48 Hours - The Troubled Case Against Jane Dorotik

Episode Date: April 1, 2024

A woman convicted of murdering her husband discovers serious problems in some key evidence used against her at trial. "48 Hours" correspondent Erin Moriarty reports . See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can listen to this podcast ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app today. Even if you love the thrill of true crime stories as much as I do, there are times when you want to mix it up. And that's where Audible comes in, with all the genres you love and new ones to discover. Explore thousands of audiobooks, podcasts, and originals, with more added all the time. thousands of audiobooks, podcasts, and originals, with more added all the time. Listening to Audible can lead to positive change in your mood, your habits,

and even your overall well-being. And you can enjoy Audible anytime, while doing household chores, exercising, commuting, you name it. There's more to imagine when you listen. Sign up for a free 30-day Audible trial and your first audiobook is free. Visit audible.ca. In 2014, Laura Heavlin was in her home in Tennessee when she received a call from California. Her daughter, Erin Corwin, was missing. The young wife of a Marine had moved to the California desert

to a remote base near Joshua Tree National Park. They have to alert the military. And when they do, the NCIS gets involved. From CBS Studios and CBS News, this is 48 Hours NCIS. Listen to 48 Hours NCIS ad-free starting October 29th on Amazon Music. My name is Jane Dorotick. I spent 20 years in prison for a crime I did not commit. I thought truth and justice was at the front of everything. And it certainly has not been in my case.

I wish I just knew what really happened. I wish there was some way to piece it together, somebody to come forward with the truth. On February 13, 2000, Jane and Bob Dortek are living together in North San Diego. He said he was going out for a jog. That was it. That was the last I talked to him. She reports her husband missing. There was a search for him as a missing person. The next day, he was found in a location

two or three miles away from their home. And I stop about right here. I could see the body. And I said, this is Mr. Dorthy. He was found to have blunt force trauma to his head. He was found to have injuries consistent with strangulation. It was obvious to me that it was a homicide. They found Bob's blood in his bedroom.

The detectives decided, because they saw some blood, that they were in the crime scene, and that Jane was the only one with access to that bedroom and to Bob. There was only one person that could have done this to Mr. Dorotek, and that was his wife, Jane Dorotek. He said, you're under arrest. I was like, what?

I would never hurt my husband. Police say circumstantial and blood evidence links Jane Dorotek to her husband's murder. The bedroom was not a crime scene. I don't doubt that this occurred at the home, and I don't doubt that she's involved. There was blood on the comforter. There was blood on the pillow shamp. There was blood on the comforter. There was blood on the pillow shamp. There was blood on the headboard. When you have a home that's a working ranch,

you're going to find blood around. It's just problem on top of problem on top of problem. I would declare this crime scene very contaminated. They focused on one person and turned a blind eye to anything else. Jane Dorotek chose murder over divorce. It felt like a nightmare, and I kept saying, when am I going to wake up?

Do you believe that Jane Dorotek got a fair trial? No, I don't. I'm in no position to say who did what. I don't have a crystal ball to tell you what happened to that man. What do you believe happened to Bob? I believe Bob somehow fell into some kind of situation. I don't know.

I lost my husband, and then I lost my freedom. Erin Moriarty reports the troubled case against Jane Dorotek. Jane, how would you describe what the last 22 years have been like for you? It's been torturous in many ways. I suppose many moments when I thought, how do I keep going? I always used to say this is the most peaceful place on the face of the earth. Nothing feels peaceful anymore. When we first met Jane Dorotek in 2000, the stress of all of it on everyone has been incredible.

The life she had once found so serene in the foothills outside of San Diego, the life she had shared with her husband Bob Bob had taken an unimaginable turn. How can this be? How can this happen? Surely I'll wake up and it's a dream. Jane had become the prime suspect in Bob's murder. Authorities believe that she viciously attacked him in their home. I certainly didn't do this. I loved my husband. Jane, 53 years old at the time, and Bob, 55, share more than half their lives together.

