Speaker 1: On April twenty fifth, nineteen ninety, Robert McLendon saw his
Speaker 1: biological daughter for the first time in five years, just
Speaker 1: walking down the street. They stopped and spoke. Later on
Speaker 1: that same day, the ten year old girl was allegedly abducted, blindfolded,
Speaker 1: driven to an abandoned house, and raped. According to the victim,
Speaker 1: she was later able to escape from the assailant's car
Speaker 1: when he had stopped at a convenience store. The following day,
Speaker 1: the victim's mother noticed that she was acting and walking strangely.
Speaker 1: When asked, the victim alleged that her father, Robert McClendon,
Speaker 1: had attacked her. She was taken to the hospital where
Speaker 1: a rape kit was performed. Seamen was not detected, so
Speaker 1: for now no DNA testing was done, but her underwear
Speaker 1: would later become a key piece of evidence. According to
Speaker 1: a polygraph examiner, the final test of five that were
Speaker 1: done was ruled to be inconclusive and could have been
Speaker 1: quote a deliberate attempt at deception. With this dubious result
Speaker 1: and the testimony of the ten year old victim, Robert
Speaker 1: was ultimately confined. Nearly two decades passed while Roberts are
Speaker 1: fifteen to life for the kidnapping and rape of his
Speaker 1: biological daughter, before advances in DNA testing made it possible
Speaker 1: to develop a mail profile from the victims underwear, the
Speaker 1: Ohio Innocence Project, the Columbus Dispatch, and eventually the prosecutor's
Speaker 1: office worked diligently to ascertain the truth. This is wrongful conviction.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to wrongful Conviction this episode. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of things in this case that are typical the state
Speaker 1: that had happened in Ohio, the crime that was committed.
Speaker 1: But there's a twist in this case. It's you're just
Speaker 1: going to be scratching your head like I am, because
Speaker 1: it's crazy. And to tell this story, we have Jennifer
Speaker 1: Berger on and name you'll recognize. She is a professor
Speaker 1: of clinical law and the director of operations at the
Speaker 1: Ohiolo discens Project. And actually, this, Jennifer, this was your
Speaker 1: first case, right, it sure was, so I'm sure this
Speaker 1: is going to be exciting for you, and of course
Speaker 1: the man himself who lived through this nightmare, Robert McClendon. Robert,
Speaker 1: I had the pleasure of meeting you, yes recently, and listen,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry for what you went through. But I'm so
Speaker 1: glad that you're here to share your story.
Speaker 2: Thank you, and I'm really glad to be here.
Speaker 1: So before we even get into the actual crime itself,
Speaker 1: which is a horrific crime. Yes, sir, what was your
Speaker 1: life like growing up?
Speaker 3: Well, I want to say it was a normal life.
Speaker 3: I didn't have a traditional mom. I come from a
Speaker 3: family of alcoholic drug apies, but my mom tried the
Speaker 3: best so she could raising three boys. We're kind of
Speaker 3: like stairstap kids, and me and my mother we had
Speaker 3: a lot of disagreements because I've never smoked rick or
Speaker 3: these drugs, and because I will speak up to my
Speaker 3: mom and asked her, why don't you cook like other
Speaker 3: moms and things like that, So my mother would get
Speaker 3: on me and she would whoop me in. So I
Speaker 3: went on the left and I was stayed with my
Speaker 3: live with my aunt Martha, who basically raised me from
Speaker 3: a teenager.
Speaker 2: All the way up. But I was very good at school,
Speaker 2: made good grades in school.
Speaker 1: So you still managed to perform well in school despite
Speaker 1: everything else. And then I understand you had three daughters
Speaker 1: by three different mothers. Not too long after high school.
Speaker 1: There was Robin Nicole and then your youngest ended up
Speaker 1: being the victim in this case. But before we get
Speaker 1: into what happened to her, can you talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about your kids.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was young and I was there Robin and
Speaker 3: the cold Life. I didn't really get to know the
Speaker 3: victim in this case because me and her mom it
Speaker 3: broke up and I hadn't seen her since she was
Speaker 3: five years old up until the time, and I saw
Speaker 3: her when she was ten years old. The mom kept
Speaker 3: me away from her, and that's just how it was.
Speaker 1: But there was a time before the mother ever became pregnant,
Speaker 1: before your relationship had gone south. Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I had my own apartment, but I was found
Speaker 3: myself staying over there a lot with her, and she
Speaker 3: had two kids, two boys, and we were seeing each
Speaker 3: other and she, you know, she became pregnant.
Speaker 1: And at some point during that pregnancy, she decided that
Speaker 1: she didn't want you in your daughter's life. And at
Speaker 1: that time, you were already helping to support your other
Speaker 1: two daughters while working for the Columbus Parks in a
Speaker 1: recreation department.
Speaker 2: Yeah, City of Columbus, But.
Speaker 1: You became a known entity the police with your side hustle, right,
Speaker 1: selling drugs to supplement your income. No judgment here.
