>> WELCOME BACK.

I FIND MYSELF SANDWICHED BETWEEN TWO BEST-SELLING TRUE CRIME STHORS.

ONE OF THEM YOU KNOW, BILL McCLELLAN, THE BOOK -- >> EVIDENCE OF MURDER, RAY, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO.

>> EVIDENCE OF MURDER, AND OUR FRIEND JOEL SCHWARTZ.

HE'S ONE OF THE LEADING DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN TOWN, PARTNER WITH ROSENBLUM SCHWARTZ AND FRYE AND, OF COURSE, THE AUTHOR OF THE NEW YORK TYPES BESTSELLER BONE DEEP AND THAT WOULD BE UNTANGLING THE BETTY FAR RAE MURDER CASE.

WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I HAVE TO CORRECT YOU.

IT'S NOT YET A "NEW YORK TIMES" BEST SELLER, BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT IT WILL BE.

>> I'M SORRY.

YOU CO-AUTHORED IT WITH CHARLES BOSWORTH JR. WHO IS ALREADY A BEST-SELLING AUTHOR, BUT IT WILL BE.

IT'S A TERRIFIC BOOK AND A COMPELLING READ AND OF COURSE, THE WHOLE STORY, PAM HUPP, IS AN AMAZING LOCAL TRAGEDY.

TELL US ABOUT THE RESPONSE YOU'VE GOTTEN FROM THE BOOK.

>> WOW.

THE RESPONSE HAS BEEN INCREDIBLE.

THE REVIEWS HAVE ALMOST WITHOUT FAIL BEEN FIVE-STAR REVIEWS AND THEY'VE BEEN FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, FROM NEW YORK TO CALIFORNIA, SOME FROM ALASKA.

AND THEY'VE ALL BEEN WONDERFUL AND THERE ARVE LOT OF TORNS ATTORNEYS WHO RAET I HAD, SO WHEN I GET A REVIEW FROM A TRIAL ATTORNEY OR AN EMAIL FROM A TRIAL ATTORNEY CONGRATULATING ME, IT'S BEEN WONDERFUL, THE RESPONSE OF THE BOOK.

>> I ENJOYED THE BOOK TOO.

ONE OF THE THINGS EARLY ON IN THE BOOK WHEN YOU FIRST MEET RUSSELL FARIA, WHO'S ACCUSED OF MURDERING HIS WIFE, YOU AND BOSWORTH MENTIONED THAT WHAT YOU ASKED HIM WAS WHAT DID THEY SAY YOU DID, THAT AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY, YOU'RE NOT ASKING IF HE'S INNOCENT OR GUILTY, AND IS THAT NORMALLY THE WAY YOU DO?

DO YOU EVER ASK A CLIENT IF HE DID OR DO YOU ALWAYS PHRASE IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY?

>> NO, I PHRASE IT IN SUCH A WAY WHERE THEY CAN TELL ME WHAT THEY'RE SAYING THEY DID.

I WILL THEN GARNER BASED UPON THEIR RESPONSE GENERALLY IF THEY DID OR DIDN'T DO IT.

IF THEY KNOW TOO MANY DETAILS, IF THEY'RE THERE AT THE SCENE, I CAN GENERALLY GAUGE EXACTLY WHAT IT IS AND IT'S IS SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE USED AGAINST THEM.

LET'S SAY I'M TALKING TO THEM AND SOMEBODY ELSE IS LISTENING OR I'M TALKING TO THEM ON THE PHONE AND IT HAPPENS TO BE RECORDED.

THEY'LL SAY, WELL, THEY'RE SAYING THAT I KILLED THIS GUY AS OPPOSED TO I KILLED THIS GUY.

SO THAT'S NOTHING THAT THE PROSECUTOR CAN USE.

PROSECUTOR CAN'T USE IT ULTIMATELY BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLY A RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION AND THAT'S SOMETHING I ASKED RUSS.

>> AND YOU DON'T CARE WHETHER HE DID IT OR NOT.

THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS SUPPOSED TO GIVE A VIGOROUS DEFENSE AND MAKE THE STATE PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

>> AS FAR AS MY JOB IS CONCERNED, I DON'T CARE WHETHER HE DID IT OR NOT OR SHE DID IT OR NOT.

IT WOULD BE CALLUS TO SAY AS A HUMAN BEING I DON'T CARE.

I DO CARE, BUT IN MY JOB, IT'S JUST NOT MY JOB AND I EXPLAIN THAT TO PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.

THE STATE'S JOB IS JUSTICE.

THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE THE ONE PUSHING THE ENVELOPE.

MY JOBS DEFENSE AND I'M GOING TO PUSH THE ENVELOPE AS FAR AS I POSSIBLY CAN WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW AND ETHICS IN ORDER TO DEFEND MY CLIENT, WHETHER THEY DID WHAT THEY'RE ACCUSED OF DOING.

>> THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT.

YOU HAVE HANDLE ADD -- HAND E ED -- HANDLED A LOT OF BIG CASES AND YOU'VE DONE AMAZINGLY WELL FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE ACCUSED OF BIG THINGS, BUT IN GENERAL, WHAT KIND OF RESPONSE DO YOU GET WHEN YOU WIN A BIG CASE FOR -- OBVIOUSLY NOT -- >> YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THERE'S THOSE PEOPLE WHO THINK WHAT I DO AND WHO I AM ARE DES STPICABLDESPICABLE, THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT ABOUT EVERY PROFESSION AND PEOPLE SAY THAT TO ME AND INVARIABLY ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAS THAT OPINION COMES TO ME WHEN THEY'RE IN TROUBLE.

THEY LOSE THAT OPINION QUICKLY.

>> IT'S A RIDICULOUS -- >> IT IS A RIDICULOUS POINT OF VIEW.

I AM DEFENDING WHAT THE CREATORS OF THE CONSTITUTION ENVISIONED AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO AND THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE AND THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE WAY IT IS, IT IS THE BEST SYSTEM IN THE WORLD, BUT HUMAN BEINGS ARE INVOLVED AND HUMAN BEINGS BY NATURE WANT TO WIN.

AND THEN THE SYSTEM GETS ABUSED AND IT GENERALLY GETS ABUSED BY THE PROSECUTORS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEIR JOB IS DIFFERENT THAN OURS.

>> YOU KNOW, PAMELA HUPP IS SUCH A LARGER THAN LIFE CHARACTER AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME OF YOUR REFLECTIONS ON HER, BUT AS FAR AT LAW GOES, ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT THE CASE WAS YOUR DECISION ON THE SECOND TRIAL TO HAVE A BENCH TRIAL AND FOREGO A JURY.

WHAT WAS YOUR THINKING AND DON'T MORE PEOPLE DO THAT?

>> WELL, GENERALLY -- AND THIS IS A BIG GENERALITY, YOU REPRESENT PEOPLE WHO AT LEAST TO SOME DEGREE ARE GUILTY.

SO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO WHEN YOU HAVE A JURY OF 12 PEOPLE IS ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS CONVINCE ONE OF THEM TO HOLD OUT FOR NOT GUILTY AND YOU GET A HUNG JURY.

MANY, MANY TIMES YOU CAN CONVINCE ALL 12 OF THEM, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I WAS WORKING OUT ONE MORNING AND IT JUST RESPOND INTO MY HEAD, ONCE I GOT THE JUDGE WHO I HAD, HE'S A SEASONED JURIST, HE'S A PROSECUTOR, OUT OF ST. LOUIS CITY AND ANY PROSECUTOR AND JUDGE IN ST. LOUIS CITY KNOW S WHAT A CASE IS.

THEY KNOW WHAT FACTS ARE.

ONCE I GOT HIM AS A JUDGE, I WAS OUT JOGGING AND IT POPPED IN MY HEAD AND I TALK TO MY WIFE, WHO IS ALSO A SEASONED CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, AND SAID AM I CRAZY TO THINK ABOUT DOING THIS?

SHE SAID IT'S A LITTLE CRAZY, BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA.

I LET IT PERCOLATE IN MY HEAD FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS AND I TALKED TO A COUPLE OTHER DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND THEY SAID, YOU'RE CRAZY, BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE FACTS.

AND THE FACTS OF THIS CASE PROVED RUSS FARIA COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.

SO I KEPT COMING BACK TO THE FACT THAT ALTHOUGH THAT FIRST TRIAL WAS A CHARADE, A FARCE OF A TRIAL, IN SUCH THAT I COULDN'T GET IN ANY EVIDENCE OF PAM HUPP WHO CLEARLY I THOUGHT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS, I STILL WAS ABLE TO PROVE THAT RUSS FARIA COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT.

MY JOB IS NOT TO PROVE THAT.

THEIR JOB IS TO PROVE HE DID.

THEY DID NOT AND COME CLOSE TO THAT, SO GIVEN THE JUDGE I HAD, I KNEW THAT WASN'T GOING TO CHANGE IN THE SECOND TRIAL.

