<\/p>\n
Margaret Brown\u2019s The Yogurt Shop Murders<\/em><\/a> was a heartbreaking and deeply thoughtful four-part series about the lingering wounds of a terrible crime that had gone unsolved for 34 years. And then, just a few weeks after its final episode aired, the case was solved. The sexual assault and murder of four teenage girls had haunted Austin, Texas, for decades, to say nothing of the victims\u2019 families and the four men wrongfully accused of the killings. (Two, Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott, were convicted on the basis of coerced confessions, but their convictions were overturned, and the charges against them were dropped in 2009.) And due to police misconduct and the degraded quality of the physical evidence, it seemed unlikely that the true killer would ever be found. But then Dan Jackson, a detective with the Austin Police Department\u2019s cold case unit, started plugging what evidence they had\u2014a single .380 shell casing and an incomplete DNA profile\u2014into national databases to see if new data and advancing technology might yield new results. And suddenly, there was an answer. The four girls\u2014Amy Ayers, Eliza Thomas, Jennifer Harbison, and Sarah Harbison\u2014were murdered by Robert Eugene Brashers, a serial killer whose crimes were uncovered years after his death by suicide in 1999.<\/p>\n The fifth episode of The Yogurt Shop Murders<\/em>, which premieres May 22 on HBO, catches viewers up on recent developments in the case, including the fact that, in February, a Texas judge took the extraordinary step of ruling that Springsteen and Scott were entirely innocent of the crime<\/a>, as were Maurice Pierce and Forrest Welborn, who were accused but never tried. But even though Brown now has an answer to the question of, as billboards around Austin once asked, \u201cWho Killed These Girls?,\u201d there\u2019s still more to the story, namely how those who have suffered with uncertainty for so long deal with its abrupt and unexpected removal. It may be, as the episode\u2019s title has it, \u201cThe End of Wondering,\u201d but it\u2019s not the end of the damage those girls\u2019 deaths caused, including to the then-boys who were unfairly accused. (Pierce was fatally shot by a police officer during a 2010 traffic stop.) With a keen and patient eye, Brown surveys the harm and the beginnings of healing, the pain left behind and the deeply moving attempts to make it right. Brown and I spoke last week, the day after the city of Austin agreed to pay $35 million in restitution<\/a> to the men unjustly accused of the murders, and pledged to ban unsupervised interrogations of underage suspects<\/a>. This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.<\/p>\n Sam Adams: What was your reaction when you found out that this 34-year-old mystery you\u2019d just finished making a series about had suddenly been solved?<\/strong><\/p>\n Margaret Brown: <\/strong>Right before I left Austin, I met up with the cold case detective, Dan Jackson, and I could just tell there was something going on. We were having coffee, and I was like, \u201cI can leave, right? Because you\u2019re acting really fidgety. I\u2019m about to start another film, and we\u2019re shooting, so you need to tell me. I can change it.\u201d And he was like, \u201cNo, no, no. If there\u2019s anything, it\u2019ll take months.\u201d So I left, and then I\u2019m in the car, driving with my dog, and I get the call that I have to turn right back around to Austin. We had to put a crew together in two days to shoot the press conference.<\/p>\n One of the things I really like about the original series, or the first four episodes or whatever we\u2019re calling it, is that you approach this as an unsolved murder that is likely to stay unsolved. This isn\u2019t one of those documentaries where you set out to solve the crime.<\/strong><\/p>\n That would be ridiculous. I don\u2019t even make true-crime documentaries normally. So \u201cI think I can solve it\u201d? Please, that would be absurd.<\/p>\n It\u2019s an incredible development, especially given that it happened only weeks after the series finished airing, but it also fundamentally changes the story that you were telling. Did you have any hesitations about jumping right back in? <\/strong><\/p>\n No. Alice Henty, the producer, and I flew back to Austin and left my dog with my parents. She called me and she\u2019s like, \u201cWell, I\u2019m in. Whatever happens, we have to start shooting.\u201d And it just kept getting bigger and bigger. HBO was like, \u201cMake a coda,\u201d but even after the first shoot a few days later, it was clear there was more story than a coda. I thought it would be, because I knew how much would change when you go from uncertainty to certainty. Obviously the boys always knew they didn\u2019t do it\u2014I mean, one of them thought he did because he got brainwashed at a certain point\u2014but the other three never thought they did. So I was just curious about, what will happen in their lives? Their lives were ruined too. And I was curious about, would any of them talk to me now? We had very little time to make this episode. It\u2019s interesting how the new episode is structured. You kind of go into a straight procedural for a bit, where all of a sudden we\u2019re seeing ballistics tests and DNA profiles on the screen.<\/strong><\/p>\n I know. I would say to Dan Jackson, the cold case detective, \u201cCan you explain this really simply?\u201d And he\u2019s like, \u201cNo, Margaret, you can\u2019t explain that simply.\u201d I would be like, \u201cWhat about if you say it like this?\u201d And he was like, \u201cYou can\u2019t say it like that.