenn, you know,
Speaker 1: expressed to us that Stephen not only had a thirty
Speaker 1: six million dollar lawsuit pending, but also expressed to us
Speaker 1: why Stephen brought that lawsuit to begin with. He wasn't
Speaker 1: digging for gold. He was trying to prevent what happened
Speaker 1: to him and what happen been to Penny Burns in
Speaker 1: the victim in the first case, from happening to anyone else.
Speaker 1: For those who don't know the story that well, he
Speaker 1: is falsely imprisoned for eighteen years from two thousand three
Speaker 1: and he gets out, he's exonerated by DNA evidence when
Speaker 1: he's in prison for ten years, the neighboring sheriff's department
Speaker 1: or county police, you can articulate this, contact the matina
Speaker 1: Walk people and say we think he got the wrong guy.
Speaker 1: We think we know who the guy is. And the
Speaker 1: people in matin O say we're fine, correct, Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: ten years into stephen sentence. And what happens is that
Speaker 1: an officer from Brown County calls the Mantwalk Sheriff's department
Speaker 1: and says, we have somebody in custody who says that
Speaker 1: he committed a sexual assault in Mattwak County and someone
Speaker 1: else is serving time. So they actually infessed, had somebody
Speaker 1: confessing to it? Was it the guy that was eventually
Speaker 1: found guilty of the crime. It's hard to track down
Speaker 1: exactly who made that call. Did they find someone that
Speaker 1: was guilty of her of her rape? Did they convict
Speaker 1: someone else? They did, yes, um, and it is likely
Speaker 1: that person that was confessing because the timing was verified.
Speaker 1: It was never verified, but in Gregory Allen that the
Speaker 1: DNA UM that had been collected in the rape kit
Speaker 1: in five was retested and it matched this person, Gregory Allen,
Speaker 1: who was in the system because he had been convicted
Speaker 1: of a subsequent rape in so the timing of of
Speaker 1: that phone call does point to Gregory Allen making that confession.
Speaker 1: So eventually Avery is released in two thousand three, correct,
Speaker 1: and when he gets out, he starts suing people. And
Speaker 1: the lawsuit that results in the four thousand dollar judgment
Speaker 1: that was Avery suing who under what banner? There was
Speaker 1: a civil rights lawsuit. It was a federal civil rights lawsuit.
Speaker 1: But if I can, I would like to back up
Speaker 1: because he did not immediately start suing people they were
Speaker 1: is actually a call to action, I think a week
Speaker 1: after his exoneration for the Attorney General to look into
Speaker 1: what had gone wrong, And there was a d c
Speaker 1: I investigators put on that case and many reports written
Speaker 1: about what they were finding. But ultimately, after those reports
Speaker 1: were submitted to lawyers at the Attorney General's office, the
Speaker 1: official report that was written was that there was no
Speaker 1: wrongdoing and that there was no ethical or criminal violations
Speaker 1: in the case. So it was at that point, when
Speaker 1: the system itself did not hold itself accountable, that Stephen
Speaker 1: took the steps to file a lawsuit. So he files
Speaker 1: that lawsuit, that lawsuit is adjudicated over what period of
Speaker 1: time he gets the settlement When Stephen filed the lawsuit
Speaker 1: in October of two thousand four and settled it I
Speaker 1: believe in February of two thousand six, which was who
Speaker 1: settled all of the defendants which were in that case.
Speaker 1: We're Manitoa County, its former sheriff, tomka Surich, and its
Speaker 1: former secutor Dennis Vogel. Both Casserk and Vogel were being
Speaker 1: sued in their official capacity and in their individual capacity.
Speaker 1: They pay anything individually. The settlement was paid by who?
Speaker 1: Which entity paid the four thousand The terms of the
Speaker 1: settlement were confidential. I mean it was reported in the
Speaker 1: news the amount that Stephen ultimately settled for, but we
Speaker 1: were not able to verify that. Then he has another lawsuit.
