Speaker 1: I'm so grateful that many of our guests have been
Speaker 1: released from prison, either before or after our coverage was released,
Speaker 1: but others continued to languish behind bars for crimes they
Speaker 1: didn't commit, including the man whose case we're going to
Speaker 1: highlight again today, John Jones. The Ohio Innocence Project is
Speaker 1: still hard at work to set him free, and this
Speaker 1: is his story of how a grieving father's loss was
Speaker 1: compounded by his wrongful conviction. John Jones and Deja Ruiz
Speaker 1: had three children while working on their high school diplomas.
Speaker 1: After celebrating Deja's mother's birthday on March eighteenth, the young
Speaker 1: family laid down to sleep. Despite the expected waking and
Speaker 1: beating that comes with six month old twins, the night
Speaker 1: was ordinary. When Deja left for school at eight am,
Speaker 1: John propped some bottles on a blanket near twins Jada
Speaker 1: and Jasmine and went back to sleep. Then, when John
Speaker 1: woke again at nine forty a m turned on cartoons
Speaker 1: for his son and went to attend to the twins.
Speaker 1: Jada was unresponsive. In a panic. He called family and
Speaker 1: nine one one. The dispatcher coached him through CPR until
Speaker 1: first responders arrived and took over. He did everything a
Speaker 1: concerned father would do, but when testing was done at
Speaker 1: the hospital, doctors found what they mistakenly thought was conclusive
Speaker 1: evidence of lethal child abuse. However, over the next decade,
Speaker 1: the science that they used to support John's conviction has
Speaker 1: crumbled under the weight of reality. Had a jury heard
Speaker 1: all the other now logical explanations for the symptoms present
Speaker 1: in little Jada's body, John Jones never would have served
Speaker 1: a day of his fifteenth to life prison sentence. This
Speaker 1: is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason.
Speaker 1: That's me, of course, your host, and today we're here
Speaker 1: to tell you the heartbreaking story of Jon Jones, who
Speaker 1: was just seventeen years old when his six month old daughter,
Speaker 1: Jada Ruise died, and shortly thereafter, the tragedy was compounded
Speaker 1: by the hubris of some in the medical establishment and
Speaker 1: legal system armed with the junk science of shaking baby syndrome.
Speaker 1: And today I'm joined by a phenomenal co host. Avid
Speaker 1: listeners will remember Greg Gloud from the Junk Science episode
Speaker 1: on roadside drug Testing. He is the criminal Justice fellow
Speaker 1: at Americans for Prosperity. Greg. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Jason, thank you so much for allowing
Speaker 1: me to co host. You know, you and I have
Speaker 1: gotten close over the last couple of months. I've been
Speaker 1: working on criminal justice reform since about two thousand and
Speaker 1: fifteen now, and to be able to do this today
Speaker 1: and co host is, you know, really an honor. So
Speaker 1: now I really thank you again. Well, I'm the one
Speaker 1: who really should feel honored, and not just because you've
Speaker 1: joined us, but also because with us is one of
Speaker 1: the world's lead eating experts and one of the most
Speaker 1: troubling aspects of our criminal legal system, shaken Baby syndrome. Now.
Speaker 1: She was also featured on Wrongful Conviction Junk Science when
Speaker 1: we covered this subject. The executive director of the Center
Speaker 1: for Integrity and Forensic Sciences, Kate Judson, Welcome back to
Speaker 1: Ronful Conviction. Hi, thank you so much, Jason, and Hi Greig.
Speaker 1: And last but not least, we have with us staff
Speaker 1: attorney at the Ohio Innocence Project, the man who's representing
Speaker 1: John Jones, Donald Castor Donald, Welcome to Ronful Conviction. Thanks
Speaker 1: for being here. Hi Jason, thank you for having me on.
Speaker 1: And we'll be joined very soon by John Jones was
Speaker 1: going to be calling in from Lebanon Correctional Facility in Ohio.
Speaker 1: But first let's get a little background on what John
Speaker 1: was up against when Jada became unresponsive. Kate, can you
Speaker 1: give a brief history on shaking baby syndrome? You know
Speaker 1: where it came from, this hypothesis, and then how did
Speaker 1: it start to enter its way into the criminal justice
Speaker 1: system as a viable scientific theory to convict caretakers of murder,
Speaker 1: Sure Greg Shaken baby syndrome was originally proposed as a
Speaker 1: hypothesis to explain a phenomenon that a pediatric neurosurgeon in
Speaker 1: Great Britain was seeing in his patients. He would sometimes
Speaker 1: have infants who died or were seriously ill without a
Speaker 1: clear cause and without external trauma, and yet the internal
Speaker 1: features looked a lot like kids who had suffered some
Speaker 1: kind of traumatic injury. So those findings were subderal hematoma,
Speaker 1: which is bleeding between the coverings of the brain, retinal
Speaker 1: hemorrhage which is bleeding at the back of the eye,
Speaker 1: and encephalopathy and sere brilladema, which sort of acts together
Speaker 1: as one leg of what sometimes people call the triad
Speaker 1: Surrey brilladema his brain swelling, and en cephalopathy is brain dysfunction.
Speaker 1: And so Dr guth Kelch, this Pietric neurosurgeon, was seeing
Speaker 1: these findings and kids and they looked injured on the
Speaker 1: inside but not on the outside. And he thought that
Speaker 1: one reason for that might be a common disciplinary technique
Speaker 1: in his home of Northern England in the seventies, which
Speaker 1: was shaking. And so what Dr goth Kelch said is
Speaker 1: that these medical findings could be due to shaking. And
Speaker 1: Dr goth Kelch wasn't claiming to have the answers, but
Speaker 1: rather that he was hypothesizing about what might be causing
Speaker 1: these findings. So that started to evolve. A radiologist in
Speaker 1: New York, John Caffey, built on that and he published
Speaker 1: articles saying the same thing, right, that parents should be
Speaker 1: gentle with infants. But neither of these doctors suggested that
Speaker 1: the medical findings that they associated with shaking were exclusively
Speaker 1: diagnostic to shaking, nor did they say that there was
Speaker 1: a reliable way to place blame on a caregiver when
Speaker 1: a child had these medical findings, right, and so where
Speaker 1: was the switch then, from this just being you know,
Speaker 1: a hypothesis or an unexplained phenomena to a verifiable medical
Speaker 1: diagnosis that actually began convicting individuals of murder of a child.