Speaker 3: Back then, that's what you did because the money was
Speaker 3: so good, good and fast, and I felt that because
Speaker 3: I wasn't using drugs, I was all in and I
Speaker 3: did very very well until I got caught. I was
Speaker 3: put on probation. I think the judge saw that I
Speaker 3: was not a bad person, but when he gave me
Speaker 3: that probation, there were certain people back then on the
Speaker 3: police department in the eighties that did not like me
Speaker 3: and like other guys that did what I did, and
Speaker 3: they made it very difficult for me and other guys.
Speaker 1: And there was one officer in particular who played a
Speaker 1: pivotal role in your case.
Speaker 3: Officer Nardella, that was a detective. He was what you
Speaker 3: call a dirty cop. He would arrest guys and take
Speaker 3: their money in their drugs, plant drugs, very corrupt.
Speaker 1: And he took a very special interest in you, eventually
Speaker 1: arresting you while you were on probation, alleging that he
Speaker 1: had found drugs in your car. And this was in
Speaker 1: the lead up to your trial for the crime that
Speaker 1: we're here to discuss today.
Speaker 3: But I also want to make a point out that
Speaker 3: once I was put on probation, I did not indulge
Speaker 3: in selling drugs anymore.
Speaker 1: I think that's important, but it wasn't important to Nardella though,
Speaker 1: as we so often see, a prior connection to drug
Speaker 1: deal and can make someone a target for incarceration by
Speaker 1: any means necessary, even though that past does not make
Speaker 1: you in any way guilty of another crime like murder
Speaker 1: or in this case, a rape, and especially the rape
Speaker 1: of your own daughter. So let's get to the day
Speaker 1: of the incident itself. Robert, after the birth of your
Speaker 1: youngest biological daughter, you had only seen her twice, once
Speaker 1: at age five, and then curiously, you saw her earlier
Speaker 1: in the day that this horrendous rape occurred, and it
Speaker 1: was April twenty fifth, nineteen ninety. Is that accurate?
Speaker 2: That it is accurate?
Speaker 3: I was going down Hudson Street, going over to a
Speaker 3: lady friend's house, and this young girl came up to
Speaker 3: me and said, are you Robert. I think you're my daddy,
Speaker 3: she says. She remembered me from the pictures of her
Speaker 3: mother had on her metal piece. So I said, well,
Speaker 3: tell your mama, said hi, and I asked her how
Speaker 3: she was doing in school. She said good, and I said, well,
Speaker 3: keep doing good. In school and till your mama said hi.
Speaker 3: Two days later, my attorney called me and told me
Speaker 3: I needed to turn myself in because I was accused
Speaker 3: of raping a child.
Speaker 1: And we don't know the exact machinations behind you being
Speaker 1: accused of this rape. Perhaps because you had seen her,
Speaker 1: maybe there were resentments, maybe her mother had something to
Speaker 1: do with the blame being placed, and you were really
Speaker 1: not sure. But we do know for a fact it
Speaker 1: was not you. I said it again, it was not you.
Speaker 1: And as we go along here, perhaps motivations become more clear. Now,
Speaker 1: make no mistake, this little girl absolutely did suffer a
Speaker 1: horrible sexual assault that day. According to a statement, It
Speaker 1: wasn't until the next day, though, that her mother confronted
Speaker 1: her about how she was acting or walking strangely, and
Speaker 1: at that point she told her mother that her biological father, you, Robert,
Speaker 1: had abducted her from her backyard in Columbus, Ohio, tied
Speaker 1: a sock over her eyes, and drove her off to
Speaker 1: some abandoned house somewhere where you allegedly raped her on
Speaker 1: a couch inside the house, ejaculated on her, and then
Speaker 1: drove to a convenience store and she was able to
Speaker 1: escape while you were allegedly inside this store. Now, the
Speaker 1: victim was taken to a hospital and a rape kit
Speaker 1: was performed and no seamen was identified on her underwear
Speaker 1: or on vaginal swamps, so no DNA testing was done
Speaker 1: as a result. But remember this is nineteen ninety and
Speaker 1: DNA testing approved over time, and this evidence became irrelevant
Speaker 1: again later. However, back in nineteen ninety, when asked if
Speaker 1: she could identify the attacker, the victim said, quote, I
Speaker 1: think it was my dad, but I may be wrong
Speaker 1: because my eyes were covered. So at that point, things
Speaker 1: were not looking good for Robert.
Speaker 4: Well, yes, I mean when we first looked at this case,
Speaker 4: it was very perplexing. I mean, Robert has been very
Speaker 4: steadfast in his innocence from day one, and you know,
Speaker 4: I wanted to believe what he was saying, but I
Speaker 4: was also kind of perplexed by why would this young
Speaker 4: girl make something up against her own father. It could
Speaker 4: have been something manufactured in her own head, maybe completely innocently,
Speaker 4: or it could have been something that was planted in
Speaker 4: her head by someone from her family. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Then things take another tragic turn, right, which is that
Speaker 1: you Robert were arrested and charged with kidnapping and rape
Speaker 1: of this child. Yes, Robert, take us back to that
Speaker 1: awful day when you were arrested, did falsely accused and
Speaker 1: in fact charged with this horrendous crime.
