The Concerning Case Against Jane Dorotik

Speaker 1 Hey Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear that's half price, not half the service.

Speaker 1 Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price.

Speaker 7 So that means a half day.

Speaker 3 Yeah? Give it a try at mintmobile.com/slash switch.

Speaker 8 Upfront payment of $45 for a three-month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. New customer offer for first three months only.
Speed slow under 35 gigabytes of networks busy.

Speaker 8 Taxes and fees extra.

Speaker 7 See Mintmobile.com.

Speaker 9 This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible, financial geniuses, monetary magicians.

Speaker 9 These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save.

Speaker 9 Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary, not available in all states or situations.

Speaker 10 Because I'm

Speaker 10 not sure. Do you know it? Come on, tell us.

Speaker 10 It's got to be horsepress.

Speaker 11 My name is Jane Dorotyk.

Speaker 11 I spent 20 years in prison for a crime I did not commit.

Speaker 11 I thought truth and justice was at the front of everything.

Speaker 11 And it certainly has not been in my case.

Speaker 11 I wish I just knew what really happened. I wish there was some way to piece it together, somebody to come forward with the truth.

Speaker 1 On February 13, 2000, Jane and Bob Dortyk are living together in North San Diego.

Speaker 11 He said he was going out for a jog.

Speaker 13 That was it.

Speaker 11 That was... The last I talked to him.

Speaker 1 She reports her husband missing. There was a search for him as a missing person.
The next day, he was found in a location two or three miles away from their home.

Speaker 14 And I stopped about right here. I could see the body, and I said, this is Mr.
Dorty.

Speaker 1 He was found to have blunt force trauma to his head. He was found to have injuries consistent with strangulation.

Speaker 15 It was obvious to me that it was a homicide.

Speaker 16 They found Bob's blood in his bedroom. The detectives decided because they saw some blood that they were in the crime scene

Speaker 16 and that Jane was the only one with access to that bedroom and to Bob.

Speaker 15 There was only one person that could have done this to Mr. Dorotek and that was his wife Jane Dorotek.

Speaker 5 He said you're under arrest.

Speaker 11 I was like what?

Speaker 11 I would never hurt my husband.

Speaker 17 Police say circumstantial and blood evidence links Jane Dorotek to her husband's murder.

Speaker 11 The bedroom was not a crime scene.

Speaker 14 I don't doubt that this occurred at the home and I don't doubt that she's involved.

Speaker 13 There was blood on the comforter, there was blood on the pillow shampoo, there was blood on the headboard.

Speaker 16 When you have a home that's a working ranch, you're gonna find blood around.

Speaker 1 It's just problem on top of problem on top of problem.

Speaker 16 I would declare this crime scene very contaminated.

Speaker 1 They focused on one person and turned a blind eye to anything else.

Speaker 13 Jane Dorotyk chose murder over divorce.

Speaker 14 It felt like a nightmare and I kept saying, when am I going to wake up?

Speaker 18 Do you believe that Jane Dorotek got a fair trial?

Speaker 19 No, I don't.

Speaker 1 I'm in no position to say who did what. I don't have a crystal ball to tell you what happened to that man.

Speaker 18 What do you believe happened to Bob?

Speaker 11 I believe Bob somehow fell into some kind of situation. I don't know.

Speaker 11 I lost my husband and then I lost my freedom.

Speaker 20 Erin Moriarty reports the troubled case against Jane Dorotik.

Speaker 18 Jane, how would you describe what the last 22 years have been like for you?

Speaker 11 It's been

Speaker 11 torturous in many ways.

Speaker 11 I suppose many moments when I thought, how do I keep going?

Speaker 11 I always used to say this is the most peaceful place on the face of the earth. Nothing feels peaceful anymore.

Speaker 18 When we first met Jane Dortyk in 2000.

Speaker 11 The stress of all of it on everyone has been incredible.

Speaker 18 The life she had once found so serene in the foothills foothills outside of San Diego, the life she had shared with her husband Bob, had taken an unimaginable turn.

Speaker 11 How can this be? How can this happen? Surely I'll wake up and it's a dream.

Speaker 18 Jane had become the prime suspect in Bob's murder. Authorities believe that she viciously attacked him in their home.

Speaker 11 I certainly didn't do this.

Speaker 5 I loved my husband.