Speaker 1: And there's a little bit of a gap in understanding
Speaker 1: between the mid to late night seventies and then when
Speaker 1: we start to see these cases appear in published appellate
Speaker 1: decisions in the late eighties, and we started to see
Speaker 1: prosecutors and pediatricians in particular, also pathologists saying that when
Speaker 1: children had this collection of findings, which is sometimes called
Speaker 1: a triad of findings or a constellation of medical findings,
Speaker 1: that shaking could be diagnosed. And that's when it comes
Speaker 1: into the criminal legal system, and we start to see
Speaker 1: the trajectory that we're on today where parents are wrongfully
Speaker 1: accused based on only the existence of a particular set
Speaker 1: of medical findings. And I mean to be totally clear,
Speaker 1: there's no debate about whether abusive shaking, violent shaking of
Speaker 1: an infant is dangerous. It is and no one should
Speaker 1: do it. The debate is really whether shaking reliably explains
Speaker 1: the findings that are often attributed to it, whether shaking
Speaker 1: can be diagnosed as the cause of those findings. Okay,
Speaker 1: And doing my research for this there is a large
Speaker 1: concentration of these shaking baby syndrome cases in the state
Speaker 1: of Ohio, and so I just wanted to see if
Speaker 1: you had any explanation behind why Ohio kind of had
Speaker 1: a higher rate of shaken baby syndrome cases than than
Speaker 1: many other jurisdictions across the nation. Researchers aren't a percent
Speaker 1: sure why some places have higher concentrations of diagnoses of
Speaker 1: SPS than others. It's probably a combination of factors. But
Speaker 1: some of those factors include prosecutors who are particularly aggressive
Speaker 1: in going after these are kinds of accusations, the media
Speaker 1: attention certain cases receive in certain media markets, and the
Speaker 1: child abuse pediatricians or forensic pathologists who work on these cases,
Speaker 1: if they have a particular belief or bent, then there
Speaker 1: are more likely to be more accusations of shaking within
Speaker 1: you know that person's jurisdiction or area of control, and
Speaker 1: Ohio is one of those places. And now we'll go
Speaker 1: to Lebanon Correctional Facility to speak with a young man
Speaker 1: who was doing his best as a young teenager to
Speaker 1: raise three kids while finishing high school in the third
Speaker 1: largest Shaken Babies syndrome epicenter in the country Acron, Ohio. Hello,
Speaker 1: this is a prepaid debit call from an inmate at
Speaker 1: a Lebanon correctional facility. To accept this call, press zero
Speaker 1: to prevent This call is from a correction facility and
Speaker 1: is subject to monitoring and recording. Thank you for using GTL.
Speaker 1: Come on, John, Yeah, John. Like I always say, I'm
Speaker 1: glad you're here with us, but I'm sorry because of
Speaker 1: the reason you're here, or more to the point, because
Speaker 1: of where you are. Thanks for having me. So I
Speaker 1: wanted you to take us back, if you will, to
Speaker 1: your life before this absolute horror happened. You were growing
Speaker 1: up in Acron. I grew up with four sisters. We struggled.
Speaker 1: I grew uport he moved around a lot. My mom
Speaker 1: has some struggles alcoholidation. My father as well had the
Speaker 1: sign struggles. Regardless of what she was going through her
Speaker 1: own personal problems with My mom always was around. She
Speaker 1: was always with us, but my grandmother end up getting
Speaker 1: custody and me when I was really young. She just
Speaker 1: put us on a path to try to be as
Speaker 1: successful as we could. Growing up, I did real good
Speaker 1: at school, always was like an honor roll student. Once
Speaker 1: I became a teenager, and that's when I came into
Speaker 1: contact with my child's mother. I met her December sixte
Speaker 1: my fourteenth birthday, and my son was can see nine
Speaker 1: days later on Christmas Eve Christmas night. So now on fourteen,
Speaker 1: I'm expecting a child on the way. I knew that
Speaker 1: I had a responsibility now, so school no longer was
Speaker 1: a priority. My bid what I needed to do to
Speaker 1: provide for him as trying to progress, Me and her
Speaker 1: eventually began to establish a relationship get closer. A couple
Speaker 1: of years later. That's where my twins were and see
Speaker 1: Jada and jash Man. We ended up getting my apartment
Speaker 1: together on our own. My grandmother was still technically my
Speaker 1: legal guardian, so I lived with them, but I spent
Speaker 1: most nights with my child's mother just to be around
Speaker 1: my children. Growing up. My father was always in my life,
Speaker 1: but like I said, he was about one with addiction.
Speaker 1: But even though I loved him unconditionally, he just wasn't
Speaker 1: the best that he could have been. So now it
Speaker 1: made me want to make sure I was the best
Speaker 1: I could have been, regardless of how old I was,
Speaker 1: regardless of school, whatever I was going through, I was
Speaker 1: gonna be president every single day in their life, no
Speaker 1: matter what, regardless of the status of me and their
Speaker 1: mother's relationship, how healthy or how unhealthy it was. I
Speaker 1: was going to make sure I was there for my
Speaker 1: kids no matter what. And that's admirable. And so you,
Speaker 1: your children's mother, Deja, your son ty Shan, and the
Speaker 1: twins Jada and Jasmine all moved into an apartment together.
Speaker 1: Deja was eighteen, you're seventeen, and you were both finishing
Speaker 1: high school through an alternative school for young parents, and
Speaker 1: somehow you're making it work, which which brings us to
Speaker 1: March nineteen. The night before that morning, it was actually
Speaker 1: your mother's birthday, everybody spent some time together. It was
Speaker 1: it was a cool little vibe though. Everybody was on
Speaker 1: the same page. And we went to sleep like any
Speaker 1: other day. We slept down in the living room. I
Speaker 1: slept on the couch with my daughter Job and she
Speaker 1: slept down on the floor with my daughter and saying,
Speaker 1: and my son was down there with us as well.