I was 23 when we were married. Bob was a wonderful, loving, creative person. I welcome everyone here, those that have been here before and those who haven't. Bob spent most of his career as an engineer. Jane worked as a nurse and later as an executive in the healthcare industry. The couple raised three children, Alex, Claire, and Nick. The family has always been incredibly important to both of us. Also important to Jane were their horses. While Jane's passion was breeding and riding, Bob was an avid jogger,

and that, says Jane, is the last image she has of her husband. Bob was sitting actually in this chair facing the TV. Although Jane was under suspicion, she allowed us into her husband. Bob was sitting actually in this chair, facing the TV. Although Jane was under suspicion, she allowed us into her home. He said he was going out for a jog, and he was actually had his jogging suit on, was tying his shoes. That was the last I talked to him.

It was around 1 p.m. on February 13, 2000, when Jane says Bob left to go for that run. As hours passed without any word from him, Jane says she grew concerned. It was beginning to get dark. I decided to go out and look. This is the route Jane says she took to search for Bob, driving up and down the hill where he sometimes ran. By 7.45 p.m., Jane's concern turned to fear. I said, enough, this is enough, something is wrong.

And that's when I made the call to the Sheriff's Department. My first thought that night was maybe this man had a heart attack and fell down the embankment along Lake Wolford Road. As Deputy James Blackmon and others from the San Diego County Sheriff's Department searched for Bob, concerned friends and family gathered at the Dorotek house. The minute I saw my mom's face, I knew right away something terrible had happened. The Dorotek's daughter, Claire, 24 at the time, had spent the weekend visiting her aunt and returned home to a distraught Jane.

She was freaked out. She was scared. She was nervous. She was crying. It was a horrifying feeling that got more and more horrifying when he wasn't found. when he wasn't found. And then in the pre-dawn hours of February 14th, Deputy Blackman turned into this driveway several miles from the Dorotek home and noticed a body off the road. At this point, I could see the shirt, the pants, and he was laying on his back.

From Jane's description, he immediately knew it was Bob Doratyn. I got there a little after seven in the morning. San Diego County Sheriff's Detective Rick Epson was called to the scene. There was no evidence of any type of vehicle accident. The evidence Epson did find suggested something else. I could see that he had blood on his face. There was blood near the back of his head. And I could see that there was a rope around his neck.

Bob Dorotek had been bludgeoned and strangled. The one-time missing person case had turned into a homicide investigation. Is there anybody you could think who would want to see your husband dead? Nobody. Nobody. As law enforcement asked Jane questions about Bob, she let them into her home. Come in. Search. Look for anything. Detective Empson noticed a piece of rope hanging from the porch that caught his attention, thinking he had just seen something similar on Bob Dorotek. It appeared to be the exact same type of rope

that was found around his neck. The sliding glass door going into the master bedroom. And when investigators got to Bob and Jane's bedroom, they found something more troubling. They believed they were looking at blood spatter. There was no question in our mind that this assault occurred in the master bedroom. They documented their findings in this diagram,

taking photos along the way of what they believed to be blood on various items in the bedroom and of what appeared to be a large blood stain on the underside of the mattress. I do know when Bob had a nosebleed, he made a comment about getting some blood on the mattress. Jane says there was a logical explanation for some of the other blood too. They had dogs who were injured and had blood. This little dog had an abscess on her cheek that was openly

draining at the time, and little drops of blood we'd find as she sat on the couch. The carpet pieces are what the detectives removed, feeling that there was blood on the carpet. The spots of blood investigators said they found all over the bedroom

surprised Jane. Do you have any other explanation of how that blood spatter could have gotten there? Not really. On the ceiling, on the window, on the walls? No. Adding to authorities' suspicions was this bloody syringe found in the bathroom garbage. Jane told us she used it to medicate her horses. I know that I give the horses shots all the time. If you go look in my fridge right now, you'll find horse syringes. Investigators theorize that Jane hit her husband with an object in the bedroom and strangled him. She then dressed him in his jogging suit, and strangled him. She then dressed him in his jogging suit,

