Post Mortem | The Concerning Case Against Jane Dorotik

Summary

Post Mortem | The Concerning Case Against Jane Dorotik

Podcast: 48 Hours
Host: Ann Marie Green
Release Date: July 29, 2025

---

Introduction

In this gripping episode of 48 Hours, host Ann Marie Green delves deep into the harrowing case of Jane Dorotik, who was wrongfully convicted for the murder of her husband, Bob Dorotik. Spanning over two decades, Jane's relentless fight for justice highlights significant flaws in the criminal justice system. Joining Green are 48 Hours correspondent Erin Moriarty and producer Ruth Chenitz, who provide comprehensive insights into the complexities of the case.

---

The Crime and Initial Investigation

The story begins on February 13, 2000, when Bob Dorotik, a dedicated runner residing on a rural ranch outside San Diego, went missing. Jane reported Bob missing after hours of concern, and his body was discovered the following morning with blunt force trauma to the head and a rope around his neck. Initial investigations revealed extensive blood spatter in the Dorotik household, leading authorities to arrest Jane merely three days after Bob's death.

Key Points:

• Timeline of Events: Jane last saw Bob around 1 PM; he failed to return from a run, and his body was found the next morning.
• Evidence Against Jane: Blood stains in the bedroom, a bloody syringe with Jane's fingerprints, and a small bloodstain in Bob's truck.

Notable Quote:

Ann Marie Green [03:10]: "When I was watching the first part of this episode, I couldn't help but think there seems to be some convincing evidence against Jane, like what seemed to be blood spatter found in the bedroom."

---

The Trial and Family Betrayal

A year after Bob's murder, in 2001, Jane's trial commenced, marked by a shocking turn of events: both of her sons testified against her. The prosecution portrayed Jane as the primary breadwinner who sought to avoid alimony by eliminating Bob, further straining a deteriorating marriage.

Key Points:

• Son's Testimonies: Both sons provided damaging testimony, alleging a tumultuous marriage and suggesting Jane's motive.
• Defense Strategy: In a controversial move, Jane's defense team implicated her daughter, Claire, as a potential suspect, despite a lack of evidence.

Notable Quotes:

Erin Moriarty [04:17]: "I always thought she was innocent. There's no question."

Ryan Reynolds [07:19]: "There was a small stain in the wheel well of the truck that had Bob's DNA. But it's Bob's truck. It's a working ranch."

---

Questionable Evidence Handling

The investigation was marred by procedural errors and potential bias. Blood evidence was mishandled, with investigators failing to consider alternative suspects like a jogger sighted in the area. Additionally, the presence of Bob's blood on a syringe found in the trash, coupled with Jane's fingerprints, was initially deemed incriminating but later scrutinized for its lack of relevance.

Key Points:

• Blood Evidence: Twenty locations of blood stains were found, but explanations provided by Jane raised doubts.
• Forensic Flaws: Improper handling of evidence, such as investigators touching evidence with bare hands, compromised the integrity of the investigation.

Notable Quotes:

Erin Moriarty [06:02]: "I saw a picture of a blood stain on a mattress. And what also struck me was the fact that the mattress had been turned over. So that seemed incriminating."

Ann Marie Green [22:09]: "I'm kicking myself. I've got to be honest. I saw those pictures back then and didn't realize that at the very least, it reflects kind of a laxness in standards."

---

Jane's Fight for Justice

After her conviction and sentencing to 25 years to life, Jane took charge of her defense, meticulously filing motions and seeking new evidence. Despite initial setbacks and the immense challenge of self-advocacy, Jane's perseverance eventually led to a breakthrough in 2015 when a judge approved DNA testing on previously unexamined evidence.

Key Points:

• Self-Advocacy: Jane tirelessly worked on her case without significant external support, highlighting the barriers faced by wrongfully convicted individuals.
• DNA Testing: The approval for DNA testing was rare and pivotal, uncovering foreign male DNA on the rope and fingernail clippings, exonerating Jane.

Notable Quotes:

Erin Moriarty [16:55]: "She never gave up. She never gave up."

---

Breakthrough and Exoneration

The new DNA evidence revealed inconsistencies in the original prosecution's claims, leading the state to request the dismissal of charges. In 2020, after Jane's relentless efforts and the involvement of innocence groups, the court dismissed the case without prejudice, effectively clearing her of all charges.