Speaker 1: But throughout the night she was waking me up, complaining
Speaker 1: about position in or feeding or you know, my daughter
Speaker 1: might have been hunger or whatever. She was waking me
Speaker 1: up throughout the night, but it was it was just
Speaker 1: a typical day. And then that morning she had a
Speaker 1: test that she had to go take right and from
Speaker 1: what I understand, you both fed the twins at five
Speaker 1: am and then went back to sleep. Then Dasia woke
Speaker 1: up at seven am to get ready for school and
Speaker 1: left around eight. So I get a walk hers to
Speaker 1: the door, you know, wishing to look on her task,
Speaker 1: giver her a kiss. She go out. At this point,
Speaker 1: my son still sleep my daughters and on the couch
Speaker 1: they land down. Its early in the morning, so I'm
Speaker 1: still tired. I go up to my daughter's I popped
Speaker 1: the bottles. I learned later on now that this wasn't
Speaker 1: a smart thing to do, just because of the safety
Speaker 1: concerns with a with a nove warm, but I time,
Speaker 1: I really wasn't aware of it, and it was more
Speaker 1: like a convened being away of me going back to sleep,
Speaker 1: but also feeding them if they were hunting. So I
Speaker 1: placed the bottles up on the blanket, prop them up,
Speaker 1: so I put them right there just so when they
Speaker 1: do w up, the bottle of be right there, they'll
Speaker 1: be able to see. I can be able to sleep
Speaker 1: about another hour or two. Whatever the b R. Everybody
Speaker 1: be cool. We did this every day months of the time,
Speaker 1: so it was it was just another I said, it
Speaker 1: was just another day. But it's at this point, between
Speaker 1: eight and nine am that, according to the state's theory
Speaker 1: and what passed for expert testimony, that you allegedly abused
Speaker 1: your daughter Jada in such a way that it caused
Speaker 1: all of these supposed injuries or symptoms that were later
Speaker 1: observed at the hospital, the same ones that Kate had
Speaker 1: mentioned earlier that make up the triad of shaking baby syndrome.
Speaker 1: But as we now know, there are a myriad of
Speaker 1: medical conditions that can and do cause these symptoms in
Speaker 1: addition to an accidental or intentional traumatic event. And even
Speaker 1: in those events, it's important to note that the child
Speaker 1: maybe lucid up to seventy two hours or even more
Speaker 1: before the symptoms or injuries become a parent, and in
Speaker 1: this case, they became apparent to you when you checked
Speaker 1: on Jada and Jasmine around nine am on that faithful,
Speaker 1: awful day. And you know, as a father myself, it's
Speaker 1: every parent's worst nightmare. So at nine forty am you
Speaker 1: woke up put on cartoons for tyshon and go to
Speaker 1: check on your daughters, only to find that Jada was unresponsive.
Speaker 1: That was the scariest moment in my life. That was
Speaker 1: the worst day of my life. I didn't know what
Speaker 1: to do in that moment. She wasn't breathing, she wasn't moving,
Speaker 1: when she was a responsive at all, I instantly get
Speaker 1: on the phone. My first reaction was to call our family,
Speaker 1: because my daughters were born with actually reflects when they
Speaker 1: when they feed, they would regret to take the food.
Speaker 1: It would come on their mode. Sometimes will come with
Speaker 1: their mother. It didn't happen every time, but it happened frequently,
Speaker 1: so at first I was wondering if this was the case.
Speaker 1: So I actually called my mom and I tell them
Speaker 1: what's going on. But I'm panicked, so I didn't want
Speaker 1: to stay on the phone with them too long because
Speaker 1: I'm realizing that she's not breathing or nothing. But I
Speaker 1: called her family as well to let them know. I
Speaker 1: get off the phone, I call nine one one, tell
Speaker 1: them the whole situation is. I'm listening to the nine
Speaker 1: one one operated and she explaining to me how to
Speaker 1: do the test confessions and the mouth. The mouth I tried.
Speaker 1: I did everything I could, and thatthing was working like
Speaker 1: so at this point, I'm becoming more scared, more upset.
Speaker 1: I'm crying like and I'm just waiting to seem like
Speaker 1: a second for ever. They finally arrived, they grab where
Speaker 1: they take her out, and I began to speak to
Speaker 1: detectives or whatever. I'm telling them everything pretty much that
Speaker 1: I'm telling you, just my recognition of that night and
Speaker 1: the morning. Nothing really stood out to me. From that point,
Speaker 1: family members started arriving. Everybody's gonna sign we all head
Speaker 1: down to the hospital, and then a couple hours later,
Speaker 1: that's when we hear the doctors a peon about what
Speaker 1: they believe was the cause of everything. When the first
Speaker 1: responders arrived, they see any signs of any external injuries.
Speaker 1: They didn't see any bruising or obvious deformities or bone fractures.
Speaker 1: They were under the impression that Jada might have suffered
Speaker 1: from SIDS or sudden infant death syndrome. And the police
Speaker 1: see John doing what you would expect a distraught father
Speaker 1: to be doing. As an officer named Dennis Bard starts
Speaker 1: taking pictures of the scene. There are blankets that are
Speaker 1: collected um one of the things that's not collected is
Speaker 1: the bottles that were feeding to the children, and that
Speaker 1: becomes critical later on in the state theory of the case.
Speaker 1: The bottles are important, at least according to the state,
Speaker 1: because one of the doctors who testified on behalf of
Speaker 1: the state told the jury that how much milk and
Speaker 1: formula was in the bottle would have been really important
Speaker 1: in establishing the timing of abuse, because, according to the
Speaker 1: States doctor, Jada wouldn't have been able to consume anything
Speaker 1: from the bottle after suffering the type of injuries that
Speaker 1: they lead Jada had suffered. And what we now know,
Speaker 1: and this is so important, is that a child can
Speaker 1: experience seventy two hours or more of lucidity after a
Speaker 1: traumatic event, whether accidental or intentional, which it's not entirely
Speaker 1: clear that this is in fact what happened to cause
Speaker 1: these symptoms. And I say symptoms because a myriad of
Speaker 1: medical conditions can cause what happened to Jada to happen.
Speaker 1: But we're getting a little bit ahead of ourselves here.