put him in their truck, and dumped him along the side of the road where his body was found. Why do they believe you killed your husband? You know, I guess I've been through that one a billion times. I don't know. But investigators thought they knew, believing the motive was money and escaping

a troubled marriage. Jane was the main breadwinner, and they learned the couple had split up for a year in 1997. I don't make any apologies for the fact that we had rough times, but that doesn't change the fact that we loved each other. And that love, says Jane, is why they reconciled. They have been back living together as a couple for a year and a half before Bob was killed. I really think the separation caused us to really regroup and think about what was important. They were getting along better than they ever had in the past.

I was living there. I can tell you that. But law enforcement was unmoved, and three days after Bob Dortek's body was found, Jane was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. I know I didn't do this. I know there's a killer out there. But how am I going to clear myself? She's baffled because I don't think she knows what happened. Released on bail, Jane started preparing her defense, hiring attorney Kerry Steigerwald. She knows that she's placed as the killer and she's not the killer.

And at trial, Jane's attorney would present a surprise suspect who he felt was responsible for Bob Doritik's murder. I'm Erin Moriarty of 48 Hours, and of all the cases I've covered, this is the one that troubles me most. A bizarre and maddening tale involving an eyewitness account that doesn't quite make sense. A sister testifying against a brother. A lack of physical evidence. Crosley Green has lived more than half his life behind bars for a crime he says he didn't commit. Listen to Murder in the Orange Grove, the troubled case against Crosley Green, wherever you get your podcasts. As a kid growing up in Chicago, there was one horror movie I was too scared to watch. wherever you get your podcasts. mirror. Candyman. Candyman? Now we all know chanting a name won't make a killer magically

appear, but did you know that the movie Candyman was partly inspired by an actual murder? I was struck by both how spooky it was, but also how outrageous it was. We're going to talk to the people who were there, and we're also going to uncover the larger story. My architect was shocked when he saw how this was created. Literally shocked. And we'll look at what the story tells us about injustice in America. If you really believed in tough on crime, then you wouldn't make

it easy to crawl into medicine cabinets and kill our women. Listen to Candyman, the true story behind the bathroom mirror murder, early and ad-free, with a 48-hour plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. Come on. I know that I'm innocent, but I don't have any more faith in the legal system. I believe I could be convicted for something that I didn't do. And that's very scary. While Jane worried about her outcome at trial,

Claire Dorotek was much more confident about her mother's chances. My mom could not have done this crime. She didn't have the motive, and she didn't have the opportunity. But when the case went to trial in 2001, a year after the murder, prosecutor Bonnie Howard Regan described the Dorotek's marriage as seriously troubled and told jurors that Jane didn't want to pay Bob alimony in a divorce.

Bob Dorotek never went jogging, and he never left that residence alive. According to the state, Bob had actually been killed Saturday night, nearly a day before Jane reported him missing. The autopsy performed by Dr. Christopher Swalwell showed undigested food consistent with what Jane said they had for dinner that night. Are you able to give us an estimate of how long after Mr. Dorotek ate, how long after that he was killed?

Yes, it was very shortly after he ate. I would say it was probably within a couple of hours. And he wasn't killed on the side of the road, the prosecutor said. There wasn't enough blood there. Instead, she said Bob's blood was all over the bedroom. Lead detective Rick Empson testified he had asked Jane to explain that. She'd indicated initially that she had a dog that had been bleeding and then indicated that approximately a week prior, Bob had a bloody nose over in the corner by the stove and that Bob had cleaned it up.

There was evidence someone cleaned the bedroom. The carpet next to the potbelly stove and tiled floor was wet and had blood stains underneath. Did any of the blood from his nose bleed go on the carpet? Mm-hmm. Do you know where? Mm-hmm. Do you know where? Mm-hmm. Right next to the tile, because I'm the one that helped him clean it.