Speaker 18 Jane, 53 years old at the time, and Bob, 55, shared more than half their lives together.

Speaker 11 I was 23 when we were married. Bob was a wonderful, loving, creative person.

Speaker 10 And welcome everyone here, those that have been here before and those who haven't.

Speaker 18 Bob spent most of his career as an engineer. Jane worked as a nurse and later as an executive in the healthcare industry.
The couple raised three children, Alex, Claire, and Nick.

Speaker 11 The family has always been incredibly important

Speaker 13 to both of us.

Speaker 18 Also important to Jane were their horses.

Speaker 18 While Jane's passion was breeding and riding,

Speaker 18 I'm having a good old time here.

Speaker 18 Bob was an avid jogger.

Speaker 18 And that, says Jane, is the last image she has of her husband.

Speaker 11 Bob was sitting actually in this chair. facing the TV.

Speaker 18 Although Jane was under suspicion, she allowed us into her home.

Speaker 11 He said he was going out for a jog and he was actually had his jogging suit on, was tying his shoes. That was the last I talked to him.

Speaker 18 It was around 1 p.m. on February 13th, 2000, when Jane says Bob left to go for that run.
As hours passed without any word from him, Jane says she grew concerned.

Speaker 11 It was beginning to get dark. I decided to go out and look.

Speaker 18 This is the route Jane says she took to search for Bob, driving up and down the hill where he sometimes ran. By 7.45 p.m., Jane's concern turned to fear.

Speaker 11 I said, enough. This is enough.
Something is wrong. And that's when I made the call to the Sheriff's Department.

Speaker 14 My first thought that night was, maybe this man had a heart attack and fell down the embankment along Lake Wilford Road.

Speaker 18 As Deputy James Blackman and others from the San Diego County Sheriff's Department searched for Bob, concerned friends and family gathered at the Dorotek house.

Speaker 11 The minute I saw my mom's face, I knew right away something terrible had happened.

Speaker 18 The Dorotek's daughter, Claire, 24 at the time, had spent the weekend visiting her aunt and returned home to a distraught Jane.

Speaker 7 She was freaked out.

Speaker 13 She was scared, she was nervous, she was crying.

Speaker 11 It was a horrifying feeling that got more and more horrifying when he wasn't found.

Speaker 18 And then in the pre-dawn hours of February 14th, Deputy Blackmun turned into this driveway several miles from the Dorotyk home and noticed a body off the road.

Speaker 14 At this point, I could see the shirt, the pants, and he was laying on his back.

Speaker 18 From Jane's description, he immediately knew it was Bob Dorotyk.

Speaker 15 I got there a little after seven in the morning.

Speaker 18 San Diego County Sheriff's Detective Rick Epsom was called to the scene.

Speaker 15 There was no evidence of any type of vehicle accident.

Speaker 18 The evidence Epsom did find suggested something else.

Speaker 15 I could see that he had blood on his face. There was blood near the back of his head.
And I could see that there was a rope around his neck.

Speaker 18 Bob Dortyk had been bludgeoned and strangled. The one-time missing person case had turned into a homicide investigation.

Speaker 18 Is there anybody you could think who would want to see your husband dead?

Speaker 11 Nobody. Nobody.

Speaker 18 As law enforcement asked Jane questions about Bob, she let them into her home.

Speaker 11 Come in, search, look for anything.

Speaker 18 Detective Empson noticed a piece of rope hanging from the porch that caught his attention, thinking he had just seen something similar on Bob Dorotek.

Speaker 15 It appeared to be the exact same type of rope that was found around his neck.

Speaker 19 The sliding glass door going into the master bedroom.

Speaker 18 And when investigators got to Bob and Jane's bedroom, they found something more troubling. They believed they were looking at blood spatter.

Speaker 19 There was no question in their mind that this assault occurred in the master bedroom.

Speaker 18 They documented their findings in this diagram, taking photos along the way of what they believed to be blood on various items in the bedroom and of what appeared to be a large bloodstain on the underside of the mattress.

Speaker 11 I do know when Bob had a nosebleed, he made a comment about getting some blood on the mattress.

Speaker 18 Jane says there was a logical explanation for some of the other blood, too.

Speaker 18 They had dogs who were injured and had bled.

Speaker 11 This little dog had an abscess on her cheek that was openly draining at the time, and little little drops of blood we'd find as she sat on the couch.