Speaker 3: My attorney didn't believe it. I thought it was some
Speaker 3: type of mistake. I was given a very low bond
Speaker 3: of one thousand dollars and was released.
Speaker 1: Wait, a thousand dollars bond. That's like what they give
Speaker 1: somebody for like riding their bike on the sidewalk. I mean,
Speaker 1: this seems really way off for this horrible crime that
Speaker 1: we're discussing here. But we're going to come back to
Speaker 1: that now. Let's just say for now that it doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like your attorney was the only one who didn't
Speaker 1: believe these allegations.
Speaker 3: This judge, Judge Johnson, what's the same judge that put
Speaker 3: me on probation for aggravated trafficking during the time when
Speaker 3: they were a war on drugs.
Speaker 2: The police apartment would hate it by goods.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay. So now you're out awaiting trial and some
Speaker 1: people in the police department feel some kind of way
Speaker 1: about that, and that's when Nardella pulled you over.
Speaker 3: I had a beautiful red Mercedes that was customized, and
Speaker 3: there's a code.
Speaker 2: When you are dealing drugs or selling.
Speaker 3: Drugs, you never ever do it. When you're driving your
Speaker 3: prize car, you don't carry, you don't do anything wrong.
Speaker 3: Anybody's selling drugs. When you're driving your show car, you're
Speaker 3: not working. There's never nothing wrong. There's no drugs, there's
Speaker 3: no illegal activities, no guns or anything in these cars.
Speaker 1: Well, that makes sense as a practical matter, because in theory,
Speaker 1: they could take the car.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, yeah, he arrested me and put drugs
Speaker 3: in my car because I was on probation, and he
Speaker 3: knew that I would go to jail and not be
Speaker 3: able to get out because I was on probation.
Speaker 1: So now you're locked up for over a year awaiting trial,
Speaker 1: unable to fight the case from the outside, ineligible for bail,
Speaker 1: and now I need to go back to how bail
Speaker 1: was originally said at one thousand dollars. I mean, if
Speaker 1: they actually believed you to be the kind of sick
Speaker 1: bastard that would rape your own ten year old daughter,
Speaker 1: that just it doesn't add up. It makes no sense.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I agree, What was.
Speaker 3: The prosecutor did not want to take this case because
Speaker 3: he didn't think he could win. That's why he opted
Speaker 3: for me to take a polygraph test, and if I
Speaker 3: passed a polygraph test, would not even go to trial, Sir.
Speaker 1: And the polygraph test, we know that they're not accurate.
Speaker 1: Even if the examiner is a true expert at reading
Speaker 1: the results, there's still only approximately seventy percent accurate. So
Speaker 1: it's a little better than guessing right.
Speaker 3: My attorney gave me a pre polygraph test. I passed
Speaker 3: it with flying colors. They gave me four polygraph tests.
Speaker 3: We now know that the guy that did the polygraph
Speaker 3: test was corrupt. They were looking for a failed result
Speaker 3: and they got what I think was close to it
Speaker 3: when it came back inconclusive.
Speaker 1: So a State Highway Patrol examiner found, which is again subjective,
Speaker 1: that your answers quote unquote, could be a deliberate attempt
Speaker 1: at deception. That could apply to any polygraph test. You
Speaker 1: could literally be you could have the best polygraph test
Speaker 1: in the history of the world. Right they equivalent of
Speaker 1: getting eight hundreds on your SATs. You could nail it right,
Speaker 1: and they could still go that it could be in them.
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe I don't know, it could be
Speaker 1: something looked like you might have tried to say. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's a ridiculous I have to laugh because if I don't,
Speaker 1: I'm going to cry or I'm going to break something.
Speaker 1: You know, yes, sir, oh, okay. So you've got this
Speaker 1: polygraphic examiner saying that this could be a deliberate attempt
Speaker 1: at deception, which could be something a corrupt polygraphic examiner
Speaker 1: would testify to. And then you've got the victim saying
Speaker 1: that it was you and you decided to go for
Speaker 1: a bench trial.
Speaker 4: They chose to go with a bench trial because of
Speaker 4: the nature of this crime. It was such a horrendous crime,
Speaker 4: and there was going to be testimony from a ten
Speaker 4: year old girl. And I think it's very hard for
Speaker 4: nu juror to hear the testimony of a ten year
Speaker 4: old who went through this and a quit, even if
Speaker 4: it's the right thing to do.
Speaker 3: My attorney said, a jury would think that if you're
Speaker 3: a drug dealer, that you're a child molestor. We opted
Speaker 3: for a trial with Judge Johnson because he felt that
Speaker 3: Judge Johnson would follow the law.
Speaker 1: And that seems like a very rational decision. With the
Speaker 1: circumstances as you.