Speaker 1: The thirty six million dollar lawsuit is by him individually
Speaker 1: against who who does he sue them? Well to clarify
Speaker 1: that there's only one lawsuit. So when he sues in
Speaker 1: October of um two thousand and four, that is for
Speaker 1: thirty six million dollars against Mantua County, the former sheriff
Speaker 1: and the former district attorney. And it's important to recognize
Speaker 1: the timing of the settlement because Stephen does not settle
Speaker 1: the lawsuit until he has been charged with the murderer
Speaker 1: of Teresa Halbuck, until he is desperate for funds, and
Speaker 1: you know, he says himself, like, what good is money
Speaker 1: going to do me? You know, if I can't prove
Speaker 1: my innocence, you know, I have to give up. What
Speaker 1: was his goal of holding somebody accountable for what had
Speaker 1: happened to him to try to defend himself. So it
Speaker 1: was it was the single lawsuit. There was no settlement
Speaker 1: of this lawsuit, and some other lawsuit was hanging over
Speaker 1: the heads of Colburn and Link and those people. Correct,
Speaker 1: it was one loss. It was one lawsuit. Um. And
Speaker 1: you mentioned Colburn and Length, they had they had been
Speaker 1: deposed in the lawsuit, and the content of those depositions
Speaker 1: was about this phone call about Gregory Allen confessing or
Speaker 1: somebody purportedly Gregor Allen confessing to this assault for which
Speaker 1: Stephen was serving time. And what was done with that
Speaker 1: phone call and the fact that it was buried and
Speaker 1: that it was there were no reports written and there
Speaker 1: were no repercussions for them for them, they were not.
Speaker 1: At the time, there was talk among the civil attorneys
Speaker 1: that perhaps those two individuals should be added as defendants
Speaker 1: in the lawsuit, but that did not have an opportunity
Speaker 1: to happen because he had to crash the whole thing
Speaker 1: to get the money to pay for the That's right,
Speaker 1: I think an interesting detail that came out during Stephen's
Speaker 1: trial when Dean Strang was cross examining then sergeant patrol
Speaker 1: Sergeant Andrew Colburn, he asked him, at the time you
Speaker 1: were deposed in the lawsuit, did you have any concern
Speaker 1: that you yourself might be added as a defendant in
Speaker 1: the lawsuit? And Colburn answered affirmatively, He said, yes, it
Speaker 1: had crossed my mind. At the center of this is Avery,
Speaker 1: who I'm assuming you spent countless hours with him or
Speaker 1: around him correct, um, hours on the phone mostly UM.
Speaker 1: We were able to visit him in the county jail times.
Speaker 1: I would guess maybe eight, maybe ten. How did he
Speaker 1: strike you? Well, he's about two inches shorter than I am,
Speaker 1: and I'm what am I five ft five, So I
Speaker 1: was a little surprised by his stature and um, but
Speaker 1: he had a big smile, He was very affable, he
Speaker 1: was very open, he was very gracious, and um, you know,
Speaker 1: it just it appeared to us that this was somebody
Speaker 1: with a very simple value system, but a value system. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: the thing about this that that I think about in
Speaker 1: terms of the two of you as filmmakers, is you
Speaker 1: spend countless hours immersed in this, and did you develop
Speaker 1: an ability to tell who's telling the truth and who's lying?
Speaker 1: Did you become a bit more expert at that from
Speaker 1: doing this? I mean, I think we certainly developed the
Speaker 1: ability to identify, you know, should I be inclined to
Speaker 1: trust this person and what they're saying. And I think
Speaker 1: that was about, you know, being there and and hearing
Speaker 1: from so many people and going into the documents, you know,
Speaker 1: because we were one of the things that series is about,
Speaker 1: and one of the things we were fascinated with was
Speaker 1: there was what was going on in public and then
Speaker 1: there was what was going on behind the scene. Give
Speaker 1: us a distinction that struck you well, you know, once
Speaker 1: Brendan got sucked into this case, and so you know,
Speaker 1: Stephen's sister is the mother of his nephew, and it
Speaker 1: becomes his family drama and in the public, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of talk of Barbyonda is, you know, trying to
Speaker 1: protect Steven avery and the family is forcing Brendan to recant.
Speaker 1: You know. Then you go to their living room and
Speaker 1: they're fighting over this, and she actually doesn't necessarily even
Speaker 1: believe in Stephen or her son. She she thinks every
Speaker 1: might have killed the woman. Yeah, there are moments like that.
Speaker 1: She is too, she's grappling it with it herself. And
Speaker 1: you know, that's just all simplified and missed on the
Speaker 1: public level. And and and again. To interject this for
Speaker 1: people who haven't seen the piece, the man who was
Speaker 1: released from prison after eighteen years on the rape charge
Speaker 1: is then accused of murder. And then it goes to
Speaker 1: another level again when the guy's nephew is roped into
Speaker 1: the whole thing to confess against him because they don't
Speaker 1: have any really reliable physical evidence, so they need an
Speaker 1: eye witness. What else happens to her in her head
Speaker 1: extremely extremely important to tell us us for us to
Speaker 1: believe you, come on, Brendon, what else? I don't even
Speaker 1: know the worst to describe it, That's all I can't remember.
