Dateline NBC - Talking Dateline: Raising the Dead

Episode Date: November 26, 2025

Andrea Canning talks with Keith Morrison about his episode, “Raising the Dead.” After a couple was found stabbed to death inside a Wisconsin farmhouse, investigators spent decades chasing down possible suspects with no luck. The case went nowhere until a tip came in that led investigators to an unexpected suspect, and a game-changing police interview. Keith and Dateline producer Justin Balding tell Andrea about the creative traffic stop leading up to the arrest of Tony Haase and discuss the defense tactics that led to his acquittal. They also play an extra clip from his conversation with investigators, and Justin answers your questions from social media.Have a question for Talking Dateline? DM us a video to @DatelineNBC or leave a voicemail at [phone]. Your question may be featured in an upcoming episode.Listen to the full episode “Raising the Dead” on Apple:https://apple.co/3M1SgyfListen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/4ypTwyAQABz7AMbFowpTwH Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Hi, everyone. I'm Andrea Canning, and we are talking Dateline. And today we're here with Keith Morrison. Hey, Keith. Hello. How are you? And we're also here with producer Justin Balding for this episode. Hey, Justin. Hi, Andrea. And this episode is called Raising the Dead. And if you haven't seen it, you can watch the episode on Peacock or listen to it in the Dateline podcast feed. And then you can come right back here. Let's just recap at first when a young couple was found brutally stabbed in a Wisconsin farmhouse back in 1992. It took investigators decades to charge anyone with the murder. Their suspect was a man named Tony Hayes, whose DNA and an alleged confession tied him to the crime. But this past summer, a jury quitted him, leaving the case of the double homicide still open. In this episode, we've got

an extra clip from Tony Hayes' interview with the police. And then later, Justin and I will be here to answer your questions from social media. So don't miss that. All right, well, let's get started. Talk in Dateline. So I just want to say right out of the gate, showing a court-ordered exhumation and saying, Keith saying, you know, did they have the wrong person? Did they have the wrong killer. I mean, that was a very dramatic open, in my opinion. Well, yeah, we like to think so. It was certainly a dramatic event in the course of events in this story. Yeah, it's always interesting when you get exhumations because I do feel like they are pretty rare and they're pretty extreme. And in this case, this exhumation was really almost like crossing their T's and dotting their eyes for

the prosecution. Like, they were. wanted to make sure that there were no more questions about this alternate suspect who had died. And I believe the prosecution felt this was going to be a game-changing move before the trial to kind of corner the defense and not allow the defense to be able to present this alternate suspect whose name is Jeff Teal at trial. Yeah. And Jeff Teal really becomes like that sticking point for a lot of people. They just think that there's way more to that story with him than, you know, we've seen. And it brings up the whole question, it is an ancient question, frankly, about when people hear a story and they hear the people who may possibly have

been the murderer in a murder story, and it almost always fits a template that's very, very much like Jeff Teal. Jeff Teal just seemed to be the perfect suspect. And he continued to seem to seemed like the perfect suspect because he continued to misbehave and to act out and to, you know, be violent. So even all those years later, people were reluctant to let him go, I think. One of the things when we're trying to put these two-hour shows together is sometimes there aren't a lot of alternate suspects. This one was just like suspect after suspect after suspect. Out of the woodwork came all kinds of people, or certainly enough to present an array of suspects. And one of the surprises for me was that small town America is a tiny place in Wisconsin,

the sort of place where you would feel is peaceful and serene at all times. And here they find these dreadful goings on, not only these murders, but then the Glendon Galkirk character and the other people that he named. And he remains in prison to this day. He was, yeah, he was, you know, up for the death penalty and very cleverly managed to get off the death penalty in order to be apparently cooperative in this case when really what he was doing was just leading him down a garden path.

And the police and the prosecution, the prosecutors were so kind of angered by Glennon Galeckert that they actually wanted to reinstate the death penalty on him. They were hoping that they could clear up the murders in Waiowiga, the Tim and Tanner murders, and they hoped once that was all bundled and sorted, that they would then be able to go back to Oklahoma and say, you know, this guy was, you know, selling us a story made of whole cloth, and we want those charges to be reinstituted, re-instigate. Sure.

Normally, we've run into this all the time, When somebody is offered a deal, if you tell us the real story, we'll get you off death row or whatever the case may be, they have to tell the truth. And if it can be shown that they didn't tell the truth, then the deal's off. And whatever happened with him, did they reinstate the death penalty or not? They did not. No. Okay, so he's just sitting in an Oklahoma prison for the rest of his life? Correct.

That's right. So let's go back to how small this area. I'm actually working on a dateline too in a farming community. And I kept saying over and over again, I can't believe that this stuff is happening here, but they do. The same issues apply. It's why you get television shows and novels with names like murder in a small town, because murders do occur in small towns.