Key Points:

• DNA Exoneration: Foreign male DNA found on key evidence contradicted the prosecution's narrative.
• Case Dismissal: The charges were dropped without prejudice, meaning they could be refiled only if new substantial evidence emerged.

Notable Quotes:

Erin Moriarty [21:25]: "Whenever anybody asked, really, how did Jane get out? I'm always saying Jane was helped by an Innocence Project, but she was the one who really got the ball rolling."

Ann Marie Green [24:24]: "The state asked it. Yes."

---

Emotional and Familial Impact

Jane's wrongful conviction not only cost her her freedom but also tore her family apart. Her sons remained estranged, with one passing away and the other maintaining his belief in her guilt. Jane's daughter, Claire, was thrust into an untenable position, coerced by defense strategies to implicate herself to save her mother, further deepening family rifts.

Key Points:

• Family Division: The prosecution's strategy led to lasting emotional scars and fractured relationships within the Dorotik family.
• Personal Loss: Beyond the conviction, Jane never had the opportunity to grieve her husband's death properly, as she was immediately thrust into a legal battle.

Notable Quotes:

Erin Moriarty [25:46]: "I can't help but be overwhelmed with sadness over this, of what everyone in that family lost."

Ann Marie Green [25:07]: "I kept on also thinking, did she even get a chance to grieve."

---

Key Takeaways

The Jane Dorotik case serves as a profound lesson on the importance of thorough investigations, unbiased evidence handling, and the profound personal costs of wrongful convictions. It underscores the necessity for continuous questioning and the vigilance required by defense attorneys, prosecutors, and investigators to ensure justice is accurately served.

Takeaways Discussed:

• Defense and Prosecution Lessons: Emphasis on meticulous case review to avoid tunnel vision.
• Importance of Questioning: Encouraging thorough scrutiny of evidence and alternative theories.
• Systemic Flaws: Highlighting procedural errors and the dire need for reform in handling evidence and supporting the wrongfully accused.

Notable Quotes:

Ryan Reynolds [26:42]: "It's a lesson for defense attorneys, for prosecutors, crime scene investigators, for everybody on all sides."

Erin Moriarty [27:02]: "Question, question, question. I think to question more."

---

Conclusion

Jane Dorotik's journey from wrongful conviction to exoneration is a testament to resilience and the relentless pursuit of truth. Her story not only sheds light on the imperfections within the criminal justice system but also serves as an inspiration for those fighting against injustice. 48 Hours masterfully captures the emotional and procedural intricacies of this case, leaving listeners with a profound understanding of the human cost behind legal battles.

---

This summary encapsulates the key discussions, insights, and emotional undertones presented in the "Post Mortem | The Concerning Case Against Jane Dorotik" episode of 48 Hours. For a more immersive experience, listeners are encouraged to tune into the full episode.

Transcript

[Ann Marie Green]

On WhatsApp, no one can see or hear your personal messages. Whether it's a voice call message or sending a password to WhatsApp, it's all just this. So whether you're sharing the streaming password in the family chat or trading those late night voice messages that could basically become a podcast, your personal messages stay between you, your friends and your family. No one else, not even us. WhatsApp message privately with everyone.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.

[Erin Moriarty]

With the price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing Mint Mobile unlimited premium wireless. 30, 30, better get 30, better get 20, 20, 20 better get 20, 20 better get 15, 15, 15, 15. Just 15 bucks a month. Sold. Give it a [e-mail] SOL switch upfront.

[Ann Marie Green]

Payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy. Taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile.com hello everyone. I'm Ann Marie Green. Welcome to Postmortem. This week we are delving into the murder of Bob Dwartick and the wrongful conviction of his wife, Jane. She spent nearly two decades in prison trying to prove her innocence. It's really an emotional rollercoaster watching this hour. Joining me to discuss this Incredible story are 48 Hours correspondent Erin Moriarty and producer Ruth Chenitz. Thanks for joining us.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Glad to be here.

[Erin Moriarty]

I love this case because I think it's a great cautionary tale and every defense attorney should be paying attention to this case.

[Ann Marie Green]

So true. So listen, before we get into it, Ruth, I want you to give our listeners a bit of recap of his case.