Speaker 11 The carpet pieces are what the detectives removed, feeling that there was blood on the carpet.

Speaker 18 The spots of blood investigators said they found all over the bedroom surprised Jane. Do you have any other explanation of how that blood spatter could have gotten there?

Speaker 18 Not on the ceiling, on the window, on the walls?

Speaker 6 No.

Speaker 18 Adding to authorities' suspicions was this bloody syringe found in the bathroom garbage. Jane told us she used it to medicate her horses.

Speaker 11 I know that I give the horses shots all the time. If you go look in my fridge right now, you'll find horse syringes.

Speaker 18 Investigators theorize that Jane hit her husband with an object in the bedroom and strangled him. She then dressed him in his jogging suit.

Speaker 18 put him in their truck and dumped him along the side of the road where his body was found. Why do they believe you killed your husband?

Speaker 11 You know,

Speaker 11 I guess I've been through that one a billion times. I don't know.

Speaker 18 But investigators thought they knew, believing the motive was money and escaping a troubled marriage. Jane was the main breadwinner, and they learned the couple had split up for a year in 1997.

Speaker 11 I don't make any apologies for the fact that we had rough times, but that

Speaker 11 doesn't change the the fact that we loved each other.

Speaker 18 And that love, says Jane, is why they reconciled. They have been back living together as a couple for a year and a half before Bob was killed.

Speaker 11 I really think the separation

Speaker 11 caused us to really regroup and think about what was important. They were getting along better than they ever had in the past.

Speaker 7 I was living there.

Speaker 18 I can tell you that. But law enforcement was unmoved.
And three days after Bob Dortyk's body was found, Jane was arrested and charged with first-degree murder.

Speaker 13 I know I didn't do this. I know there's a killer out there.

Speaker 11 But how am I going to clear myself?

Speaker 3 Well, she's baffled because I don't think she knows what happened.

Speaker 18 Released on bail, Jane started preparing her defense, hiring attorney Carrie Steigerwald.

Speaker 3 She knows that she's placed as the killer and she's not the killer.

Speaker 18 And at trial, Jane's attorney would present a surprise suspect who he felt was responsible for Bob Dortick's murder.

Speaker 18 This is the story of the one.

Speaker 22 As a custodial supervisor at a high school, he knows that during cold and flu season, germs spread fast.

Speaker 22 It's why he partners with Granger to stay fully stocked on the products and supplies he needs, from tissues to disinfectants to floor scrubbers.

Speaker 22 Also that he can help students, staff, and teachers stay healthy and focused. Call 1-800GRANGER, clickgranger.com, or just stop by.
Granger for the ones who get it done.

Speaker 22 Come on.

Speaker 11 I know that I'm innocent, but I don't have any more faith in the legal system. I believe I could be convicted for something that I didn't do and that's very scary.

Speaker 18 While Jane worried about her outcome at trial, Claire Dortyk was much more confident about her mother's chances.

Speaker 11 My mom could not have done this crime. She didn't have the motive and she didn't have the opportunity.

Speaker 18 But when the case went to trial in 2001, a year after the murder, Prosecutor Bonnie Howard Regan described the Dortyk's marriage as seriously troubled and told jurors that Jane didn't want to pay Bob alimony in a divorce.

Speaker 13 Bob Dortyk never went jogging and he never left that residence alive.

Speaker 18 According to the state, Bob had actually been killed Saturday night, nearly a day before Jane reported him missing. The autopsy performed by Dr.

Speaker 18 Christopher Swalwell showed undigested food consistent with what Jane said they had for dinner that night.

Speaker 13 Are you able to give us an estimate of how long after

Speaker 13 Mr. Dorotyk ate, how long after that he was killed?

Speaker 2 Yes, it was very shortly after he ate. I would say it was probably within a couple of hours.

Speaker 18 And he wasn't killed on the side of the road, the prosecutor said. There wasn't enough blood there.
Instead, she said Bob's blood was all over the bedroom.

Speaker 18 Lead detective Rick Empson testified he had asked Jane to explain that.

Speaker 15 She'd indicated initially that she had a dog that had been bleeding and then indicated that approximately a week prior, Bob had a bloody nose over in the corner by the stove and that Bob had cleaned it up.