And they occur for the same reason that they do in big cities, the same sort of human frailties. But in this one, there was such a, it was like, it felt kind of like Western meets Midwest. Like you had that Western feel of the horses and the cowboys and the rodeo. And then you had that Wisconsin Iron Foundry and the farms. So it was kind of like a blend almost of the two cultures. Very much so. And speaking to the intensity of what you were saying, Andrea, the small community,

now that the trial is over, everyone is back living in the same area. They live just a few miles from each other, and it's just hard to imagine that they're all living so close, and there is still a lot of tension in the air. As you can well imagine, my head after a single time. How do they live with that, you know, being in this close-knit community and then have this hanging over their head? And how does Tony, he's, you know, go back into society with, I'm sure a lot of people still think he did it, including law enforcement?

Sure. It must be very, very uncomfortable for him living in that little place, but he has shown no sign of moving away. Has he, Justin? Not at all, Keith. No, I mean, they, they, you know, most of these families have lived there. for decades. You know, they've grown up in these, in these farms. Okay, so when we come back, investigators wondered what happened to some key pieces of

evidence. We've got that extra clip from Tony Hayes telling investigators his story of what might have happened to the knife. It's coming up. One of the eureka moments in all of this is this. woman Heather, right? The daughter of Jeff, she is just convinced that her father has done this, but in this big moment, it's not her father, but it's the first cousin, which is amazing how she was really on sort of on the right track, but she just had the wrong man. And the last person

in the world you would think would commit such a crime, or any crime for that matter. You had no record whatsoever. And I think his family was really blindsided as much as anyone else, you know, and Heather too, you know, she, she gave her DNA and her ancestry account over to cops thinking that it would lead, you know, confirm her father. She was totally unaware that it would lead to one of her cousins, you know, and I think she was shocked as well. The thing I find so fascinating, fascinating about ancestry is you can click that little thing on your, if you're doing 23 and me or Ancestry.com, there's that

private button or public button and a lot of people want public because they want to be able to see if they have other relatives out there that will come into their life. But then if you've committed a crime and your cousin or your

third cousin or your dad or your mom or your grandma wants to start this page, watch out. Because if they have public clicked on their page, then the police can go right in there. And that's not going to turn out well for you if you've done something wrong. So then imagine going around to various relatives saying, oh, please, please, don't, don't click on Ancestry.com. I can't tell you why. Just that might be a bad

sign that you have a black sheep in the family. One of the things that was so fascinating was how they got the DNA. You know, we have Rex Hewer, in Gilgo Beach. It was the pizza that he threw in the trash can. Another story I did in Elbuquerque was the McDonald's. Actually, I've done two McDonald's at this point. This one, they got very creative with the pen pulling him over for this traffic citation with his license plate and then having him sign something. I thought that was very interesting how they did that. Yeah, when they did the traffic stop, they had prepared one of the big pens and they they screwed on the cap

extra tight because they were hoping that he was going to have to bite the cap off and leave his DNA on the cap. Oh, so wait, did he?

No, but he had to twist it really hard. Oh, my. Wow, somebody is curious. Wow, someone's creative. I did one dateline where it was

they were trying everything they could. They were giving him water in the room. They had him at one point, put something in an envelope that they wanted him to lick the on he

wouldn't and then he went outside and as he was walking away he spit on the ground and that's how they got it so they were they were just lucky that he did that last little move because

nothing they were doing would work but that's a new one and that that became a real point of contention for this case that pen it was such a curious Listen, I've never encountered it before. I don't know if Justin has either. Confluence of things that happened here.

First of all, as you've already talked about, all these different suspects. And then they finally, after all these years, you know, familial DNA finally provided a very surprising conclusion to this story. But then on top of that, there is the, you know, the risky moves by the,

prosecution to try to nail it down and a very effective defense. I've never, you know, the defense was aggressive. It was, it belittled the prosecution. How would you describe it, Justin? My impression when the trial was underway was that these defense attorneys were street fighters. Yes. Very much. They were street fighters in the courtroom. And you could sense at times that the prosecution was extremely frustrated with some of the arguments that they were making. But they stood up and they made them boldly and in the end, obviously, they prevailed. I was curious at the beginning, you know, going into this tiny community wondering, you know, is Wisconsin nice going to play for the jury or is this, you know, more abrasive approach going to play?

I wasn't sure. Yeah, that's interesting. Okay, so can you break it down for me? So the prosecution, they were not allowed to introduce the Jeff Teal DNA evidence. And if they waited, then they might have been able to. If you could explain that for me, it was an interesting twist to all of this. I was trying to wrap my head around it. It was a difficult choice.

