Pop Culture Confidential

Episode 27: The Filmmakers of Making a Murderer

This weeks guests Moira Demos and Laura Ricciardi spent ten years of their lives documenting the Avery case which became the Netflix docu-series “Making a Murderer”. If you have not watched the complete series, please know that this episode and the text below contain spoilers. Was Steven Avery setup by the local authorities as payback for the lawsuit? Is an innocent man in jail the second time? Was 16-year-old Brendan Dassey's confession coerced? The series is spellbinding and infuriating, regardless of guilt or innocence, as it shines a light on the entire justice system. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Duration:: 25m
Broadcast on:: 03 Mar 2016
Audio Format:: other

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When you think about businesses that are selling through the roof like skims or all birds, sure, you think about a great product, a cool brand, and great marketing. But an often overlooked secret is actually the businesses behind the business, making selling and for shoppers buying simple. For millions of businesses, that business is Shopify. It's home of shop pay, the number one checkout in the world. You can use it to boost conversions up to 50%, meaning way less carts going abandoned and way more sales going through to checkout. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout all birds uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com/income, all lowercase. Go to Shopify.com/income to upgrade your selling today, Shopify.com/income. The filmmakers behind making a murder, the Netflix documentary series that has consumed the conversation since it first aired in December. Moira Demos and Laura Rochardi on Pop Culture Confidential. Steve and Avery spent 18 years in prison for something he didn't do. Eighteen years. Eighteen years DNA had come through indicating that he had not committed the crime. Law enforcement officers realized that they had screwed up big-time. We were getting ready to bring the lawsuit to $36 million, managed to walk county itself and the sheriff and the DA would be on the hook for those damages. They're not handing that kind of money over to Steve Avery. I did tell him, be careful, they are not even close to being finished with you. Do we have a body or anything yet? I don't believe so. Do we have Steve and Avery in Costa Rica? Are you kidding me? The disappearance of Teresa Hallbock remains a mystery. Mr. Avery's blood is found inside of Teresa Hallbock's vehicle. See everybody's listening. What do you want to say today? I'm interested. If convicted Steve Avery will spend the rest of his life in prison, we found a key that key was scrubbed and his DNA was placed on him. This is really strange. What's going on here? Hallbock's last stop Monday, who wasn't Steve and Avery's home. If he did this, Avery was good, he was in prison all that time. Everything I've heard him say hasn't been the truth. It was extraordinarily disturbing. We went two days, twenty years ago, and we're going to it now again. In this criminal justice system, good luck. You are probably the most dangerous individual ever to set foot in this quarter. The truth always comes out. Hi, I'm Kristina Yerling-Biro. Thank you for listening. For me and countless others around the globe, my holiday season was taken over by the Netflix docu-series Making a Murderer, a truly gripping, infuriating and disturbing true crime tale. And in the middle of what must be the biggest post-airing frenzy in recent memory, I'm very honored for the opportunity to get some time with the filmmakers. For your information, there are many developments surrounding the series since the airing, and in this talk, there may be spoilers for those who haven't seen the series in its entirety or followed along. It was in 2005 when a newspaper story caught the attention of the series' directors Moira Deimos and Laura Ricciardi, a story that would ultimately lead to them moving to Wisconsin and spending ten years of their lives following it. Steve and Avery, a Wisconsin man who had been imprisoned for eighteen years in 1985 for a rape he didn't commit, was freed by DNA evidence in 2003. But then, two years later, when Avery was in the middle of a $36 million lawsuit against Manitowoc County, its former sheriff and district attorney, Steven Avery was arrested for the murder of Teresa Halbach, a local photographer. Her car and her burned bones were found on his property. The same authorities he had been suing were heavily involved in gathering evidence in this case. In 2007, Mr. Avery was found guilty, a first degree intentional homicide, and is serving life in prison with no chance of parole. Brendan Dassie, Mr. Avery's sixteen-year-old learning disabled nephew, was also sentenced to life for his alleged role in the murder, after confessing in what by all accounts seems like a coerced confession. Ms. Deimos and Mr. Chardi worked on the series for ten years. During the trial, the Avery family, Steven Avery's very loyal parents, convinced of his innocence, and who have seen their son in jail for decades, twice. His defense attorneys, Dean Strang and Jerry Buting, so impassioned, and who have become heart-throbs and heroes after the airing. The prosecution, the press that followed the case, and many more. Was Steven Avery set up by the local authorities as payback for the lawsuit? Is an innocent man in jail for a second time? The sixteen-year-old Brandon Dassie's confession coerced. The series is spell-binding and infuriating, regardless of guilt or innocence, as it shines a very bright light