Speaker 18 There was evidence someone cleaned the bedroom. The carpet next to the potbelly stove and tiled floor was wet.
and had bloodstains underneath. Did any of the blood from his nosebleed go on the carpet?

Speaker 6 Mm-hmm.

Speaker 18 Do you know where?

Speaker 6 Mm-hmm.

Speaker 11 Right next to the tile, because I'm the one that helped him clean it.

Speaker 18 Authorities dismissed Jane's explanations. Their theory was that Jane hit Bob in the head in their bedroom with an object while he was lying in bed, although they never identified or found any weapon.

Speaker 18 Charles Merritt, a criminalist and bloodstain pattern analyst for the San Diego County Sheriff's Crime Lab recounted 20 locations where he saw bloodstains.

Speaker 21 On one of the pillows, on a lamp.

Speaker 21 This particular nightstand on the potbelly stove was on the ceiling itself and then on the underside of the mattress.

Speaker 18 The jury was also shown this evidence of tire tracks found near Bob's body. The state's expert, Anthony DiMaria, said he matched the three different types of tires on Doradek's truck.

Speaker 13 Are you saying the measurements taken at the scene were equal to the measurements taken off the actual vehicle?

Speaker 1 Yes.

Speaker 18 The most telling evidence connecting Jane to the murder, according to the prosecutor, was that syringe found in the bathroom. It had traces of a horse tranquilizer inside.

Speaker 18 And even though there was no evidence that Bob had been injected with anything, it had Bob's blood and a bloody fingerprint on it.

Speaker 13 The evidence will show that the fingerprint on this syringe was Jane Dorotyk's.

Speaker 11 Can you explain that?

Speaker 11 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

Speaker 11 made that happen.

Speaker 18 But perhaps the most powerful witnesses were the Dorotyk's two sons, Nick and Alex. They both testified against their mother.

Speaker 13 Did you say anything specifically about the syringe?

Speaker 12 Well, I asked her how it got there and what it was doing there.

Speaker 13 And what was your mother's response?

Speaker 12 She said that her biggest fear in all of this was that

Speaker 12 us family members would start questioning her.

Speaker 3 Your mother always settled things logically.

Speaker 3 Tried to?

Speaker 5 No.

Speaker 3 You wouldn't agree with that statement? Nope.

Speaker 4 It would be my mom basically saying, this is what you have to accept.

Speaker 4 And then my dad would either accept it or

Speaker 4 there would be threats of divorce or something. That's what I remember from growing up.

Speaker 18 Jane's attorneys, Carrie Steigerwald and Cole Casey, admitted it was a big blow. Would you say that's been the most damaging testimony?

Speaker 19 Yeah.

Speaker 19 It's not. what they said, it's the fact that they were there testifying for the prosecution.

Speaker 18 When it came time for the defense to present its case, Seigerwald actually agreed with the prosecution on a major point, that the murder took place in the bedroom, but he had a jaw-dropping alternative suspect, Claire Doratic.

Speaker 6 Ladies and gentlemen, Claire hated her father.

Speaker 18 He claimed Claire, an avid horsewoman, hated her father because he threatened to sell the animals she loved and suggested that she was capable of murder.

Speaker 3 That's what Claire is.

Speaker 3 A hot-tempered, explosive individual.

Speaker 18 It was a risky strategy that Jane reluctantly agreed to.

Speaker 7 All I can do is trust what Carrie says is the best way to go.

Speaker 18 Are you at all concerned that the jury will wonder about a woman who would allow herself to be defended by pointing the finger at her daughter? Could that work against the two of you?

Speaker 3 It may. I don't know.
I think it is the most viable defense,

Speaker 3 and I think it's supported by the best evidence.

Speaker 18 Steigerwald insisted Jane wasn't physically able to commit the murder, but Claire was.

Speaker 3 She runs marathons, and she's a personal trainer. She is as fit a woman as you will see at the age of 24.

Speaker 18 But remember, Claire and her aunt said they were together two hours away.

Speaker 3 They called the aunt. That's the extent of the investigation on the alibi of Claire Dortek.

Speaker 11 Could Miss Claire Dortek please step forward?

Speaker 3 That alibi is nonsense.

Speaker 13 You are going to assert your current rights, correct?

Speaker 18 The jurors never heard from Claire or Jane, who chose not to testify.

Speaker 18 But they did hear from a woman who said she thought she saw Bob the day he disappeared, sitting between two men in a black pickup truck, not far from where his body was found.