[Ryan Reynolds]

So Jane and Bob Dorotek were married. They had three grown children and they lived in at the time probably considered a rural area outside of San Diego. And they had a ranch and horses and Bob was a big runner. So Jane says the last time she saw Bob was around 1pm on February 13, 2000. And she says Bob left the house to go for a run. And she grew concerned when hours passed and he still hadn't returned. So later that evening at 7:45pm she decides I'm really worried and makes a call to the sheriff's department to report that he was missing. And they start looking. And the next morning they found Bob's body on the side of a road just a few miles from his home. And they realized pretty quickly this wasn't a car Accident. This wasn't that he died of natural causes because he had blunt force trauma to his head and a rope around his neck. The sheriff's department talked to Jane, and in looking around at the bedroom, they feel that they're seeing lots of blood scattered throughout the bedroom and spots around the bedroom. So three days after his body is found, they arrest Bob's wife, Jane Dorotek, and charge her with first degree murder.

[Ann Marie Green]

When I was watching the first part of this episode, I couldn't help but to think, you know, there seems to be some convincing evidence against Jane, like what seemed to be blood spatter found in the bedroom. Erin, over two decades that you have been reporting this case, now, did you ever doubt Jane's innocence?

[Erin Moriarty]

Well, pretty much. I always thought she was innocent. There's no question. I got on the story because actually I was working with the producer who, who had met her first and said, erin, you gotta do this. When you meet her, she acts the way we would act if we had been accused of a crime we didn't do. She answers every question, and if she doesn't know it, she's honest and says, I don't know. This doesn't make sense. And this was a time when with 48 hours, we basically moved in with people. I mean, we were there for weeks, and she would let us in the house. She would always sit down and talk with me. There was one time she wasn't as open with me during an interview, and that made me a little worried. But I don't think I ever really changed in thinking, there's just no way this woman did this.

[Ann Marie Green]

I think that's such an interesting tidbit that you gave us, because as I was watching the hour, I thought to myself, I bet you Jane likes Eric. I thought that, you know, I thought she liked you as a person, and that's part of the reason she was being so open.

[Erin Moriarty]

I liked her, too.

[Ann Marie Green]

Yeah.

[Erin Moriarty]

You know, I really. But now, remember, just put yourself back where I was. Here's this woman who says her husband went from. And then we're hearing from the police, and there's an arraignment that says there's blood in the bedroom, which is an absolute contradiction of then, of her story. You're also thinking what to believe.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Also, one of the things is, if this were happening today, an attorney would have been sitting next to Jane throughout the entire thing. I think people are more suspect today of the media and more suspicious. You know, it's up to the individual person whether they want to let us in. And how much time they want to spend and who'd be there. But it's just different these days.

[Ann Marie Green]

Yeah. So let's get back to the blood stains in the Dortec's bedroom and in their home. That was a big reason why authorities zeroed in on Jane. We learned that investigators identified 20 locations of different blood stains, even if their home was a working ranch. That seems like a lot, right?

[Erin Moriarty]

Well, yes, but now, with benefit of hindsight, I realized that I shouldn't have accepted that quite so quickly. We did hear that there was blood spatter on the ceiling, but what had hit me was I saw a picture of a blood stain on a mattress. And what also struck me and worried me, you know, in my heart, was the fact that the mattress had been turned over. So that was. That seemed incriminating.

[Ryan Reynolds]

And Jane had an explanation for some of the blood.

[Erin Moriarty]

Right.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Not all of it. She said in terms of the mattress, that Bob had had a nosebleed. And, you know, if you think about it, are you going to want to lay on the side that's bloody, or might you turn it over? And they had a dog who had two dogs. Yeah. I think one had one issue, one bled from the snout, one, I want to say like a hangnail, but whatever you call that in a dog. So she had explanations for some of it, but she also said to Erin, I can't explain all of it, but.

[Ann Marie Green]

Then why wouldn't they have at least, say, tested to see if there's dog DNA there?

[Erin Moriarty]

We have to go back. Remember, this is 2000, all right? We can't look at it through the lens of today where we know that testing is so much better. But again, I didn't know as a reporter to ask what kind of tests have you done?

[Ryan Reynolds]

And what they ended up doing. And some of it was it was Bob's blood, but if they saw, like, six little dots in one spot, they might have tested three of those. You test representative samples, but then you can't say or shouldn't say, everything was tested, and it all came back to Bob.

[Ann Marie Green]

Let's talk about another bit of evidence. There was a syringe in the bathroom trash with traces of horse tranquilizer inside, which was normal. Yeah. Because it's a ranch. Right. But was there any horse tranquilizer found in Bob's system?