Authorities dismissed Jane's explanations. Their theory was that Jane hit Bob in the head in their bedroom with an object while he was lying in bed, although they never identified or found any weapon. dead, although they never identified or found any weapons. Charles Merritt, a criminalist and bloodstain pattern analyst for the San Diego County Sheriff's Crime Lab, recounted 20 locations where he saw bloodstains. On one of the pillows, on a lamp. This particular nightstand on the potbelly stove was on the ceiling itself, and then on the underside of the mattress.

The jury was also shown this evidence of tire tracks found near Bob's body. The state's expert, Anthony DiMaria, said he matched the three different types of tires on Dorotek's truck. Are you saying the measurements taken at the scene were equal to the measurements taken off the actual vehicle? Yes.

The most telling evidence connecting Jane to the murder, according to the prosecutor, was that syringe found in the bathroom. It had traces of a horse tranquilizer inside. And even though there was no evidence that Bob had been injected with anything, it had Bob's blood and a bloody fingerprint on it. The evidence will show that the fingerprint on this syringe was Jane Doerr ticks.

Can you explain that? I can't really explain it other than 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. But perhaps the most powerful witnesses were the Dorotek's two sons, Nick and Alex. They both testified against their mother. Did you say anything specifically about the syringe? Well I asked her how it got there and

what it was doing there. And what was your mother's response? She said that her biggest fear in all of this was that the that us family members would start questioning her. Your mother always settled things logically? Tried to? No. You wouldn't agree with that statement? Nope. It would be my mom basically saying, this is what you have to accept.

And then my dad would either accept it or there would be threats of divorce or something. That's what I remember from growing up. Jane's attorneys, Kerry Steigerwald and Cole Casey, admitted it was a big blow. Would you say that's been the most damaging testimony? Yeah.

It's not what they said. It's the fact that they were there testifying for the prosecution. When it came time for the defense to present its case, Steigerwald actually agreed with the prosecution on a major point, that the murder took place in the bedroom.

But he had a jaw-dropping alternative suspect, Claire Dorotek. Ladies and gentlemen, Claire hated her father. He claimed Claire, an avid horsewoman, hated her father because he threatened to sell the animals she loved and suggested that she was capable of murder. That's what Claire is, a hot-tempered, explosive individual. It was a risky strategy that Jane reluctantly agreed to. All I can do is trust what Carrie says is the best way to go. Are you at all concerned that the jury will wonder about a woman who would allow herself

to be defended by pointing the finger at her daughter? Could that work against the two of you? It may. I don't know. I think it is the most viable defense, and I think it's supported by the best evidence. Steigerwald insisted Jane wasn't physically able to commit the murder, but Claire was. She runs marathons, and she's a personal trainer. She is as fit a woman as you will see at the age of 24.

is as fit a woman as you will see at the age of 24. But remember, Claire and her aunt said they were together two hours away. They call the aunt. That's the extent of the investigation on the alibi of Claire Dortek. Miss Claire Dortek, please step forward. That alibi is nonsense. You are going to assert your quick amendment rights? The jurors never heard from Claire or Jane, who chose not to testify. But they did hear from a woman who said she thought she saw Bob the day he disappeared,

sitting between two men in a black pickup truck, not far from where his body was found. Who killed Robert Dorotek? Was it Claire Dorotek? Or ladies and gentlemen, was it someone else? In his closing argument, Steigerwald accused investigators of dismissing witnesses like that woman and focusing only on Jane. The prosecution had focused on one person, and that's not the way to conduct an investigation. It's not the way to run a case. Jane Dortek and Bob Dortek were the only two people in that home that weekend.

