Now that you've had some time to dive into Part Two of Making A Murderer, we wanted to keep the conversation going! Dan Taberski, host of Missing Richard Simmons and the upcoming Headlong series, leads a roundtable discussion with Criminal host Phoebe Judge and attorney David Rudolf. If you're a true crime documentary fan, you'll recognize David from the Netflix Original docuseries The Staircase. He represented Michael Peterson and brings the unique perspective of having been in a true crime documentary to this studio table. They talk about what draws them into this story, the power of the true crime genre, what they hope happens next, and more.
Now that you've had some time to dive into Part Two of Making A Murderer, we wanted to keep the conversation going! Dan Taberski, host of Missing Richard Simmons and the upcoming Headlong series, leads a roundtable discussion with Criminal host Phoebe Judge and attorney David Rudolf.
If you're a true crime documentary fan, you'll recognize David from the Netflix Original docuseries The Staircase. He represented Michael Peterson and brings the unique perspective of having been in a true crime documentary to this studio table. They talk about what draws them into this story, the power of the true crime genre, what they hope happens next, and more.
Female: Welcome to You Can’t Make This Up, a companion podcast from Netflix.
[Music]
Rae: I’m Rae Votta and I am back to host this week’s special episode. Since the first season of Making A Murderer dropped in 2015, true crime fans have been wondering—what happened to Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey? So we couldn’t wait our usual two weeks for a new episode. We know you’ve all been devouring Making a Murderer Part II, so we got a great panel together to continue the conversation. Dan Taberski, host of the hit podcast, Missing Richard Simmons, will lead a roundtable discussion with Phoebe Judge and David Rudolf. Phoebe hosts one of the original true crime podcasts, Criminal. And you might recognize David Rudolph from the Netflix original docu-series, The Staircase. David represented Michael Peterson and has firsthand experience being in a true crime documentary. If you haven’t yet, you might want to watch Part II of Making A Murderer before listening to this episode. There are some spoilers ahead. Now, let’s pass the mic over to Dan, Phoebe and David.
[Music]
Dan: Hi, guys. How are you?
David: Great.
Phoebe: Fine, thank you.
Dan: Good. Are you both down in North Carolina?
David: We are. We’re both in Chapel Hill right now.
Dan: Oh, awesome, but not next to each other?
Phoebe: Yes.
David: Well, actually, across from each other.
Dan: Oh, you are. So you can roll your eyes at me, at my—whenever I ask a question.
David: Yes, and we can do hand signals and things.
Dan: Just high-fives, it’s going to be high-fives. So you guys both saw Making A Murderer Part I, right?
David: Yes.
Phoebe: Yes.
Dan: Were you early adopters, late adopters? Like, were you on the wave or were you ahead of everybody else?
David: I was behind the wave a little bit.
Dan: Were you?
David: Yeah, and I only watched—I think I watched the episode where Dassey was interviewed, interrogated—not interviewed, and I had to stop. I couldn’t watch anymore.
Dan: Really?
David: Yeah, I then went back and recently watched the entire series again.
Dan: Wow, tell me why you couldn’t watch the Brendan interrogation.
David: Because it was just horrific to me. You know, what they did to that kid was just, in my mind, inexcusable.
Dan: Yeah, it’s pretty hard to watch.
David: Yeah, it was, it was really upsetting to me, on a sort of fundamental, emotional level—putting aside the legal issues.
Dan: Right. Well, I have to say, I’m just going to jump right into this—I have to say that it surprises me that you don’t have more of a remove from seeing things like this. I would imagine you come across things like this all the time.
David: You know, I’ve never quite been able to steel myself to that kind of behavior. It’s a plus and a minus, you know? It’s a plus, in terms of my commitment to what I do. It’s a minus to my personal life. There’s good and bad, but I—you know, I’ve been doing this a long time and I still get outraged every time I see an outrage.