Speaker 3: Described, every person knows why they were found guilty. There's
Speaker 3: two causes of why I was found guilty, the testimony
Speaker 3: of the child and the inconclusive results of the polygraph
Speaker 3: test that I believe the prosecutor sold to the judge
Speaker 3: more powerful than what my attorney did. If my attorney
Speaker 3: dropped the ball anytime it was with he did not
Speaker 3: convince the judge that inconclusive results of the polygraph test
Speaker 3: means you did not feel it and you did not
Speaker 3: pass it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they gave it to you four times. The probably
Speaker 1: would have given it to you forty times. And eventually,
Speaker 1: just because of that, you know, I mean, because they
Speaker 1: were you know, if you keept passing that, we're going
Speaker 1: to keep doing it. And because we know how inaccurate
Speaker 1: these things are. Eventually the law of averages says you're
Speaker 1: going to either fail one or be inconclusive or whatever
Speaker 1: it is. So yeah, I mean this is important because
Speaker 1: as anyone in our audience could end up on a
Speaker 1: jury at a criminal trial, please be aware that these things,
Speaker 1: well he's not even allowed to be introduced as evidence.
Speaker 1: That's how that's how inaccurate these things are they're not
Speaker 1: even allowed to be introduced as evidence, right. But it's
Speaker 1: not like your lawyer did nothing. I mean, he did
Speaker 1: present alibi witnesses. I mean, there was a cable guy
Speaker 1: who would have no agenda.
Speaker 4: I mean.
Speaker 1: And then it was your friend Laverne, who you had
Speaker 1: been with all that day, and I understand that they
Speaker 1: were very rough with her. But like you said, your
Speaker 1: lawyer didn't do enough to combat the bogus polygraph evidence.
Speaker 1: And of course, what can be said to combat the
Speaker 1: tearful words of a ten year old victim.
Speaker 3: There's nothing more powerful than a beautiful child on stand
Speaker 3: that points a finger at you and say that you
Speaker 3: did something. I had family members in the audience, and
Speaker 3: they told me that we are your family, we love you.
Speaker 3: But if we did not know you, and the way
Speaker 3: that girl pointed their finger at you and said you
Speaker 3: did it, we would believe it.
Speaker 1: Take us back to that moment, that awful, awful moment
Speaker 1: when the judge declared you incorrectly declared you guilty of
Speaker 1: this rape and kidnapping and sentence you to fifteen years
Speaker 1: of life in prison.
Speaker 3: I remember Judge Johnson even to this day. He said,
Speaker 3: the testimony of the child was powerful.
Speaker 2: I believe that you're guilty.
Speaker 3: And I shook my head and I said, Judge Johnson,
Speaker 3: I did not do this. He shook his head and
Speaker 3: he looked down and he said, Son, I think you're guilty.
Speaker 2: Never forget it.
Speaker 3: When I walked into that sale, it was like I
Speaker 3: was being closed out of the whole world, Like the
Speaker 3: whole world was over.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Prison is a nice place. I think you have to
Speaker 3: be adaptable to it. I adapted to it. I helped
Speaker 3: a young guys, gang beggars get their GEDs. I'm very
Speaker 3: proud of that. And I did most of my time
Speaker 3: at ROSS. In the last year I was transferred to Chillicoty.
Speaker 1: And Jennifer, how did Roberts case become the first case
Speaker 1: that you ever worked on and how did you end
Speaker 1: up prevailing against all odds?
Speaker 4: Yeah. So I came here almost fifteen years ago, and
Speaker 4: there was a project underway already that the High Winnescence
Speaker 4: Project was doing with the Columbus Dispatch newspaper, and the
Speaker 4: reporters had realized that prisoners across the state of Ohio
Speaker 4: had been asking for post conviction DNA testing in Ohio
Speaker 4: and the vast, vast majority of times they asked for testing,
Speaker 4: it was just either summarily denied or in a lot
Speaker 4: of cases, the judges never even ruled on the applications.
Speaker 4: So they teamed up with us and reviewed the several
Speaker 4: hundred cases where individuals had asked for post conviction DNA
Speaker 4: testing and had been denied or nothing had happened, and
Speaker 4: they ended up choosing thirty cases, and Roberts was one
Speaker 4: of those. There was a whole series of articles in
Speaker 4: the Columbus Dispatch that came out in two thousand and
Speaker 4: eight called test of Convictions. So the Ohio Innocence Project
Speaker 4: and the Ohio Public Defender did a few of the
Speaker 4: thirty cases. So I had a handful of those, and
Speaker 4: Roberts was one of them. We filed for DNA testing
Speaker 4: in I think February of two thousand and eight, and
Speaker 4: much to my surprise, the Franklin County Prosecutor's office actually
Speaker 4: agreed to do the testing, which, based on the responses
Speaker 4: we were getting from others across the state, was shocking.
Speaker 4: I always theorized that at the time they did it
Speaker 4: because they were so convinced he was guilty that it
Speaker 4: would just come back and prove it and that would
Speaker 4: be fine, which is fine with me because then it
Speaker 4: would show the system worked. I didn't care why they
Speaker 4: were deciding to agree. I was just glad they were,
Speaker 4: but that was my theory. So as a result of that,
Speaker 4: we ended up entering in agreed order to have the
Speaker 4: items tested. The rape kit was searched for, but that
Speaker 4: was long since gone. But fortunately they had the victims
Speaker 4: underwear still in storage at the prosecutor's office.
