Post Mortem | The Concerning Case Against Jane Dorotik

Hey, I'm Brett Podolsky, co-founder of The Farmer's Dog.

We make fresh food for dogs.

We started the company when we saw what a huge difference it made in my own dog, Jada, when she stopped eating ultra-processed kibble and started eating fresh whole food.

The farmer's dog food isn't fancy, it's just real food delivered to your door in pre-portioned packs.

It's better for them and easier for you.

Get 50% off your first box at thefarmersdog.com/slash trial50.

That's thefarmersdog.com/slash trial fifty.

You're tuned into auto intelligence live from auto trader, where data, tools, and your preferences sync to make your car shopping smooth.

They're searching inventory.

Oh, yeah.

They find what you need.

They're gonna find it.

Can make a budget for you, Polly, to help you succeed.

Pricing's precise and true.

So true.

Get smart at car shopping.

Just for you.

Oh, it's just for you.

Find your next ride at auto trader.com, powered by auto intelligence

hello everyone i'm anne-marie green welcome to postmortem this week we are delving into the murder of bob dwartik and the wrongful conviction of his wife jane She spent nearly two decades in prison trying to prove her innocence.

It's really an emotional roller coaster watching this hour.

Joining me to discuss this incredible story, our 48 Hours correspondent, Aaron Moriarty, and producer Ruth Chenitz.

Thanks for joining us.

Glad to be here.

I love this case because I think it's a great cautionary tale and every defense attorney should be paying attention to this case.

So true.

So listen, before we get into it, Ruth, I want you to give our listeners a bit of a recap of this case.

So Jane and Bob Dorotek were married.

They had three grown children and they lived in, at the time, probably considered a rural area outside of San Diego and they had a ranch and horses and Bob was a big runner.

So Jane says the last time she saw Bob was around 1 p.m.

on February 13th, 2000.

And she says Bob left the house to go for a run and she grew concerned when hours passed and he still hadn't returned.

So later that evening at 7.45 p.m., she decides, I'm really worried and makes a call to the sheriff's department to report that he was missing.

And they start looking, and the next morning, they found Bob's body on the side of a road just a few miles from his home.

And they realized pretty quickly this wasn't a car accident.

This wasn't that he died of natural causes because he had blunt force trauma to his head and a rope around his neck.

The sheriff's department talked to Jane, and in looking around at the bedroom, they feel that they're seeing lots of blood scattered throughout the bedroom and spots around the bedroom.

So three days after his body is found, they arrest Bob's wife, Jane Dorotek, and charge her with first-degree murder.

When I was watching the first part of this episode, I couldn't help but to think, you know, there seems to be some convincing evidence against Jane, like what seemed to be blood spatter found in the bedroom.

Aaron, over two decades that you've been reporting this case now, did you ever doubt Jane's innocence?

Well, pretty much.

I always thought she was innocent.

There's no question.

I got on the story because actually I was working with a producer who had met her first and said, Aaron, you've got to do this.

When you meet her, she acts the way we would act if we had been accused of a crime we didn't do.

She answers every question.

And if she doesn't know it, she's honest and says, I don't know.

This doesn't make sense.

And this was a time when with 48 hours, we basically moved in with people i mean we were there for weeks and um she would let us in the house she would always sit down and talk with me there was one time she wasn't as open with me during an interview and that made me a little worried but i don't think i ever really changed in thinking there's just no way this woman did this i think that's such an interesting tidbit that you gave us because as i was watching the hour i thought to myself i bet you jane likes eric i thought that you know i thought she liked you as a person and that's part of the reason she was being so open.

I liked her too.

Yeah.

You know, I really.

But now remember, just put yourself back where I was.

Here's this woman who says her husband went for a run.

And then we're hearing from the police and there's an enrament that says there's blood in the bedroom, which is an absolute contradiction of her story.

You're also thinking, what to believe.

Also, one of the things is if this were happening today, an attorney would have been sitting next to Jane

throughout the entire thing.

I think people are more suspect today of the media and more suspicious.

You know, it's up to the individual person whether they want to let us in and how much time they want to spend and who'd be there.

But it's just different these days.

Yeah.

So let's get back to the bloodstains in the Dortex bedroom and in their home.