Dan: I guess that’s a good thing. You don’t want to become too numb to that sort of thing.
David: Yeah, no, I’ve never managed to become numb.
Dan: Phoebe, do you remember when you say Making A Murderer 1, first?
Phoebe: Yeah, I don’t think that I was behind the wave. I think I was just on the wave. I started hearing people talking about this documentary and that it was complex and their telling of it, and the detail and that they’d followed these stories for so long. And I was intrigued. I also remember that interrogation scene and finding it incredibly disturbing. I am not a lawyer in any way, but what was going on in that room seemed a bit suspect to me. It was hard to watch, and you saw the train of what was going to happen to this teenage boy. You saw it coming, and you realize that he probably did not realize what was about to come. And I kept thinking to myself in that scene where his mother comes in afterwards, and the look on her face of, kind of, what did you say? Oh, no, what did you say? That she also was seeing now that this was out of their hands, that something much bigger was now going to happen.
Dan: Yeah, and also that moment—what was so chilling about that, is that the mother comes in, and the minute she starts asking questions, the prosecutors, they just—well, were they prosecutors or investigators? They just rush right back in the room, like, they don’t want to leave her—a moment with her kid, to sort of—it almost seems like they don’t want to leave her to ask the real questions and find out what really happened in that room.
David: Well, yeah, the reality is that they were trained in the Reid technique, which is a particular interrogation technique, and a fundamental principle of that technique is to isolate the suspect from familiar surroundings, from familiar people, to leave the suspect, sort of, emotionally adrift. And that’s particularly problematical—it’s problematical for anybody, but it’s particularly problematical when you have a mentally impaired 16-year-old. And that’s part of what made it so hard to watch. You know, if we were watching a really slick, street person being interrogated that way, I don’t think that the reaction would have been the same. It’s—you know, two grown-ups really taking advantage of a mentally challenged 16-year-old and it’s just—it’s just disturbing on every single level.
Dan: What are the normal rules of thumb for something like that, in terms of interrogating somebody who is of a certain age, but potentially mentally—not incapacitated, but maybe at a disadvantage—what are the rules there, or are there rules?
David: Well, each state varies. So in a number of states, the parent has to be present for that interrogation. In other states, it depends on the age, but not so much. So it’s really a jurisdiction by jurisdiction issue. And I think—you know, I think people are beginning to come to grips with the fact that, especially teenage boys don’t have—even, even mentally whole teenage boys, you know, their frontal lobes haven’t yet developed to the point where they can really be held responsible for adult behavior.
Dan: Wow. Well, I’ll never forget that look of confusion on his face.
David: Well, he wanted to know whether he could go back to school before 6th period.
Dan: Yeah, that says it right there. David, I don’t think you’ve seen Part II yet, so I’m just going to nerd out with Phoebe for a second.
David: Sure.
Dan: Phoebe, what’d you think of the first two episodes?
Phoebe: Well, you know, what’s really interesting to me, as someone who kind of does this for a living, talks about different crime cases—is when you see the breakdown of the detailed testing that they’re doing now, to try to prove Steven Avery’s innocence—I was shocked that, when I saw that car pull up, the same car that Theresa had—and the fact that they spent so much time testing all these different theories. I mean, it’s a puzzle you’re trying to figure out. I was totally, I was totally fascinated by the different experiments they did in that car to try to disprove the DNA placement or where DNA of Steven Avery was found. I thought that was—I mean, I was—I couldn’t stop looking away. That stuff is so interesting to me. And also, the tenacity of this lawyer who said, “I’m going to do whatever I have to do. I’m going to get out there in that car, I’m going to drive through this auto salvage, I’m going to, you know, get on my hands and knees and drop real specimens of blood around.” I found that also fascinating to watch.
Dan: Yeah, so, so, David, Phoebe’s talking about Kathleen Zellner, who is—do you know Kathleen Zellner?
David: I don’t, I know of her, but I’ve never met her.