I ACTUALLY HAD MORE PROOF IN THE SECOND TRIAL THAT HE DIDN'T DO IT AND I WAS VERY COMFORTABLE GOING INTO IT.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT PROOF, YOU TALK ABOUT LIKE THE TIMELINE, RUSSELL CAME HOME FROM NOT A NIGHT OF PLAYING CARDS, BUT GAMES WITH FRIENDS, AND HIS WIFE'S BODY WAS ALREADY COLD, SO THE TIMELINE SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO HAVE KILLED HER.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE -- >> WE DON'T ENOUGH TIME AT THIS SITTING TO GO INTO EVERYTHING, BUT WHAT I'M REFERRING TO IS RUSS FARIA LEFT HIS HOUSE THAT NIGHT.

HE WENT TO HIS FRIEND.

HIS CELL PHONE TRACKED WHERE HE WENT.

NOW, WHEN RUSS WAS ARRESTED THAT EVENING, HAD HE CALLED ME OR ANY COMPETENT CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID, SHUT YOUR MOUTH, DON'T SAY A WORD, I'LL BE THERE IN THE MORNING.

WHAT HE DID OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT 36 HOURS WAS GIVE THEM HIS WHEREABOUTS, TELL THEM WHO HE WAS WITH AND WHAT HE DID.

SO WHAT THEY WERE ABLE TO DO WHILE HE WAS CONFINED AND THEY WERE QUESTIONING HIM IS THEY WENT TO EACH PLACE HE STOPPED AND FORTUNATELY, HE WAS ON VIDEO AT A GAS STATION, AT A CIGARETTE SHOP, AND AT A QUIK TRIP.

THEY ALSO WENT AND GOT THE RECEIPT FROM WHERE HE STOPPED, A PLACE CALLED GREEN'S COUNTRY STORE.

HE WAS IN THE VIDEO WEARING THE SAME CLOTHES HE WAS WEARING WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED THAT EVENING.

WHAT THEY ALSO DID WAS THEY WENT TO SEE THE PEOPLE WHO HE CLAIMED HE WAS WITH.

THEY INTERVIEWED THEM.

ALL FOUR SEPARATELY TOOK THEM TO FOUR SEPARATE POLICE DEPARTMENTS, BUT THEM ON VIDEO, SAID WE BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT THEY SAID BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE WHAT THEY SAID.

THEY WERE ALSO ABLE TO SECURE THROUGH A SUBPOENA HIS CELL INFORMATION AND THEY WERE ABLE TO CONFIRM HIS WHEREABOUTS THROUGH THE CELL SITE.

WHAT IT SHOWED WAS HIS CELL PHONE TRAVELED EXACTLY AS HE SAID HE DID AND WE KNEW THAT ON VIDEO.

FINALLY, THERE WAS A RECEIPT IN THE BACK -- CRUMBLED UP IN HIS CAR FROM ARBY'S.

THE RECEIPT WAS SHOWN AT 9:09 WHICH COINCIDED WITH WHAT ALL THE ALIBI WITNESSES SAID, AT A TIME WHEN HE WAS 30 MINUTES AWAY FROM HIS HOUSE.

YOU PUT TOGETHER WITH A BODY BEING COLD AND STIFF AND IT APPEARED TO BE SET UP AND TWO OF THE FIRST RESPONDERS TESTIFIED TO THAT EFFECT.

OUR EXPERT LOOK AT HIS CELL PHONE INFORMATION AND IN A RURAL AREA, YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY PINPOINT WHERE THEY ARE BECAUSE THE CELL TOWERS ARE FURTHER APART, BUT WE COULD SAY HE ENTER THE SECTOR WHERE HIS HOME WAS, I THINK IT WAS 9:36 P.M., WHICH MEANT HE COULDN'T HAVE BEEN HOME UNTIL 9:39 P.M. AT THE EARLIEST.

GIVEN THAT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO HAVE DONE IT AND YOU COUPLE THAT WITH THE FACT THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE ONE SPECK OF BLOOD ON HIM FROM BETSY.

>> READING THE BOOK AND FOLLOWING THE STORY, ROBERT PATRICK WROTE SO MANY STORIES IN THE POST-DISPATCH ABOUT THIS.