\u201d So then I had to turn around and try to explain it to [design studio] Antenna Creative, who I\u2019ve worked with before, and we have this crazy deadline, and we\u2019re trying to do these graphics and make it make sense visually, in a way where people can understand it.<\/p>\n And do all that without turning it into an episode of CSI<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n Exactly. So not my interest. When people ask me about the DNA, I know how to explain it, but I also kind of glaze over. That is not my interest as a director, how to explain Y-STR versus STR, not my thing. I\u2019m much more interested in how people\u2019s brains work and why\u2014for example, why every family member is excited to know who killed their daughter and they don\u2019t seem to be as upset to know that it\u2019s a serial killer instead of four boys.<\/p>\n Were you surprised by the family members\u2019 reactions to the news? I can\u2019t say I have an intuitive sense of how a person responds when the 34-year-old mystery of their loved one\u2019s murder is solved, but they\u2019re much calmer than I might have expected.<\/strong><\/p>\n I was surprised that everyone across the board seemed happier to have an answer, even if it\u2019s a serial killer, because I think in a vacuum that seems worse. I think there\u2019s something about the cops having said [in 1999], \u201cWell, this is who did it,\u201d but there\u2019s nothing connecting these four boys to the crime\u2014so even if they trust the cops, there\u2019s probably something in their brain that still wonders. In, I think it\u2019s the third episode, someone says to Angie and Shawn [Ayers], \u201cHow sure are you it\u2019s the boys?\u201d And they say 70 percent. So there\u2019s still 30 percent maybe they didn\u2019t do it. The way Shawn talked about the case being solved, I remember that interview so clearly. It was like his face was lit up from inside, just having an answer. He said he looked at his wife and children differently, and I felt so happy for him that he had that release, and his father as well. The women responded to it differently, but it\u2019s such a small control group, I wouldn\u2019t be like, \u201cOh, it\u2019s gendered.\u201d But it was really nice to see that they all felt lifted up by the information that it was literally 3.7 million\u2013to\u20131 that this guy [Brashers] did it.<\/p>\n On one level, it\u2019s hard to imagine being like, \u201cThank god, now I know that a serial killer murdered my daughter.\u201d But even when the families believed that the four local suspects were responsible, there was no real explanation for why. Whereas now we know it was a man who just did this, repeatedly and over the course of years, and probably more times than we know of. <\/strong><\/p>\n Oh yeah. I know that Dan and other people across the country are working with all these other police departments to figure out other crimes. So I don\u2019t think this is the end of it at all. It was chilling when we were watching this happen in real time, and Dan would text me, like, \u201cI think we found another one,\u201d right afterwards. It was insane. I\u2019ve never worked on anything true-crime, and all of a sudden it\u2019s a serial killer? I didn\u2019t even know those were around anymore.<\/p>\n You point out that you\u2019ve never worked on a true-crime project before, and the series seems infused by ambivalence, or at least self-questioning, about undertaking a project like this. One of the hardest scenes to watch is when we see old footage of Claire Huie, who worked on an unreleased project about the murders, opening an interview by asking, \u201cCan we start by your telling us how your daughters were murdered?\u201d She seems mortified watching her younger self broach the subject so clumsily, but even in the best circumstances, you are asking people to relive their trauma for your camera. <\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s really hard to talk to people about the most painful thing that\u2019s ever happened to them. And I think I was very naive when I accepted the job about how hard it would be. It was really stupid. I was like, \u201cIt happened in Austin. I live in Austin and should be an Austin filmmaker. The archival footage is amazing. It looks like Twin Peaks<\/em>. Done. I\u2019ll take the job.\u201d And then when I met the families, particularly Bob Ayers, I was just like, Fuck, what did I fucking do? This is going to be so hard, and it\u2019s not just going to be hard for me. It\u2019s going to be hard for my crew, because they have to sit here and listen to this too.<\/em> I\u2019ve now been approached to do other really dark things, and I\u2019m like, \u201cNo, we are not doing something like that next.\u201d It takes years off your life to go that deep. Someone else can do that.<\/p>\n When you\u2019re doing an interview where you are asking someone to describe the worst thing that\u2019s ever happened to them, do you have to stop and remind yourself why you\u2019re doing this? What\u2019s your North Star, in terms of, as long as I\u2019m doing it for this reason, it\u2019s OK?<\/strong><\/p>\n There\u2019s no real way to prepare. That\u2019s why it\u2019s so hard. You have to be in the moment. And that is a part of why I love my job, because you really have to be responsive. You have to just be so alive. But also you don\u2019t know what\u2019s going to happen, and you don\u2019t know how much you\u2019re going to hurt someone by asking a question, and that is really tender territory.