Speaker 3: When I fouled for DNA testing three times, they said
Speaker 3: the underwear was missing or they couldn't find them. But
Speaker 3: when the Ohio Innocent Project and the Columbus Patch got involved,
Speaker 3: voila the underwear.
Speaker 1: That reminds me of the Allen Newton case in New York,
Speaker 1: where for over twenty years they were denying the existence
Speaker 1: of the evidence. They said it had been lost, and
Speaker 1: when the Innocence Project got involved, they found it in
Speaker 1: exactly the place where it was supposed to be and
Speaker 1: a ile with his name on it. And it's like
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ, like this sounds like some banana Republic, third
Speaker 1: world country type of stuff. And this was New York City.
Speaker 1: So it's a miracle. I mean, you know that there
Speaker 1: was evidence left to test, and it's a travesty that
Speaker 1: there isn't a national standard for the preservation of this
Speaker 1: type of evidence that literally turns out to be the
Speaker 1: difference between dying in prison, quite possibly, and living life.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that was one of the unfortunate discoveries from thirty cases.
Speaker 4: There were several where I mean, I can think of
Speaker 4: one person in particular where I do believe they're innocent,
Speaker 4: but all of the evidence was gone.
Speaker 1: And who's that This.
Speaker 2: Was for Marion Reynolds, Yes, someone I know.
Speaker 4: Yeah, his wasn't the only case, but yeah, there was
Speaker 4: just a complete lack of any sort of uniform standards
Speaker 4: anywhere across the state. Fortunately, due to legislation that came
Speaker 4: into effect. I believe in twenty ten that's changed in
Speaker 4: Ohio by statute, although unfortunately I don't think all of
Speaker 4: the law enforcement agencies are following it at this point,
Speaker 4: but theoretically they should be now maintaining evidence in a
Speaker 4: more uniform way. But fortunately for Robert, at least they
Speaker 4: had the underwear. It had been looked at way back
Speaker 4: at the time of trial, and they had determined that
Speaker 4: there wasn't any ceman or sperm on it, which is
Speaker 4: partially why I thought they figured either they weren't going
Speaker 4: to get any results, or if they did, it would
Speaker 4: come back and show Robert. But in any case, they agreed,
Speaker 4: which was great, and we wanted to do YSTR testing
Speaker 4: on it because at this time that was the best
Speaker 4: way to find any male DNA, since we figured most
Speaker 4: of the DNA would be from the victim who was female.
Speaker 4: And ultimately they agreed to that, so we ended up
Speaker 4: sending it to private lab here in Fairfield that is
Speaker 4: certified by the state of Ohio and DDC, the private company,
Speaker 4: in cooperation with the Columbus Dispatch, had agreed to do
Speaker 4: the testing in all of these cases, all thirty of
Speaker 4: them for free, and Robert's happened to be the first one.
Speaker 1: The results come back, and sure enough it proves that
Speaker 1: what Robert had been saying from was true. He had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with this. Jennifer, what was that moment? Like,
Speaker 1: you must have been ecstatic.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I happened to be on vacation at the beach when
Speaker 4: the results came in, and you know, I was trying
Speaker 4: not to think about work, but then I get the
Speaker 4: information about this and it just blew my mind. I
Speaker 4: mean it was amazing. I remember we went out to
Speaker 4: dinner that night. I was out with my family and
Speaker 4: I was just kind of like in a daze of like, wow,
Speaker 4: this this really happened and it's not him. And then
Speaker 4: you know, this was the first case I had worked,
Speaker 4: so the first time, you know, i'd received results. So
Speaker 4: then my head was spending with Okay, now what do
Speaker 4: we do? Of course, you know Robert didn't know.
Speaker 1: Right, So that's the thing I'm dying to know. So
Speaker 1: there you are at the beach, you're celebrating. You're probably
Speaker 1: almost in a state of shaka like I was. I
Speaker 1: loved my job. You're like, I can all the emotions, right,
Speaker 1: How did you communicate this to Robert? And then I
Speaker 1: want to get to Robert's reaction. I got to know everything.
Speaker 4: Tell me well, because the Dispatch was involved, the two reporters,
Speaker 4: Jeffutt and Mike Wagner, really wanted to be there to
Speaker 4: document us giving the results to Robert. And I can
Speaker 4: let him tell the story about meeting these two requires,
Speaker 4: but he knew them and they kind of had a
Speaker 4: good relationship going, so they definitely wanted to be there.
Speaker 4: So they worked it out with the prison, so they
Speaker 4: had a camera crew there. I mean, I felt bad
Speaker 4: for Robert having not told him ahead of time, but
Speaker 4: I promised the reporters I wouldn't and also obviously we
Speaker 4: knew it was good news.