Speaker 16 Who killed Robert Dortek?

Speaker 3 Was it Claire Dortek?

Speaker 3 Or ladies and gentlemen, was it someone else?

Speaker 18 In his closing argument, Steigerwald accused investigators of dismissing witnesses like that woman and focusing only on Jane.

Speaker 3 The prosecution had focused on one person, and that's not the way to conduct an investigation. It's not the way to run a case.

Speaker 13 Jane Dortek and Bob Dortyk were the only two people in that home that weekend.

Speaker 18 Bonnie Howard Regan says there's no need to investigate further when you have sufficient evidence.

Speaker 13 They searched that bedroom and they saw all the blood and they knew that was the crime scene. What more investigation do they need to do?

Speaker 18 It took the jury four days to return a verdict.

Speaker 23 We the jury in the above title cause find the defendant Jane Marguerite Dorotek guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree in violation of penal code section 1880.

Speaker 18 Did Jane Dorotek get a fair trial?

Speaker 1 No.

Speaker 6 No.

Speaker 1 Because fairness means that you're presenting things accurately and it appears like it was not done accurately.

Speaker 23 Juror number eight?

Speaker 7 Yes.

Speaker 7 Juror number nine? Yes.

Speaker 23 Juror number 10?

Speaker 6 Yes.

Speaker 20 Go behind the scenes with the 48 Hours Postmortem Podcast.

Speaker 13 It almost didn't register for a minute. It's like, no, this can't be.

Speaker 7 I was so certain then that I was walking out.

Speaker 17 I thought they would see the truth.

Speaker 18 Jean Dortik never imagined she'd be found guilty.

Speaker 13 It's hard to keep going.

Speaker 18 At the time of her conviction for the murder of her husband, she was 54 years old and sentenced to 25 years to life.

Speaker 13 I mean, I just,

Speaker 17 I can't see my way clear to a life in prison.

Speaker 11 I just can't see it.

Speaker 18 Determined to prove the jury got it wrong, Jane became her own advocate, working on her case for many years. We spoke with Jane again two decades later about her efforts.

Speaker 11 All through the prison, my prison journey, I continued to write all innocence projects I could think of asking for help. At the same time, realized that I had to fight for myself.

Speaker 18 Jane filed motions from prison, citing such issues as insufficient evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Speaker 11 I would describe my defense as limited and inadequate.

Speaker 18 In her filings, Jane indicated that she wanted to testify at her trial, but had left that decision up up to her attorney, and that had she testified, she could have explained Bob's stomach contents, stating that he sometimes ate leftovers from the previous night.

Speaker 18 She also described her attorney's alternate suspect theory, pointing to her daughter Claire as a killer, as absurd.

Speaker 18 Do you believe that your daughter Claire had anything to do with the death of her?

Speaker 11 Absolutely, unequivocally, not.

Speaker 11 And my defense attorney, everybody knew she was away for that weekend.

Speaker 18 In regard to that defense strategy, Claire later wrote in a book, how could I be angry at my mother when all I did was worry about her?

Speaker 18 Jane's lawyer, whom we interviewed at the time of her trial, did not speak with us again.

Speaker 11 That was the worst strategy of my life ever.

Speaker 18 I said to my attorney, if anything happens to Claire, I'm going to stand up and say I I did it in her filings Jane also questioned why her defense attorney accepted the bad forensics pointing to the bedroom as the murder scene rather than presenting other scenarios as to where and how Bob Dorotyk could have been murdered did the defense too easily accept the bedroom as a crime scene.

Speaker 1 That is a very legitimate argument.

Speaker 18 CBS News consultant Matthew Troiano, a former prosecutor and current defense attorney, was not involved in the Dorotic case, but he reviewed some of the court documents at our request.

Speaker 1 The defense made a strategic decision.

Speaker 1 Are we going to dispute that a crime happened in this location, or are we essentially going to concede that it happened there and then come up with a different narrative of how it happened there?

Speaker 1 And they chose the latter.

Speaker 18 And that decision, Troiano says, likely led the defense to point the finger at Claire for the murder.

Speaker 1 They had to blame somebody else for something that happened in a specific location.

Speaker 1 And they, at least as it relates to the daughter, you know, went back to her having some disagreement with her father about something.

Speaker 1 And

Speaker 4 it was a risk.