Bonnie Howard Regan says there's no need to investigate further when you have sufficient evidence. They searched that bedroom, and they saw all the blood, and they knew that was the crime scene. What more investigation do they need to do? It took the jury four days to return a verdict. We, the jury in the above the title cause find the defendant Jane Marguerite Dorotek guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree in violation of penal code section... Did Jane Dorotek get a fair trial? No.

No. Because fairness means that you're presenting things accurately and it appears like it was not done accurately. Juror number eight? Yes. Juror number nine? Yes. Juror number ten?

Yes. Juror number nine? Yes. Juror number ten? Yes. Go behind the scenes with the 48 Hours Postmortem Podcast. It almost didn't register for a minute. It's like, no, this can't be. I was so certain that I was walking out. I thought they would see the truth. Jane Dorotek never imagined she'd be found guilty. It's hard to keep going.

At the time of her conviction for the murder of her husband, she was 54 years old and sentenced to 25 years to life. I mean, I just, I can't see my way clear to a life in prison. I just can't see it. Determined to prove the jury got it wrong, Jane became her own advocate, working on her case for many years. We spoke with Jane again two decades later about her efforts. All through the prison, my prison journey, I continued to write all innocence projects I could think of asking for help. At the same time, realized that I had to fight for myself.

Jane filed motions from prison, citing such issues as insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. I would describe my defense as limited and inadequate. In her filings, Jane indicated that she wanted to testify at her trial, but had left that decision up to her attorney. had left that decision up to her attorney, and that had she testified, she could have explained Bob's stomach contents, stating that he sometimes ate leftovers from the previous night. She also described her attorney's alternate suspect theory,

pointing to her daughter Claire as a killer, as absurd. Do you believe that your daughter Claire had anything to do with the death of her? Absolutely, unequivocally not. And my defense attorney, everybody knew she was away for that weekend. In regard to that defense strategy, Claire later wrote in a book, how could I be angry at my mother when all I did was worry about her? Jane's lawyer, whom we interviewed at the time of her trial, did not speak with us again. That was the worst strategy of my life, ever.

I said to my attorney, if anything happens to Claire, I'm going to stand up and say I did it. In her filings, Jane also questioned why her defense attorney accepted the bad forensics pointing to the bedroom as the murder scene, rather than presenting other scenarios as to where and how Bob Dorotek could have been murdered. Did the defense too easily accept the bedroom as a crime scene? That is a very legitimate argument. CBS News consultant Matthew Troiano, a former prosecutor and current defense attorney, was not involved in the Dorotek case, but he reviewed some of the court documents at our request. The defense made a strategic decision. at our request. The defense made a strategic decision.

Are we going to dispute that a crime happened in this location, or are we essentially going to concede that it happened there and then come up with a different narrative of how it happened there? And they chose the latter. And that decision, Troiano says, likely led the defense to point the finger at Claire for the murder. They had to blame somebody else for something that happened in a specific location. And they, at least as it relates to the daughter, you know, went back to her having some disagreement with her father about something.

And it was a risk. Have you ever seen that kind of defense? You don't see it. I mean, you could happen when there are clear facts and evidence to support it. But when there are none, that's, you know, that's a showstopper. And in fact, Claire was never charged with any wrongdoing in connection to her father's murder. The defense, accepting the bedroom as the murder scene is especially puzzling to Troiano, as there were reports from several eyewitnesses who said they saw a man

jogging that day. Accounts consistent with Jane's depiction of events, not the prosecution's. That's critical, critical evidence. And all of that was really not pursued, and I didn't know of all of the witnesses. Had there been a thorough investigation initially, all of that would have come out. Through the years in filings, Jane raised problems with the entire case against her, arguing that authorities focused on her

from the very beginning of the investigation and failed to follow other investigative leads. But motion after motion was denied. And regarding Jane's ineffective counsel claims, the judge rejected them all, ruling that her attorney's performance was not deficient and that his actions had not affected the outcome of the case. There were many moments where I doubted, when is this ever going to turn around? Many, many moments.

