>> rose: welcome to the programment tonight a look at the global economy. sharmin mossavar-rahmani of goldman sachs takes a look at china, oil and other factors. >> if the financial markets are very volatile, and you end up with huge down drafts that last a long time, they do tighten what we would call financial conditions. meaning there is a confidence effect in terms of consumer confidence, there is an effect on c.e.o.s as they think about their businesses. if credit conditions are tighter, that means it's harder for companies to borrow money. and so if financial conditions tighten too much, they it will have an effect on the real economy. however, our base case-- base case is that we're going to continue having a modest recovery. we're not looking about huge growth in the u.s we're not looking about substantial higher growth rates globally, but still a growth in line with what we had last year.

both from a global perspective and from a u.s. perspective. >> rose: and we turn now to politics with john dikerson of cbs news. >> that's the big question, has bernie sanders found a kind of enthusiastic group of people who are not so much a part of the democratic party but are never the less going to turn out in caucus. and that's one of the great things we'll find out when they actually get into those schools and churches and actually caucus. >> rose: also this evening, laura rich-- ricciardi and moira demos, they are the directors of "making a murderer qutionz on netflix. >> i see a the love talk and response to this, people taking sides debating guilt and innocence, that is actually not what this series is about. it's about failures within our system, and why those are happening and how can we do better. and there is so much that we could unite about or unite over. >> rose: and we conclude this evening with an obit area-- obituary and preeshes of

alan rickman, the british actor who died last week. >> whatever you do as an acker is keum la tiff, it is bb-- cumulative, i say go to art galleries, listen to music, what is happening in the news. in the world and form opinions. develop your taste in judgements so that when a quality piece of writing is put in front of you, you your imagination which you've nurtured has something to bounce off of. >> rose: the global economy, u.s. politics, making a murderer on netflix and we remember alan rickman when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with wall street global markets and the global economy. today was a volatile day for global markets. dow jones closed down 249 points after sinking as low as 565 points. the index has already retreated more than nine percent this year. china remains in focus a day after the government announced that gdp had fallen below 7%. sharmin mossavar-rahmani is chief investment officer of the investment strategy group at goldman sachs. her team remains cautiously optimistic on the outlook for u.s. stocks, that view point was explained in a comprehensive report to clients last week. it was called "the last innings" i'm pleased to have her here at this table, welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: so you are a cautiously optimistic, not withstanding what has happened

since the turn of 2016. >> yes. we are. that's actually the purpose of the title of our outlook. meaning that we're close to the end, but we're not quite there yet. we're not exactly-- . >> rose: it ain't over until it's over, you quoted yogi berra. >> until it's over, it's not over. and our view is whether we are talking about equity markets or the economic recovery, or whether we're talking about the dollar rally, there is still a little bit more left. not a lot. so our expected returns going into 20 is of was a very modest 3, 4% type return for u.s. equities. mod rate growth. and just a little bit left in the dollar rally. however, with everything that is going on in the market place, we are getting all kinds of calls from our clients. should we stay invested. should we get out if the markets are down 10%, is this the first 10%, an down another 20 or 306789 and it seems the memory of 2008 and 2009 is very fresh in people's minds. >> rose: so what do you tell

them? >> so we tell them, first of all, they should be aware that this is one of the roughest starts to a year that we have ever seen. so you can actually go back to 19 tl. and if you look at the lows that we had today, that you just quoted, this would have been the worst first two weeks, two and a half weeks of the year that we have ever seen. if we actually look at the lows through today. if not t would have been the worst since the global financial crisis. so this kind of a down draft in such a short period of time is very rare. and so the question from our perspective, is this indicating something real or is this actually more of a sentiments shift. >> rose: is there a dirchesz between financial markets and the global economy per se? >> that's a very important question. because sometimes if the financial markets are very volatile and you end up with huge down drafts that last a long time, they do tighten what we coo call financial conditions. meaning there is a quf

dense-- confidence effect in terms of consumer confidence. there is an effect on c.e.o.s as they think about their businesses, if credit conditions are tighter, that means it's harder for companies to borrow money. so if financial conditions tighten too much, then it will have an effect on the real economy. however, our base case is that we're going to continue having a modest recovery. we're not look being huge growth in the u.s we're not looking about substantial higher growth rates globally. but still a growth in line with what we had last year. both from a global perspective and from a u.s. perspective. >> rose: you wrote about china too. tell me how you see what's happening in china. >> to give you some perspective in terms of our view in general, for the last several years, we've had the view that people have been particularly optimistic. about china and emerging markets. >> rose: too optimistic. >> too optimistic. and too pessimism about the u.s so after the global financial crisis everybody was saying this is the end of the u.s. century