on the system, and has us, the viewers, questioning everything, the police, the jury, and the entire justice system, really. Moira Deimos and Laura Richardi, thank you so much for being here. Thank you. This is Laura. This is Moira. The series has been a runaway success, not a day goes by that some new information has come to light. An outpouring of support for Steven Avery and Brandon Dassie, petitions to President Obama, the prosecution giving interviews and saying that you left out important evidence in the series. Amateur detectives saying they can solve the case one way or the other. What is surprised or shocked you the most about some of these very impassioned reactions to the case, positive or negative? Well, I think just the scale of it is surprising and overwhelming. We knew that we were sharing compelling footage that had never been shown before and that it was pretty intense and upsetting and it's not surprising that that has an impact on people, but the level in which people around the world and people from all walks of life are responding to it is just really overwhelming and really encouraging. We put a lot of faith in our viewers as we were putting this together, making sure we didn't dumb it down, that we let scenes play out and challenge them. It's a dead series. We knew we were asking a lot and it's amazing that people are responding. Let's go back a little bit. When you first came to Wisconsin in 2005, what was your first impression of the Avery family? That they were incredibly resilient. I mean, this was a family that was uniquely positioned because they had already experienced the horror of having a family member wrongly imprisoned for 18 years and this was not a family that just simply believed in their heart that even was innocent of the first time but they knew he was actually innocent because they were with him that day. Just the trauma that the family endured for nearly two decades of having their son, their brother, their father, their uncle, locked away, excuse me, and feeling helpless and having to rely on a system that had already failed and just really placed him in a unique position, especially within two years of Stephen Julie, he was pulled back into the system. Your conversations with Stephen during the documentary series, he seems to have survived this psychologically, so to speak, 18 years of being falsely imprisoned and then the next time around. What would you say, do you have a theory as to how he's been able to remain as sane as he seems to the viewers? I mean, of course, we can only speculate but the thing about Stephen is he does seem to never give up hope. And whether that be in the 90s, when all of his appeals had failed and really he had no more chances but kept fighting and his brother kept fighting for him. And even during this prosecution, we heard a number of times from Stephen or from Dolores, it just hoped the truth comes out at trial. So they had no choice but to place their hope in the same system that had already failed them, which was really a compelling situation. Is there any point during your filming that you could see them falter, something specific that happened? Well, I would say that they definitely experienced, you know, Brendan Dassie's involvement as a blow to Stephen's case and to the family itself. It was extremely disruptive and very disorienting, very confusing for the family. I mean, I think part of what's demonstrated in the documentary is Brendan's mother, Stephen Sister Barb, really struggling to make sense of the turn of events and, you know, wanting to do her best to understand the extent to which her son was involved, if at all. And, you know, she was in a really difficult position because her son was being held by the county and she could not have any private conversations with them. So she was in this awful position of wanting to know and wanting to be able to advise her son while at the same time having all of their calls monitored and recorded. How much of a role would you say that class plays in this case? I think it's a thread throughout this whole story of, you know, the role of class in American culture and I'm sure this plays out abroad as well. It's one way in which, you know, citizens do not have equal access to their rights. And I think that plays out in the American criminal justice system, whether that be in your access to, you know, a qualified defense attorney or whether that be, you know, in your level of education and your ability to speak compellingly. So that's definitely one of the things that the series explores, is, you know, is there a level playing field and what are the factors, you know, if not, what are the factors that play into that? I'd like to ask you a little on an emotional level as a filmmaker. One of the most shocking moments in the documentary is when Len Kaczynski, the appointed public defender for 16-year-old Brendan Dassie, sends his private investigator in to give Dassie a polygraph test and get a written confession. For the viewer, it seems like the boy's own criminal defense attorney is just throwing him to the wolves. It's really heartbreaking. And I wanted to know, as filmmakers, what were these moments like? Could they be emotionally infuriating? Well, that particular example is interesting because we do not see that tape of O'Kelly, meaning with Brendan until 2010, until the center on wrongful convictions got their post-conviction motion. It was part of what they filed, it was part of that motion. So, you know, that was not something that we knew about as the -- as the cases were unfolding. And that really was one of the most shocking