ONE THING I'VE HAD TROUBLE WITH, JOEL, IS WHY DO YOU THINK THE POLICE AND THE PROSECUTOR TRIED TO PUT THE CASE ON RUSSELL WHEN IT SEEMED PRETTY CLEAR THAT HE COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT AND PAM HUPP WAS SUCH A BIZARRE CHARACTER THAT -- WHY DID THEY GO AHEAD AND DO THIS?

>> HE STOLE MY QUESTION, BY THE WAY, SO GO AHEAD.

>> NO, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

>> I HATE TO TELL YOU THIS, BUT THAT QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED OF ME AT LEAST 250 TIMES.

>> RIGHT.

>> EVERY TIME I SPEAK, EVERYONE WHO'S READ THE BOOK, ALL THE EMAILS I GET, IT'S INEXPLICABLE.

IT'S INEXPLICABLE WHY PAM WAS THE BENEFICIARY OF BETSY FARIA'S LIFE INSURANCE PROCEEDS SIGNED TO HER UNVERY, VERY SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES FOUR DAYS EARLIER.

IT'S INEXPLICABLE THAT PAM HUPP FORCED HERSELF AND INSERTED HER INTO HER LIFE THAT DAY.

YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS, BUT PAM WANTED TO DRIVE BETSY TO HER CHEMO SESSION THAT DAY.

BETSY TOLD HER NO, DON'T COME, I WANT TO SPEND ONE-ON-ONE TIME WITH THIS OTHER INDIVIDUAL VISITING FROM OUT OF TOWN.

PAM SHOWED UP ANYWAY.

PAM HAD VOLUNTEERED TO TAKE HER HOME AND INSISTED ON TAKING HER HOME.

WE'RE NOT TALKING A FEW BLOCKS AWAY.

WE'RE TALKING 30 MINUTES OUT OF PAM'S WAY, SO OVER AN HOUR ROUND TRIP ON A COLD, SNOWY DECEMBER NIGHT, COLD, DARK, SNOWY DECEMBER NIGHT, WHILE RUSS WAS GOING TO PASS BY WHERE BETSY WAS AND PICK HER UP.

THAT WAS HIS ROUTINE.

I IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT ONE MINUTE, TWO MINUTES OUT OF IT WAY.

GIVEN THOSE FACTORS, AND THIS IS A TRUE STORY AND I ALLUDE TO IT IN THE BOOK.

MY SON, HE WAS IN 7th GRADE AT THE TIME, HE WAS LOOKING AT THE POLICE REPORTS AT I GOT THEM.

I SAT DOWN AND IT WAS SO CUTE.

HE SAID DAD, CAN I HELP YOU?

HE NEVER LOOKED AT A POLICE REPORT BEFORE.

30 MINUTES LATER, HE LOOKED UP AT ME AND SAID, DAD, I KNOW WHO DID IT?

I SAID WHO?

IT'S THAT LADY PAM HUPP.

THAT'S AN INCREDIBLY LONG-WINDED ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION AS TO WHY.

I DON'T KNOW.

I LOOK FOR CONNECTION WITHIN THE POLICE, WITH THE PROSECUTOR AND PAM HUPP.

I COULDN'T FIND THEM.

THE FACT IS THAT PAM HUPP HELD -- RUSS FARIA HELD BETSY'S INSURANCE POLICY AND WAS A BENEFICIARY OF THAT POLICY FOR ABOUT 11 YEARS AND THAT'S 4,000 DAYS.

PAM HUPP WAS THE BENEFICIARY FOR FOUR.

SHE WAS THE LAST ONE WITH HER.

AND ON TOP OF THAT, THEY WENT TO SEE HER THE NEXT MORNING, SO THEY SAW HER ABOUT NINE HOURS LATER, SHE HAD JUST GOTTEN OUT OF THE SHOWER, SHE TOLD THEM SHE HAD SHOWERED THE NIGHT BEFORE, WHICH MOST WEEP DON'T DO THAT.

6:00 IN THE MORNING, THEY'RE THERE.

THE FIRST QUESTION THEY ASKED HER, ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS IS DID YOU GO IN THE HOUSE?

NO.

WELL, I JUST WENT IN -- I TURNED ON THE LIGHTS.

AS THE INTERVIEW CONTINUED, SHE DIDN'T JUST GO IN THE HOUSE.

SHE DIDN'T TURN ON THE HEIGLIGHTS.

BETSY TURN ON THE LIGHTS.

SHE WENT IN THE KITCHEN, IN THE LIVING ROOM, IN THE BEDROOM.

IT JUST SO HAPPENED THAT PAM INDICATED TO THEM, SHE WENT EVERYWHERE THERE WAS EVIDENCE FOUND.