Speaker 3: They have alerted my people that the results were in,
Speaker 3: but they never said anything about what the results was.
Speaker 2: My people are going crazy, well, what is it? What?
Speaker 3: So I'm in the hallway and the attorneys are walking
Speaker 3: by and no one's looking at me at all. It
Speaker 3: makes me think about you knowing the jury. The jury
Speaker 3: comes in, they say, if they don't look at you,
Speaker 3: you're guilty. So I'm looking at the body language. I'm
Speaker 3: looking for eye contact. Okay, what Jennifer walks in. I'm
Speaker 3: looking at Jennifer. She don't look at me.
Speaker 2: I think. A couple of the students walk by.
Speaker 3: I'm looking at them.
Speaker 2: They don't look at me.
Speaker 3: Now, I remember a conversation that me and Mike Wagner
Speaker 3: had because he played basketball, and he said if I
Speaker 3: ever got out that we was going to go to
Speaker 3: the y and play basketball together. So then he walks by,
Speaker 3: and I'm looking for some type of reaction from him.
Speaker 3: He's looking straight on the floor, but he says, you
Speaker 3: ready for that basketball game, and I just say that's
Speaker 3: when I knew.
Speaker 2: Otherwise what was going on. So they mustn't came back inconclusive.
Speaker 2: You know, inconclusive haven't worked out too well for me.
Speaker 1: Everyone's keeping a poker face and he spills to be
Speaker 1: I guess he could have resisted. I mean, and then
Speaker 1: I read that you said, hello, truth, I never ever
Speaker 1: raped anyone? Is that an accurate quote?
Speaker 3: The first words I said after Jennifer gave me the
Speaker 3: results was hello Truth.
Speaker 2: I have a card.
Speaker 3: My business card is a picture of me receiving my
Speaker 3: DNA results from Jennifer.
Speaker 2: My favorite picture.
Speaker 1: So seventeen almost seventeen years in prison, you were freed.
Speaker 1: Tell us about that day when you finally came home.
Speaker 2: When I got out.
Speaker 3: When I first got out, I went out and I
Speaker 3: said Hello Truth and hello freedom. They had a camera
Speaker 3: crew there and they asked me what I wanted to eat,
Speaker 3: and of course I said wings and the not old pizza.
Speaker 3: They brought stacks of pizza and stacks of wings over
Speaker 3: to my daughter's mom's house, and I was just like,
Speaker 3: in a day, it's still surreal. So many people are
Speaker 3: talking to you and everything, and you just realized you
Speaker 3: just walked out of hell into heaven basically, and you're
Speaker 3: in a zone where you're there, but you're not there.
Speaker 3: It was special being around loved ones and friends and
Speaker 3: people that had been there with me through the journey
Speaker 3: that Ohio, an Innocent Project and the Columbus Dispatch were
Speaker 3: there for hours, all the way up until nighttime. It
Speaker 3: was wonderful. One of the best days of my life.
Speaker 1: It is wonderful, and it's actually really important that we
Speaker 1: not leave out the fact that for those seventeen years
Speaker 1: of your wrongful incarceration, no one was looking for the
Speaker 1: guy that actually did this. And we owe it to
Speaker 1: ourselves as a society to make the system better and
Speaker 1: fairer for everyone, you know, to get justice for the
Speaker 1: victims and justice for the innocent person, and to get
Speaker 1: the real perpetrator off the streets. So, Robert, did they
Speaker 1: ever find out who the real perpetrator was in this
Speaker 1: particular case.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes.
Speaker 3: Ron O'Brien the prosecutor is the county prosecutor in Columbus, Ohio,
Speaker 3: who has work very closely with the Innocent Project where
Speaker 3: he wanted to do his own DNA tests.
Speaker 2: A follow up.
Speaker 3: Of course, I was going crazy Kogle for cocoaps.
Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, this is while you were still in, before
Speaker 4: you got it.
Speaker 3: While I was still in because I thought there was
Speaker 3: a fix in. I thought there was something going on.
Speaker 3: They're getting ready to undo this somehow the Ohio Instant
Speaker 3: Project and told me that the science is a science.
Speaker 3: Robbert's gonna come up the same. So the results come
Speaker 3: back again. It was not me, but this time, sir,
Speaker 3: they came back with a hit. A known suspect, the
Speaker 3: seventeen year old son, had molested her at the age
Speaker 3: of ten years old. They continue to have a consential
Speaker 3: relationship while she was a teenager, and then continue to
Speaker 3: have a consential relationship into their adult life. Ronald Ryan
Speaker 3: told me when he presented the evidence to the mom,
Speaker 3: she did not even seem surprised. I asked, ron can
Speaker 3: we take this guy to court to prosecute him? He said, Robert,
Speaker 3: we can't do it because during the consential relationship, she
Speaker 3: would never take the stand against Now, how wicked is that?
Speaker 2: Guys.