Speaker 1: All right, I'm just gonna come out and ask him
Speaker 1: who shot her in the head? He why didn't you
Speaker 1: tell us that it? Now you remember it when you
Speaker 1: were around that family, Because they do come across. There's
Speaker 1: a little whiff of some kind of clear shade appellatesha
Speaker 1: to these people, describe them. These people were not Bible
Speaker 1: thumping God fearing people. No, although it is interesting, um,
Speaker 1: you know in the episode UM eight, I guess it
Speaker 1: is Dolores, Stephen's mother says, you know, I know God
Speaker 1: is on my side. You know, they might not be
Speaker 1: Bible thumping and you know performing that they're going to church,
Speaker 1: but but they have faith. They have a belief system.
Speaker 1: And I think in terms of how the community thinks
Speaker 1: about them or respond to them, I think the dividing
Speaker 1: line is really between people that know them and that
Speaker 1: people that don't know them. They have supporters, people that
Speaker 1: have interacted with them, customers, and how they're treated everybody there.
Speaker 1: The law enforcement community, particularly the one that Colburn and
Speaker 1: Lank work with that law and that's the County correct
Speaker 1: the County Sheriff's Department that they have their opinion of
Speaker 1: the the Avery family. But the Averys had their supporters
Speaker 1: and they were members of a community. Correct, not everybody
Speaker 1: hated them. I thought they were trash, that's right. I
Speaker 1: Mean one of the things we came to learn is that, um,
Speaker 1: you know, in a way, the Averies were considered the
Speaker 1: other in that particular community. They were not dairy farmers. Um,
Speaker 1: although many of them worked in factories. It's also there's
Speaker 1: there's industry in Manittoau County as well, but um, you know,
Speaker 1: their profession, their livelihood was different and they were essentially
Speaker 1: members of an underclass. So they were identified as the other.
Speaker 1: And as you mentioned earlier, Alec, um, you know, they
Speaker 1: weren't churchgoing people, so in a way, they you know,
Speaker 1: they didn't fit into the community in that sense. But
Speaker 1: what was interesting to us was that, um, you know,
Speaker 1: the Averies were content. They kept to themselves and they
Speaker 1: were happy with that. You know, they did tend to
Speaker 1: get into some trouble when they did venture out into
Speaker 1: the community. I mean you mentioned that Stephen had some priors,
Speaker 1: and he certainly did so. Um. That was interesting to
Speaker 1: us though to to try to it get a sense
Speaker 1: of how self aware they were or how they considered
Speaker 1: themselves in the community, and and did they were they
Speaker 1: conscious of being thought of as the other and it's
Speaker 1: it seemed to us that they weren't really conscious of that. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, you were accused of soft selling some of
Speaker 1: those priors and do you agree was there If you'd
Speaker 1: had it to do over again, would you have been
Speaker 1: more explicit about what he did? Explain about that now?
Speaker 1: I mean we you know, our process was about using
Speaker 1: primary source materials. To the extent they were available to us.
Speaker 1: We would review them, and we wanted support for whatever
Speaker 1: was included in the documentary. We fact checked, We had
Speaker 1: multiple sources for things, right. I mean, it's been reported
Speaker 1: in the national news in the last few days. The
Speaker 1: documentary says this, but the truth is this. I'm assuming
Speaker 1: that when this thing rolled out, I'm sure Netflix has
Speaker 1: a legal department like no other is rich. Retflix is rich,
Speaker 1: and they've got a lot of money to fact check
Speaker 1: and so forth. I'm sure they put you through the
Speaker 1: ringer about that for a period of time. Did you
Speaker 1: have copious sessions with them about that? Yeah? I mean certainly,
Speaker 1: all the legal checking, all of the clearing of title
Speaker 1: and checking all of our releases, everything was a thorough process.
Speaker 1: When you're done with that process and the program has
Speaker 1: rolled out, on Netflix. Certainly you anticipated you would have
Speaker 1: some blowback from the principles involved, correct, Did you prepare
Speaker 1: yourself for that? Yeah, I mean it's no surprise to
Speaker 1: us what Crats is coming out and saying. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can't even say I'm disappointed. I mean, it's so predictable.