NOT ONLY THAT, THEY LOOKED AT HER CELL PHONE.

THEY SAW THERE WAS A CALL FROM FAMILIAR TO BETSY AT 7:27 P.M.

I'LL BACK UP FOR JUST A MOMENT.

WE KNOW THEY ARRIVED HOME AT 7:04 P.M. BECAUSE WHEN THEY ARRIVED HOME, PAM MADE A CALL TO HER HUSBAND MARK.

AND THEN SHE PUT BETSY ON THE PHONE FOR SOME INEXPLICABLE REASON TO WISH MARK MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR.

I ALWAYS CALLED THAT THE PROOF OF LIFE CALL.

PAM KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO PROVE BETSY WAS ALIVE WHEN SHE, QUOTE-UNQUOTE, LET HER AT HER HOUSE.

TURNED OUT SHE WAS STILL THERE.

BETSY PROMISED HER DAUGHTER THAT SHE WAS GOING TO ANSWER HER PHONE WHEN HER DAUGHTER CALLED HER, BECAUSE HER DAUGHTER WAS GOING TO CHANGE HER CELL PHONE PLAN.

SO HER DAUGHTER MADE THREE PHONE CAUSE TO BETSY, ALL WENT UNANSWERED.

IN THE MIDST OF THOSE, PAM AT 7:27 CALLS BETSY.

IT'S LOGICAL TO BELIEVE BETSY WAS IN A VUG STRUGGLE FOR HER LIFE OR DECEASED AT THE TIME SHE MISSED THOSE CALLS FROM HER DAUGHTER.

THE CALL AT 7:27 FROM PAM, THEY ASKED HER WHY SHE CALLED HER, AND PAM'S ANSWER WAS TO LET HER KNOW I WAS HOME.

>> THE DISTURBING THING, THIS HAPPENED IN LINCOLN COUNTY, BUT THE ST. LOUIS MAJOR CASE SQUAD WAS INVOLVED.

>> THEY GOT INVOLVED NECESSARILY.

THEY DISBANDED WITHOUT CHARGES BEING ISSUED.

LINCOLN COUNTY THEN WENT IN SEVERAL DAYS LATER, THEY DID A SEARCH OF THE PREMISES BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN CONTAMINATED, CLAIMED THEY SAW A TRAIL OF BLOOD LEADING FROM WHERE BETSY WOULD HAVE BEEN TO THE TOWEL DRAWER TO THE DOOR THAT THE DOG HAD BEEN LET OUT ON AND THEY TOOK PHOTOS OF THIS, OF THESE PHOTOS WHICH WOULD MAKE BLOOD EVIDENCE GLOW.

UNFORTUNATELY, AS THEY TESTIFIED TO IN THE FIRST TRIAL, THE CAMERA MALFUNCTIONED AND THE PICTURES DIDN'T DEVELOP.

>> ALTHOUGH THEY ACTUALLY D RIGHT?

YOU LATER WERE ABLE TO PRODUCE THE PHOTOS.

>> AUGUST OF 2015, ABOUT TWO AND A HALF MONTHS BEFORE THE SECOND TRIAL, I MYSTERIOUSLY GOT A CD FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

NO IDEA WHAT I WAS.

I OPENED IT UP.

IT WAS 132 DEVELOPED PHOTOGRAPHS, ALL SHOWING THE PREMISES, ALL DEVELOPED, ALL PROVING THAT THAT POLICE OFFICER LIED AND THERE WAS NO BLOOD TRAIL AND THERE WAS NO GLOWING.

>> AND THAT THE PROSECUTOR KNEW ABOUT IT.

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT.

TO THIS DAY, I STILL DON'T KNOW.

THERE WAS A LETTER, HER SIGNATURE WAS HAND-STAMPED -- WAS STAMPED ON THE LETTER, BUT WHEN WE WENT TO TRIAL THE SECOND TIME, OF COURSE, SHE KNEW I HAD THE PICTURES.

SHE SENT THEM TO ME.

HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF THE SECOND TRIAL, SHE DID HER OPENING STATEMENT AND WENT THROUGH THE SAME SPIEL.

THE CAMERA MALFUNCTIONED, THE PICTURES DIDN'T DEVELOP.

SO I LEANED OVER TO MY CO-COUNSEL AND SAID SHE HAS NO IDEA WE HAVE THESE PHOTOGRAPHS.

THE OFFICE ER TESTIFY THE SAME WAY.