Dan: Okay. I was wondering if all you guys, like, hang out together, play racquetball.
David: No, we’re 1000 miles apart.
Dan: Okay. In spirit you’re close together.
David: Exactly.
Dan: Well, so what happened is she actually, she actually saw Making A Murderer Part I, and then she wrote to Avery saying that she wanted to take on their case, after they had been writing letters to her for years trying to get her to do that. So first, I want to listen to a clip from her, just so everyone can get familiar.
[Clips plays]
Dan: So, David, I’m just curious, that’s a pretty shocking thing to say. I mean, is that your experience? What do you think of what she just said?
David: Well, you know, I’m not sure of the context in which she’s talking, because obviously, you know, if I’m being hired to represent somebody at a trial stage, you know, my job is not to prove guilt. And indeed, I would never start out with that sort of a speech. And, you know, each lawyer has their own way of approaching things, but my approach is to explain to the person that if I am going to do a really good job for them, that I need to know the truth, whatever the truth is. And I also don’t expect them to tell me the truth until we establish a trusting relationship, until they believe that I really care about them as a person and I’m not going to judge them based on what they tell me. Because if I had committed a crime, for example, and I go and meet a lawyer for the first time, I’m going to be worried about what that lawyer is going to think about me if I just start spilling my guts. So, you know, different strokes for different folks. I would just approach it differently. But again, I don’t—you know, it’s one thing if, if what she’s saying is that, you know, if you’re going to hire me post-trial, that may be a very different situation. You know, I’m always getting involved at the outset.
Dan: So then Kathleen Zellner gets into all this—she basically digs up all the original evidence and starts, you know, hacking away at it one-by-one, like, sweat DNA, blood splatter. I guess the question is, like, and she seems to find a lot of problems, especially with the blood splatter. Is the problem with DNA evidence, blood splatter evidence analysis, or is the problem with how certain prosecutors deal with that and try to use that information? Does that question make sense?
David: Sure. But, but just so you can sound really informed, it’s blood spatter, not blood splatter.
Dan: Oh, actually, I’m talking about blood splatter, that’s a totally different thing. I should have explained myself—now, let me educate you, David.
David: Anyway…
Dan: Sorry, sorry, I’m just kidding, blood spatter, blood spatter.
David: Well, blood spatter evidence and DNA evidence are two very, very different things. There’s actually science that underpins DNA evidence. There’s no real science—I mean, there’s a little bit of physics that, that controls blood spatter analysis, you know, blood drops down, it’s—you know, gravity takes control or, you know, it gets in—you know, what starts in motion stays in motion until it hits something that stops it—you know, there are certain basic physics that, that control. But there’s no real way—it’s very subjective, let’s just put it that way—extremely subjective, as people saw in The Staircase—where you had Dwayne Deaver, you know, an alleged SBI expert, come in and testify to things that were just absurd. So, you know, personally, I think blood spatter testimony has very, very, very limited usage. I don’t think it’s irrelevant, but I think it needs to be really closely cabined. DNA evidence, on the other hand, at least until you start getting into mixtures, where you can start having some real subjectivity, if you will, is science-based, and, and capable of testing and capable of reproducing results. So I see the two as very different.
Dan: Phoebe, and the—what did you think of the forensic brain-wave analysis?
Phoebe: Well, the—I mean, I think David is right, I mean, from everything that I know from reporting on a number of—a lot of cases—is that any evidence that’s up for interpretation is something that is going to potentially be problematic. So we talk about lie detector tests that same way we talk about blood spatter. You know, these are things that a so-called professional can read and say, “Well, here is my opinion.” It’s an educated opinion, but it is an opinion. And another person could see it another—a million different ways. And so I think that, you know, the brain imaging—is that what it’s called? Brain wave…
Dan: I think it’s called brain—forensic brain-wave analysis. David, maybe you can…?