and this is the rise of china, 291s century belongs to china. and our theme has been people are underestimating the incredible strength of the u.s so u.s. preeminence has been our theme for the last seven years from an investment perspective. >> rose: based on what? >> when you look at the strength of the united states, the diverse economy, you look at what we call human capital fangters, when you look at labor productivity, when you look at the quality of easternings in the long run, when you look at the strength of the institutions, you can go item by item, ease of doing business, governance. and when you compare them to say emerging markets, the u.s. is so far ahead. and actually the gap between the u.s. and other parts of the world, europe, japan, emerging markets, the gap is actually widening across all these factors. so we wrote this china piece because they think while the outlook for china is fine for the next year or so, that maybe china can grow on a headline basis, meaning the type of numbers that they print,

somewhere between 5.8 and 6.8 percentage is our base case. and that's the number they have for 2015. the underlying economic indicators are lower. so they there are a lot of people say these numbers aren't real. and there are a lot of questions about the quality of the data. but if we actually look at underlying economic activity, it's about five to six percent. so five to six percent is not a major hard landing. what is even more important, we're saying that u.s. investors are focusing on china too. chienda is just not that important to the u.s. economy in aggregate. so if you look at exports to china as a percent ofu sgdp it's only .7%. if you look at profits from china, that come to the u.s., it's less than 1 percent. it's actually 0.7%. if you look at bank exposure, everybody is asking, can china produce such a shock to the u.s. that it will be like the subprime mortgage crisis that will then lead into a major

krieses. when you actually look at bank exposure to china t is 0.8%. you look at top line sales invested in p are 5 s&p 500 companies it is less than 2%. so it is thot that significant a number to warrant this kind of a response because china might depreesh yait their currency or is growing a little bit slower. we think the long-term prospect for china are not great. >> rose: the long term. >> the long-term. >> rose: even after they make nsumer demand?om export toir >> in fact, that's the title of that piece that you made a reference to, is walled in. >> yes. >> china's great dilemma. because when it comes to-- . >> rose: walled in, china's great. >> when you talk about the rebalancing, show to shift from export-oriented, investment-led economy to a consumer-oriented economy and implements reform agenda from the third plan they had in 2013, it is a herculean

challenge. and they are walled in in that it is very difficult to implement. >> rose: it is a her her cue lean challenge but can they accomplish it. >> we are not confident in that. we think the challenges are he nr mows. because if they go too slowly, the gdp will increase a lot. if they focus too much on the six and a half percent growth that has been the set target by president xi jinping, he said he wants six and a half percent growth target to they can double gdp per capita and double gdp relative to 2010, that is a very high-growth rate to maintain for the next five years. it's very difficult to actually do that. and so if they focus on that, then debt to gdp will be at unsustainable levels. if they try to do the reforms too quickly, it will be too volatile. and we've already seen their reaction to volatility. they don't like market volume tit, they start to interfere. on one hand they say they will do financial market liberalization.

on the other hand they want to control the currency. they say they need the convertible yensee, but not full convert ability that is why they are walled in. it is very difficult to accomplish what they want to accomplish on the scale that they want to accomplish. and their debt to gdp has just skyrocketed. you have never had any major country have an increase in its dealt to gdp as much as-- its debt to gdp as much as china without a financial crisis. >> rose: any relevance the amount of debt that they hold of treasuries and u.s. debt? >> you mean in terming of the impact on u.s. treasuries? >> rose: right, right. >> their reserves are going down. >> rose: they will slowly sell them off. >> they will slowly diversify and sell them off as they need to address the issue of their depresh yaiting currency. everyone expects their currency to depreesh yait let's say maybe 10% this year, and another 10% next year, they are facing a lot of capital outfloas. so people want to convert it into dollars. including local chinese

citizens. they would like to preserve the value of their assets. but there is a limit on how much they can do. but in response to that, the government has to provide dollars. so they are drawing down on their reserves. and as they are drawing down on their reserves, they are selling treasuries. >> rose: to the u.s. currency as well. i mean has the federal reserve handled it about right or have they been too quick in your judgement or too slow? >> you mean in terms of their-- . >> rose: in interest rates. >> their first hike. >> rose: in december. >> it is quite inkredzable. yellin actually said in her comments that when the fed has been early, they have prevented a recession. from occurring. so in a recovery, if they have acted a little bit early and have been measured, a recession hasn't necessarily followed every fed tightening. soo we have gone back and looked at all the sieblgs when the fed has tightened where it has not resulted in a recession. so what have they had in common? one is being a little bit early. the other is when you have had enough labor market slack. the other is before inflation is

high. so they are actually in some ways being prudent to start a little bit but this is a very cautious fed. they're watching the numbers. if the numbers slow down they will adjust. it's not set in stone that they will raise, let's say, the rate by a hundred basis points by the end of 2016. eacts, getting the processle going, attempting to normalize is important. >> what impact on the market so far. >> if we think about the issues driving the mar kelt, we do think concerns about china which are a little overtbloan. they which concerns about oil prices. obviously oil declining as much as it did in 2015 was a drag on the energy sector, on earnings, having some impact, minimal, on employment in the energy sector. but in aggregate we're not going see that kind of a down draft, but people are very focused on that. so we think that is one element contributing to the volatility and just the uncertainty about the fed. nobody likes uncertainty in fact there is an index called the economic policy uncertainty