THEY DID A SEARCH WARRANT, TOOK PHOTO, BUT THE CAMERA MALFUNCTIONED AND THE PHOTOS DIDN'T DEVELOP.

I WAS CHOMPING AT THE BIT TO GO AFTER THIS GUY.

BY THE WAY, IN THE SHOW WHEN YOU WATCH IT, THAT IS THE MOST ACCURATE PART OF THE TRIAL.

I GOT UP THERE WITH 132 PHOTOGRAPHS AND LAID THEM DOWN AND IT WAS LIKE A MAGIC TRICK.

I SAID PICK A PHOTO.

>> SPEAKING OF THE SHOW, THIS IS THE BOOK, BONE DEEP AND IT SAYS RIGHT HERE, THE CASE THAT INSPIRED THE PODCAST AND SERIES THE THING ABOUT PAM.

WE'RE TALKING TO CO-AUTHOR JOEL SCHWARTZ AND I HAVE TO ASK YOU, FIRST OF ALL, WHY WEREN'T YOU CAST IN THE THING ABOUT PAM AND WERE YOU UPSET ABOUT THAT AND ASSUMING YOU'RE NOT, HOW IT DID FEEL TO HAVE A BIG TIME ACTOR PORTRAY YOU?

>> IT'S BEEN GREAT.

WAS I UPSET?

OF COURSE I WANTED TO BE CAST AS MYSELF.

IN MANY, MANY OF MY FRIENDS, INCLUDING MY WIFE, JOKED ABOUT IT.

>> BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN ACTING BACKGROUND.

>> I DO.

I'VE ACTED QUITE A BIT AND I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE DONE THAT.

I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.

AS SOON AS THEY TOLD ME THE CHARACTER, I SAID, OKAY, I'LL ACCEPT THAT.

>> HE'S A PRETTY GOOD-LOOKING GUY.

>> HE'S A STUD AND I DID GET TO DO A CAMEO IN EPISODE NUMBER 2 AND I HAD A BLAST AND HUNG OUT WITH THE WOMAN WHO PLAYS THE PROSECUTOR, SHE'S PRICELESS, HER NAME THE JUDY GREER AND I MET JOSH.

WE'VE HUNG OUT A COUPLE OF TIMES.

MY WIFE GOT TO MEET HIM AND WE CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE.

IT'S GREAT.

I CONSIDER HILL TO BE A FRIEND.

TUESDAY NIGHT AFTER THE EPISODE, HE TEXTED ME, ASKED ME WHAT I THOUGHT AND TO HIS CREDIT -- I THOUGHT HE WAS WONDERFUL AND I TOLD HIM SUCH.

HE SAID THE ONLY PERSON I REALLY CARED ABOUT IMPRESSING WAS YOU.

THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE TYPE OF PERSON WE'RE DEALING WITH.

HE WAS WONDERFUL.

>> THAT'S REALLY COOL AND IT WAS -- IT'S BEEN WELL REVIEWED, HASN'T IT?

>> THE REVIEWS HAVE BEEN MOSTLY GOOD.

I AM -- THE GOOD NEWS FOR ME IS THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO LOVE IT.

THEY ARE FANATICS, THEY THINK IT'S WONDERFUL.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT COIN, THERE ARE THOSE WHO HATE WHAT THEY'VE DONE, THEY THINK IT'S UNWATCHABLE, THEY HATE THE IDEA THAT THEY MADE THIS SORT OF CAMPY -- IT'S A SERIOUS SUBJECT, BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO REALLY DISLIKE IT, BUT WHAT'S HAPPENED IS IT'S CAUSED IT TO BE TALKED ABOUT QUITE A BIT.

THAT'S LENT ITSELF TO BOOK SALES.

THE PODCAST WAS NUMBER ONE.

THERE'S BEEN ALMOST 30 MILLION DOWNLOADS OF THE PODCAST.

IT WAS NUMBER ONE ON APPLE AND IT THEN POPPED UP WHEN THE SHOW CAME OUT, NUMBER ONE AGAIN ON APPLE.

IT'S BEEN WONDERFUL.

>> AND NOW THIS, THIS WILL PROBABLY -- >> NO, WHERE IS PAM HUPP?

WHAT'S HER STANDING NOW?

SHE WAS, YOU KNOW, CHARGED WITH MURDERING THAT YOUNG MAN WHO SHE LURED TO HER HOUSE, PRETENDING SHE WAS ON -- >> DATELINE.

>> DATELINE, AND THERE'S ACCUSATIONS THAT SHE MURDERED HER MOTHER, AND, OF COURSE, BETSY FARIA.