<\/p>\n I love these people and don\u2019t want to hurt them. When they share things like, \u201cWe did that interview and I couldn\u2019t get out of bed for a month,\u201d is it worth it? What I tell them is, \u201cLook, I know you couldn\u2019t get out of bed for a month, but hopefully someone else who can\u2019t get out of bed for a month will watch this, and this will help them know that there\u2019s light somewhere. There\u2019s a door somewhere they can\u2019t maybe see yet that they can someday walk through.\u201d Because I believe that. I believe that we learn. That\u2019s how art works. That\u2019s why it matters. It sounds hippie-dippie, but it\u2019s true. That\u2019s why I became a filmmaker and that\u2019s what I always hope my work will do. It doesn\u2019t always work, but that\u2019s the goal.<\/p>\n You have that moment with Barbara Ayres-Wilson, doing what she describes as the last interview she\u2019ll ever give about her daughter\u2019s murder, and it\u2019s clear you\u2019ve earned her trust and are there for a good reason, but even so she pauses to observe, this is a weird thing you do<\/em>, right? <\/strong><\/p>\n I love her so much. And yeah, she just names the thing. It is<\/em> weird.<\/p>\n I question that even as a viewer. Why, other than morbid curiosity, am I watching these people pour out their unimaginable pain on my iPad?<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s because you can learn something from it. We all go through grief. We all go through trauma. I think that\u2019s why. I think the reason you watch is to think about, How do I get better at learning how to deal with these really difficult things that all humans deal with?<\/em><\/p>\n Our reactions aren\u2019t always what fictional accounts might lead us to expect. It\u2019s a real moment in the new episode when you ask the victims\u2019 family members what they feel about the four men who were wrongly accused of the crime\u2014including Robert Springsteen, who spent several years on death row. It seems like there\u2019s not a lot of sympathy there.\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n I think that it\u2019s easy to be judgy about that, but what I would say is that\u2014I mean, there\u2019s a reason I included it, because that is fucking fascinating\u2014but also that interview happened like two months after they found out. What Shawn says is really telling. He says, \u201cI haven\u2019t gotten to that yet.\u201d And I think that\u2019s a very honest response. But how are they going to feel in a year? I asked Sonora [victim Eliza Thomas\u2019 sister], who\u2019s a therapist, \u201cWhat do you tell your patients in a situation like this?\u201d And she said, \u201cWell, the first year is just for people to bring you bundt cakes and casseroles. After a year is when you really start processing, but the first year you just need to be around people.\u201d I feel like they\u2019re in that year. I feel bad that I asked them that question at two months and not at a year and two months, because I think a lot of people are going to watch this and be like, \u201cWow, I don\u2019t think I would do that. I would feel empathy for the boys.\u201d But \u201cI haven\u2019t gotten to that yet\u201d\u2014I think that\u2019s more the way. Both the mothers are like, \u201cThat is horrible, but that\u2019s not what I\u2019m focused on right now.\u201d And I think they\u2019re really honest. They\u2019re really honest with me, and I appreciate that, that they are not trying to pretend. I think some people would.<\/p>\n It\u2019s also not like the victims\u2019 families\u2019 response is the real issue, either. They\u2019re not the ones who put those suspects in jail or coerced their convictions. It\u2019s much more important that a judge ruled earlier this year that they are definitely innocent of the crimes, or that, just last week, the city of Austin agreed to pay them and their families $35 million in restitution. <\/strong><\/p>\n Well, and this has been highlighted less in the press, but a lot of it is also tied to reform. It\u2019s $35 million, plus they want to make sure this never happens again. It\u2019s the same with the Ayers family. They want to make sure this doesn\u2019t happen to other families. Everyone\u2019s always focused on money, but it\u2019s really about the people this happened to, they want to make sure no one goes through what they went through.<\/p>\n I\u2019ve talked to some of [the wrongfully accused], and it\u2019s really sweet. Forrest [Welborn]\u2019s mom invited me yesterday. She was like, \u201cWhat are you doing tonight? I\u2019m baking cookies at the bar. You should come by and celebrate with us.\u201d She was like, \u201cThey\u2019re called sunshine cookies.\u201d It\u2019s so pure, and also they\u2019ve been through so much.<\/p>\n The interview with Forrest Welborn ends up being the most emotional part of this final episode. He was never even formally charged with the crimes, but you can see how devastating it\u2019s been to be associated with them for decades.<\/strong><\/p>\n He\u2019s been damaged by it, but he\u2019s a really fucking strong person and his mom is so cool. Before we even did the interview, we went and hung out at the bar a few nights, just sat with him, drank with him, made him hopefully realize we were humans and not vultures. In a sense, we are<\/em> vultures, because we\u2019re trying to get a story, but I just wanted him to know I\u2019m a person. And so we just spent a lot of time, as much time as we could with such a short deadline\u2014but also his bar\u2019s really cool, so it\u2019s not hard. His mom, every Tuesday night, makes soup for everyone.<\/p>\n
I made it in six months, and it\u2019s full feature-length. So a lot of it is a blur. You might ask me a question and I\u2019ll be like, \u201cI can\u2019t remember, because we made it so fast.\u201d<\/p>\n