Still, Jane didn't give up. She continued looking for new evidence to clear her, especially as DNA testing became more advanced. In 2012, she filed a petition for DNA testing of that rope found around Bob's neck and other items, like Bob's fingernail clippings, which had been saved but never tested. And in 2015, the motion was granted. And in 2015, the motion was granted. Is that unusual that she finally even got testing based on her filing motions on her own? Yes, it's very atypical. It was at this time that Jane finally got the attention of a wrongful conviction group, Loyola Law School's Project for the Innocent.

I get this wonderful letter from Loyola saying, you've contacted us and we're interested in your case. And after that, Loyola took over, got the testing done. And what that testing revealed, as well as a fresh examination of other evidence, would change the course of the case. examination of other evidence would change the course of the case. That's really what flips the script to say that there's more here. This is more than just an inadequate investigation. There is a different narrative that's running through these test results. There is physical evidence that another person could be involved. Hot shot Australian attorney Nicola Gaba was born into legal royalty. Her specialty? Representing some of the city's most infamous gangland criminals.

However, while Nicola held the underworld's darkest secrets, the most dangerous secret was her own. She's going to all the major groups within Melbourne's underworld, and she's informing on them all. I'm Marsha Clark, host of the new podcast, Informants Lawyer X. In my long career in criminal justice as a prosecutor and defense attorney, I've seen some crazy cases, and this one belongs right at the top of the list. She was addicted to the game she had created. She just didn't know how to stop. Now, through dramatic interviews and access, I'll reveal the truth behind one of the world's most shocking legal scandals. Listen to Informant's Lawyer X exclusively on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery

Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And listen to more Exhibit C true crime shows early and ad-free right now. In the Pacific Ocean, halfway between Peru and New Zealand, lies a tiny volcanic island. It's a little-known British territory called Pitcairn. And it harboured a deep, dark scandal. There wouldn't be a girl on Pitcairn once they reach the age of 10 that would still have urged it. It just happens to all of us. I'm journalist Luke Jones, and for almost two years,

I've been investigating a shocking story that has left deep scars on generations of women and girls from Pitcairn. When there's nobody watching, nobody going to report it, people will get away with what they can get away with. In the Pitcairn Trials, I'll be uncovering a story of abuse and the fight for justice that has brought a unique, lonely Pacific island to the brink of extinction. Listen to the Pitcairn Trials exclusively on Wondery+. Join Wondery in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.

When you talk about the evidence in this case, the subsequent testing reveals that you might have a different explanation for things that really shed light on what may have happened here. a different explanation for things that really shed light on what may have happened here. Jane Dortek spent years behind bars asking for a new examination of the evidence used to convict her of her husband Bob's murder. Now, working with a team from Loyola Project for the Innocent, the court allowed them to have new DNA testing on items such as a rope found around Bob Dortek's neck, his fingernails, and clothing. Appeal filings state that foreign male DNA was found on several items. The results of that, none of my DNA anywhere. There is physical evidence from fingernail clippings, from a rope, from his clothing that is foreign to Jane.

The team from Loyola Project for the Innocent declined to be interviewed. We asked Nathan Lentz, a professor of biology and forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who was not involved in the case, to review court documents about new evidence, such as the DNA on the rope. While they didn't get a profile that would be good enough to search a database or even match to a suspect, they did get enough DNA that is not attributable to Bob or to Jane. But while Jane and her team believe the results pointed to her innocence, the state came to a different conclusion, stating in filings, the DNA obtained was too low level to

make any reliable interpretation. Lentz agrees the DNA levels were low, but he believes it was enough to exclude Jane and that the absence of Jane's DNA on the rope as well as under Bob's fingernails or on his clothing is significant. With the theory of crime that they presented, you would expect a lot of Jane's DNA on Bob. And if she had moved his body, you know, there's a lot of DNA transfer that might have taken place there that wasn't found. The appellate team also reviewed the bedroom blood evidence the prosecutor told the jury was fully tested and was Bob's. Now, the evidence will show that all this blood that has been described to you, the observations made in this bedroom, that it was all sent out for DNA analysis and it all came back to Bob Doritik's blood. But according to the appeal,