index, when that goes up t is actually a drag on growth and on investment. and so uncertainty does kreelt a bilt of a drag. so it has that type of an impact. >> rose: i'm interested to note that as you talk about your forcasting, a lot of it is a reading of history. >> yes. we believe that history is a useful guide. it's not that it ever exactly repeats it self. but people will benefit by better understanding history and having historical perspective. so for example n2008 and 2009 when everybody was saying this is the deathknell of the the u.s. economy, the end of the american sent ree, all we had to do was go back in history, over the last 40, 50 years and see how many times people have called for the end of the american century or the death knell of the u.s., time and time again. >> rose: the decline of the american experience. >> exactly. and time and time again they have been proven wrong.

so for example, it's think being china, we think japan provides a useful guide. china has very bad demographics. their working age population is going to degrees by 0.47% a year. it's very similar to what china had going into 1990. so when china could do no wrong and everybody thought china-- sorry, japan, and japanese management was incredible, and we all had to learn from their management style, their quality management, see what happened since 1990 to japan. we think it's highly-- . >> rose: what is the primary thing that happened to japan. >> well, demographics is a huge drag on growth. >> rose: but were they too slow to react? >> very slow to respond and that's one thing that actually is a big contrast between japan and the u.s i say japan and the u.s u.s. has reacted to its problems very quickly, incredibly-- all cases very resilient so if the banks aren't doing well, the banks deleverage very quickly,

the banks in the u.s. deleverage so much. chinese banks didn't deleverage for over 15 years. if you look at their unemployment rate t didn't change. so the unemployment rate in 1990 through the next 15, 20 years didn't change that much. in the u.s. unemployment went to 10%. so japan tends to be very slow to respond. and china is being very measured and incremental in how they respond. >> rose: what is going to happen to the market the rest of this week? >> if i knew, i wouldn't be sitting here. realistically what we tell our clients is that they need to be patient. they need to be thoughtful and be long-term investors and not be swaid by the extreme sentimentses of the market. and we're thinking right now that this is just too much of a shift. there's nothing in the underlying fundamentals of the u.s. economy that have changed so much to justify a market that is down as much as let's say 11% to the trust that we had today. >> one last question, oil prices which everybody, are now below

30. are going furlt down? or will we begin to rise maybe six months from now? >> short term, it could definitely go lower. i think the momentum is so strong. and the political tensions between iran and saudi arabia are so vocal and they keep on talking about their respective market shares. so that could mean prices could be lower for awhile. but by the end of in this year, the amount has actually been pretty steady. people say there say dert of demand, not enough consumption. in fact, con shump shun has averaged 1.2, 1.3 million barrels a day increase for the last five years and last year was actually up 1.75 million barrel ares. so it is actually increasing. even in china with the concerns, demand has increased. the question is really an oversupply of about one-to-one and a half million barrels a day. nobody knows exactly what the number is. but if u.s. production is lower by about 500,000 barrels which is about the average of numbers

that is expected for this year, and you have demand growth, and let's say iran does actually produce an extra 500,000 barrels a day, the market will come in balance towards the end of the year. >> rose: so your principal advice seems to me to be to your client, is be patient. >> yes. and very importantly, have a very good well diversified portfolio so that they can afford to sit and shall patient and withstand this volatility. >> rose: thank you for coming. pleasure to you have, i hope will you come back. >> thank you very much, thanks for having me. >> rose: we'll be right back. john dikerson is here to tell us what the politics look like going into the iowa caucus on february 1s. stay with us. #r we continue this evening with politics. our caucuses will take place in less than two weeks. donald trump remains the frontrunner in the race for the republican nomination. on tuesday former vice presidential candidate sarah palin officially endorsed him. she spoke at a trump campaign

rally in in iowa. >> only his record of success proves he is the master of the art of the deal. he is beholden to no one but we the people, how refreshing. is he perfectly positioned to let you make america great again. >> rose: democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders meanwhile extended his lead over hillary clinton in new hampshire. joining me from washington is john dikerson, political director of cbs news and the anchor of "face the nation." i'm pleased to have him back on this program. tell me where you think it stands first in iowa. >> which is not an actual election. i think we should remember about the caucuses. but you know, it's neck and neck between trump and cruz, the great thing we're going to find out is whether another one of the rules that donald trump has broken is the rule that you have to go spend all the time in iowa, go through all 99 county,s go g into a diner and get syrup on your shirt sleeves while you are talking to people endilessly trying to build your votes in