moments to us in our production. Because I remember putting the DVD into the flyer and asking Laura, like, wait, you know, which cop is this, like, you know, he took us several minutes to understand that Michael O'Kelly was Brendan's defense investigator. He was working for Brendan, because that's not what we were seeing going on. So, and I think it's important to note, too, this is Laura, that Brendan's new team, the center on wrongful convictions of youth, that came to represent him during the post-conviction process, argued to Judge Fox, who was also a trial judge in the Halbach case for Brendan, argued that Lenkachinsky owed a duty of loyalty to his clients and breached that duty of loyalty. And, you know, the judge ruled against them, essentially, so they had argued that Brendan should be entitled to a new trial and Judge Fox, you know, ruled against them. You know, it's important to note, as well, that the Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Fox's decision. >> Right. >> And the Wisconsin Supreme Court did not even think the case was worth reviewing. So, they did not even grant review of the case. So, to us, it was an egregious violation, and yet the, you know, Judge Fox and the appellate courts did absolutely nothing about it. >> But did you find, like, at certain points, during these 10 years, that we just have to, you know, put down the cameras and do something else? I mean, that it was so infuriating, emotionally. >> I mean, I think we believed all along that the most impactful thing we could do and the most important role we could play as documentarians was to accurately capture these events and to show them to the world, you know, you know, to believe in the power of filmmaking and storytelling as a means of social change. >> Yeah, and we would have sacrificed that privilege and that responsibility if we had injected ourselves into the events or into the story, so we made a concerted effort to not have an impact on the events as they were unfolding, and, you know, to leave as much room for the viewer as possible. That's why, wherever we could, we relied on primary source materials and interviews with key players who would have, you know, could convey their firsthand account of things. >> The prosecutor Ken Kratz, as well as the local sheriff, has since the airing told the media that certain pieces of damning evidence didn't make it into your movie. How do you respond to that? >> We disagree. >> Yeah. [ Laughter ] >> You know, we said before we took our cues from the prosecutor themselves, law enforcement themselves. The prosecution and law enforcement in November were holding daily press conferences where they were referencing in detail physical evidence they were finding and, you know, very much sort of identifying what would become the ten poles of the prosecution case. And so we included all of that evidence in the documentary. The less significant evidence, there was no time for that. You know, we thought we were asking for a significant commitment, especially in today's culture where, you know, people watch 30-second videos, we're asking people to tune in for more than ten hours. And we devoted, you know, three to four hours to the trials themselves. So it would have been impossible to include the less significant evidence. And I think what's important about the types of evidence Ken Klatt is pointing to now, people need to take it in context. This is not correct evidence of the commission of a crime. It's circumstantial evidence. It was disputed evidence. These are not uncontested facts. So to the extent we did not include certain types of evidence, you neither heard from the prosecution with respect to that evidence nor the defense. And some have questioned why you included Ken Klatt's sort of sexting scandal that happened three years after the case. What would you respond to that? Well, in fact, we watched out, you know, the majority of that scandal. The only part of that story that we included was the part that related to the dassy and every prosecution, we included it because as what came out is when the AP reporter broke this news, it became clear that the Department of Justice had known about this for a year and chosen to do nothing. So it was an example of once again, you know, people not being held accountable for their actions and the state of Wisconsin not taking action to clean up its system. And it resulted in Ken Klatt's event for being taken off the avian dassy cases, despite using those cases as almost a threat, you might say to the Department of Justice of, you know, you need me to keep fighting against for these cases. So, you know, we only included the piece that related to the matter at hand. You know, it could have been a 40-minute expose about all of what came out, but we did not do that. We only did what was relevant for this story. Yeah, Ken Klatt is clearly trying to minimize now his history with women. So, you know, he has no respect for history or truth. Since the airing, we just read that Steven Avery has leveled some accusations against his brothers. There weren't many interviews with them in the documentary. Why? Well, Steven's brother, Earl, it was his prerogative whether to participate or not, and he declined. Okay. You know, it was a very difficult time. The family was in crisis, you know, they not only had, and their business was in crisis. And it was a high profile case. There was a lot of pressure from, you know, all different forces. So Earl declined to be interviewed by us. Mark initially was willing to participate, but then was less available after Brendan became part of the story. But with