[Erin Moriarty]

No. No. And so that was one of those pieces of evidence that, on the face of it, looks like it's relevant, you know, but it's really not.

[Ann Marie Green]

Let's listen to a clip from the broadcast Of Jane. I can't really explain it, other than.

[Ryan Reynolds]

I know that I helped Bob clean up a nosebleed. And if that's the same time when I took the syringes and threw them in the trash and there was some blood on my hand, that could have made that happen.

[Erin Moriarty]

The importance, I guess, of that, the syringe, it looked bad because there was blood on the syringe, Bob's blood. And you have a fingerprint on the syringe, and it was Jane's fingerprint. So it really wasn't relevant. It just looked bad. Mm.

[Ryan Reynolds]

And one thing where you think, well, that's weird that there's this bloody syringe in a garbage pail. When we spoke to another expert, Nathan Lantz actually said in his mind that pointed fingers away from Jane, because if you're gonna be cleaning up a crime scene, we all know criminals can do stupid things. But would you leave a bloody syringe in the trash?

[Ann Marie Green]

Right. And then. So here's kind of the other aspect of what the prosecution believed, that Jane attacked her husband in the bedroom and then transported him in a. To dump his body. I mean, there's a reason why there's a phrase sort of deadweight. I mean, people are heavy. People are much heavier than they look. So I did think, geez, that would be really hard.

[Erin Moriarty]

I remember. And this was an issue for us. One of the reasons why I believed her, you know, she was probably my size, you know, my height, and she had a bad back. And the idea, like you talk about dead weight. Of not only getting her husband out of the bedroom, but getting him onto that truck seat seemed inconceivable. And the prosecution didn't seem to be troubled by that.

[Ann Marie Green]

But was there any evidence of blood found in the truck when they tested?

[Ryan Reynolds]

Initially, they found a very small stain in the wheel well of the truck that had Bob's DNA. But it's Bob's truck. It's a working ranch. It wasn't that. There were puddles and pools of blood.

[Ann Marie Green]

Yeah.

[Ryan Reynolds]

So was that significant? Hard to know.

[Ann Marie Green]

Mm. Authorities arrest Jane, though. I mean, three days. Three days after the murder. That seems really quick. Cause we've Talked about some 48 hours episodes where, you know, the suspect is walking around for months until they collect enough evidence.

[Erin Moriarty]

Three days. Well, it's too quick for really two reasons. One big one is they didn't even have all their test results back. So they're making basically this assumption and making it public and, you know, saying, this woman is accused of killing her husband and Then for the other reason why it was too early is you can't go back on it then. You know, they haven't investigated the reports of seeing a man out there jogging. But how do you backtrack after you've already said, we have evidence, strong evidence to indicate this woman killed her husband when you don't even have your test results?

[Ann Marie Green]

Yeah. So then it's a year later in 2001, a year after Bob's murder, and the case finally goes to trial. For me, what made this trial, you know, particularly shocking was, of course, Jane's sons who testify against their mother at trial. This is her son Alex, on the stand being questioned by the defense.

[Erin Moriarty]

Your mother always settled things logically. Tried to.

[Ryan Reynolds]

No. You wouldn't agree with that statement? Nope. It would be my mom basically saying, this is what you have to accept.

[Erin Moriarty]

And then my dad would either accept it or there would be threats of divorce or something.

[Ann Marie Green]

That's what I remember from growing up.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Okay.

[Ann Marie Green]

So he's describing, you know, which is something that's not the happiest marriage. But anyone who's married knows that sometimes things ebb and flow. But, I mean, this must have broken Jane's heart.

[Erin Moriarty]

And it did. It did. The idea that not one but both sons testified against their mother at a murder trial is very, very damaging and was very difficult for her.

[Ryan Reynolds]

And I think, in terms of the prosecution, one of the things they're trying to explain to the jury is, you know, the motive. And the motive was that the marriage was on the rocks, and they didn't get along as great as people thought. So the sons provided in their mind, I'm sure, like eyewitnesses to that fact.

[Erin Moriarty]

Yeah. The prosecution told the jurors that this was a broken marriage. She was the primary breadwinner, and she didn't want to pay alimony. And that was. That was what the jury was told.

[Ann Marie Green]

So you have the sons testifying against her, and then on the other hand, you have Jane's daughter Claire. She remained convinced that her mother could not have committed this murder. Claire didn't testify at trial, but she gets pulled into the defense's argument in a really surprising way. Jane's attorney claims that Claire is the one that killed her father. How did Claire feel about this defense?