the caucuses vote by vote. if he wins or does very well he would have done it with a kind of new method. but ted cruz is doing well there. a, because he has strength in the evangelical community but also because he's got a very strong organization. the big question, or another big question other than between those two is who comes in third. and how might that help build their candidacy going down the road. in terms of hillary clinton and bernie sanders, there is this echo of 2008 for hillary clinton. she was ahead in the polls in iowa and now bernie sanders is coming up fast. and there is some question about whether she will win there. the big difference between this race and 2008 is that they didn't stee barack obama coming for much of the 2008 race in iowa. hillary clinton was ahead. and he was a bit of a surprise. in this case, hillary clinton went into iowa with planning in every possible way for a challenger. even when bernie sanders was at 3% in the polls because iowa was going to show that she had sent

away those demons of 2008, that she had an o, that she had real enthusiasm, she wasn't expecting this just to be a cor onation. so if she loses, it will be a loss against everything she could possibly out be the field. >> rose: what is her ground game like compared to bernie sanders, or does it matter? >> well, it's very strong. it's very strong and she's got some of the best op rattives in the state working for her. and she's got a lot of the long time democratic operatives. but she does not have at the moment, it looks like she doesn't have the enthusiasm of the kind of younger activists, kind of democrats who are not sort of party people. and that's the big question. has bernie sanders found a kind of enthusiastic group of people who are not so much a part of the dem grat-- democratic party but are never the less going to turn out in caucus, that is one of the great things we'll find out when they actually get into those schools and churches and actually caucus. >> when you look at it, though. there is iowa and then a week

later there is new hampshire and then there is south carolina. even if she loses, in iowa and loses in new hampshire, as it may happen, what does that do? does it derail her candidacy? >> we don't know what it would do. we know that she has a strong organization going pretty much throughout all the states and she's thought this through, her experience in 2008. they know that they need to have and needed to have a structure going all the way through the rest of the process. i remember being in south carolina talking to her people on the ground. several months ago there. and they were planning, they were organizing in south carolina as if it were 2008. and they were facing barack obama. there were people working very hard a long time ago in south carolina. and so she has that structure in those future states. which will help her. however, how much will if help her if the story line for several days, for weeks, now this is assuming that she doesn't do well in iowa or new

hampshire, the story line is oh my gosh, she's been beaten in these two places by bernie sanders. we just don't know what that kind of constant day after day coverage would do in those future states. >> rose: and she's notly-- necessarily, she is about even with leading republicans, whether it's trump or krudz or whoever it might snb. >> in those polls she's-- depending on the poll you look at, she is winning in some, losing in some. those are-- those are-- those don't tell us much but what it does do a little bit, and there are some polls that even show bernie sanders doing better than her in the general election, it saps her elect ability argument it takes some of the energy from it. although she has a new ad out today, arguing that she had been tested and cannot only do the job, but also take on republicans. she's run a couple of ads trying to make that case. which is if you think of the primary process being based around two big ideas. one is a candidate in sync with me idea logically, and two is

the candidate electable. she is not winning in the idea logical category. the diehard democrats are grooving more to what bernie sanders has to say. and so for her, st a better case to make that she has the kind of tested skills and elect ability. although that is obviously the sanders people are fietding that characterization as well. >> rose: does the fact that she wants to be very close to barack obama help her? iowa and new hampshire and south carolina? >> it helps her in all thoses places. ate that lovers barack obama. gave him his spark and that he won twice in the general. in south carolina, it helps her. and also she is trying to make the case now and we've heard it a little bit more after the last debate, that bernie sanders is a socialist. out of the mainstream of denl krattic thinking. she is arguing that she is going to take the obama game and build on them. and it's a consecutive argument. that she is going to lift the party and be pragmatic and

successful. and that bernie sanders is jis a kind of a skip beyond, that he's just too far out there as a candidate. and so to the extent that she is saying that she is the next chapter in the book after barack obama, and that bernie sanders is not that next thing, that's one of the benefits of hugging barack obama. >> rose: we are talking about democratic voters but it is so interesting to me that his poll numbers are so low and yet she feels within the democratic party she has to be close to him. >> well, but within the democratic party, he's still a hero for much of what he has done and particularly within the african-american community, which is an important part of the vote in south carolina. and she wants to be able to have ta constituency as her base when she gets into the general election. ot bama coalition. and so his numbers are low nationally. but she still wants to be a part of the love that he still has in the democratic party. >> rose: but sanders does better among the young than she does. >> two to one in some polls. he beats her among the young

which is to say that hugging barack obama isn't the same as prentding the kind of obama-like sense of hope and vision that bernie sanders has. for people disillusioned with politics, bernie sanders conveys his conviction for the ideas through his poars, not through his mouth. is he a gut-level politician who believes these things his whole life. and if you got into politician-- politics because you believed in those same things too, then are you connecting through the heart with bernie sanders. you you can't replicate that by hugging the previous candidate who did that, which was barack obama. >> rose: let me turn back to the republicans. who is likely to come in third baisessed on where we are today? >> oh boy, in eye a ra-- iowa. >> rose: yes, yes, iowa. >> because the fight for third is the most fascinating, i mean could you have a case in iowa where in 1996 lamarre alexander was the story coming out of iowa. he was third and that was basically because you had a