WHAT HAS SHE BEEN CHARGED REQUEST?

>> SHE ENTERED WHAT'S CALLED AN ALFORD PLEA OF GUILTY IN THE GUMPENBERGER CASE IN ST. LOUIS CHARL.

SHE'S SENTENCED TO HIGH OF WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.

SHE WILL NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY.

SHE'S NOW CHARGED WITH THE MURDER OF BETSY FARIA.

THE PROSECUTOR IS ASKING FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.

IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING HOW IT PLAYS OUT BECAUSE YOU HAD AN INVESTIGATION THAT WAS AS POOR AN INVESTIGATION I'VE EVER SEEN IN OVER 33 YEARS OF DOING THIS.

YOU STILL HAVE A VERY SOLID CASE AGAINST HER, BUT IT'S EXTREMELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL BECAUSE THEY NEVER CHECK HER CLOTHING, NEVER CHECK THE INSIDES HER CAR, NEVER TRIED TO CONFIRM HER WHEREABOUTS.

FRANKLY, I WAS THE ONE WHO GOT THE CELL PHONE INFORMATION TO SHOW AT THE TIME OF THE MURDER WHEN SHE WAS MISSING THOSE CALLS, SHE WAS STILL THERE.

BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE DEATH PENALTY ON THAT CASE.

AS FAR AS HER MOTHER GOES, THE PROBLEM IS HER MOTHER IN ALL PROBABILITY LAID DEAD FOR ALMOST 24 HOURS.

THERE'S NO CAMERAS AT THE FACILITY, NO LOCKS.

HER DOOR WAS LEFT AJAR.

SO IT LEAVES SO MANY HOLES IN THAT CASE THAT MAKE IT A DIFFICULT CASE TO PROSECUTE.

I KNOW WESLEY BELL AND I KNOW THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY POLICE ARE INTERESTED IN IT AND ARE CONDUCTING I BELIEVE A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, BUT IT WILL BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO BRING CHARGES THERE.

>> WELL, IN YOUR BOOK, YOU TALK ABOUT HOW WHEN THE POLICE WERE TALKING TO HER ABOUT BETSY FARIA, SHE WAS SAYING IF I WANTED TO KILL SOMEBODY, I'D KILL MY MOTHER, SHE'S GOT MORE LIFE INSURANCE.

IT'S JUST, YOU WOULD WHAT DO WHAT?

>> AND THAT DIDN'T RAISE ANY EYEBROWS WITH THE POLICE.

SHE SAID IT TWICE.

I HATE TO BE MORBID, BUT IF I NEEDED MONEY, I'D JUST KILL MY MOTHER.

I GET $500,000 WHEN SHE DIES.

WHO SAYS THAT, WHO THINKS THAT?

>> PAM HUPP.

WHAT DO DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE PROSECUTION AND THE FOLKS WHO BOTCHED THIS UP?

>> WELL, WHEN DHARGETION WERE ANNOUNCE -- CHARGES WERE ANNOUNCED AGAINST PAM HUPP, HE ANNOUNCED HE WAS LAUNCHING AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE AUTHORITIES WHO HANDLED IT.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL COME OF IT.

I THINK THE STATUTES PROTECTING PROSECUTORS ARE A LITTLE TOO TIGHT IN THAT IF YOU GO OUT OF THE BOUNDS OF YOUR JOB AND THAT CAN BE PROVEN, YOU HIDE EVIDENCE, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, I THINK IT'S NOT JUST CIVIL LIABILITY, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

IF YOU SEND SOMEONE TO JAIL FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE OR SOMEONE ON A SERIOUS CASE LIKE THIS OR ANY CASE, THERE SHOULD BE REPERCUSSIONS.

IT'S A VERY, VERY FINE LINE AND THE DANGER IS, YOU DON'T WANT PROSECUTORS -- IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND YOU GO TO TRIAL AND YOU CAN GET SOMEBODY ACQUITTED, YOU'RE GOING TO GET THAT SLIPLY SLOPE I TALKED OF WHERE SOMEBODY SAYS THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE PROSECUTED ME AND THEN WHO'S THE PROSECUTOR WHO'S GOING TO PROSECUTE THAT PERSON?

THEY'RE THE HEAD PERSON IN THAT JURISDICTION, IT CREATES ALL KINDS OF DIFFICULTIES, BUT SHORT ANSWER, YES, THERE SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABILITY.