That was a big reason why authorities zeroed in on Jane.

We learned that investigators identified 20 locations of different bloodstains.

even if their home was a working ranch.

That seems like a lot, right?

Well, yes.

But now with the benefit of hindsight, I realize that I shouldn't have accepted that quite so quickly.

We did hear that there was blood spatter on the ceiling, but what had hit me was I saw a picture of a blood stain on a mattress.

And what also struck me and worried me, you know, in my heart was the fact that the mattress had been turned over.

so that was

that seemed incriminating and jane had an explanation for some of the blood right not all but she said in terms of the mattress that bob had had a nosebleed and you know if you think about it are you going to want to lay on the side that's bloody or might you turn it over and they had a dog who had bled two dogs yeah uh i think one had one issue one one blood from the snout one had a

i want to say like a hangnail, but whatever you call that in a dog.

So she had explanations for some of it, but she also said to Aaron, I can't explain all of it.

But then why wouldn't they have at least say tested to see if there's dog DNA there?

We have to go back.

Remember, this is 2000.

All right.

We can't look at it through the lens of today where we know that testing is so much better.

But again, I didn't know as a reporter to ask, what kind of tests have you done?

And what they ended up doing, and some of it was

Bob's blood.

But if they saw like six little dots in one spot, they might have tested three of those.

You test representative samples, but then you can't say or shouldn't say

everything was tested.

And it all came back to Bob.

Let's talk about another bit of evidence.

There was a syringe in the bathroom trash with traces of horse tranquilizer inside.

Which was normal.

Yeah, because it's a ranch, right?

But was there any horse tranquilizer found in Bob's system?

No, no.

And so that was one of those pieces of evidence that on the face of it looks like it's relevant, you know, but it's really not.

Let's listen to a clip from the broadcast of Jane.

I can't really explain it other than

I know that I helped Bob clean up a nosebleed.

And if that's the same time when I took the syringes and threw them in the trash and there was some blood on my hand, that could have

made that happen.

The importance, I guess, of the syringe, it looked bad because there was blood on the syringe, Bob's blood, and you have a fingerprint on the syringe and it was Jane's fingerprint.

So it really wasn't relevant.

It just looked bad.

And one thing where you think, well, that's weird that there's this bloody syringe in a garbage garbage pail.

When we spoke to another expert, Nathan Lance,

actually said in his mind, that pointed fingers away from Jane, because if you're going to be cleaning up a crime scene, we all know criminals can do stupid things, but would you leave a bloody syringe in the trash?

Right.

And then, so here's kind of the other aspect of what the prosecution.

believed that Jane attacked her husband in the bedroom and then transported him in a truck to dump his body.

I mean, there's a reason why there's a phrase sort of dead weight.

I mean, people are heavy.

People are much heavier than they look.

So I did think, geez, that would be really hard.

I remember, and this was an issue for us, one of the reasons why I believed her.

You know, she was probably my size,

you know, my height, and she had a bad back.

And the idea, like you talk about dead weight of not only getting her husband out of the bedroom, but getting him onto that truck seemed inconceivable.

And the prosecution didn't seem to be troubled by that.

But was there any evidence of blood found in the truck?

When they tested initially, they found a very small stain in the wheel well of the truck that had Bob's DNA.

But it's Bob's truck.

It's a working ranch.

It wasn't that there were puddles and pools of blood.

Yeah.

So

was that significant?

Hard to know.

Authorities arrest Jane, though, I mean, three days, three days after the murder.

That seems really quick because we've talked about some 48-hour episodes where, you know, the suspect is walking around for months until they collect enough evidence.

Three days.

Well, it's too quick for really two reasons.

One big one is they didn't even have all their test results back.

So they're making basically this assumption and making it public and, you know, saying this woman is accused of killing her husband.

And then for the other reason why it was too early is you can't go back on it then.

You know, they haven't investigated the reports of seeing a man out there jogging.

But how do you backtrack after you've already said we have evidence, strong evidence to indicate this woman killed her husband when you don't even have your test results?

Yeah.

So then it's a year later in 2001, a year after Bob's murder and the case finally goes to trial.