Phoebe: No, it’s, like, it’s, like, brain fingerprinting. So it’s—this is a way—it’s the same—we’re speaking of the same thing, but I think that the idea here is that before, when a lie detector—someone who is analyzing the lie detector test—there was interpretation. This brain fingerprinting and mapping is a way to pinpoint, in a more scientific way, so moving towards that more DNA level, scientific of what’s going on. I think it’s interesting. It still did not seem to be to be 100% fail-proof. I mean, it seems like there also is some interpretation which is going on with the brain fingerprinting. But is it a more accurate way of lie detector—a new lie detector test? It looks like it’s moving that way. But from what I’m understanding, lie detector tests—no one are really thinking about anymore, so maybe this will have to be the next reiteration of that.
Dan: David, what do you know? Do you, do you know what this brain wave analysis thing is?
David: No, and I’m not sure I’d want to know.
Dan: Well, that’s what I thought.
David: You know, we have enough junk science in the courts right now. I don't know what we need another one. But I’m, I’m all ears.
Dan: I’m not even sure I understand it either. Basically, it looked like a lie—they—basically, they hooked Steven Avery up to a—sort of a lie detector thing, except—but instead of measuring the things that a normal lie detector test would be measuring, it’s measuring brain waves. And so they gave him this test and the test says, basically, if you were to believe this test, that it was 100% accurate, it says he didn’t do it. He doesn’t know anything about it. And I’m just curious as to what planting that in my head as I’m watching this documentary, how real that is and how much weight I should give it?
David: Well, that’s a whole different story. I mean, if we’re talking about optics and we’re talking about creating a certain mindsets, certainly things like lie detector tests have been used forever to do that. They’re used by the police as an interrogation technique, and frankly, they’re used by defense lawyers in, in going to prosecutors and trying to negotiate a dismissal of a case or a decision not to indict. So, you know, clearly, you know, those things—whether they’re scientifically valid or not, have an effect on people and to that extent, I don’t fault anybody for doing that. I don't know what the basis of the science is, you know, I need to know a lot more about what brain waves are showing, what things, and why anybody thinks they’re showing it, and whether you can actually reproduce that and test it—do blind testing and, you know, there’s a lot that has to be done before something ought to be scientifically acceptable. And given the fact that I haven’t heard of it and I’m not living in a cave, I’m not sure that work’s been done yet.
Dan: Probably a bad sign that you haven’t heard about it. So I won’t pay attention to it then. I’m going to forget I saw that scene.
David: Well, you won’t forget about it. That’s the whole point.
Dan: That is the whole point, but we’ll get to that later. I have a question about that. First I want to talk about the fandom of what came out of Making A Murderer Part 1. The first chunk of Making A Murderer Part II is basically about the public reaction that came out of the first part and how people saw it and basically—this huge outcry of support for Steven and Brendan. You know, they’re getting fan letters and scrapbooks. One of them, you know, even got a quilt—and actually, I’m a quilter, which is super weird, that somebody would spend all that time making a quilt and send it to somebody they don't know, just because they were touched in some way. Phoebe, what are people reacting to when they see Making A Murderer that makes them respond like that?
Phoebe: Well, I—there’s a couple things to say about it. I mean, look what happened with Serial season one, right? This is—people want to pick a side and they want to be armchair detectives. And also, the whole way in which Making A Murderer was produced, paints both of these characters, Steven and Brendan, in a very sympathetic light. And so, of course, as you’re watching this, as you’re being presented with more and more evidence about how these men may have been framed, you are getting more and more enraged. We as human beings—this is what we like. We like stories like this, because we like to feel things. We like to be able to pick a side. We like to be able to investigate things on our own. So there’s no question that this elicited a gigantic response from people. And these are the things that people talk about in the morning, they talk about it when they get to work—“Did you see the latest episode? What do you think?” And that just builds up the hype and gets bigger and bigger and bigger. And by the end of such a long series, you’re made to feel like you know Steven Avery in some way, and you’re now on his side, and so of course, you make him a quilt, you write to him in letters. We see in the first episode just how much time of the day now Steven Avery is spending responding to letters. And he seems shocked by the impact it’s had. But it isn’t surprising to me that this would have gained a cult following in some way.