Speaker 18 Have you ever seen that kind of defense?

Speaker 1 You don't see it. I mean, you could happen when there are clear facts and evidence to support it, but when there are none, that's, you know, that's a showstopper.

Speaker 18 And in fact, Claire was never charged with any wrongdoing in connection to her father's murder.

Speaker 18 The defense, accepting the bedroom as the murder scene, is especially puzzling to Troiano, as there were reports from several eyewitnesses who said they saw a man jogging that day.

Speaker 18 Accounts consistent with Jane's depiction of events, not the prosecution's.

Speaker 1 That's critical, critical evidence.

Speaker 11 And all of that was really not pursued, and I didn't know of all of the witnesses. Had there been a thorough investigation initially, all of that would have come out.

Speaker 18 Through the years in filings, Jane raised problems with the entire case against her, arguing that authorities focused on her from the very beginning of the investigation and failed to follow other investigative leads.

Speaker 18 But motion after motion was denied.

Speaker 18 And regarding Jane's ineffective counsel claims, the judge rejected them all, ruling that her attorney's performance was not deficient and that his actions had not affected the outcome of the case.

Speaker 11 There were many moments where I doubted when is this ever going to turn around. Many, many moments.

Speaker 18 Still, Jane didn't give up. She continued looking for new evidence to clear her, especially as DNA testing became more advanced.

Speaker 18 In 2012, she filed a petition for DNA testing of that rope found around Bob's neck and other items like Bob's fingernail clippings, which had been saved but never tested.

Speaker 18 And in 2015, the motion was granted.

Speaker 18 Is that unusual that she finally even got testing based on her filing motions on her own?

Speaker 1 Yes, it's very atypical.

Speaker 18 It was at this time that Jane finally got the attention of a wrongful conviction group, Loyola Law School's Project for the Innocent.

Speaker 11 I get this wonderful letter from Loyola saying you've contacted us and we're interested in your case.

Speaker 5 And after that, Loyola took over, got the testing done.

Speaker 18 And what that testing revealed, as well as a fresh examination of other evidence, would change the course of the case.

Speaker 1 That's really what flips the script to say that there's more here. This is more than just an inadequate investigation.

Speaker 1 There is a different narrative that's running through these test results. There is physical evidence that another person could be involved.

Speaker 24 Hey there, we're Corinne Vienne and Sabrina Deanna Roga here to introduce our newest podcast, Crimes of: A Crime House Original.

Speaker 25 Crimes of is a weekly series that explores a new theme each season, from Crimes of the Paranormal, Unsolved Murders, and more.

Speaker 25 Our first season is Crimes of Infamy: the true crime stories behind Hollywood's most iconic horror villains.

Speaker 24 Listen to and follow Crimes of, available now wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 1 When you talk about the evidence in this case, the subsequent testing reveals that you might have a different explanation for things that really shed light on what may have happened here.

Speaker 18 Jane Dortyk spent years behind bars asking for a new examination of the evidence used to convict her of her husband Bob's murder.

Speaker 18 Now, working with a team from Loyola Project for the Innocent, the court allowed them to have new DNA testing on items such as a rope found around Bob Dortyk's neck, his fingernails, and clothing.

Speaker 18 Appeal filings state that foreign male DNA was found on several items.

Speaker 5 The results of that?

Speaker 11 None of my DNA anywhere.

Speaker 1 There is physical evidence from fingernail clippings, from a rope, from his clothing that is foreign to Jane.

Speaker 18 The team from Loyola Project for the Innocent declined to be interviewed.

Speaker 18 We asked Nathan Lentz, a professor of biology and forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, who was not involved in the case, to review court documents about new evidence, such as the DNA on the rope.

Speaker 16 While they didn't get a profile that would be good enough to search a database or even match to a suspect, they did get enough DNA that is not attributable to Bob or to Jane.

Speaker 18 But while Jane and her team believe the results pointed to her innocence, the state came to a different conclusion, stating in filings, the DNA obtained was too low level to make any reliable interpretation.

Speaker 18 Lentz agrees the DNA levels were low, but he believes it was enough to exclude Jane and that the absence of Jane's DNA on the rope as well as under Bob's fingernails or on his clothing is significant.

Speaker 16 With the theory of crime that they presented, you would expect a lot of Jane's DNA on Bob and if she had moved his body, you know, there's a lot of DNA transfer that might have taken place there.