Speaker 1: What's disappointing is that, you know, the reporters on the
Speaker 1: national news are not asking him what is your source,
Speaker 1: They're not looking at the record and challenging him on
Speaker 1: his statements. They're sort of doing exactly what we document
Speaker 1: happened during the hall Buck case. He makes a statement,
Speaker 1: the media puts it out there as truth, and you know,
Speaker 1: off we go. The repercussions from the series seemed to
Speaker 1: change daily. Last week, Avery's former fiance Jodi Stakowski, who
Speaker 1: appears sympathetic to him in making a murderer, gave an
Speaker 1: interview stating that she believed he murdered Hallbach. She also
Speaker 1: said she asked not to appear in the series. Moira
Speaker 1: and Laura have responded by saying, quote, we and our
Speaker 1: legal team are very comfortable that we had the appropriate
Speaker 1: consent from all of the interview subjects, including Jody unquote
Speaker 1: Explorer the Here's the Thing Archives, where I talk with
Speaker 1: Gay Tales, the father of long form journalism. I never
Speaker 1: wrote about a person, and I've written about hundreds and
Speaker 1: hundreds of people that I couldn't go to see again.
Speaker 1: I never had someone that wouldn't see me. In fact,
Speaker 1: my attitude was the story is never over. I could
Speaker 1: write about someone that's a performing athlete or performing an actor,
Speaker 1: and then ten years later and go back and see
Speaker 1: them again. I wrote about Peter Tool my favorite person
Speaker 1: in not long after who did Lawrence Arabia. I kept
Speaker 1: in touch with him for the next forty years. I
Speaker 1: believe that people, as long as they're alive, have more
Speaker 1: stories to tell. Just because you published an article in
Speaker 1: the New York Times and the New Yorker magazine doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that the story is over. Take a listen that
Speaker 1: Here's the Thing dot org. This is Alec Baldwin and
Speaker 1: you're listening to Here's the Thing. The ten part Netflix
Speaker 1: series Making a Murderer has made more than a few
Speaker 1: people household names, including Avery's defense attorney's Dean Strang and
Speaker 1: Jerry Beauty and Teresa Hallbox brother Mike. I want to
Speaker 1: talk about a person who to me is one of
Speaker 1: the more disturbing figures in the show, and that is
Speaker 1: Haubuck's brother hopefully, you know, move on, hopefully with Teresa
Speaker 1: still in our life. And this guy was as velvety
Speaker 1: and as seamless and did not seem to be mourning
Speaker 1: his sister at all. What was your opinion of the brother. Well,
Speaker 1: there's an interesting detail. Um, when Dean and Jerry first
Speaker 1: came to represent Stephen Avery, one of their early motions
Speaker 1: they brought they were going to seek a gag order
Speaker 1: essentially against the state because, um, you might recall back
Speaker 1: in November when law enforcement took over the Avery property
Speaker 1: for eight days of searches, they were actually daily press conferences,
Speaker 1: televised press conferences that were also you know, on radio
Speaker 1: and in print, and um, you know, as soon as
Speaker 1: these private attorneys came to represent Steven, they wanted to
Speaker 1: put a stop to that. And what happened was the
Speaker 1: two sides ultimately entered into a stipulation and said, Okay,
Speaker 1: neither side, we'll talk to the press, we won't do
Speaker 1: any more pre child publicity. But I think what's interesting
Speaker 1: to note is that Mike hall Buck, who was essentially
Speaker 1: the spokesperson for the hall Buck family. Um, it seems
Speaker 1: ultimately like sort of was passed the torch by Ken
Speaker 1: Cratts because my Callbuck continued to speak in the press.
Speaker 1: You concerned that with each witness, this window of reasonable
Speaker 1: doubt keeps getting wider and wider. No, I'm not concerned
Speaker 1: at all. Um. I think it's a hand that's kind
Speaker 1: of forced upon the prosecution team. That's, you know, kind
Speaker 1: of my belief. So not concerned at all. He was
Speaker 1: essentially channeling the state's narrative. I mean, he was saying explicitly,
Speaker 1: what matters to our family is that Stephen Avery is
Speaker 1: convicted of this crime. Did you interview them at all?
Speaker 1: Did any of the hall Bucks agree to be interviewed
Speaker 1: by you? Um? They did not. I mean, like most
Speaker 1: of our subjects. Um, we wrote a letter to them
Speaker 1: introducing ourselves, introducing the project and what our goals were. Um.