dole-buchanan fight and alexander did better in iowa and it gave him a boost on his way to new hampshire it didn't turn out for him after that. but if rubio comes in third in iowa, which is where the polls have it at the moment, then that gives him-- talking to people in iowa, there are a lot of kind of mainstream republicans who have said we really want to coa less around rubio. he just needs to give us a reason to and he hasn't in the last couple of debates. i have talked to these various people and called back and said did he do it for you. they said well, kind of, but not really. the affections are split between rubio, kasich, bush and christie, so if he does well in iowa, it will give him a good talking point in terms of being able to say okay, if are you really worried about ted cruz or donald trump, we on the rest of the party need to coa less behind a single candidate. but in it is--ed field shifts a little bit at new hampshire bus

those nontrump and krz candidates are all bunched in a way that is closer than it is in iowa. >> rose: kasich was doing well in new hampshire. spending a lot of time there. but you told me before we started, recent polls show bush is now in second place. >> there is now a wmu r poll that shows bush with 10% age points, so that has him tied for third with marco rubio in new hampshire and kasich at six percentage points. these polls, we are in the crazy season for polls. not all of them are created equal. some of them are, you know, maybe good polls, normally but they might have a bum one. so we all need to be supercareful. but to the extent that we need to be careful, we also need to be careful in evaluating the candidate claims when they say well, i'm coming in third in the polls. well, john kasich has been saying he has been coming in third, even moving up on second. it adds to thell, he's not in

extent-- excitement because we don't really know where things are. but if one of those candidates, whoever comes in third behind, well, or secretary in new hampshire, it could be winnowing. we could have if one of those mainstream candidates comes in fourth, that very well could be the end of their candidacy. >> here is an interesting thing someone said to me about the republican party. one-third of it is people who simply are fed up with the system. that they're going for donald trump. one-third of it is movement, conservatives and evangelicals and many of them are going for ted cruz. and one-third is sort of the establishment party and that's a third. so one-third, one-third, one-third. the problem is the one-third that is devoted to the establishment is split among four candidates. and how soon will that winnowing take place. and by the time it takes place, will donald trump or ted cruz have built up so much head win that they're unstoppable? >> yeah, this is what is going to be so fun and exciting about

the republican race. because take those thirds. and those might be the national numbers. but they're not the numbers that they split state by state. so you have a greater proportion, greater share of evangelicals in iowa. so then in new hampshire, you have fewer evangelicals, south carolina even more evangelicals and the sec primaries on the-- in the beginning of march. which are more sort of trump-cruz territory. but then the 15th of march you have florida and ohio, those are more considered sort of rubio, christie, bush, kasich territory. and also the way the delicates are a porgsessed, you could have the real meat of the del gats, in those winner take all contests are actually later. but to your point, what if a candidate who would be normally because of the pootions they hold, the views and values they have, would set up to do well in ohio an florida, but they can't survive that long because they get trownsed in iowa and new hampshire and south carolina. we don't know. we're in unchartered territory.

the goat un-- quote unquote establishment part of the party will be very interested in keeping the conversation going until march 159. until those later contests where establishment type candidates would have a chance to do well and also get a share, get a big number of delicates because of the winner take all rather than the proportionate distribution of delegates in those contests. so we're going to just see how this plays out. angry it could take a very long time for it to be sorted out. >> the story this year is donald trump. how has he done it? >> well, he has taken his celebrity and used that to attract a new kieb of people. and this is another great unanswered question. he is attracting a lot of people who aren't necessarily participating in the political process. he has taken them and taken their anger at washington but also at their own party. he has harnessed it and then he

has basically held on to it. and he's been able to sustain. think about how long he has been at the top of things. >> and how many near death experiences he has endured. and he has a real skill for knowing what the shiny object is, how to control the new cycle. how to in some cases gas light his opponents. how in some cases to just bully them and, i mean, so for example, he's essentially bullied jeb bush. he has more sort of gas-lighted and tweak thed ted cruz, he has a lot of different weaponry in the way he takes on his opponent. and he has used the media very well. and he has a real talent for understanding the grieveances of a portion of the republican party and the conservative movement out there. very angry. and as somebody said to me, he was trying to explain trump, he was in the republican party. he speaks for people who are angry and want somebody to kind

of punch the establishment in the nose on their behalf. and that's what he has done. >> rose: with glee. >> yes, right. and he's dlietded in it and jeb bush talked about wanting to be the joyful candidate in this case. donald trump is the joyful candidate. he is having a blast doing this. and people like to be part of a movement. when you go to his rallies, i've never seen on the republican side anything like it where the sense of worship is maybe too strong-- but they love what he's offering. >> rose: john, thank you so much it is a pleasure to have you here as you know, thank you so much. john dikerson from cbs. back in a moment. stay with us. steven avery was wrongfully convicted of sexual assault and attempted murder in 1985. he served 18 years in a wisconsin state prison before he was exonerated by dna evidence in 2003. in 2005 shortly after filing a

lawsuit genls the county that wrongfully convicted him, avery became the prime suspect in the murder of theresa hallbatch, a new netflix documentary series chronicalled his cross keution and eventual conviction it is called "making a murderer." new york times calls the documentary, immersive, exulsive and unpredictable. here is the trailer from "making a murderer". >> the people that were close to steve knew he was always happy, happy, happy. always wanted to make other people laugh. >> they didn't dress like everybody else. they didn't have education like other people, the avery family didn't fit into the community. >> stevie did do a lot of stupid things but he always owned up to everything he did wrong.