[Erin Moriarty]

It's risky, Anne Marie. I have to tell you, that decision on the part of the defense attorneys to try to save a mother by pointing to the daughter was shocking to me then and is shocking to me now and had to be devastating. For Jane realized there was absolutely no Physical evidence to tie Claire to this murder.

[Ryan Reynolds]

And there was that alibi that Claire was at her aunt's house at the time.

[Erin Moriarty]

But it was an attempt to raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors. Like, well, maybe it wasn't the mother, maybe it was the daughter.

[Ryan Reynolds]

It was shocking. Claire later wrote in a book that she was so worried about her mother that she felt she didn't have a choice but to go along with it. That she was more worried than angry. And Jane subsequently told Erin that you think your defense lawyers know the best strategy. So she reluctantly went along with it. But Claire was never charged with any wrongdoing in regard to her father's murder.

[Erin Moriarty]

Claire never talked to us about this, as much as I would have loved to have heard. But in her book that Ruth had mentioned, she did describe how it was just kind of, you know, put in her plate. She didn't have a say in it. No one went to her and said, how about, you know, we point the finger? It was a done deal and she had to accept it. I can't even imagine being in the position of Jane, trying to save yourself by pointing at your daughter number one. Or being the daughter, knowing that your mother's life is on the line and you're gonna be the other suspect. I. I can't imagine this. It's like Shakespearean.

[Ann Marie Green]

I was just. You read my mind. I was actually thinking it's some sort of. It's like a drama in mythology. It's just. It's all bad choices.

[Erin Moriarty]

And it didn't save her. And it did not save her. It didn't save Jane.

[Ann Marie Green]

So here's the thing. Yeah, you're right. It doesn't save her. The jury's not convinced. On June 12, 2001, Jane was found guilty of first degree murder. And then she's sentenced to 25 years to life. Erin, were you able to speak to Jane after the verdict? It must have felt like.

[Erin Moriarty]

Like unreal to her and to me as well. I have to tell you, I will never forget that. Cause I was not allowed to bring my producer in with me or a crew. And I remember leaving the car, going into the jail. Cause she was still in a jail at that point. And Jane was Jane. Jane was still talking the way I'd always heard Jane. And I was like, I think this woman is innocent and she's gonna spend the rest of her life in prison. And it was very disturbing.

[Ann Marie Green]

All right, so when we come back, Jane's 22 year fight for justice from behind bars. And the miraculous breakthrough in her case.

[Erin Moriarty]

This episode is brought to you by JCPenney. And if you've been to JCPenney recently. Yes, JCPenney, you'll know it's becoming the way to find good clothes for prices that still make sense. They've got hidden gems for everyone and every budget with deals and rewards that actually make a dent. If you already shop, JCPenney, you feel like you know a secret. But if not, it's time to ask. Wait, am I sleeping on JCPenney? Shopjcpenney.com, yes, JCPenney. You say you'll never join the Navy, never climb Mount Fuji on a port visit or break the sound barrier. Joining the Navy sounds crazy. Saying never actually is.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Learn [e-mail] America's Navy forged by the sea.

[Ann Marie Green]

Welcome back, everyone. So after Jane is sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, she becomes her own advocate, meticulously working on her case year after year. It is a daunting task.

[Erin Moriarty]

How did she do this?

[Ryan Reynolds]

You know, she filed document after document, motion after motion, and everything would be turned down, and she'd just keep. She would keep going. And from the beginning, she also tried to get the attention of innocence groups, but that didn't immediately come. So she was like, okay, I have to do this on my own.

[Erin Moriarty]

But I wanna remind people. Cause I don't think people are aware when you say she had to do it on her own. You. You're not entitled to an attorney after your very first post conviction appeal. That's it. And so everyone, usually, unless they're wealthy, they have to do it on their own. Some people just give up. Jane did not. She never gave up.

[Ann Marie Green]

So in prison, as you mentioned, she files motions, some of them claiming that she had ineffective assistance of counsel. She says that she originally wanted to testify at trial and that she disagreed with the defense's strategy to point the finger at her daughter Claire. In your experience covering wrongful conviction cases, how successful are ineffective counsel claims?

[Erin Moriarty]

Really, really tough. Very rarely. And in fact, in this case, too, Jane did not win that right.