Speaker 1: And that resulted in us eventually having coffee with Mike.
Speaker 1: What what my recollection of what Mike told us was,
Speaker 1: you know, because we had described, you know, we want
Speaker 1: to look at the American criminal justice system. We think,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a lot to be learned from this
Speaker 1: case and you know, the relationship of the past case
Speaker 1: since you know Steven's wrongful conviction to what's happening now.
Speaker 1: And he told us, you know, I don't think there's
Speaker 1: any problems with the justice system and there's nothing to
Speaker 1: be learned from Stephen Avery. Here was a man who
Speaker 1: believed that Stephen Avery had murdered his sister. And you know,
Speaker 1: Steven Avery had served eighteen years in prison as an
Speaker 1: innocent man, and so potentially his narrative was that, you know,
Speaker 1: because he was in prison for eighteen years, he was
Speaker 1: now a murderer. So how could he at the same
Speaker 1: time say there's nothing wrong with the American criminal justice
Speaker 1: system finding her cell phone records? How does something like
Speaker 1: that occur? Um, there are a couple of us that
Speaker 1: tried figuring it out, but basically figured out her password
Speaker 1: and made up a user name that worked and got
Speaker 1: into her her phone records. And I mean they pin
Speaker 1: it right off the deleted voice about that the boyfriend
Speaker 1: talked about or he was queried about when he was
Speaker 1: on the stand, explained to the audience what happened. The
Speaker 1: woman hall Box is murdered. This is the murder that
Speaker 1: Avery is then accused. She comes to photograph cars. She
Speaker 1: comes to the salvage yard. She comes out from what
Speaker 1: town was she based in? Her workplace was in Green Bay,
Speaker 1: but she lived in um Callimet County, so she comes
Speaker 1: there and patrols that area and photographs cars to put
Speaker 1: on their website and their publication. An auto trader now
Speaker 1: explain how there were messages of hall box that were
Speaker 1: deleted by who who admitted to that? No one ultimately
Speaker 1: admitted to leading her messages. Her brother, Mike admitted to
Speaker 1: listening to her her voicem guessing her password. I believe
Speaker 1: both Mike and Teresa's ex boyfriend, Ryan hilligas Um claimed
Speaker 1: to have yes to have guests Teresa's password and go
Speaker 1: in and listen to her voicemail. That's right, And some
Speaker 1: of her voicemails are deleted. That's right. I mean one
Speaker 1: of the one of the reasons this woman was reported
Speaker 1: missing was because people were calling her voicemail and getting
Speaker 1: the message that her mailbox was full. This was unusual
Speaker 1: to people. She was very prompt and polite and got
Speaker 1: back to people, So that was that was a concern.
Speaker 1: That was one of the things that made people call
Speaker 1: each other. And have you seen her. Have you seen her?
Speaker 1: So we know that the mailbox was full as of
Speaker 1: a certain date. But then they have records a few
Speaker 1: days later and there's not enough messages there to trigger
Speaker 1: and Hiligas has guessed the passport, and Hiligas has a
Speaker 1: scratch on his face. And Hiligas is her ex boy friend.
Speaker 1: They had been uh, they've been partying. Correct or they
Speaker 1: were part they were broken up. They were broken up,
Speaker 1: broken up? How long were they broken up? To do
Speaker 1: recall that? I believe Ryan testified that they last dated
Speaker 1: when they were still in college. I believe Do you
Speaker 1: remember where? Yeah, I don't know how many years the gap,
Speaker 1: It was a long time. But they were in each
Speaker 1: other's lives. Teresa lived with a friend, a male friend,
Speaker 1: in a house. That friend was one of Ryan's best friends.
Speaker 1: I mean, they were in each other's lives. The other part,
Speaker 1: because I want to get to your personal stories of self,
Speaker 1: just pick one more topic of this to talk about,
Speaker 1: which is this stuff about the burning of the body
Speaker 1: parts being moved from a burn pit. Explain to the
Speaker 1: audience what the prosecutors claim happened to Hallbox body in
Speaker 1: their mind, and what you think the potential conflicts are
Speaker 1: in the actual evidence that you know of. Well, the
Speaker 1: state presented evidence and argued to the jury that Teresa
Speaker 1: hallback after she was shot in the head and murdered
Speaker 1: in that way, that her body was mutilated and burned.