David: You know, to my mind, you know, why I agree with Phoebe about, you know, why people like these things—I think there’s another level there. And I think the other level is that they got taken advantage of. You know, people feel like the cops didn’t play fair and the prosecutor didn’t play fair. It wasn’t really a question of guilt or innocence for me, it was a question of watching the system chew somebody up, watching a district attorney hold a press conference and put out a story that was completely inconsistent with the physical facts, you know, in a way that would just prejudice anybody in that situation. And that’s what came through for me, and I think that’s reality. And if that’s what the filmmakers though, well, then I think they were right on the money about that.
Dan: Is this—if we’re not going to focus on Brendan and Steven here, and we’re going to focus on the larger issue, which I think is what—for me, it’s a bit of a shame that—I mean, I think empathy is always good, so if people are feeling something for people they feel were wronged, I think that’s good. But I also think that it’s a bit off the mark. I think the real target is to look at the things that you’re saying, David, about the big issues about corruption in the criminal justice system, and whether or not we’re giving people a fair shake.
David: I couldn’t agree more. And indeed, you know, when I talk about The Staircase, you know, people ask questions about the owl theory or whatever—but that’s not really the point for me. Indeed, the point really isn’t whether somebody thinks Michael is guilty or not guilty. You know, the real point is, how did this system work and why did it fail? Because clearly, it failed. And that’s the important take away from me from The Staircase, from Making A Murderer and from—and various, you know, West Memphis Three, there have been a number of documentaries that—and I think they’re having—I hope they’re having an effect on your average person—that all of a sudden people are waking up to the things that we criminal defense lawyers have known for decades.
Dan: Phoebe, it’s—when we were talking about these first two episodes, what really got me—the scenes that I love the most are just—are the scenes with the Avery family, with the mom and the dad and the brother. To me, I’m just drawn—I’m drawn less to the mystery—I might be the anomaly, I’m drawn less to the mystery and I’m more drawn to just the sadness of it and the way that, sort of, real people take these incredible life struggles and just process them. And to be able to see that is pretty remarkable. I would imagine that appeals to you as well.
Phoebe: Well, it doesn’t appeal to me because it’s tragedy in the worst way and it—I am actually, as a viewer of this, I’m more drawn to the mystery. Because seeing how this whole thing has aged Steven Avery’s parents’ face is horrible to see. But also says everything you need. What I admire about this series is how quiet it is when they deal with Steven Avery’s mother and father. They don’t need to say anything, you can just watch them moving around the house, taking apart a carburetor and know all you need to know. And that’s the thing that…
Dan: And the conversations are so banal too, like, when they’re on the phone with Steven at the prison or—they’re always, like, “So, what time you getting here?” Like, it’s always these really sort of drawn-out, really mundane conversations, but for some reason, that’s more human than you would imagine.
Phoebe: Well, of course, because all anyone wants is to feel connected to the outside world, you know, and I think that, I think that what’s so interesting in the whole representation of the family is that you have sympathy for these parents of Steven Avery, whether he is guilty or not. You know, this is how we see how crime ripples out, the effects of these things—is that you don’t—that doesn’t—it’s a whole other side story going on, to watch these parents and to watch them over the years and to watch them to continue to struggle. And in my opinion, in these new episodes, to start to see them almost give up the battle, you know, to be tired, to be beleaguered in a way that they didn’t seem to be years ago—that I think is so tragic to watch. But I also think it says so much, because we have so much sympathy for them, whether Steven Avery did this or not. I mean, it doesn’t matter—you still get to see these parents just suffer.