>> is t is when the trouble started. >> penny was everybody that steven wasn't. so just think of the two of them, side-by-side. >> there was no real investigation done by the sheriff's department. >> the sheriff told the da not to screw this case up. he wanted aprilry convicted of this crime. >> there isn't one iota of physical evidence in this case that connects steven avery to it. in fact, the sheriff was told by the police, you have the wrong guy. >> steven avery spent 18 years in prison for something he didn't do. >> 18 years. >> 18 years. >> dna had come through indicating that he had not committed the crime. >> law enforcement officers realized that they had screwed up big time. we were getting ready to bring a lawsuit, 36 million dollars, the kowbtee itself and the sheriff and the da would be on the hook for those damages. >> they're not handing that kind of money over to steve avery. i did tell him, be careful.

they are not even close to being finished with you. >> do we have a body or anything yet? >> i don't believe so. >> do we have steven avery in custody though? >> are you kidding me? >> the disappearance of theresa remains a mystery. >> mr. avery's blood was found inside of her vehicle. >> everybody's listening what do you want to say today. >> i'm innocent. >> if con victd steven avery will spend the rest of his life in prison. >> we found a key. that key was scrubbed and his dna was placed on it. >> it's really strange. >> what's going on here. >> the last stop monday, was in steven avery's home. >> if he did this, maybe it was good he was in prison all that time. >> from everything i heard him say, it hasn't been the truth. >> it was extraordinarily disturbing. >> we when through this 20 years ago and we're going through it now again. >> this criminal justice system, good luck. >> you are probably the most

dangerous individual ever to set foot in this court room. >> the truth always comes out. >> rose: joining me are the directors. laura ricciardi and moira demos, i'm pleased to have them at this table for the first time, welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> thank you, pleasure to be be here. >> rose: how did this start for you. >> back in november of 2005 we were graduate film students from ont page of the "new yorkn the times" and the headline was freed by did na, now charged in new crime. and we recognized steven as this potentially unique window into the system as somebody who had been failed by the system in 1-9d 85. now found himself back in it 20 years later. >> rose: when you looked at it and looked at his conviction the second time? >> well so at that point he had

really just been charged. >> rose: right. >> in the murder ef theresa hallblock. so you know, as laura said, this idea that this man who had been failed so terribly by the system and really failed for 18 years, you know, there had been opportunities for the system to correct itself. and it hadn't. and now he was stepping back in 20 years later. and you know, in that 20 years there had been advances in dna. there had been legislative reforms. there was a lot of talk that wrongful convictions done happen any more. this say thing of the past. and we didn't have dna back then. and you know, it was an opportunity to sort of test that theory. so at that point we decided to go into production and we went to wisconsin. we moved there. and then documented this new case, this theresa murder case and it unfolded. so the series sort of gives you this opportunity to use, you know, what we like as 2020 hindsight it is very easy to look back at something.

>> rose: a couple of things about it, it is so intriguing and so interesting. everybody talks about it. did you v when you went to make the film did you have a deal with netflix to do that or you just were. >> no, absolutely not it was the two of us, corralk some family and frenlds. >> rose: to go down do this. >> it was all self-funded. >> rose: why do you think everybody is talking about this? what is it about this that we haven't said already that makes it so compelling? >> well, i think for the most part people understand that the criminal justice system isn't perfect. but i think what this series really demonstrates is you know, what happens when it goes wrong. and the cases in this series are really a stark illustration of that. one of the major characters in the series was pulled into the system and became a codefendant with steven in the hallback case. he was 16 years old at the time. and incredibly limited.