Speaker 16 That wasn't found.

Speaker 18 The appellate team also reviewed the bedroom blood evidence the prosecutor told the jury was fully tested and was Bob's.

Speaker 13 Now, the evidence will show that all this blood that has been described to you, the observations made in this bedroom, that it was all sent out for DNA analysis and it all came back, the Bob Dorr took its blood.

Speaker 18 But according to the appeal, not every single spot in the bedroom believed to be blood was tested. Instead, representative samples were tested.

Speaker 16 There were cases where just simply one swab with a control was taken and it was representative of a variety of spots. That's not good practice.
It just invites misinterpretations.

Speaker 1 When you're talking about blood spatter and you're trying to analyze how it got there, you need to do a fairly comprehensive test to be able to draw the conclusion that you're drawing.

Speaker 18 But I think the prosecution could argue you can't afford to test, can you, every single drop that looks like blood? Right.

Speaker 1 But when you say we did everything, And that's not accurate, that's where the problem lies.

Speaker 18 In fact, the appellate team says that several blood-like stains on items, including a pillow sham, the nightstand, a lampshade, turned out not to be blood.

Speaker 18 And there were those stains on the bedspread, which criminalist Charles Merritt pointed to at trial and described as Bob's blood.

Speaker 21 With two of the actual stains circled by little red dots.

Speaker 18 Jane's lawyers learned those particular spots were never tested at all. And due to improper storage, the bedspread could not be tested again.

Speaker 16 So we don't know that it was blood at all.

Speaker 18 The handling of the evidence over the course of the entire investigation was also raised on appeal.

Speaker 16 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.

Speaker 16 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.

Speaker 18 And there's that syringe with Bob's blood and Jane's fingerprint found in the bathroom garbage. Something the appellate team and Lentz thought could be explained.

Speaker 16 And if you throw that syringe in the garbage can, Bob throws a bloody Kleenex in that garbage can, they could transfer. Transfer of DNA from one object to another in a trash can is not unexpected.

Speaker 18 Lentz feels the fact that the syringe was even found in the garbage points fingers away from Jane.

Speaker 16 If you're cleaning up after a murder, you won't leave the bloody syringe in the waist basket.

Speaker 18 But the state stood by its original investigation, maintaining the bedroom was the murder scene, stating that the evidence still points to Jane Dortyk as the killer.

Speaker 18 and that the defense arguments are largely derived from speculation and misstatements of fact.

Speaker 18 Jane's appellate team, though, maintains the bedroom did not even look like a crime scene, something Lentz also believes.

Speaker 16 There is not a consistent pattern to the evidence that indicates a violent bludgeoning that took place in that bedroom.

Speaker 16 If Bob were alive today and investigators had walked in his room, no one would say, oh, this looks like someone was murdered here.

Speaker 11 If you just look at all of the pieces of evidence that Loyola was able to absolutely take apart, and yet we know what was told to the jury in the original conviction. So

Speaker 6 how can that happen?

Speaker 18 As her attorneys reviewed evidence, Jane Dortyk in 2020 was temporarily and conditionally let out of prison due to COVID health concerns.

Speaker 18 The question now became, was the new evidence her lawyers were finding enough to make her release permanent?

Speaker 20 What do you think about the new DNA test results? Chat now with Erin Moriarty on X.

Speaker 18 In the summer of 2020, Jane Dorotyk and her team hoped a court would overturn the jury's verdict, turning her temporary release from prison into lasting freedom.

Speaker 18 What were their major points?

Speaker 1 The testing that was done initially was insufficient the way that that testing was presented to the jury was inaccurate there were a number of different arguments that they made

Speaker 18 a hearing was scheduled but then suddenly the state requested an unplanned virtual hearing the people are willing to concede petitioners new evidence claim

Speaker 26 the prosecution admitted what jane's lawyers had argued all along the dna evidence as it exists now in 2020 is much different in quality and quantity than presented at trial in 2001.

Speaker 18 That the new DNA test results, as well as issues with how the sheriff's crime lab handled evidence, cast doubt on the verdict. But what came next was even more unexpected.

Speaker 18 The state requested that Jane's murder conviction be overturned and the judge agreed.

Speaker 21 I'm going to grant the motion for the rent.