not every single spot in the bedroom believed to be blood was tested. Instead, representative samples were tested. There were cases where just simply one swab with a control was taken and it was representative of a variety of spots. That's not good practice. It just invites misinterpretations. When you're talking about blood spatter and you're trying to analyze how it got there,

you need to do a fairly comprehensive test to be able to draw the conclusion that you're drawing. But I think the prosecution could argue you can't afford to test, can you? Every single drop that looks like blood? Right, but when you say we did everything and that's not accurate, that's where the problem lies. In fact, the appellate team says that several blood-like stains on items,

including a pillow sham, the nightstand, a lampshade, turned out not to be blood. And there were those stains on the bedspread, which criminalist Charles Merritt pointed to at trial and described as Bob's blood. Two of the actual stains circled by little red dots. the actual stains circled by little red dots. Jane's lawyers learned those particular spots were never tested at all. And due to improper storage,

the bedspread could not be tested again. So we don't know that it was blood at all. The handling of the evidence over the course of the entire investigation was also raised on appeal. 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 DNA all around this crime scene, he's also risking transferring evidence from among the

various spots that he's collecting. And there's that syringe with Bob's blood and Jane's fingerprint found in the bathroom garbage, something the appellate team and Lentz thought could be explained. And if you throw that syringe in the garbage can, Bob throws a bloody Kleenex in that garbage can, they could transfer. Transfer of DNA from one object to another in a trash can is not unexpected. Lentz feels the fact that the syringe was even found in the garbage points fingers away from

Jane. If you're cleaning up after a murder, you won't leave this bloody syringe in the waste basket. But the state stood by its original investigation. Maintaining the bedroom was the murder scene, stating that the evidence still points to Jane Dorotek as the killer and that the defense arguments are largely derived from speculation and misstatements of fact. Jane's appellate team, though, maintains the bedroom did not even look like a crime scene Something Lentz also believes there is not a consistent Pattern to the evidence that indicates a violent bludgeoning that took place in that bedroom if Bob were alive today and Investigators had walked in his room. No one would say oh this looks like someone was murdered here. If you just look at all of the pieces of evidence that Loyola was able to absolutely take apart,

and yet we know what was told to the jury in the original conviction. So how can that happen? As her attorneys reviewed evidence, Jane Dorotek in 2020 was temporarily and conditionally let out of prison due to COVID health concerns. The question now became, was the new DNA test results? Chat now with Aaron Moriarty on X. Have you ever wondered who created that bottle of sriracha that's living in your fridge? Or why nearly every house in America has at least one game of Monopoly? Introducing the best idea yet.

A brand new podcast from Wondery and T-Boy about the surprising origin stories of the products you're obsessed with and the bolder risk takers who brought them to life. Like, did you know

that Super Mario, the best-selling video game character of all time, only exists because Nintendo couldn't get the rights to Popeye?

Or Jack, that the idea for the McDonald's Happy Meal first came from a mom in Guatemala? From Pez dispensers to Levi's 501s to Air Jordans, discover the surprising stories of the most viral products. Plus, we guarantee that after listening, you're going to dominate your next dinner party.

So follow The Best Idea Yet on the Wondery app or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to The Best Idea Yet early and ad-free right now by joining Wondery Plus. It's just the best idea yet. In the summer of 2020, Jane Dorotek and her team hoped a court would overturn the jury's verdict, turning her temporary release from prison into lasting freedom. What were their major points? The testing that was done initially was insufficient. The way that that testing was presented to the jury was inaccurate. There were a number of different arguments that they made. A hearing was scheduled, but then suddenly the state requested an unplanned virtual hearing. The people are willing to concede petitioner's new evidence claim. The prosecution admitted what Jane's lawyers had argued all along.