Speaker 1: Investigators recovered human cremains from a burn pit outside of
Speaker 1: Stephen Avery's bedroom window essentially and right behind his trailer,
Speaker 1: that's right. They also recovered human remains from a burned
Speaker 1: barrel which was outside of Stephen's sisters residents next door
Speaker 1: to Steven's property. But interestingly, the defense elicited testimony from
Speaker 1: the state's owned forensic anthropologist who testified, that's right, Dr
Speaker 1: Leslie Eisenberg, that there were what seemed to be human
Speaker 1: cremains also UM found in a quarry a quarter of
Speaker 1: a mile away from these other two locations where the
Speaker 1: cremaines were found matched that essentially matched, I mean they
Speaker 1: were burned to burn in cal signed to the same
Speaker 1: degree as these other bones, and you can't do a
Speaker 1: DNA test on that material um. Well, just to be clear,
Speaker 1: the bones found in um in Steven's burn pitt and
Speaker 1: the bones found in the burned barrel behind Barb's house
Speaker 1: those were matched to Teresa hall Buck. It's it's the
Speaker 1: bones that were in the quarry pile that we're too
Speaker 1: small and and too fragmented to be able to identify.
Speaker 1: You think he's guilty, Avery, I mean, you know this
Speaker 1: following this case for a decade was you know, such
Speaker 1: an incredible experience, which we tried to offer to our
Speaker 1: viewers as well. But you know, we went in with questions.
Speaker 1: You know, that's what got us to move from New
Speaker 1: York to mash Walk. We thought, naively, oh, we'll get
Speaker 1: answers to these questions, and it's just so clear that
Speaker 1: it just leads to more questions, and um, you know,
Speaker 1: there's no way I can claim to have any real
Speaker 1: certainty about his guilty. I think if I was on
Speaker 1: that jury, I would vote, um, that they hadn't proved
Speaker 1: their case. You vote not guilty based on the case presented.
Speaker 1: You're not saying he's innocent, but you're saying that the
Speaker 1: case was just filled with inconsistencies. That's right, and that's
Speaker 1: such an important distinction to make because that's what juries
Speaker 1: are deciding. It's guilty or not guilty. There's no verdict
Speaker 1: of innocent in this country. That's a good point. By
Speaker 1: the way, I'm gonna quote you to borrow that from
Speaker 1: you and nausea him. There is no verdict of innocent
Speaker 1: in this country. That's great. Um. The juror who was
Speaker 1: dismissed because of the family crisis or whatever was that
Speaker 1: happened with his daughter, she was in a car accident.
Speaker 1: That's right. That gentleman came out and mentioned that. In
Speaker 1: the first balloting of the first preliminary balloting of the jury,
Speaker 1: it was seven voted for innocent, corrected of twelve people.
Speaker 1: That's correct. Yeah, when they walk in and you know,
Speaker 1: just to sort of take a straw pole, that was
Speaker 1: That was the pole. The juror you mentioned, Richard Mahler,
Speaker 1: who was excused and who appears in the series, told
Speaker 1: us about um at one point. The jurors who actually
Speaker 1: were deliberating and taking their oath seriously. We're looking through
Speaker 1: photographs of the bookcase from Steven's bedroom, and this is
Speaker 1: a bookcase where a key piece of evidence, actually a key,
Speaker 1: the car ignition key from Teresa Hallbuck's vehicle was supposedly
Speaker 1: found by Officer Lieutenant James Lank And what this juror
Speaker 1: said to us was that the jury was discussing how
Speaker 1: before the key was found there was change, loose change
Speaker 1: on top of the bookcase, and they were looking at photographs, um,
Speaker 1: after the key was found, and that change was in
Speaker 1: the same position. And why that was significant to these
Speaker 1: jurors was that there was testimony that the key was
Speaker 1: not initially discovered because it was hidden inside this bookcase
Speaker 1: and had only fallen out after Sergeant Colburn claims to
Speaker 1: have really shake in the bookcase and you know, done
Speaker 1: all this stuff, the change remains intact. I mean, that
Speaker 1: was the jurors analysis. And was there a period where
Speaker 1: you sat there and said, you know, we're done, We're
Speaker 1: gonna leave. And then you know in the Pacino has
Speaker 1: that line in The Godfather Part three, I try to
Speaker 1: get out, but they keep pulling me back in. Is
Speaker 1: that your condition as well? Well? Um, you know we did.