Speaker 1: So the first responders see this situation as a non
Speaker 1: criminal death, not a homicide. So the bottle was just
Speaker 1: left there and the lead investigator Detective Shady drove John
Speaker 1: to the hospital. Detective Shady also does a very brief
Speaker 1: interview of John at the time. Detective Shady and John
Speaker 1: go to the hospital following the ambulance, and once they
Speaker 1: get to the hospital, they find out that Jada had
Speaker 1: been successfully resuscitated. John makes phone calls to family members
Speaker 1: to let them know that things were at least looking
Speaker 1: a little bit better now that they were at the hospital,
Speaker 1: and then doctors at the hospital start to do medical tests.
Speaker 1: They do a cat scan, other tests, and again, ultimately
Speaker 1: the doctors began to believe that there were actual injuries
Speaker 1: to Jada, and in fact, once they got to the hospital,
Speaker 1: John was confronted by a doctor who did not testify
Speaker 1: a trial, but a significant to the case um, a
Speaker 1: doctor Darryl Steiner, who came in and told John and
Speaker 1: the detective that Jada had suffered from what he called
Speaker 1: non accidental injuries. The hospital staff also claimed that there
Speaker 1: were old injuries, insinuating that abuse had taken place for
Speaker 1: a significant period of time. So, John, you had just
Speaker 1: been through one of the most harrowing experiences that anyone
Speaker 1: can ever go through, and you were waiting to hear
Speaker 1: what the path forward might be for your daughter and
Speaker 1: the doctors that act. Vince Hospital again the number three
Speaker 1: epicenter for shaking baby syndrome diagnoses and prosecutions in the country.
Speaker 1: Those doctors tell you, the family and detectives their opinion
Speaker 1: that the medical facts observed in Jada retinal bleeding, subdural
Speaker 1: bleeding and brain swelling, as well as a series of fractures,
Speaker 1: that these could only have been the result of a
Speaker 1: non accidental traumatic event, in other words, child abuse, violent
Speaker 1: shaking by Jada's caretaker at the time that she went unresponsive.
Speaker 1: And again, we now know that there are a slew
Speaker 1: of medical conditions that can cause these symptoms, and that
Speaker 1: children can experience seventy two hours or more of relatively
Speaker 1: normal behavior after such a traumatic event, if a traumatic
Speaker 1: event even ever occurred and was in fact what caused
Speaker 1: these symptoms. So back then many in the medical establishment,
Speaker 1: these doctors are included, thought that they could diagnose a
Speaker 1: crime at the time of that crime, which we now
Speaker 1: know that they could not. Meanwhile, your story has remained
Speaker 1: consistent ever since that faithful day, and nowhere in your
Speaker 1: recollection of events does even a minor frustration occur let alone,
Speaker 1: violent shaking never never, never were all sitting in the
Speaker 1: in the waiting room or in the area when they
Speaker 1: come in and they tell us, well, we believe that
Speaker 1: what's wrong with her was my accidental, was intentional, was
Speaker 1: caused by somebody, was caused by specifically somebody who was there.
Speaker 1: So then at that point I felt like I was
Speaker 1: being accused or even suspected of something. And the only
Speaker 1: other person I was there with me was your mother.
Speaker 1: I know I did do nothing to her, I never will,
Speaker 1: so a many things running through my head at that moment.
Speaker 1: I'm scared first and foremost most protly for my daughter.
Speaker 1: Now I'm questioning it, like why are they saying somebody
Speaker 1: did this? Why they saying somebody causes like what? And
Speaker 1: like did she do something? So a conversation was had
Speaker 1: afterwards outside with just me and her, and you know,
Speaker 1: I asked it straight up, like did she do something?
Speaker 1: And she didn't not, you know, I didn't do nothing.
Speaker 1: I don't know what they're talking about, Like so now
Speaker 1: I didn't. I'm just confused, like I just don't know
Speaker 1: what I don't know. But detectors continue to question me.
Speaker 1: They keep talking to me my natural reaction was to
Speaker 1: wrop right with them. You know what I'm saying, It's
Speaker 1: my baby, so hiver, I can help whatever I can say.
Speaker 1: Back then the day, I don't know much. I don't
Speaker 1: know what to sing. I'm confused like anybody else, everybody else.
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened much. The finger was actually
Speaker 1: pointed and blame was cast and charges were brought up,
Speaker 1: partly in indictenments and hand cuffs placed on not That's
Speaker 1: when I started feeling like their chances wasn't in the
Speaker 1: right place, because if the actually was, and you would
Speaker 1: have really sought out a real answerence, that are just
Speaker 1: placed it all somebody saithly because they were physically and
Speaker 1: the wrong. This episode is underwritten by Paul Weiss Rifkin,
Speaker 1: Wharton and Garrison, a leading international law firm. Paul Weiss
Speaker 1: has long had an unwavering commitment to providing impactful, pro
Speaker 1: bono legal assistance to the most vulnerable members of our
Speaker 1: society and in support of the public interest, including extensive
Speaker 1: work in the criminal justice area. So with misplaced conference,
Speaker 1: they attribute injuries or symptoms to actions and persons when
Speaker 1: the science barely even supported it. Back then let alone. Now,
Speaker 1: the causes of Jada's symptoms range from accidental or intentional
Speaker 1: trauma to internal For instance, there's a well recognized condition
Speaker 1: where there's a little extra space in between the child's brain.