Speaker 1: I'm rarely at a loss for words, but I don't
Speaker 1: have any words to say. It's going to take me
Speaker 1: a minute. Sorry, I'm to apologizing to the audience. This
Speaker 1: is the first I learned of this. Yeah, did they
Speaker 1: not know this before the DNA proved it? Or was
Speaker 1: this known to some people in positions of authority at
Speaker 1: the time of your wrong for conviction.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure.
Speaker 3: Everything that happened to this child. I always empathized, guys.
Speaker 3: I always empathized with this child because I knew and
Speaker 3: believed that something happened to this child, and I was
Speaker 3: very empathetic as a result of that. It just was
Speaker 3: not me, And I was even empathetic until we always thought.
Speaker 2: It might have been a family member.
Speaker 3: But I stopped being empathetic to this child when I
Speaker 3: found out that they was in a relationship while I
Speaker 3: was sitting in jail righting all this time, knowing that
Speaker 3: I was in prison, and her mother coerced her into
Speaker 3: saying all that stuff on the stand.
Speaker 2: Her mother knew all along.
Speaker 1: There's a layer of evil in that that.
Speaker 3: Is really there.
Speaker 2: Is her.
Speaker 3: I'm glad you said that were because that's exactly how
Speaker 3: I feel.
Speaker 1: A sir. I've been hearing a lot of amazing things
Speaker 1: that you've been engaged in on behalf of other axigneries
Speaker 1: and the community and I would love to hear about that.
Speaker 3: I've been an advocate for the Ohio interc Project since
Speaker 3: I've been out doing speaking engagement schools, colleges, universities, getting
Speaker 3: the word out, talking about what happened to me and
Speaker 3: what happened to others. We all go to court and
Speaker 3: when some of the other designeries are out to be
Speaker 3: of support for their families and the other exigneries. There's
Speaker 3: nothing more powerful than being there for one of your
Speaker 3: own when they get out to the free world. And
Speaker 3: then once they're out in the free world.
Speaker 2: They need help. We all need help.
Speaker 3: Some of these guys come out with issues as myself
Speaker 3: PTSD and such financial problems. Me and Dean were kind
Speaker 3: of like the ogs of the O High Innocent Project,
Speaker 3: and you guys should talk to him. His story is
Speaker 3: powerful to that lawyers can't talk about the things that
Speaker 3: me and Dean can talk to to other dexigneries that
Speaker 3: you well know, Me and Dean were there to talk
Speaker 3: to these guys. We're on call twenty four to seven
Speaker 3: to these guys when they have problems.
Speaker 2: We're real with it, you know. They tell us everything
Speaker 2: they come to us. We have a lady by the
Speaker 2: name of Dona Mayerson.
Speaker 3: Who does a lot of work in regards to our counseling,
Speaker 3: mental health and things like that. Somebody that we trust
Speaker 3: who's there for us. It's just giving back.
Speaker 1: That's a really beautiful thing. And you mentioned Dean. That's
Speaker 1: Dean Gillespie and I remember meeting him at the Innocents
Speaker 1: Network conference this year. I met him several times before
Speaker 1: in the past, and it sounds like the work you're
Speaker 1: doing just keeps the spirit of the conference, you know,
Speaker 1: the camaraderie alive all year and just being a witness
Speaker 1: being a part of that incredible energy. I wish I
Speaker 1: could bottle it and share it with people and just
Speaker 1: take a sip of it whenever I need the inspiration
Speaker 1: because it's it's almost impossible to describe it. Anyone who's
Speaker 1: been there knows what I'm talking about, and you're doing
Speaker 1: that every day, So kudos to you. So I also
Speaker 1: understand that you've been active in getting so much needed
Speaker 1: legislation passed, which is incredible. I mean, can you fill
Speaker 1: us in on what you've been up.
Speaker 2: To House Bill seventy seven. I was there, we helped
Speaker 2: do that.
Speaker 3: I'm going to let Jennifer talk about the four part
Speaker 3: deal or she can describe it there at the media.
Speaker 4: Boy, you're putting me on the spot for the four parts.
Speaker 4: But basically those the last big overhaul of the Ohio
Speaker 4: DNA post Conviction Statute, and it did things like put
Speaker 4: in the statute the right to have codis upload of
Speaker 4: any DNA results, and it also it addressed recording of
Speaker 4: interrogations and preservation of evidence. It was for the first
Speaker 4: time put in state wide standards on what evidence and
Speaker 4: what crimes needs to be kept and for how long,
Speaker 4: so that we could stop running into the issues of
Speaker 4: not being able to do testing because it was gone up.
Speaker 4: Oh yes, thank you, and changing the way photo lineups
Speaker 4: are supposed to be done in Ohio so that it's
Speaker 4: not the six packs, but is done with what they
Speaker 4: called a folder method, so it's done one at a
Speaker 4: time to try to decrease the amount of mistaken identity. Yes,
Speaker 4: so Robert was very helpful with going around and meeting
Speaker 4: with a bunch of legislators to just tell them his
Speaker 4: story firsthand, and I think, you know, hearing from him
Speaker 4: and others who'd been through similar situations really helped the
Speaker 4: legislators understand why the legislation was important.
