Warning: This article contains spoilers about 'Making A Murderer'

(WISN) “Is there any DNA evidence backing up the kid’s story?” asks a reporter.

“Yeah, we're not gonna comment on... on that,” answers Special Prosecutor Ken Kratz in an opening to Making a Murderer’s sixth episode that sets up a clear premise—that the state’s forensic evidence did not support their theory of the case that was formed by Brendan Dassey’s confession.“It's a clever move by them to not call Brendan in their case in chief,” Steven Avery’s defense attorney Dean Strang says, indicating that prosecutors are refusing to call Dassey to testify against his uncle because Dassey’s confession was so coerced and so misleading that it would backfire in the state’s face.

In reality, Dassey himself was facing first degree intentional homicide charges in a trial set to begin just after Avery’s, meaning that anything he said in Avery’s trial could and most likely would be used against him in his own trial.  Therefore, unless Dassey cut a deal with prosecutors to testify in exchange for a reduced sentence (most likely 20 years in prison), he could simply invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.

Listen to episode 6 of Rebutting A Murderer below for free

Missed an episode? Get them all for free on-demand on iHeartRadio!

Dan O’Donnell is a non-practicing lawyer and radio journalist at WISN, iHeartMedia’s News/Talk station in Wisconsin, who has a unique perspective on the case. Dan was assigned to cover Avery from his release in 2003 through his (and his nephew's) conviction in 2007. While he doesn’t make much of an appearance in the documentary, “Making a Murderer” has had a profound impact on Dan - particularly, due to its bias. And so, Dan is doing what any lawyer would do in the courtroom - rebut the case presented in the Netflix documentary.