What they said to us in the interviews was that, they felt that they had enough. They were, you know, that it was, of course, they wanted to get that evidence in. And they felt that it was the wrong decision to keep it out. But the judge made that decision. And the prosecutor felt as if they probably had enough without it. And the family had been through a lot. And it was that kind of very difficult choice, right?

I think in a way, I feel like the prosecution didn't think they had a real choice because some of their key witnesses, you know, some of the early, detectives, the investigators, the crime scene investigators, they felt were getting on in years and their memories were fading. Some of them were actually quite sick. One was brought in in a wheelchair. Another person had been diagnosed with a serious illness. So they felt like they were to lose some of their key witnesses if they were to postpone. And the prosecutor had told me that they might be three to five years before they could get it back onto the docket. and and they have this alleged confession so normally when you have a confession yes so the expert to whom

I spoke we've used before Steve Drizen he's kind of a world-renowned expert on these things he didn't see the actual interview but but the way it was conducted is one which you know he says has happened all too often which does encourage somebody who may be a little bit gullible or somebody who may believe in the, in the justice system sufficiently that he thinks, you know, if a cop says something, it's bound to be true, somebody who can be led. If it's that kind of person, then the technique that they did, in fact, use in this conversation could well have produced a false confession or a false, wasn't quite a confession. It was sort of going along with what they had said.

And we actually have more from that interview that we want to. to play for you. So let's take a listen to that. The interview with Tony Hayes and the investigators. What did you do with the knife? Now that your memory's coming back. If I had that knife, when I left, it probably got woped out the window. Okay. Closed? What? You're closed? Because they had blood on and you would have had transfer in the truck. I mean, that's just, that's just the what?

I remember seeing that dealing with the clothes? If you didn't, that night, you would have the next day or that following week. More than likely, unless I don't remember for sure. I would have burned in the stove at your mom's? Yeah, yeah. But you don't remember doing that? I don't. That's just how you, that's your instinct.

That's just knowing yourself that's what you would probably do. Well, I didn't wake up the next day to a pile of bloody clothes. Okay. So I'm not, I'm not saying, you know, he was led into that or he wasn't. I, you know, I wasn't there. But I do wonder, though, usually when you hear about these false confessions, it's under great duress, it's been hours and hours. This one was pretty quick. So, you know, I guess I, I'm a little confused on this one with the false confession.

Sure. They're all different. And, you know, it can happen in as little, there are interviews that have lasted half an hour where it was demonstrably a false confession. There are interviews that have gone on for 18 hours, which turn into the same thing. The length of the interview is probably, it's important, but it's also other factors are what the circumstances are, what the personality of the accused is, what the approach of the police officers is, is a combination of all of those things. And it can. It's a danger.

It's called an unsafe. interrogation for a reason because it it's the lack of safety is that you're not necessarily going to get an accurate result were there any jurors interviewed at the end of this about why they voted to acquit yes uh there were a couple of interviews a couple of jurors right um justin and they what they said just reinforced um The idea that it was a very effective defense, that those defense attorneys, with their aggressive approach, made quite an impression on the jury. Because they questioned everything in the same frame as the defense attorneys did. They looked at that interrogation in the frame of the possibility of a false confession.

They looked at the DNA evidence that they did see, which was not all of it. as, you know, the last dregs of material in the bottom of a test tube, and that really wasn't sufficient to produce a sample that could be relied upon. They saw it through that frame. Did you get that impression, Justin, that they saw all the evidence that was presented to them. They just looked at it through a certain kind of frame. Yeah, very much so. I mean, I think the defense was really effective at using...

2025 investigative standards, sort of crime scene forensic standards, and applying them to 1992 saying that the investigating officers at the scene didn't wear latex gloves, they weren't wearing booties, they had their fingerprints in various places and saying that the crime scene was contaminated. I think that was effective with the jury. Yes, it was. Didn't the DNA expert though say it was like two contillion or something. Am I saying that right? Even more than that. Yeah.

Yeah, it was 234 quintillion. Oh my. Chant that it was anyone else except Tony Hayes. So the jury, like quintillion didn't really seer into their brains? Well,

the defense was very effective because in the interview with Tony Hayes, the defense had said the investigators were telling it was a hundred percent match to his DNA and it isn't a hundred percent match that was their version

and that seemed to register with the jury yeah well they started off six six they lied that was the you know the key it wasn't 100 percent that means the cops lie that means you can't believe what they were saying to I see what you're saying he couldn't believe it either right so where does this civil suit now stand

you said that they started a go fund me page are they really, is this continuing this lawsuit against Tony Hayes? It is. Yeah. But it's not it's been filed but it's going to cost a lot of money

to pursue and then there's a question really about how much money they'll be able to raise in order to pursue the suit. You know, they say it's not about money and it probably isn't. They're not looking for a big financial windfall. They're looking for acknowledgement

or a jury to say, yes, we believe that he was guilty. But, you know, getting to that point costs. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, this story was, you know, just one of those ones that even though technically it's, like, resolved, you know, from a criminal standpoint, it really feels like for so many people, it's not resolved. That's right. That's right.