Dan: Do you worry about the part that the filmmakers don’t have access to, to the, to the parents of the woman who was murdered and the ramifications of not just hashing this out in one Making A Murderer, but doing it in a part 2 again? Is there any responsibility there or…? I’m not saying there is, I just think it’s—I wonder—it’s always in the back of my mind as I’m watching it.
Phoebe: Well, I make a crime show which, from the beginning, has been very, very aware of never trying to sensationalize or to put in scenes of violence or to talk about things just because it will get a rise or—yes, that is why I created Criminal, to do—because I was so unhappy with the type of true crime reporting that I had been seeing. It’s why we started the show.
Dan: Is that right?
Phoebe: Oh, of course—I mean, four years ago there wasn’t much out there in terms of true crime podcasts or anything, really. So, yeah, I mean, yes, I think that is incredibly important, but I think that’s why watching how Steven Avery’s family—I don’t think that watching how it’s impacted his family means that we don’t take what happened to Theresa and to Theresa’s family seriously. I think if it’s done with respect—it’s when you, when you start to be disrespectful that I think you get into very bad territory quickly. And from what I’ve seen, at least how they’ve portrayed this Avery family, I feel like they done it in a way that I don’t think is harmful. But, of course, yes, this is popular entertainment made on a tragedy, and that’s always got to give you pause, I think.
Dan: David, are you a true crime fan?
David: No, I actually live my life in true crime, so I don’t need to watch it in my spare time.
Dan: Phoebe, what—I guess I don’t want you to say what true crime bothers you out there, but, I mean, do you definitely—are there columns about good true crime, bad true crime, somewhere in the middle, stuff that you think is noble, stuff that you think is—how does it shake out for you?
Phoebe: People who speculate, people who don’t report in facts, people who depict violence just for the hell of it, people who don’t take into account the fact that a victim’s family might be listening or watching this, people who exploit other people’s sufferings—those are all things which I think are in the bad column, which—and I work all the time to try to never fall in that column. It’s incredibly important to us. But, yes, all those things are what I consider to be the problems with true crime reporting.
Dan: Phoebe, I’m curious and I’m curious to hear David’s response to this answer—how much of an impact are you trying to have in terms of the criminal justice system, in terms of the way we look at certain types of evidence or the way we assume somebody’s guilt or innocence—are you motivated in that sense? Or are you more motivated through telling stories?
Phoebe: I’m not—I do not think our primary motivation is to shine a light on the criminal justice system, the injustices that we see after doing the show and how complicated it is, because I am more confused by the criminal justice system now than I was four years ago.
Dan: You’re kidding?
Phoebe: Of—I mean, yeah, the more you know, the more confused you get, of course. I mean, because it’s not as simple as, oh, well, now I know how the court system works and how the appeal system works, I mean, no, of course—it gets more and more complicated.
Dan: Right.
Phoebe: But I have a show about crime, but I’ve always said that people really—we’re just a show about the human experience. All I want to know is why people do the things they do, what gets them to the position where they might commit a crime or what happens after a terrible thing occurs where they’re the victim of a crime? That is really my main goal. And of course, that—sometimes collides with the criminal justice system and talking about it, and we spend a lot of time getting court reports and things like that. But really, it’s a show just trying to figure out why the people do the things they do.
Dan: I don’t want to say—I’m not going to say that that answer would disappoint you, David, but what do you want to see from true crime? I would imagine you would have more of a motivation towards affecting the system?
David: Yeah, and I think, you know, what Phoebe’s saying is that her, her focus, if you will, is not so much on the criminal justice system or on the problems in the criminal justice system, but rather on the human beings who are interacting with the criminal justice system. And I understand that and I think, you know, that’s fine. For me, I’m really hoping that these kinds of documentaries spur more questioning and in-depth analysis, by people like Phoebe, who have an interest in it, of the criminal justice system and why things go wrong and how they go wrong and why so many people are wrongfully convicted, and what kinds of reforms can be put in place? And how do they do things in other countries and other jurisdictions that may be better than what we do? What can we learn from them? What can they learn from us? I think there’s a whole host of really, really important systemic issues that really need to have the light of day shined on them. For me, the important thing is much more the criminal justice system and is not so much the life stories of the people who have been caught up in it, although that’s what I do on a daily basis, is to delve into those life stories.