[Ann Marie Green]

And the judge said, well, we don't really think it would have made much of a difference if you had a different kind of attorney or a different argument. Jane also argued that authorities pegged her from the very start, and they really failed to follow up on other leads. And personally, I was really cur as to why authorities chose not to look into some witness reports that say they saw a man around the same time out there, possibly jogging. Why didn't they follow up on any of that stuff?

[Erin Moriarty]

Well, according to Matt Troiano, who is the legal consultant that we talked to, he felt, after looking at many of the documents, that this was a matter of tunnel vision. I mean, you can kind of understand in the sense that if you truly believe as investigators that there's blood in the bedroom and that he killed in the bedroom, then you're wasting time chasing down witnesses who say they saw a jogger, since you don't believe he was out jogging, but they should have.

[Ryan Reynolds]

And also, some of the descriptions didn't exactly match Bob. The wrong age, the wrong weight. So, yes, a jogger in the area in around the correct time, from the investigator's standpoint. Well, the other thing seems like a more viable explanation of what happened, because these people didn't quite describe Bob to.

[Ann Marie Green]

A T. I mean, you would think, considering the area, how rural it is, there aren't a ton of people out jogging. And we do know that eyewitnesses sometimes could be not great with the details. You know, there's a good possibility it was him. Yeah.

[Ryan Reynolds]

And it could raise reasonable doubt, even if the person didn't match.

[Ann Marie Green]

Yeah. So in 2015, though, Jane had a breakthrough in her case when a judge granted her motion to get DNA testing done on several items that had not been tested back in 2000, including the rope around Bob's neck, his fingernail clippings, his clothes. How rare is it for a judge to approve this kind of DNA testing?

[Erin Moriarty]

According to Matthew Troiano, it's really rare. It's hard. I think it's gonna get more and more common as tests become more valuable, I think. But it is very difficult. It's expensive. And so it was very, very lucky for Jane in this case. And it really was what turned this case around.

[Ryan Reynolds]

And when the court did grant that, that was right before an innocence group got involved. So even more unusual that it was based on Jane's filings at that point, Jane did it.

[Erin Moriarty]

Whenever anybody asked, really, how did Jane get out? I'm always saying Jane, Yes, Jane was helped by an Innocence Project, but she was the one who really got the ball rolling. She was the one who got the permission to do the testing, and it made a huge difference in this case.

[Ryan Reynolds]

So this testing changes the course of the case, because when they look at the rope and they look under the fingernails, they find foreign male DNA. But just as important as what they don't find, which is Jane's DNA, is not there.

[Ann Marie Green]

So Jane's appellate team also raises the issue of how the sheriff's department originally handled the evidence. I want to play a clip from the broadcast of Nathan Lentz, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal justice, reviewing a photo of investigators at the original crime scene.

[Erin Moriarty]

This one is hard to even look at. You have an investigator who definitely should know better, you know, handling murder evidence with his bare hands. In addition to obviously depositing his own.

[Ryan Reynolds]

DNA all around this crime scene, he's.

[Erin Moriarty]

Also risking transferring evidence from among the.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Various spots that he's collecting.

[Ann Marie Green]

I gasped when I saw that picture. When this case was first investigated, was that normal for authorities to handle evidence like that?

[Erin Moriarty]

I'm kicking myself. I've got to be honest. I saw those pictures back then and didn't realize that at the very least, it reflects kind of a laxness in standards in the sense that, you know, you're touching evidence with your bare fingers. And if anybody should know, it would be a criminalist. You look at it now, and it's shocking. It is.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Other investigators had gloves on.

[Erin Moriarty]

They did.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Some did, some didn't.

[Erin Moriarty]

Look, investigators are human.

[Ryan Reynolds]

And maybe he wasn't the one actually swabbing, but, you know, who knows what was going through?

[Ann Marie Green]

Right. Well, all it takes is that one photo to make you question the entire way the crime scene was handled. So in 2020, Jane's appellate team presented its findings, and the state requested that Jane's murder conviction be overturned.

[Erin Moriarty]

The state asked it.

[Ann Marie Green]

Yes.

[Erin Moriarty]

Yes.

[Ann Marie Green]

Well, I said this was an emotional rollercoaster to watch. Cause you're like, oh, that's great. And then only three months later, the DA Decided to retry her. A judge ruled that a new trial could go ahead, but that certain evidence presented in her original TR would not be admissible at this time. I'm wondering what Jane was feeling, because she talks in the Hour about essentially just losing her faith in the justice system.