Speaker 3: And Mark because of that legislation, Mark has me talking
Speaker 3: to someone here in New York when your guys in
Speaker 3: about social security because as you will know, when you're
Speaker 3: in prison, you don't get to pay in social security
Speaker 3: or retirement or nothing. And when you get out the
Speaker 3: conversation that they give you, trust me, after you've become
Speaker 3: a victim of being used by your family like I did,
Speaker 3: it's just not enough. Some exigneries end up with nothing.
Speaker 3: Some exigneries end up being in financial tragedies, financial straits.
Speaker 3: Is say it because we just don't have the income
Speaker 3: to make it, and social Security would help out here
Speaker 3: that some people. We could probably get it under PTSD
Speaker 3: because all of us suffer from some forms of PTSD
Speaker 3: when we get out.
Speaker 2: But we need powerful people.
Speaker 3: That's going to get together and put their heads and
Speaker 3: their efforts together to make this happen.
Speaker 1: You know, this idea has been floating around in the
Speaker 1: Zeitgeis lately, and I feel like it's finally starting to
Speaker 1: grow some wings. So let's work together. Let's amend the
Speaker 1: thirteenth Amendment or make a new amendment to the Constitution
Speaker 1: that closes the slavery loophole in the thirteenth Amendment, and
Speaker 1: by the way, it's on the ballot this November twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two in five states Louisiana, Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont.
Speaker 1: So again, Louisiana, Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont. If you
Speaker 1: live in one of those five states, you have an
Speaker 1: opportunity to make your voice heard and to help abolish
Speaker 1: slavery once and for all, and eventually we get all
Speaker 1: fifty states. I mean, if you think it would be
Speaker 1: a no brainer that there would be no slavery anywhere
Speaker 1: regardless of your legal status, but who knows in our
Speaker 1: current political climate, I shudder to think anyway. With all
Speaker 1: of that said, I want to thank both of you
Speaker 1: for joining us here today and sharing this incredible story
Speaker 1: and just for being.
Speaker 2: Who you are and thank you for having us. Yeah,
Speaker 2: thank you, Jennifer. I want to say thank you again.
Speaker 2: I don't know if how many times I can.
Speaker 4: I'll never get tired of saying, but you're welcome. It
Speaker 4: was privileged to work with you.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: And of course, please support the Ohio Innocence Project. Their
Speaker 1: work is saving lives to this very day and they
Speaker 1: need all of our support. We'll put a link in
Speaker 1: the bio, and of course that brings us to closing arguments,
Speaker 1: where I just turn my microphone off, kick back in
Speaker 1: my chair and listen for whatever you feel is left
Speaker 1: to be said. So Jennifer please go first, and then
Speaker 1: Robert close it out for us.
Speaker 4: Well, I just want to say thank you again for
Speaker 4: having me on and for putting a spotlight on these
Speaker 4: stories that are important and need to be shared. And
Speaker 4: I also want to thank Robert. It's the fourteenth anniversary
Speaker 4: of the day I was there with you when you
Speaker 4: were able to walk out of jail, and it was
Speaker 4: one of the most memorable days of my life. And
Speaker 4: I've just enjoyed watching you over these last fourteen years
Speaker 4: and seeing all the good that you've been doing to
Speaker 4: pay it forward to all the other men and women
Speaker 4: who've been in situations similar to you. So thank you
Speaker 4: for your work with them and also for helping us
Speaker 4: out over time.
Speaker 2: Appreciate it.
Speaker 3: I just want to say that the worst day of
Speaker 3: my life was when I was wrongfully convicted and sentenced
Speaker 3: to fifteen years of life for raping kidnapping, But the
Speaker 3: happiest day on my life was when I was free
Speaker 3: to help the Ohio Interstry Project and Columbus Dispatch because
Speaker 3: it's freed me to where I'm.
Speaker 2: At now, where I've been able to be there.
Speaker 3: For other people to, as you say, pay it forward
Speaker 3: with the Ohio Interstry Project. I think it's important that
Speaker 3: I don't regrets no one who gets out that want
Speaker 3: to just go their own way and do their own thing.
Speaker 2: And they have people do that. But I feel like I've.
Speaker 3: Never had a job since I've been out because I
Speaker 3: feel like this is my job. This is my job,
Speaker 3: and I'm on board. I'm serious about it, and it
Speaker 3: means it means the world to me because I noticed
Speaker 3: there's other people in there that should be out and
Speaker 3: I'm just doing my part to just help and bring
Speaker 3: the attention to me. So I want to thank you all.
Speaker 3: I want to thank you Jennifer, I want to thank
Speaker 3: you Jason. Want to thank Connor for the opportunity.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Rafel Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Cliburn, and Kevin Wartis.
Speaker 1: With research by Lyla Robinson. The music in this production
Speaker 1: was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 1: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast, and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good. On
Speaker 1: all three platforms, you can also follow me on both
Speaker 1: TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason Flam. Wrongful Conviction is
Speaker 1: the production of Lava for Good podcasts and association with
Speaker 1: Signal Company Number one