respect to your question about, you know, other possible suspects, when the defense initially filed that motion, the judge will has ordered that motion be filed under seal. So we were not even privy to argument in the courtroom about who these other potential subjects were. So it was not our place to include that in the documentary, especially because that document didn't even become unkeeled until after the trial. So none of that evidence was admissible. And you know, we did not want the documentary to do harm to anyone, and certainly to anyone's reputation, especially, you know, just, I mean, there's such power and accusation. And people picking up on this story now, I'm sure it's hard for those people who are named in that document because they're not in a position to respond. So we thought it was the most responsible thing to do in the lease salacious. I know that this is a procedural look at the justice system, really this documentary. But do you have thoughts on guilt and not guilty? Well, I mean, what we have said publicly before and really what we truly believe is that, you know, we do not feel that the state met their burden, improving beyond a reasonable doubt that these men are guilty. You know, that is not the same thing as saying we believe they are innocent. You know, we do not know what happened. The people that could have answered those questions are the investigators. It's very frustrating for us as it is for viewers to have so many unanswered questions. And, you know, what those questions mean is that there is doubt about their guilt. Do you speak to Avery and Stephen Avery and Brendan Dassie today? And how are they doing? We speak with Stephen occasionally. He has to call us. We are not in a position to call him because he's incarcerated in a maximum 30 prison. He has a new attorney actually. So I don't know if those conversations will continue. But, you know, essentially he was telling us that he had filed another post-conviction motion. He lost and that he was working on his appeal. And then most recently he told us that I think he had filed on the last time we spoke with him. So we were talking about that. We're not really in a position either to discuss the theories with him because just out of concern for his safety, the Department of Corrections and the prison itself really is not interested in their inmates, you know, becoming famous. So we're very careful about what we discussed about the theories. Do you believe he'll get a fair day in court? I mean, I think everybody deserves a fair day in court. You know, it's hard to know what will happen whether his new attorney will be able to win him a new trial. You know, the burden is very high. You've seen a lot now of being let down by the justice system and being afraid of police. I just, I mean, police killings, your series. I was just watching a movie called "Spotlights" where the Catholic Church was covering up abuse scandals, losing faith and authority in this way. What have you found that that does to society? I think it motivates people to learn more about why the system is not functioning properly. I mean, I think the threshold issue is for people to understand that the system is imperfect and that there is room for improvement. And I think what this documentary does in part is shine a light on some of the problems and hopefully helps identify some of the underlying problems like this false sense of attitude, you know, in the rhetoric that comes along with these types of cases, that people, you know, will caution themselves not to rush to judgment and keep an open mind and respect that justice is a process, then I think that that will go a long way in terms of, you know, people engaging with the system and trying to help improve this. Right. And what's next for you, the two of you? Indeed. I mean, you know, to the extent there are significant developments with this story, we'll continue to follow it if that's feasible for us. But beyond that, we're not sure. We're keeping our options open and thinking about, you know, the types of stories we want to tell and types of commitments we want to make given where we are in our lives now. Thank you so much for taking this time and for making this series and shining a light on the justice systems and the problems there. I really appreciate it. Thank you very much. It was great talking to you. Yeah. It was our pleasure. Thank you. Thank you so much to the filmmakers, making a murder, Moira Demos and Laura Riccardi. The series is, of course, available on Netflix. And thank you so much for listening. Please send us your feedback, your comments on this episode or any other. You can Twitter on @PODPOPCulture or on the webpage, popcultureconfidential.com. This episode was edited by Tom Hanson, music by Call Boy, produced by Renee Vitistat and myself. I'm Kristina Yerlingbiro. Thank you so much for listening. Hello podcast fans, it is I, Bruce Valanche. For over 25 years, I worked on the Academy Awards, so you didn't have to. In that time, I've seen and heard things that should not be seen or heard or certainly built. And now, for the first time, I'm sharing all my behind the scenes stories and firsthand knowledge about the Oscars, the blood, the sweat, the tears, the slap, all the things you didn't see. So join me as I use humor and insight to break down the Oscar Awards of the past to explain how and why your favorite movie didn't win. Why some actors and some directors had to fire their agents and how the whole process works or sometimes doesn't work. This is the Oscars, what were they thinking? Available wherever you get podcasts. [BLANK_AUDIO]