[Erin Moriarty]

I. I don't think anybody can actually say what she was feeling, but you can imagine this was a woman who had fought so hard to get to that point. She is out in 2020. She had been out because of COVID you know, so she has a taste of freedom. She's finally seeing, like, an end after fighting so long. Think about it. It's like, you know, nearly 20 years, and then they decide they're going to retry her and to go through a trial again. I mean, I don't think anybody can imagine what had to be going through that woman's head and heart.

[Ann Marie Green]

Back on the emotional rollercoaster, the prosecution ultimately decided that there was not sufficient evidence for them to show Proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a new trial and requested the court dismiss the charges. Jane's case was dismissed without prejudice. But what exactly does that mean?

[Erin Moriarty]

Okay, so when you hear without prejudice, that sounds good, and it is. It means that all the charges against her are dropped. But without prejudice means that if. If somehow new evidence came up, very strong evidence, obviously, that she was involved, they could refile. It's not likely to ever happen. But she has no charges against her. She's. As if she had never been charged with murder.

[Ann Marie Green]

Did Jane ever talk about the loss of her husband? I know this hour was about her fight for freedom, but I kept on also thinking, boy, did she even get a chance to grieve.

[Erin Moriarty]

I remember her talking about that. That she never did, because think how quickly she was charged. She never did. And, you know, all of a sudden, then she's in a fight for her life. So, you know, there are so many reasons to avoid a wrongful conviction or a questionable conviction, and that's one of them.

[Ann Marie Green]

What's next for Jane?

[Ryan Reynolds]

She works with trying to help women in prison. That's sort of become her focus, is working with wrongful conviction groups as well as groups just helping women in prison and then women when they get out of prison.

[Erin Moriarty]

I mean, she had always been in the healthcare field. That's what she was in before she was charged and convicted. And so it fits with that. But I. You know, I can't help but be overwhelmed with sadness over this, of what everyone in that family lost, you know, with the loss of Bob and then this prosecution, you know, a family was destroyed.

[Ann Marie Green]

Mm.

[Erin Moriarty]

Mm.

[Ann Marie Green]

And I remain so. Cause we can see in the hour that she's not close with her sons. She is close with her daughter.

[Erin Moriarty]

One son has since passed away, and the other son has not spoken publicly, but has indicated through filings that he believes that she was involved in his father's death. And so, yes, this is a family divided, and it's heartbreaking.

[Ann Marie Green]

Biggest takeaways from this case. Ruth, I'll start with you.

[Ryan Reynolds]

As Erin had said, it's a cautionary tale, and it's always easier looking back, but you almost have to approach cases thinking, okay, when people look back at this, we. What should we be careful about? You know, it's a lesson for defense attorneys, for prosecutors, crime scene investigators, for everybody on all sides and reporters.

[Erin Moriarty]

Question, question, question. I think to question more. Ugh.

[Ann Marie Green]

Well, it's an amazing hour, and I was absolutely riveted because there are so many twists and turns, and, I mean, still, there's an unsolved murder out there, you know. Aaron Ruth, thank you so much for joining me again.

[Erin Moriarty]

Thanks, Annemarie.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Thank you.

[Ann Marie Green]

You can join us next Tuesday for another postmortem and watch 48 Hours. Of course, it's Saturdays 10, 9 Central on CBS and streaming on Paramount. And if you're liking the show, please rate and review 48 hours on Apple Podcasts and follow 48 hours wherever you get your podcast. You can also listen ad free on the Amazon Music and Wondery app or with a 48 hours plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. Summer is heating up. The chi is back on Paramount. It's the season of the women. This is on chance. It's time to get to work. But the men aren't giving up without a fight. The shy new season now streaming on the Paramount with Showtime.

[Erin Moriarty]

Plan to understand the power of hip hop today. You gotta go back to where it all started.

[Ryan Reynolds]

New York City.

[Erin Moriarty]

A new docu series hosted by LL Cool J is now on Paramount. You saying hip hop went worldwide from right here? Yep. Featuring untold stories from artists like Rev Run, Method Man, Dougie Fresh and more.

[Ann Marie Green]

I want to impact not only my.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Generation, but the generation before me and the generation after me.

[Erin Moriarty]

Who would ever think that we could be world famous?

[Ryan Reynolds]

I would have never imagined that hip.

[Erin Moriarty]

Hop was born here. New docu series now streaming on Paramount.