The DNA evidence as it exists now in 2020 is much different in quality and quantity than presented at trial in 2001. That the new DNA test results, as well as issues with how the sheriff's crime lab handled evidence, cast doubt on the verdict. But what came next was even more unexpected. The state requested that Jane's murder conviction be overturned, and the judge agreed. I'm going to grant the motion for the rent. Thank you, Your Honor. I always believed that at some point the truth would come out. But Jane's ordeal wasn't over. Three months later, in another shocking move,

the DA's office decided to retry her. I don't think any of us thought that San Diego County would attempt to retry me, but they did. The state believes that she did this, and they want to pursue it. But in order to retry her, the prosecution first had to demonstrate to the judge that there was still enough evidence to prove Jane killed Bob, despite the new DNA results and the questions about the initial testing.

Then you have this battle in court. If you're conceding that there were problems, how are you going to do it again, essentially, with the same evidence? It was astounding to sit in that courtroom and see what they try and put forward as actual evidence, and then also thrilling to see my team take it apart. Jane's attorneys questioned the credibility of several of the state's experts, including Charles Merritt of the Sheriff's Crime Lab. The judge ultimately ruled that the new trial could go ahead, but that some key evidence presented in her original trial would not be admissible, including those tire tracks near where Bob's body was found that were linked to

Jane's truck. You have a number of different trucks that could be consistent with those tire tracks. It's, in essence, kind of junk science-y. In May 2022, just as jury selection was about to begin, the prosecution surprised everyone yet again. Remain seated and come to order. This courtroom is now in session. We go into court as the jury is assembled and ready to come into the courtroom Monday morning, and everything's changed. We no longer feel that the evidence is sufficient to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt and convince 12 members of the jury, so we are requesting the court dismiss the charges at this time. Thank you.

Mr. Ortega, you are free to go and good luck to you. It is overwhelming to realize that now I can determine my own future. It's something I've prayed for and hoped for. After the hearing, Jane's attorney spoke about her decades-long fight. Jane's dignity in standing up and stoically fighting for her innocence against every risk and every threat. That's why this case got dismissed today. And as far as we're concerned, we're moving on.

That's why this case got dismissed today. And as far as we're concerned, we're moving on. The district attorney's office and sheriff's department declined to speak with 48 Hours. The case against Jane Dorotek was dismissed without prejudice, which means if new evidence surfaces, charges could be brought again someday. But then doesn't that leave still a shadow over Jane Dortek? Oh, sure, it does. I mean, there's no question about it. From a practical perspective, do I think it's over? Yeah, I think it's over. But from a legal perspective, no. Jane Dortek is working to rebuild her life after spending nearly two decades in prison.

My entire family has been blown apart by this hurricane of events. It's been heartbreaking on so many levels. Claire Dorotek did not respond to our request for comment, but Jane says they are still close. Her son Nick died in 2023. Alex Dorotek did not provide a comment to 48 Hours, but according to filings by the state, he remains convinced his mother killed his father. Do you have hope that your family will come together at some point?

Of course I do. Of course I have hope. Jane also has hope that she could make a difference in other people's lives as she works with advocacy groups that help incarcerated women. To me, it's not just about my story. And yes, we can all sit here and say, this is so horrendous, and how did this happen to this woman?

But unless we look systemically, how many others are we going to find? And to me, that's critically important. Many unanswered questions about this case remain, including, perhaps, the most important one. What happened here? We don't know what happened to Bob Dorotek. Where's justice for Bob? Where's justice for Robert Dorotek? We'll be right back. Were you at all prepared for what happened in this case? Shock is the word that comes to mind. Get inside the twists and turns and get in on the case.

Listen to Postmortem from 48 Hours, now available wherever you get your podcasts. If you like this podcast, you can listen ad-free right now by joining Wondery Plus in the Wondery app. Before you go, tell us about yourself by filling out a quick survey at wondery.com slash survey.