For me, what made this trial, you know, particularly shocking was, of course, Jane's Jane's sons who testify against their mother at trial.

This is her son, Alex, on the stand being questioned by the defense.

Your mother always settled things logically, tried to.

No.

You wouldn't agree with that statement?

Nope.

It would be my mom basically saying, this is what you have to accept.

And then my dad would either accept it or

there would be threats of divorce or something.

That's what I remember from growing up.

Okay, so he's describing, you know, which is something that's not the happiest marriage, but anyone who's married knows that sometimes things ebb and flow.

But, I mean, this must have broken Jane's heart.

And it did.

It did.

The idea that not one, but both sons testified against their mother at a murder trial is very, very damaging and was very difficult for her.

And I think in terms of the prosecution, one of the things they're trying to explain to the jury is, you know, the motive.

And the motive was that the marriage was on the rocks and they didn't get along as great as people thought.

So the sons provided, in their mind, I'm sure, like eyewitnesses to that fact.

Yeah, the prosecution told the jurors that this was a broken marriage.

She was the primary breadwinner and she didn't want to pay alimony.

And that was

what the jury was told.

So you have the sons testifying against her.

And then on the other hand, you have Jane's daughter, Claire.

She remained convinced that her mother could not have committed this murder.

Claire didn't testify at trial, but she gets pulled into the defense's argument in a really surprising way.

Jane's attorney claims that Claire is the one that killed her father.

How did Claire feel about this defense?

It's risky.

Anne-Marie, I have to tell you, that decision on the part of the defense attorneys to try to save a mother by pointing to the daughter was shocking to me then and is shocking to me now and had to be devastating for Jane, realizing there was absolutely no physical evidence to tie Claire to this murder.

And there was that alibi that Claire was at her aunt's house at the time Bob was murdered.

But it was an attempt to raise reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors, like, well, maybe it wasn't the mother.

Maybe it was the daughter.

it was shocking claire later wrote in a book that she was so worried about her mother that she felt she didn't have a choice but to go along with it that she was more worried than angry and jane subsequently told aaron that

you think your defense lawyers know the best strategy.

So she reluctantly went along with it.

But Claire was never charged with any wrongdoing in regard to her father's murder claire never talked to us about this um as much as i would have loved to have heard but in her book that uh ruth had mentioned she did describe how it was just kind of

you know, put in her plate.

She didn't have a say in it.

No one went to her and said, how about, you know, we point the finger.

It was a done deal and she had to accept it.

I can't even imagine being in the position of Jane, trying to save yourself by pointing at your daughter, number one, or being the daughter, knowing that your mother's life is on the line and you're going to be the other suspect.

I can't imagine this.

It's like Shakespearean.

You read my mind.

I was actually thinking it's some sort of, it's like a drama in mythology.

It's just, it's all bad choices.

Oh, oh, and it didn't save her.

And it did not save her.

It didn't save Jane.

So here's the thing.

Yeah, you're right.

It doesn't save her.

The jury is not convinced.

On June 12th, 2001, Jane was found guilty of first degree murder and then she's sentenced to 25 years to life.

Aaron, were you able to speak to Jane after the verdict?

It must have felt like it, like unreal to her.

And to me as well, I have to tell you.

I will never forget that because I was not allowed to bring my producer in with me or a crew.

And I remember leaving the car, going into the jail, because she was still in a jail at that point.

And Jane was Jane.

Jane was still talking the way I'd always heard Jane.

And I was like, I think this woman is innocent and she's going to spend the rest of her life in prison.

And it was very disturbing.

All right.

So when we come back, Jane's 22-year fight for justice from behind bars and the miraculous breakthrough in her case.

I'm no tech genius, but I knew if I wanted my business to crush it, I needed a website now.

Thankfully, Bluehost made it easy.

I customized, optimized, and monetized everything exactly how I wanted with AI.

In minutes, my site was up.

I couldn't believe it.

The search engine tools even helped me get more site visitors.

Whatever your passion project is, you can set it up with Bluehost.

With their 30-day money-back guarantee, what have you got to lose?

Head to Bluehost.com to start now.

Game on, fan up.

Box lunch is stacked with the best gear from the worlds you live in.