Speaker 1: It's called the wretches the veins that bridge that space,
Speaker 1: which causes chronic subdural bleeding. It still hasn't been determined
Speaker 1: what causes this overlying condition, but birth trauma has been
Speaker 1: suggested as a potential cause, whether natural or cesarean and
Speaker 1: this condition usually manifests within the child second to six months. Jada,
Speaker 1: of course, was six months old when this occurred, and
Speaker 1: it's logical to think that being birth as a twin
Speaker 1: could probably be described as a traumatic event, an event
Speaker 1: that could cause limb fractures as well. In these shaking
Speaker 1: baby syndrome cases, CT scans and m r s will
Speaker 1: usually show the chronic subdural bleeding as they found in
Speaker 1: this case, which will then be used as evidence of
Speaker 1: repeated abuse. Well, it's misused, but used anyway, when all
Speaker 1: along there's a legitimate and logical medical explanation other potential
Speaker 1: causes for symptoms like Jada's. I mean, there's you could
Speaker 1: write a medical textbook on this right. They include bleeding disorders,
Speaker 1: cologen disorders, copper disorders, genetic disorders, vitamin deficiencies, even your
Speaker 1: everyday average household slip and fall. But I seriously doubt
Speaker 1: whether the number three Epicenter for diagnosing or misdiagnosing child
Speaker 1: abuse did a full genetic workup to rule out all
Speaker 1: of these potential causes before. It's just sort of cavalierly
Speaker 1: sending John up the river. So the allegation was that
Speaker 1: Jada had a series of fractures and that perhaps those
Speaker 1: fractures were of different ages, and that, combined with the
Speaker 1: findings of bleeding and of brain swelling, were thought to
Speaker 1: indicate trauma, and specifically trauma from abuse. So, unfortunately, one
Speaker 1: of the things that we know happens in wrongful conviction
Speaker 1: cases all the time is that once the police and
Speaker 1: in this case, doctors start ahead in a certain direction,
Speaker 1: it begins to be very difficult for them to turn
Speaker 1: to a new path. And that's what happened here. The
Speaker 1: police and the doctors didn't look for any other causes.
Speaker 1: They seized on this diagnosis of shaking baby syndrome and
Speaker 1: that's where they went. It's one of the things that
Speaker 1: makes it harder for us. You successfully represent John not impossible.
Speaker 1: We think we'll be successful in this case ultimately, but
Speaker 1: it's one of the things that hampers our works some
Speaker 1: is that we don't have the medical records for Jada
Speaker 1: from Jada's births up until Arch nineteen. And the reason
Speaker 1: is that they were another gathered by either the medical
Speaker 1: investigators or the law enforcement investigators to look at and
Speaker 1: to determine whether there was other symptomology, other pathology, other
Speaker 1: things going on with Jada prior to March nineteenth, instead
Speaker 1: of just the medical records from March nineteenth going forward.
Speaker 1: Particularly that SPS we've seen you know, over two cases
Speaker 1: overturned and a lot of these know, it seemed clear
Speaker 1: cut that it was abuse and later on was either
Speaker 1: some sort of minor accident or some sort of genetic
Speaker 1: cause to this, and so, you know, I think people
Speaker 1: have this notion of what SPS is and then and
Speaker 1: we see clearly that there's a lot of varying reasons
Speaker 1: for that to potentially see these findings within a child
Speaker 1: and then they're just you know, initially ignored but then
Speaker 1: later come out. Um later on, we have a full
Speaker 1: examination or full medical history. Well, and there's a lot
Speaker 1: of overlap here, Greggy, because a lot of the factors
Speaker 1: that caused children to have either have health problems or
Speaker 1: have their health problems not be appropriately diagnosed or treated
Speaker 1: are also the factors that doctors and child protection workers
Speaker 1: will look at too. To say that statistically, a child
Speaker 1: is more likely to be abused. And so what I
Speaker 1: mean by that is parents who are young and parents
Speaker 1: who are people of color are both more likely to
Speaker 1: be accused of crimes and more likely to receive disparate
Speaker 1: treatment within the medical establishment. So those things actually work
Speaker 1: together to create an unjust result in many cases. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's worth noting that just as we record, a
Speaker 1: study was just published which showed that there is intense
Speaker 1: cognitive bias amongst medical examiners, so much so that when
Speaker 1: given the same exact evidence, two different groups and we're
Speaker 1: talking large groups of medical examiners look at exactly the
Speaker 1: same evidence of a three year old that was brought
Speaker 1: to the hospital with head trauma and died, where four
Speaker 1: times more likely to rule it a homicide when they
Speaker 1: were told that the child was black and that the
Speaker 1: child was brought in by the boyfriend of the mother
Speaker 1: as opposed to the other group that was told with
Speaker 1: exactly the same evidence that the child was white and
Speaker 1: was brought in by a grandparent. So just to really
Speaker 1: put a stamp on what you were saying, Kate, So
Speaker 1: let's turn to the arrest. So John was was not
Speaker 1: arrested right away, although it was clear that once Jada
Speaker 1: was taken off of life support and passed away, that
Speaker 1: they were going to charge him with murder. John didn't
Speaker 1: have a lot of money as a teenager charged for
Speaker 1: the crime. He had council appointed to represent him, and
Speaker 1: then counsel got the court to provide some funds for
Speaker 1: an additional expert witness to help prepare for trial. So
Speaker 1: at trial, what was the state's theory, what was the
Speaker 1: evidence behind that, and then what did the defense put
Speaker 1: together to refute. So Dejah agreed with with everything that
Speaker 1: John had said previously about what happened um in the
Speaker 1: hour or so before Desiah left for school that day,
Speaker 1: So there was no inconsistency between what John has been
Speaker 1: saying and what Desia said happened. Desia, of course, claimed
Speaker 1: that she didn't do anything to any of the children.
Speaker 1: According to her testimony at trial, she believed John may
Speaker 1: have lied to her about any wrongdoing, but thesa just
Speaker 1: being told by the people who were supposed to know
Speaker 1: what they're talking about. The John killed her child and Kate.
Speaker 1: What were the medical findings that the state witnesses had
Speaker 1: and what they concluded? The medical facts presented at trial
Speaker 1: in this case included a series of fractures, mostly fresh
Speaker 1: but at least one older fracture, retinal hemorrhaging, subdural hemorrhaging,
Speaker 1: signs of previous subdural hemorrhaging, and brains swelling. As I
Speaker 1: said before, this is the classic triad of shaken baby syndrome.
Speaker 1: And then the state put on three medical witnesses. Dr
Speaker 1: Paul McPherson testified that the child would not have been
Speaker 1: able to suck any milk after sustaining these kinds of injuries.
Speaker 1: But we now know that a child can experience seventy
Speaker 1: two hours of lucidity after the injuries associated with shaken
Speaker 1: baby syndrome, and that's what published case reports have shown us.