Dan: Right. I would imagine they both go together, like, when you can take this, sort of, real human interest, how is this affecting people and then you have the element of the larger issue of the criminal justice system and the wrongs that need to be right. You get a show—you get, probably, a series like Making A Murderer and hopefully that’s when it works really well.
David: No, I think that’s exactly right. I think that’s what makes Staircase and it what makes Making A Murderer and some of these other documentaries successful, is that they really meld those two complimentary, but separate strains.
Dan: Right on. So last question, what do you hope happens? I mean, do you think, do you think there’s any hope for Steven Avery or Brendan Dassey? Like, I mean, I don’t want to be—I don’t want you to be super negative about it, there’s always hope, right? But in your crystal ball, what do you, what do you see happening, what do you hope happens?
Phoebe: Well, I think David can probably answer what he thinks might happen. Just from a, from a human being watcher standpoint, I mean, I hope that there’s some peace for Theresa’s family so that they no longer have to wonder what happened to their daughter, and I hope there’s some peace for the Avery family and that they can stop spending their lives in this terrible torturous cycle of what happens next? Is—will these men get out? I just—I think that’s what I hope—something comes to a conclusion.
Dan: Mm-hmm. [Affirmative] What do you think, David?
David: Well, if you’re asking me what I hope for, I would hope that Dassey gets out because if there is one person in this entire story of the prosecution who does not deserve to be in prison right now, it’s Dassey.
Dan: Mm-hmm. [Affirmative] So interesting talking to you guys, man.
David: Well, thank you for having us.
Phoebe: Thank you.
Dan: Yeah, right on. I—maybe I’ll talk to you—I’ll text you guys—when I’m watching every episode, I’ll just text you guys.
David: Thanks.
Dan: Take care of yourself.
David: Bye-bye.
[Music]
Rae: That was Dan in conversation with Phoebe and David. Now it’s time to hear from you, our listeners. Here’s what you’ve had to say about Making A Murderer Part II.
[Music]
Rae: @mgarcia said, “I am living for Kathleen Zellner in season two of Making A Murderer.” @marymorris says, “Making A Murderer II? Bye, weekend.” @meadowligor [phonetic 00:32:34] says, “I’m watching Making A Murderer season two, but it’s going to be frustrating, like, no matter what they do in 10 hours of documentary footage, nothing will really change. It’s insane how they sentenced a 16-year-old to life in prison just for being related to Avery.”
Male: @twittererg says, “In honor of Making A Murderer season two coming out, let’s all take a second again to remember the best sentence ever heard on Netflix, ‘The victim identified the perpetrator as wearing white underwear, and Steven Avery doesn’t even own underwear.’”
Rae: Tell us your thoughts on Making A Murderer season two, and any other Netflix true stories. Just send us a tweet, a gram, even poke us on Facebook, whatever you want to do—just search for You Can’t Make This Up, we’re the verified folks with that shiny blue checkmark.
[Music]
Rae: That’s all for this week’s episode of You Can’t Make This Up. Next time, we’ll be talking with chef and author, Samin Nosrat, about her new show, Salt Fat Acid Heat. In the meantime, you can watch her series streaming now on Netflix. You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Play, Spotify and wherever else you get your podcasts. Make sure to subscribe, rate and review this show. It helps other people find it so we can finally get enough people together to start a podcast cult. Aren’t you excited? You Can’t Make This Up is a production of Pineapple Street Media and Netflix. Our music is by Hansdale Hsu. I’m Rae Votta and thank you for listening.
[Music]