Speaker 1: We followed these cases through convictions and through sentencing. So
Speaker 1: that was the summer of two thousand seven, and we
Speaker 1: just practically speaking had to leave and we had to
Speaker 1: go back to day jobs and try to dig ourselves
Speaker 1: out a little bit from debt. What's your day job then, um, well,
Speaker 1: my job before going to film school. I'm in Local
Speaker 1: fifty two as an electrician, had worked on movie sets.
Speaker 1: Film sets, you and I ever worked together? I think
Speaker 1: we may have. I did some days on thirty rocks.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it's crazy right coming together. It's a coming together. Electrical.
Speaker 1: I did electrical, but I'd also wore because a documentary editor. Um,
Speaker 1: and then from there finally was like, I'm just going
Speaker 1: to go to film school and do that. So um,
Speaker 1: I sort of fell back on being an electrician. It
Speaker 1: was a much easier career to go in for a
Speaker 1: few days or a few months and go out of
Speaker 1: so it allowed me the flexibility to keep doing this project.
Speaker 1: You know. Part of it was just the time it
Speaker 1: took really for the marketplace to evolve and for us
Speaker 1: to be able to do enough in that sort of
Speaker 1: part time way to get the project far enough along
Speaker 1: that we could show a place like Netflix what this
Speaker 1: was and what we could do. And you know, at
Speaker 1: that point then we wanted to do they right away Netflix, Yes,
Speaker 1: right away? And what about you? The first meeting to
Speaker 1: be specific, and what about what about you? What were
Speaker 1: you doing to pay the bills? I was working as
Speaker 1: a contract attorney doing electronic discovery for mainly for a
Speaker 1: complex business litigation matter. So I was drowning in documents
Speaker 1: every day essentially, and then drowning in documents relating to
Speaker 1: all the matters in this story, as well as footage
Speaker 1: and phone calls and everything else. Yeah, I mean there
Speaker 1: were times where I would take Brendan Dassy's phone calls,
Speaker 1: where would load up you know, my computer for me
Speaker 1: to take to work or my iPad with Brendan Dassy's
Speaker 1: phone calls, and I would be listening to them at work,
Speaker 1: um and taking notes, which you helped us sift through
Speaker 1: hundreds of hours of these calls with his mother and
Speaker 1: other people in his life. It's interesting how I didn't
Speaker 1: assume that you put your legal career on hold, and
Speaker 1: you didn't. You were practicing while you did this to
Speaker 1: you know, have a have an income. But whatever your
Speaker 1: aspirations were when you thought about going to law school
Speaker 1: and you were in law school. Isn't it funny how
Speaker 1: you didn't necessarily practice law of these last ten years,
Speaker 1: but you ended up doing more for this case than
Speaker 1: any lawyer might have done in the work you've done.
Speaker 1: Do you do have that feeling? I think that's an
Speaker 1: excellent point. Actually, um more More pointed out to me
Speaker 1: recently that you know, when this finally airs, the subjects
Speaker 1: in our series will get to see, you know, a
Speaker 1: much broader picture. I mean they they offered to us
Speaker 1: their piece of the puzzle essentially, and that was really
Speaker 1: exciting to me because I hadn't really thought of it
Speaker 1: in that way before. So we were looking forward to
Speaker 1: sharing the series with you know, the world essentially, but
Speaker 1: then also we wanted to see how our subjects would
Speaker 1: respond to it. And yes, I mean I I continued
Speaker 1: practicing law while working on this project, but I had
Speaker 1: seriously scaled back prior to embarking on this journey. I
Speaker 1: was working as an associated at a midsize firm in
Speaker 1: Chicago and working practically every day of the week. I
Speaker 1: went back to law school. I was trying to get
Speaker 1: an advanced legal degree in l M and taxation. And
Speaker 1: I was, um, you know, and I said, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: I'm essentially going to demote myself. I'm going to work
Speaker 1: as an hourly attorney. Um, take a tremendous pay cut,
Speaker 1: but what I will get in exchange is flexibility in
Speaker 1: terms of my schedule. I'll have more control over my schedule.
Speaker 1: I won't have to be concerned about face time or
Speaker 1: pleasing partners necessarily, and that will afford me what I
Speaker 1: need to do to continue moving this project forward with Moira.