Speaker 1: It could be even greater than that. So Dr McPherson
Speaker 1: conceded that the injuries may have been sustained before John
Speaker 1: woke at eight am to give Jada a bottle. The
Speaker 1: injuries may not have been a parent and the state
Speaker 1: had to steal up that concession with Dr Paula Sunder,
Speaker 1: who testified that the causal injury could not have been
Speaker 1: sustained prior to eight am. Again, we now know that
Speaker 1: a child can experience seventy two hours of lucidity or
Speaker 1: more after the injuries associated with us P S. Their
Speaker 1: last medical witnesses testimony was based on the testimony of
Speaker 1: Detective Shady, who said that John told him in an
Speaker 1: unrecorded interview that Jada began to suck the bottle when
Speaker 1: he made it available by propping it on the blanket nearby.
Speaker 1: This is refuted by two other recorded interviews with John,
Speaker 1: as well as DESA's uncontested statement that Jada had drunk
Speaker 1: half her bottle before Jasia left for school. So you
Speaker 1: can see that the state was trying to box the
Speaker 1: cause of Jada's death into the window that Jada was
Speaker 1: under John's care alone. Summit County Coroner Dr. Lisa Cohler
Speaker 1: testified that, based on the secondhand information that the child
Speaker 1: drank a significant portion of the milk after eight am,
Speaker 1: the injuries were a result of being shaken, because if
Speaker 1: she could still muster the energy to drink milk after
Speaker 1: eight am, then the trauma must have been committed by
Speaker 1: John to cause her to go unconscious. However, and I
Speaker 1: know that I sound like a broken record here, if
Speaker 1: there was causal trauma, it could have happened seventy two
Speaker 1: hours into the past from when Jada became unresponsive. So
Speaker 1: the state's case was completely undermined by what we now
Speaker 1: know about the junk science that they were relying on
Speaker 1: to convict John. The defense, however, called renowned forensic pathologist
Speaker 1: Dr John Arden, who agreed that these could have been
Speaker 1: injuries from abuse or not, and that they could have
Speaker 1: occurred between seven and nine am. However, the evidence available
Speaker 1: did not permit a medical opinion with any degree of
Speaker 1: specificity regarding the timing of any of the fresh injuries,
Speaker 1: and that it is not medically reasonable to make any
Speaker 1: such determinations. Subdural hemorrhaging does not typically cause immediate incapacitation,
Speaker 1: so the way the state was trying to fence in
Speaker 1: this crime to that eight to nine forty am window
Speaker 1: just doesn't hold water. Dr Arden testified that Jada's medical
Speaker 1: records corroborate John's telling of events to a reasonable degree
Speaker 1: of medical certainty. And Dr Arden isn't you know, I'll say,
Speaker 1: for a lot of a better term, one of these
Speaker 1: defense witness gun for higher that will that will kind
Speaker 1: of say, you know what he wants. I mean, he
Speaker 1: was a believer of SPS for a very long time,
Speaker 1: and he's mentioned very recently, like you said, in more
Speaker 1: recent studies that doctors need to be very mindful of
Speaker 1: diagnosing this and they're really missing de facts and k
Speaker 1: you mentioned it, and I'll ask the tough question. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have fractures and limbs at least diagnosed by states
Speaker 1: witnesses and other things at trial. Were there any explanations
Speaker 1: about where potentially these injuries may have come? Because you
Speaker 1: know you, I think you you're on a jury, you're
Speaker 1: seeing multiple fractures and and damage to the head and
Speaker 1: then also to the extremities. What is important to know
Speaker 1: about medical findings in these kinds of cases is that
Speaker 1: medical findings might look like abuse, but they might not
Speaker 1: necessarily be abuse. And that can happen for a few reasons.
Speaker 1: One is that injuries that are accidental can be misinterpreted
Speaker 1: by medical providers and investigators as a b use, and
Speaker 1: another is related to this assumption that sometimes medical providers
Speaker 1: make that because they don't know about the child's underlying
Speaker 1: medical conditions. If the child doesn't have any, so maybe
Speaker 1: a child has a bone disorder, they might fracture very easily.
Speaker 1: Like the classic example of this is little babies in
Speaker 1: a neonatal intensive care unit who are born, for example,
Speaker 1: very premature, and they can experience fractures with totally normal handling,
Speaker 1: changing their diaper, things like that. But that's not the
Speaker 1: only scenario in which children can have what appeared to
Speaker 1: be really serious injuries from little or no trauma. And
Speaker 1: because we don't know enough about Jada's medical condition, it's
Speaker 1: really hard for us to know what kind of actions
Speaker 1: were required for her to sustain the injuries that she had.
Speaker 1: So after the presentation of dueling, experts at Defense called
Speaker 1: John to the stand, who said what you've already heard here,
Speaker 1: that he did not hurt those children. Ever, that he
Speaker 1: did not see Jada drink from the bottle after eight am,
Speaker 1: but simply propped up a half full bottle on a blanket,
Speaker 1: consistent with Deja's uncontested statement, and again all this fucking
Speaker 1: nonsense about the bottle is completely irrelevant because current science
Speaker 1: supports that in the case of a traumatic event, it
Speaker 1: could have happened any time over the prior three days
Speaker 1: or even longer. So, whether it was intentional or an accident,
Speaker 1: Jada could have fallen off the couch the changing table.
Speaker 1: Knowing what we know now, one cannot maintain that those
Speaker 1: injuries could have only happened one way, the way that
Speaker 1: the state maintains still maintains violent shaking while Jada was
Speaker 1: alone in John's care. And that's if the cause even
Speaker 1: was a traumatic event rather than a pre existing medical condition.
Speaker 1: And like I've already mentioned here, there are and we've
Speaker 1: counted them. There are eight potential condition that we know
Speaker 1: of so far, and the research is ongoing. Now, I
Speaker 1: want to quote the man that first hypothesized jacin baby
Speaker 1: syndrome back in the nineteen seventies, Dr Norman goth Kelch.