Speaker 2 Thank you, Your Honor.

Speaker 11 I always believed that at some point, the truth would come out.

Speaker 18 But Jane's ordeal wasn't over. Three months later, in another shocking move, the DA's office decided to retry her.

Speaker 11 I don't think any of us thought that San Diego County would attempt to retry me. but they did.

Speaker 1 The state believes that she did this and they want to pursue it.

Speaker 18 But But in order to retry her, the prosecution first had to demonstrate to the judge that there was still enough evidence to prove Jane killed Bob, despite the new DNA results and the questions about the initial testing.

Speaker 4 We are back on the record, all party.

Speaker 1 Can you have this battle in court? If you're conceding that there were problems, how are you going to do it again, essentially, with the same evidence?

Speaker 11 It was astounding to sit in that courtroom and see what they try and put forward as actual evidence and then also thrilling to see my team take it apart.

Speaker 18 James attorneys questioned the credibility of several of the state's experts, including Charles Merritt of the Sheriff's Crime Lab.

Speaker 18 The judge ultimately ruled that the new trial could go ahead, but that some key evidence presented in her original trial would not be admissible, including those tire tracks near where Bob's body was found that were linked to Jane's truck.

Speaker 1 You have a number of different trucks that could be consistent with those tire tracks. It's, in essence, kind of junk science-y.

Speaker 18 In May 2022, just as jury selection was about to begin, the prosecution surprised everyone yet again.

Speaker 27 Remain seated and come to order. This courtroom is now in session.

Speaker 11 We go into court as the jury is assembled and ready to come into the courtroom Monday morning, and everything's changed.

Speaker 28 We no longer feel that the evidence is sufficient to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt and convince 12 members of the jury. So we are requesting the court dismiss the charges at this time.

Speaker 28 Thank you.

Speaker 28 Store check. You are free to go.
And good luck to you.

Speaker 23 It is overwhelming to realize that now I can determine my own future.

Speaker 7 It's something I've prayed for and hoped for.

Speaker 18 After the hearing, Jane's attorneys spoke about her decades-long fight.

Speaker 4 Jane's dignity in standing up and stoically fighting for her innocence against every risk and every threat. That's why this case got dismissed today.

Speaker 21 And as far as we're concerned, we're moving on.

Speaker 18 The district attorney's office and sheriff's department declined to speak with 48 hours.

Speaker 18 The case against Jane Dorotyk was dismissed without prejudice, which means if new evidence surfaces, charges could be brought again someday.

Speaker 18 But then doesn't that leave still a shadow over Jane Dorotyk?

Speaker 1 Oh, sure, it does. I mean, there's no question about it.
From a practical perspective, do I think it's over? Yeah, I think it's over. But from a legal perspective, no.

Speaker 18 Jane Dorotyk is working to rebuild her life after spending nearly two decades in prison.

Speaker 11 My entire family has been blown apart by this hurricane of events. It's been heartbreaking on so many levels.

Speaker 18 Claire Dorotyk did not respond to our request for comment, but Jane says they are still closed. Her son Nick died in 2023.

Speaker 18 Alex Dorotyk did not provide a comment to 48 hours, but according to filings by the state, he remains convinced his mother killed his father.

Speaker 18 Do you have hope that your family will come together at some point?

Speaker 11 Of course I do. Of course I have hope.

Speaker 18 Jane also has hope that she could make a difference in other people's lives as she works with advocacy groups that help incarcerated women.

Speaker 11 To me, it's not just about my story.

Speaker 11 And yes, we can all sit here and say, this is so horrendous, and how did this happen to this woman? But unless we look systemically, how many others are we going to find?

Speaker 11 And to me, that's critically important.

Speaker 18 Many unanswered questions about this case remain, including perhaps

Speaker 18 the most important one.

Speaker 13 What happened here?

Speaker 21 We don't know what happened to Bob Dortek.

Speaker 1 Where's justice for Bob? Where's justice for Robert Dorotek?

Speaker 19 Need more time with 48 Hours?

Speaker 20 Go deep behind every true crime episode with first-hand accounts from 48 Hours Investigations.

Speaker 5 Were you at all prepared for what happened in this case?

Speaker 16 Shock is the word that comes to mind.

Speaker 20 Get inside the twists and turns and get in on the case. Listen to Postmortem from 48 Hours, now available wherever you get your podcasts.