his iq was somewhere in the range of 73, 67 to 7 approximate. and this was an individual who was intergated alone by the investigators. and just really out of his depth. and had no prior experience with law enforcement so i think that's one of the most troubling aspects of this story. and we hear quite a bit about that from people who have watched. >> rose: do you two dimp over any aspect of this in terms of how you read it? >> i think after a decade really working hand-in-hand. >> rose: you see it. >> i think we see it, you know, i think we recognize different things as we were experiencing it. but then you know, going through that experience, and then going through all the footage and doing additional research and digging through primary source materials is, i think we ended up in the same place. >> so do you think steven avery killed theresa? >> i don't really have a way of answering that. because i have so many

unanswered questions. >> rose: you have been asked that a thousand times. >> well, no, the issue is that despite this being the largest criminal investigation in wisconsin's history, apparently, mi still left with so many unanswered questions. >> rose: so the answer is i don't know. >> exactly. >> rose: is your answer different. >> that's right. >> rose: you just don't know. >> that's right. >> rose: there are too many unanswered questions. and how are going-- are you going to answer those questions. >> and also i don't think the system is designed to deliver certaintiy. one of the major take a ways for me with respect to our process was you know, part of our inquirery was to what extent can the system deliver hon its-- on its promises of truth and justice. and i really came away from this process thinking that the system can do a better job of delivering truth. -- i'm sorry, justice which is a process. >> rose: than truth. >> that's right. we cannot always count on the system to reveal truth. i mean there is so much

ambiguity in these matters. they are extremely complex. and there are so many ingredients that go into the investigation and fros keution of a case. one of the things we really wanted to do for our viewers was to documented pretrial proceedings. what came before the trial phase so that view ires could understand and preeshtd preeshtd-- appreciate what basic rights defense attorneys are fielting-- fighting for at that point. significant decisions the judge is making which determine what types of evidence the jury even gets to hear. >> right. >> rose: you know, we've been criticized recently for not including all evidence in the series. and you know, what i would say to that is, this is a documentary, it's not playing out in realtime. and of course we have to make editorial choices about the types of evidence that gets in. but even a jury in a criminal case doesn't hear all of the evidence that either side would like to offer. because the judge is making decisions of the pretrial stage

about, you know, what types of evidence is reliable. what might tend to prejudice the jury. >> rose: okay. is it one of the questions that is unanswered for you. >> uh-huh. >> rose: was somebody so upset as steven avery because he filed a lawsuit that they set out to ruin his life? >> well, i think the conflict of interest that was very present in this case, the fact that steven did have this pending lawsuit against the county an toof its former officers, and the fact that that county said that they were going to have nothing to o do with this investigation. and as you learn in the series, and as witnesses come to trial, you find out that they were very much involved in the investigation. in fact, they were the ones finding some of the key evidence. and so when i'm asked to have trust in that evidence when there is such a clear conflict of interest, when an individual

has a vested interest in the outcome of the trial, i think that raises serious questions. roll tape, take a look at this. >> they weren't just going to let stevie out. they weren't going to hand that man 36 million dollars. they weren't going to be made a laughingstock, that's for sure. they just weren't going to do all that and something is going to happen. they're not handing that kind of money over to steve avery. >> we told him he could expect people to say that this was just a get-rich effort. that family, private matters would now be public and you know, don't be too surprised if people say some things about you that you have never even herd before, that are just plain false. the only thing we didn't tell him is you have to be careful when you bring a lawsuit against

a sheriff's department in a community where you still live because you could end up getting charged with murder. >> rose: so they are raising the question, doesn't it. >> absolutely. >> rose: through the voices of those people. >> right. well, steven himself could not make sense of what was happening to him. he proclaimed his innocence in the case. and he just could not understand how he found himself back in this position. and i think in an effort to try to make sense of what was happening, he looked at the lawsuit that he had filed that was pending, that was actually going very well for his side, and thought prams law enforcement has done something here, something improper to try to derail that lawsuit. rps how long is the trial, the 2007 trial lasted how long? >> it was just over five weeks, steven's trial. >> rose: 200 hours have been. >> sng around that, yeah, i guess that is how the math works out. >> rose: so you have to decide

what to include and what to exclude. >> sure. i pleen his striel, i think in our series takes just over three hours. and that includes press conferences and out of court scenes, so not even three hours of court room footage, yeah. >> rose: what is the biggest question you have now? having gone through all this? having seen it become a sensation or much talked about in terms of media conversation? >> i guess the major question i come away with is to what extent are we as a society going to step up and try to. >> that is what i thought you would say. in other words what will it take to change the system. >> that's right. and a big part of that is trying to recognize an injustice as it is happening. and to try to interruption that. because, you know f we don't do that and it leads to a wrongful conviction, that also necessarily leads to a wrongful

acquittal which means an innocent person is being locked away while the guilty person, you know, is left free. and we see that in the first episode with steven of aerie and gregory allen who went on to attack women for ten years while steven of aerie was in prison serving gregory allen's term. >> right. >> so my biggest question is, how can we-- how can we come together on this. you know, because i see a lot of talk and response to this series. people taking sides. debating guilt and innocence when that's actually not what this series is about. it's about failures within our system and why those are happening and how could we do better. and there is so much that we could unite about. or unite over about this, as laura mentioned. a wrongful conviction is a wrongful acquittal. i mean you don't have to care about the person going to prison wrongly. you should care about, you know, ill doer on your street. >> rose: right, exactly.