Speaker 1: We mentioned him earlier, and he wrote an article in
Speaker 1: two thousand twelve. I'll never forget this that it was
Speaker 1: titled After forty years of Consideration, and that article was
Speaker 1: harshly critical of his very own hypothesis and everything that
Speaker 1: has happened since, and so in a two thousand and
Speaker 1: twelve interview, Dr goth Kelch said, and I quote, I
Speaker 1: think we need to go back to the drawing board
Speaker 1: and make a more thorough assessment of these fatal cases.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to bet that we are going to
Speaker 1: find in every or at least the large majority of cases,
Speaker 1: that the child had another severe illness of some sort
Speaker 1: which was missed until too late. End quote. I mean
Speaker 1: that's the man himself. But unfortunately that was two thousand
Speaker 1: twelve and trials in two thousand eleven. So after hearing
Speaker 1: the state's witnesses up against John's witness and not knowing
Speaker 1: really a fraction of what we know now, John was
Speaker 1: convicted almost predictably and sentenced to fifteen years to life. John,
Speaker 1: can you take us back to that terrible moment when
Speaker 1: the jury came back in. I stand up. I'm listening
Speaker 1: to the verdict on how one how one was was
Speaker 1: the highest degree of murder schorts. We find a defended
Speaker 1: John shows not guilty. I actually turned back to my
Speaker 1: family and the whole chance of feeling of relief just
Speaker 1: come over me, and I'm just like, finally, like all
Speaker 1: the everything just all the way everything just went away.
Speaker 1: I still agree with the loss of my daughter, but
Speaker 1: like the stress and the worry of the jail situation
Speaker 1: and all of this, it just went away because I
Speaker 1: heard the words my guilty, not knowing that they got
Speaker 1: the whole arrest of the indict me to read. So
Speaker 1: how to murder as a result of flux sat we
Speaker 1: find the defending n son was guilty. It's just like
Speaker 1: all the life and my body just left potentially was
Speaker 1: just tears. It was just like I can't even explain
Speaker 1: the feeling, like look at my mom she crying. I
Speaker 1: just crying. Everybody crying, even my baby she crying. And
Speaker 1: that moment on this new life, I started to be
Speaker 1: the longest, hardest fight of my life. And they said
Speaker 1: me to fifty years of life. I'm in here with
Speaker 1: grown men, I'm fresh eight team. I'm here with get
Speaker 1: victim killers. I'm a here with people all types of
Speaker 1: different type of crimes, and I gotta survive. I started
Speaker 1: trying to educate myself. I got my TV. I just
Speaker 1: gotta survive on here and now. So I gotta try
Speaker 1: to do everything I can to grow and like prosper
Speaker 1: the best that I can. I've seen a lot of here,
Speaker 1: I learned a lot of here. I grew up. I
Speaker 1: found myself a here. I was a kid when I
Speaker 1: came in what was twenty nine, I earned a lot
Speaker 1: of area, another person, perspective, my mentality, outlook, all life,
Speaker 1: everything is different, Don, What is being done now for
Speaker 1: this young man? Is there any other exculpatory evidence that
Speaker 1: we haven't already outlined here, or any evidence that the
Speaker 1: state hid constitutional violations? In terms of constitutional violations, a
Speaker 1: defendant has a right not to be convicted on the
Speaker 1: basis of unreliable, quasi scientific evidence. And that's what happened
Speaker 1: in John's case, and that's what happens in the so
Speaker 1: called shaken baby syndrome prosecutions around the country, and particularly
Speaker 1: in Ohio, and even more particularly in Summit County, which
Speaker 1: is where Akron is. As Kate pointed out near the
Speaker 1: beginning today, Ohio is a particular hot spot for these
Speaker 1: sorts of cases, and not just Ohio, but Summit County
Speaker 1: and Akron specifically. So either the people of Acron really
Speaker 1: like to use their children, or there's something going on
Speaker 1: at Akron Children's Hospital and in the Summit County Prosecutor's
Speaker 1: office with respect to their proclivity for jumping to the
Speaker 1: conclusion of child abuse and bringing these types of cases.
Speaker 1: We are preparing to bring post conviction litigation on John's path.
Speaker 1: We will argue that the science in this field has
Speaker 1: changed considerably over the last ten or eleven years, that
Speaker 1: if a jury could have heard in what it could
Speaker 1: hear today, that a conviction simply wouldn't have happened. So, really,
Speaker 1: what you have here, and taking a step back, is
Speaker 1: you have a horrible tragedy. You have a conviction based
Speaker 1: upon science that, if it was try today, would not
Speaker 1: be a viable theory, and you have a man still
Speaker 1: behind bars based upon that unreliable theory of shaking babysitter. Correct.
Speaker 1: Absolutely so for our listeners, I'm sure you're feeling the
Speaker 1: same outrage that I'm feeling now. And what can people do? Um?
Speaker 1: I certainly think that people can start writing letters to
Speaker 1: the parole board. Um. John won't be eligible for parole
Speaker 1: until and hopefully by that time we'll have successfully completed
Speaker 1: litigation on his behalf and parole won't matter. But I
Speaker 1: certainly think that that people can start writing to the
Speaker 1: parole board about these issues, because John isn't the only
Speaker 1: person in Ohio who has to come before a parole
Speaker 1: board ultimately and convince the Pearl Board that shaking baby
Speaker 1: syndrome just shouldn't serve as the underpinning for a conviction
Speaker 1: that keeps someone in prison for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: So that's something that that people can do. The other
Speaker 1: thing I would I would say that people should do,
Speaker 1: even apart from John's case, is be informed. If you
Speaker 1: get a jury duty summons, show up and then don't
Speaker 1: just believe what the government scientists tell you. Think about it,
Speaker 1: decide whether or not what they're saying is credible and
Speaker 1: makes sense, and listen with open ears of the experts
Speaker 1: that Defense Council puts on the stand as well. And
Speaker 1: remember it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
Speaker 1: So with that, John, we're thinking of you all the time,
Speaker 1: and we're going to do everything weekend. You have an
Speaker 1: extraordinary team, not just on this call, but at the
Speaker 1: Ohio Innocence Project and throughout the innocence community. Um I
Speaker 1: encourage people to donate to the Ohio Innocence Project so
Speaker 1: that we can help John and so many others who
Speaker 1: have been wrongly convicted in the state of Ohio. So
Speaker 1: with that now, of course it's the part of the
Speaker 1: show called closing arguments. First of all, I think are
Speaker 1: distinguished guests. Even we'll call it a panel today, first
Speaker 1: time I've ever used that word of closing arguments. So
Speaker 1: from from Greg and I thanks again for being here. Greg,
Speaker 1: thank you for co hosting with me as well. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much relying me to co host here Jason. Okay,
Speaker 1: and now we'll go to Donald and save Kate for
Speaker 1: last just because of alphabetical order, and then over to
Speaker 1: you John of course for the closing arguments. Thank you
Speaker 1: Jason and Gregg for having us on today and for
Speaker 1: talking about this really really important issue and this important
Speaker 1: part of the criminal justice system that hasn't gotten enough
Speaker 1: attention recently. When I work with my clients who have
Speaker 1: been convicted of child abuse through this shaken Baby syndrome theory,
Speaker 1: and as I talked to their families, I alternate between
Speaker 1: sadness and anger. I'm angry, as is everybody in the
Speaker 1: podcast today, that people go to prison over cases that
Speaker 1: look like this, and I'm sad because of what it
Speaker 1: does to people and their families. John went to prison
Speaker 1: when he was a teenager, and if the state of
Speaker 1: all House has its way, he'll never get out again
Speaker 1: for something that wasn't a crime. It was a crime
Speaker 1: that never happened. These cases are enormously difficult to undo.