Gaming, anime, sports, and beyond.

PlayStation hoodies, NFL Collabs, Retro Nintendo Collectibles.

Yeah, the good stuff, all in one place.

And here's the cheat code.

Every $10 you spend donates a meal to someone in need through Feeding America.

So your next pickup, actually helping someone out.

Hit Box Lunch in store online at boxlunch.com.

Level up your fit, your shelf, and your impact.

Welcome back, everyone.

So after Jane is sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, she becomes her own advocate, meticulously working on her case year after year.

It is a daunting task.

How did she do this?

You know, she

filed document after document, motion after motion, and everything would be turned down and she'd just keep, she would keep going.

And from the beginning, she also tried to get the attention of innocence groups, but that didn't immediately come.

So she was like, okay, I have to do this on my own.

But I want to remind people, because I don't think people are aware, when you say she had to do it on her own, you're not entitled to an attorney after your very first post-conviction appeal.

That's it.

And so.

Everyone usually, unless they're wealthy,

they have to do it on their own.

Some people just give up.

Jane did not.

She never gave up.

So in prison, as you mentioned, she files motions, some of them claiming that she had ineffective assistance of counsel.

She says that she originally wanted to testify a trial and that she disagreed with the defense's strategy to point the finger at her daughter, Claire.

In your experience covering wrongful conviction cases, how successful are ineffective counsel claims?

Really, really tough.

Very rarely.

And in fact, in this case, too,

Jane did not win that.

Right.

And the judge said, well, we don't really think it would have made much of a difference if you had a different kind of attorney or a different argument.

Jane also argued that authorities pegged her from the very start and they really failed to follow up on other leads.

And personally, I was really curious as to why authorities chose not to look into some witness reports that say they saw a man around the same time out there possibly jogging.

Why didn't they follow up on any of that stuff?

Well, according to Matt Foiano, who was the legal consultant that we talked to,

he felt after looking at many of the documents that this was a matter of tunnel vision.

I mean, and you can kind of understand in the sense that if you truly believe as investigators that there's blood in the bedroom and that he was killed in the bedroom, then

you're wasting time chasing down witnesses who say they saw a jogger since you don't believe he was out jogging, but they should have.

And also, some of the descriptions didn't exactly match Bob.

The wrong age, the wrong weight.

So yes, a jogger in the area in around the correct time from the investigator's standpoint.

Well, the other thing seems like a more viable explanation of what happened because these people didn't quite describe Bob to a T.

I mean, you would think, considering the area, how rural it is, there aren't a ton of people out jogging.

And we do know that eyewitnesses sometimes could be not great with the details.

You know, there's a good possibility it was him.

Yeah, and it could raise reasonable doubt, even if the person

didn't match.

Yeah.

So in 2015, though, Jane had a breakthrough in her case when a judge granted her motion to get DNA testing done.

on several items that had not been tested back in 2000, including the rope around Bob's neck, his fingernail clippings, his clothes.

How rare is it for a judge to approve this kind of DNA testing?

According to Matthew Troiano, it's really rare.

It's hard.

I think it's going to get more and more common as tests become more valuable, I think, but it is very difficult.

It's expensive.

And

so it was very, very lucky for Jane in this case.

And it really was what turned this case around.

And when the court did grant that, that was right before an innocence group got involved.

so even more unusual that it was based on jane's filing

jane that did it whenever anybody asked really how did jane get get out i'm always saying jane yes jane was helped by um an innocence project but she was the one who really got the ball rolling.

She was the one who got the permission to do the testing, and it made a huge difference in this case.

So this testing changes the course of the case because when they look at the rope and they look under the fingernails, they find foreign male DNA.

But just as important is what they don't find, which is Jane's DNA is not there.

So Jane's appellate team also raises the issue of how the Sheriff's Department originally handled the evidence.

I want to play a clip from the broadcast of Nathan Lentz, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, reviewing a photo of investigators at the original crime scene.

This one is hard to even look at.

You have an investigator who definitely should know better, you know, handling murder evidence with his bare hands.

In addition to obviously depositing his own DNA all around this crime scene, he's also risking transferring evidence from among the various spots that he's collecting.

I gasped when I saw that.

picture.