>> yeah. >> rose: so what happens now. do most people just watch it all the way through? they cannot resist once they start it so. >> have i been hearing a lot of that. >> yeah, people in one day or over the course of two days, which you know, frankly surprises me a little. we are asking a lot of our viewers, it is a very dense series. >> rose: st, but it drags you right in. after you see one, you want to know. because till the very end there are unanswered questions. >> there are. we're not-- we're not giving you the answer. we're raising questions here. and the goal was to start a dialogue. >> rose: thank you, great to you have here. >> thank you so much. >> rose: thank you very much. >> truly. >> rose: z "making a murderer." ten episodes of it are available, guess where, on netflix. alan rickman died last week after battling pan cree attic can semplet he was 69. he was a beloved acker of both stage and screefnlt ian mckelan wrote of rickman

behind that mournful face which was just as beautiful when racked with myrth, there was a sierp acting spirit, questing and achieving, a herror he trained at the royal academy of dramatic art in london and a member of the royal shakespeare can he made his film day but in diehard. he would go on to play many memorable characters in films such as robin hood prince of thieves, galaxy quest and love actually. his performance as the enig maict self russ snaip in harry potter everybodied him a new generation of fans in his later ka reemplet alan rickman appeared on this program two times. here is a look at those conversations. >> the trouble in theater is that, you know, i can only speak for myself, is that there is this huge fear factor you have to deal with. at least on fim, if you screw up, you can do another take. but and it doesn't go away, the fear thing.

>> i read that you said that, that show still today with all that you have done, the fear factor is there. >> uh-huh. >> as you begin. does it go away during the run of a piece. >> on certain nights if you can, you know, if you can get it to push down intoed right place. it's something that i guess is connected to a descren lynn and focus and energy and all of those things. but it's a useless thing. it's not really very positive. and it's just like a little grem lynn that sits on your shoulder and tries to make you fail. often succeeds. >> rose: really? >> it's negative. it doesn't do any good. i'm seriously thinking of trying to find some kind of hypnosis or get rid of it because it's useless. >> rose: seriously trying to find hypnosis to get over the fear of being on stage, coming from one of our better, best actors. >> well, i am not alone. you know t say common problem.

>> rose: it-- we're talking about something much more than simply forgetting your line, aren't we? >> it a lot about that, fear of that. no, i mean, but that say terrible thing. >> rose: i would think, i would think. i mean that would scare me to death. >> but then it becomes a self-again raising problem. because unless you can get your concentration into the right place, then this little grem lynn goes up into your head and while you're speaking it is d then your brain is goingn't forward and backwards and trying to speak at the same time. >> rose: and be motivated and all that stuff. >> exactly. >> i have had some very good teachers. and they make you aware of the can cliff space you are standing on. you made this choice, you're going to do it. now take the risks. peter burk, when i was first at stratford he was directing anthony and cleopatra. he came back after it was on to see it during the run.

and we would meet him in the rehearsal room and he said how is if going. and we say well, this is working, that is not working. this is better than that was, we still can't-- with in. and he said you know it always amazes me that when i come back to see a shoarks especially when are you dealing with a great text like this one, he said the thing is, you will never be as good as the play. and i thought well that's sort of relaxing in a way. >> rose: you'll never be as good as. >> as this place. whenever young actors now say to me what advice do you give me, you know, i'm think being training. i want to be an actor, whatever. i say forget about acting. and i really mean it at that point in time. because whatever you do as an actor is cumulative. it's about-- so i say go to art galleries, listen to music, may what is happening in the new, in the world, and form opinions,

develop your taste in judgement so that when a quality piece of writing is put in front of you, your imagination which you've nurtured has something to bounce off of. >> rose: an are you have a uniqueness. >> and then you have to start learning about courage, i think. >> rose: koirnlg. >> yeah, because you have to be courageous with yourself on stage, i think, emotionally. i was talking about this this morning. cuz i watched awhile ago, one of those ted talks with talking about having-- when jill had a stroke and she is there on her ted talk holding up a brain and showing the two halves of the brain and saying here is the analytical side. here is the imaginative side. and it made me think that actually one thing that actors and dancers see as musicians do, is to actually use both sides of

their brain at the same time. because you have to hang yourself over completely to whateverred emotional demands of a part. but certainly-- well, and in front of a film camera but certainly on stage. this kind of gieger counter, in laser or something that is at exactly the same time, assessing what is happening out there, and what is happening there. to the person you are talking to. and did this work? now that one dant land, now i have to pick up that word. but at the same time, the bit of you that doesn't know it's lying, because of course, we're divided from the neck up it's just a load of lies. but the rest of you has no idea that it's lying. so that's the punishing part of acting is taking the rest of your body into there strange place that finds it hard to recover from. >> all age rickman, dead at 69.

for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for charlie rose is provided by the following:

a kqed television production. >> i was like sort of old fisherman's wharf. maybe a little like -- with a -- >> the calories, the cholesterol and the heart attack you might have. >> like an adventure. put it out of your mind. >> oatmeal with a touch of dog. >> i did