Speaker 1: I compare these cases sometimes to like trying to poke
Speaker 1: a hole through jello. It's easier to make a hole
Speaker 1: through a very solid object than it is through something
Speaker 1: that's weak and weekly it just closes up around the
Speaker 1: whole that you've just made, and trying to undo these
Speaker 1: shaken baby convictions can be exactly like that. We need
Speaker 1: to do better in our criminal justice system. We need
Speaker 1: to pay attention to the science. We need to make
Speaker 1: it a little bit easier to discover the evidence to
Speaker 1: undo these convictions after they happen. In Ohio, for instance,
Speaker 1: we really need the ability to do discovery before we
Speaker 1: file an action so that we can get things like
Speaker 1: Jada's medical records from birth up until five months, so
Speaker 1: that we can put together the full medical history that
Speaker 1: we need to do the work in this kind of case.
Speaker 1: The prosecution of these types of cases are based on
Speaker 1: a laudable goal, and that's to protect children and protect
Speaker 1: the most vulnerable. Nobody wants child abuse, nobody wants to
Speaker 1: see abuse at all. Unfortunately, what's happened is that doctors
Speaker 1: and other experts believe that in these cases they can
Speaker 1: do what's called air on the side of the child.
Speaker 1: They can accuse someone of abuse when they're not sure
Speaker 1: or when all of the science doesn't unerringly point to
Speaker 1: the defendant, and you can't air on the side of
Speaker 1: the child in these kinds of cases. It's impossible any
Speaker 1: error is going to harm both the child who may
Speaker 1: be a victim and everyone else involved in the case.
Speaker 1: And that's because when these cases are investigated improperly or
Speaker 1: charges our breath that are wrongful, that means that a
Speaker 1: child can be separated from a loving family, or that
Speaker 1: a grieving parent who's lost a child can be punished
Speaker 1: for something that they didn't do. And it also might
Speaker 1: mean that a child who is ill or who has
Speaker 1: had an accident might not get the right medical care
Speaker 1: for their illness. There's no way to air on the
Speaker 1: side of the child in these cases, and that's why
Speaker 1: we have to be so careful. We cannot have convictions
Speaker 1: that are premised on science that is shaky or science
Speaker 1: that is ambiguous, and that's why the Center for Integrity
Speaker 1: in Forensic Sciences exists because everybody's right to justice and
Speaker 1: a fair result depends on a fair process and a
Speaker 1: fair trial, and you can't have that when there's testimony
Speaker 1: or opinion introduced at the trial that is overstated or
Speaker 1: just playing wrong. And now, of course over to you, John,
Speaker 1: I just wanted to shine light on my situation. I
Speaker 1: want people to realize what I'm going through and I'm
Speaker 1: not even the only person going through this is possibly
Speaker 1: being accused of causing that. There were children boots are
Speaker 1: challenged shining. It's like something that's not even It's a
Speaker 1: lot of wholes theory and the whole theory and the
Speaker 1: whole concept of to take a big detentional. So I
Speaker 1: just want to share a night on that situation of
Speaker 1: first and foremost because I know that it's gonna get better.
Speaker 1: I know that. I don't know that. I know that
Speaker 1: because I know I deserve it. I know that truth
Speaker 1: canna come out. I love my daughter unconditionally. I love
Speaker 1: all my children. I have three children, including my daughter
Speaker 1: who cashed away first of peace. I love them unconditionally,
Speaker 1: with doing anything for them we'll get my life for them.
Speaker 1: I gotta continue the pipe for my life. I gotta
Speaker 1: continue the fife of my freedom, and I gotta continue
Speaker 1: the life that that's from my daughter, because at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, that's who's truly about. When we
Speaker 1: find out the real cause of what happened, we're here,
Speaker 1: that's gonna automatically vindicate me. That's automagics, auto ate me.
Speaker 1: But it's gonna also bring closure to my family, my
Speaker 1: child's mother's family. Everybody know what I'm saying, Cause it's
Speaker 1: gonna give us the truth, is gonna it's gonna let
Speaker 1: us know. It's gonna answer the questions that we all got.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, it's about my
Speaker 1: Daughter's about jaded like it's all about Jada for Yeah,
Speaker 1: I want my freedom, Yeah I desire my freedom, but
Speaker 1: nor what happened to her getting the closure that our
Speaker 1: families need and then finally being when to get to
Speaker 1: a place where we can move forward. Because I never
Speaker 1: really ever even been able to heal from me. I
Speaker 1: never found closer because not only did I suffer one
Speaker 1: of the deepest losses that anybody on this earth can
Speaker 1: can suffer is lose on the child. Not only did
Speaker 1: I experience thing and have to deal with that, I
Speaker 1: gotta deal with saying there every single day. Thank you
Speaker 1: for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank our
Speaker 1: production team Connor Hall, Jeff Clyburne and Kevin Wardis with
Speaker 1: research by Lila Robinson. The music in this production was
Speaker 1: supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be
Speaker 1: sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on
Speaker 1: Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction,
Speaker 1: as well as at Lava for Good. On all three platforms,
Speaker 1: you can also follow me on both TikTok and Instagram
Speaker 1: at it's Jason flam Rnful Conviction is the production of
Speaker 1: Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number
Speaker 1: one