When this case was first investigated, was that normal for authorities to handle evidence like that?

I'm kicking myself.

I've got to be honest.

I saw those pictures back then and didn't realize that at the very least, it reflects kind of a laxness in standards in the sense that, you know, you're touching evidence with your bare fingers.

And if anybody should know, it would be a criminalist.

You look at it now and it's shocking.

Other investigators had gloves on.

They did.

Some did, some didn't.

Look, investigators are human.

And maybe he wasn't the one actually swabbing, but, you know, who knows what was going through.

Right.

Well, all it it takes is that one photo to make you question the entire way the crime scene was handled.

So in 2020, Jane's appellate team presented its findings and the state requested that Jane's murder conviction be overturned.

The state?

asked it.

Yes.

Yes.

Well, I said this was an emotional roller coaster to watch because you're like, oh, that's great.

And then only three months later, the DA decided to retry her.

A judge ruled that a new trial could go ahead, but that certain evidence presented in her original trial would not be admissible.

At this time, I'm wondering what Jane was feeling because she talks in the hour about essentially just losing her faith in the justice system.

I don't think anybody can actually say what she was feeling, but you can imagine.

This was a woman who had fought so hard to get to that point.

She is out in 2020.

She had been out because of COVID, you know, so she has a taste of freedom.

She's finally seeing like an end after fighting so long.

Think about it.

It's like, you know, nearly 20 years.

And then they decide they're going to retry her.

And to go through a trial again, I mean, I don't think anybody can imagine what had to be going through that woman's head and heart.

Back on the emotional roller coaster, the prosecution ultimately decided that there was not sufficient evidence for them to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a new trial and requested the court dismiss the charges.

Jane's case was dismissed without prejudice, but what exactly does that mean?

Okay, so when you hear without prejudice, that sounds good.

And it is.

It means that

all the charges against her are dropped, but without prejudice means that if somehow new evidence came up, very strong evidence, obviously, that she was involved, they could refile.

It's not likely to ever happen, but she has no charges against her.

She's as if she had never been charged with murder.

Did Jane ever talk about the loss of her husband?

I know this hour was about her fight for freedom,

but I kept on also thinking, boy, did she even get a chance to grieve?

I remember her talking about that, that she never did, because think how quickly she was charged.

She never did.

And,

you know, all of a sudden then she's in a fight for her life.

So

there are so many reasons to avoid a wrongful conviction or a questionable conviction.

And that's one of them.

What's next for Jane?

She works with trying to help women in prison.

That's sort of become her focus is working with wrongful conviction groups as well as groups just helping women in prison and then women when they get out of prison.

I mean, she had always been in the healthcare field.

That's what she was in before she was charged and convicted.

And so it fits with that.

But I, you know, I can't help but be overwhelmed with sadness over this of what everyone in that family lost.

You know, with the loss of Bob and then this prosecution.

You know, a family was destroyed.

And I remain so because we can see in the hour that she's not close with her sons.

She is close with her daughter.

One son has since passed away, and the other son

has not spoken publicly, but has indicated through filings that he believes that she was involved in his father's death.

And so, yes, this is a family divided, and it's heartbreaking.

Biggest takeaways from this case.

Ruth, I'll start with you.

As Erin had said, it's a cautionary tale, and it's always easier looking back.

But you almost have to approach cases thinking, okay, when people look back at this, what should we be careful about?

You know, it's a lesson for defense attorneys, for prosecutors, crime scene investigators, for everybody on all sides.

And reporters.

Question, question, question, I think, to question more.

Well, it's an amazing hour, and I was absolutely riveted because there are so many twists and turns.

And And I mean, still, there's an unsolved murder out there, you know?

Aaron, Ruth, thank you so much for joining me again.

Thanks, Anne-Marie.

Thank you.

You can join us next Tuesday for another post-mortem and watch 48 Hours.

Of course, it's Saturdays, 10, 9 Central on CBS and streaming on Paramount Plus.

And if you're liking the show, please rate and review 48 Hours on Apple Podcasts and follow 48 Hours wherever you get your podcasts.

You can also listen ad-free on the Amazon Music and Wondery app or with a 48 Hours Plus subscription on Apple Podcasts.