>> SEEMS LIKE -- YOU'VE DONE THIS, 33 YEARS, A LOT OF BIG CASES.

THIS IS SINGULAR IN YOUR CAREER, WOULD YOU SAY?

>> I'LL TELL YOU, I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPEN BECAUSE ESPECIALLY NOW BECAUSE OF THE BOOK AND THE SERIOUS, I'M GETTING EMAILS AND CALLS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLAIMING THAT THEY HAVE SIMILAR SITUATIONS.

JUDGE OMER TO HIS CREDIT AFTER THE CASE WAS OVER, HE CAME UP TO ME AND HE TALKED.

HE SAID, JOEL, THERE WAS NOTHING TO THIS.

THERE WAS NOT A FACT I NEEDED TO DIED BETWEEN.

I DIDN'T NEED TO DECIDE WHICH WITNESS WAS TELLING THE TRUTH.

THERE WAS SIMPLY NOTHING SUPPORTING IT.

ASIDE TO THAT, HE ALSO SAID, AND HE WAS VERY CONCERN, IF THIS CAN HAPPEN IN THIS JURISDICTION SO CLOSE TO ST. LOUIS WITH YOU AS THE ATTORNEY, I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE A PERSON WITHOUT RESOURCES THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF MISSOURI.

ON TOP OF THAT, IF YOU'RE AN AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE SOMEWHERE IN MID MISSOURI BEING PROSECUTED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF CHANCE YOU HAVE.

HE THEN TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF AND HE THEN GOT IN THE SYSTEM WHERE HE'S VOLUNTEERING AND HE'S HANDLING THESE CASES TO MAKE SURE AS BEST HE CAN THAT THINGS LIKE THIS DON'T HAPPEN.

I RESPECT THE HECK OUT OF HIM FOR THAT.

>> JOEL, I'VE BEEN COVERING YOU AS AN ATTORNEY SINCE 1991.

I LOOKED UP TODAY THE FIRST TIME I WROTE ABOUT YOU, YOU WERE A PUBLIC DEFENDER, AND SO YOU HAVE BEEN AROUND.

DO YOU THINK THAT THIS STUFF HAPPENS VERY OFTEN?

I MEAN, I'VE SEEN YOU AND SOME OF YOUR COLLEAGUES GET PEOPLE OFF THAT I THOUGHT, WELL, I DON'T THINK -- I THINK THAT PERSON IT DID, BUT MAYBE IT WASN'T PROVEN.

BUT DO YOU THINK THE FLIP SIDE HAPPENS THAT PEOPLE ARE BEING CONVICTED OFTEN FOR STUFF THEY DIDN'T DO?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I'M ONLY 37 YEARS OLD.

I COULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN 1991.

>> YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER.

THE FIRST GUY THAT I WROTE ABOUT WAS -- KIRK DOUGLAS WAS HIS NAME AND HE BROKE INTO HIS EX-WIFE'S APARTMENT, STABBED HER LOVER, WHO LIVED AND TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM AND KIRK'S SON TESTIFIED AGAINST HIM, AND YOU GOT A HUNG JURY.

>> TRUE.

I'VE HAD SOME GOOD JURIES, I'VE HAD SOME LUCK.

THINGS HAVE WORK WELL FOR MYSELF IN MY CAREER AND MY CLIENTS.

IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CONVICTED AND SOMETIMES IT'S OBVIOUS, SOMETIMES YOU JUST DON'T KNOW.

I'VE HAD CASES WHERE I HAD MY DOUBTS, CASES I'VE HAD MYSELF THAT I DON'T KNOW.

THIS WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT IT WAS CLEAR, IT WAS SO SERIOUS AND IT WAS CLEAR AND IT WASN'T SIMPLY HIS INNOCENCE THAT WAS SO CLEAR.

IT WAS JUST SO PATENTLY OBVIOUS AS TO THE PERSON WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED.

>> THAT WILL BE THE LAST WORD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, JOEL SCHWARTZ, AND CONGRATULATIONS.

EVEN BY YOUR STANDARDS, THIS BOOK BONE DEEP AND THE MINI SERIES, AMAZING SUCCESS AND CONGRATULATIONS.

>> GUYS, THANK YOU.

IT'S SO GOOD TO SEE BOTH OF YOU.

>> THANKS.

CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY CAPTION ASSOCIATES, LLC www.captionassociates.com * >> Announcer: DONNYBROOK IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE SUPPORT OF THE BETSY AND THOMAS PATTERSON FOUNDATION AND THE MEMBERS OF NINE PBS.