Speaker 1: But I think your point, Alec is great because you know,
Speaker 1: I know Laura very well, and you know what I
Speaker 1: know is that you know she left her career in
Speaker 1: law to go to film school. This This is you know,
Speaker 1: four or five years before embarking on this project. And
Speaker 1: she did that because you know, she thought she could
Speaker 1: make more of a difference through film than through practicing
Speaker 1: as a lawyer. And so your point is is perfect,
Speaker 1: you hope. So I probably wouldn't do it this way,
Speaker 1: but certainly because you are a couple, because your partners
Speaker 1: in your private life. You tell me, Moira, what are
Speaker 1: her strengths, what does she bring to the filmmaking process
Speaker 1: that you think is important? I mean, I think Laura
Speaker 1: is one of the most moral and ethical people I've
Speaker 1: ever met, and she's also one of the most detail
Speaker 1: oriented people I've ever met. An LM and taxation, I hope. So,
Speaker 1: so you know those three things right there, what that
Speaker 1: brought to this project? The ability to you know, go
Speaker 1: through the documents, you know, draw boundaries with our subjects,
Speaker 1: you know, fact check anything we were going to put
Speaker 1: into the series. You know, it's invaluable your term. Where
Speaker 1: to begin? Um, I just felt very fortunate to be
Speaker 1: you know, partnered in life and in work with Moira
Speaker 1: because she is the most trustworthy individual I know. And um,
Speaker 1: you know, she she committed herself to this project. I
Speaker 1: mean Moira, as she said she you know, she'd been
Speaker 1: working as an electrician in the industry, worked as a
Speaker 1: as a documentary editor, but really wanted, um, I think,
Speaker 1: to work in fiction filmmaking and and and finally had
Speaker 1: worked up the courage to say, I want to direct.
Speaker 1: And I've tried these other things possible avenues to directing,
Speaker 1: and I'm I'm going to commit myself to entering into
Speaker 1: this film program and become a director. And um, you know,
Speaker 1: I asked her if she would partner with me on
Speaker 1: this project, and she jumped in, and she gave everything
Speaker 1: she had to it and never once made me feel
Speaker 1: like she regretted it or that you know, there was
Speaker 1: something better she could have been doing. And and I
Speaker 1: respect her tremendously for that, and I appreciate that and
Speaker 1: beyond that, just in terms of her creativity and um,
Speaker 1: the talent she has. I mean, I I am just
Speaker 1: in awe of Moira and her ability to edit this series.
Speaker 1: I mean she were yeah, and I mean you know
Speaker 1: where would would help contain my ideas in a way.
Speaker 1: I mean she would you know, she would support them
Speaker 1: and encourage them. But at the same time, I mean
Speaker 1: she just served in this incredible capacity as an editor
Speaker 1: because you know, I wasn't the type of director who
Speaker 1: would say, Okay, here's what I want to do and
Speaker 1: leave for two weeks. You know, I was in the
Speaker 1: edit room every day with MOIRAUM, but often I would
Speaker 1: step away and you know, do research or um contact
Speaker 1: our subjects, or do other things, act as a creative
Speaker 1: producer or you know, think about more big picture stuff.
Speaker 1: But Mara was really down in the weeds with the
Speaker 1: material and did a fantastic job. Now the last thing
Speaker 1: is so I could be silly about this and say, well,
Speaker 1: I'm assuming your next movie is about figure skating or
Speaker 1: something really kind of very schiffani and sweet. What's a
Speaker 1: you got something going on? What are you doing? You
Speaker 1: don't want to talk about it? Well? Right, I mean,
Speaker 1: perhaps we don't want to, right. Maybe that's also just
Speaker 1: a nice thing to say at this point, because you know,
Speaker 1: the series launched less than three weeks ago at this point,
Speaker 1: and I think we've finished it less than four weeks ago,
Speaker 1: so and you know, here we are doing press and
Speaker 1: we hosted family during the holidays, and so you know,
Speaker 1: we can't wait for the moment to refill the well.
Speaker 1: As they say. It's also we made this series to
Speaker 1: start a dialogue, and it's important to us to be
Speaker 1: part of that dialogue. So you know, we'll be doing
Speaker 1: this for a little while and you know, following this case,
Speaker 1: if if things develop, but we do hope to to
Speaker 1: find another another story that needs to be told, and
Speaker 1: my Laura Rachariti and more Redeems find it, We and
Speaker 1: many of their fans will be there to watch and listen.
Speaker 1: This is Alec Baldwin and you're listening to here's the thing.