And they will have to go for a long time yet before they are able to get any kind of redress. they do it all. So it continues all these years later. What is it now? 33 years. Interesting story. Very interesting. Very well done to both of you. And Keith, this is, this ends your portion of talking dayline. After the break, Justin and I are going to answer your social media questions. And as always, we got some good ones. So we'll see in a sec. Welcome back. All right, viewers had a lot to say about this episode, Justin, especially about the verdict.

Let's take a listen to what one viewer had to say. Hi, this is Boland Ketikou, a lifetime fan of Dateline every Saturday. I watch the new episode as they come across. And just since watching Raising the Dead. I never thought I'll be calling you guys, but I literally screamed what just happened. I don't understand how he was found not guilty. I understand it logically, but oh my God.

So just how to express that feeling. Thanks, guys. Yeah, Justin, I kind of thought people were going to be feeling that way. I had a sense of that, too, as well, Andrea. You know, it's so difficult because you have to put yourself in the jury's shoes. Obviously, what we present is, distilled version of what the jury heard in the court, although we obviously hit all of the major points. But I think the defense attorneys were very effective in the courtroom at raising

reasonable doubt in all aspects, whether it was the DNA, the handprints, and the so-called confession. Yeah. And we had a viewer, Courtney Hollingsworth wrote in saying DNA does not lie. I'm shocked at the juror's decision. When the DNA evidence was present, presented, Justin? Did you see any reaction from the jurors? I mean, from the prosecution point of view, they were very clear right from the outset, you know, that this case was about DNA, a handprint, and a confession as they saw it, or admissions that Tony Hayes made. And on the DNA, this happened in a time before there was DNA processing, at least in Wapaka County. And, you know, over the years, they tested and retested.

But at the same time, the standards for DNA evolved. Interesting. Okay, and we got a question about the defense's strategy of pointing the finger at an alternate suspect. This is from Tasha.

She said, just watched last night's dateline. And my question is, if the defense opened the door in the trial by talking about the other potential subject whose DNA was excluded but not allowed, how did that not open the door for the prosecution to speak on? I think it's a very good question.

It's something the prosecution feels very strongly about. They feel like that because they were denied the possibility of presenting Jeff Teal's DNA evidence, they felt that the defense should not have been able to name Jeff Teal as a third-party culprit in this case. They felt that that was unfair and prejudicial. And I think it's really a question for the judge. Okay. So Kelly Chick Jensen, she asked if, will Dateline interview the jury? I did speak with one juror. Actually, I reached out to all the jurors. One wanted to engage with me and talked me in, talked about the deliberations and the process of the deliberations and had told me that she didn't think that the Jeff Teal DNA would actually have had a big effect on the jury. That was her point of view.

We got a couple more questions about the investigation. Valerie Coraliva wrote about the early threats Tim received leading up to the murders. Did they ever find the person who blew up his car and who wrote threatening messages in the work bathroom? They never found who wrote, they never found answers to how the car caught fire blew up. And they also never found who had who had written that very menacing message on the bathroom store. Okay. And this is a question about from Jennifer White about the Tony Hayes police interview. How did he know the barbell was in the room?

I think this is a really interesting point. And it's something the prosecution obviously hit hard at trial. What they point to is the fact that Tony Hayes brought this up himself. He did not, it wasn't like the investigator showed. him a picture of the bedroom with a barbell in it. It was something he raised. And then they had the investigators who were questioning had to rifle through pictures of the crime scene until they found a picture of the barbell. And wow, this is significant. Okay. Well, Justin, thank you so much for answering our viewers' questions. And thanks for joining us, as well as Keith for this week's

talking dateline. Well, thanks a lot for having me on this episode, Andrea. It's been really interesting speaking with you. Remember if you have any questions for us about stories or about Dateline, you can reach us 24-7 on social media at Dateline NBC. If you have a question for talking Dateline, leave it for us in a voicemail at 212-413-5252 or send us a video on socials for a chance to be featured on a future episode. And be sure to check out Keith's new original podcast, Something About Carrie. Keith Morrison takes us to America's Heartland where single mom, Carrie Farver disappears just weeks into a new romance. What follows is a series of strange and terrifying events, but nothing could prepare friends, family, and investigators for the mind-bending

twists that would come next. Start listening for free on Tuesday, December 2nd, or subscribe to Dateline Premium to listen to the first two episodes now, ad-free, and to get early, add-free access to future episodes. We'll see you Fridays on Dateline NBC. Thank you so much for listening. Thank you.