Speaker 1: It was May. James Daily was out bar hopping with
Speaker 1: his roommates Jack Pearcy and Gayl Bailey, as well as
Speaker 1: their friend Ozis Shaw when the four of them ran
Speaker 1: into fourteen year old Shelley Boggio. At some point, all
Speaker 1: of them went back to the house that James, Jack
Speaker 1: and Gail shared, and James Daily went to bed. While Gail,
Speaker 1: Jack's pregnant girlfriend was using the bathroom, Jack snuck out
Speaker 1: with Shelly Boggio, dropping Osa Shawl at a pay phone
Speaker 1: on the way. In the early hours of the morning.
Speaker 1: Jack Pearcy returned alone, at which point he woke James
Speaker 1: Daily and dragged him out for a few more beers.
Speaker 1: When they returned, James's pants were wet. The following day,
Speaker 1: Shelley Boggio's body was found choked, stabbed, and drowned in
Speaker 1: the Florida Intracoastal Waterway. Jack Pearcy admitted to his involvement
Speaker 1: of the crime, but implicated James Daly as the primary culprit.
Speaker 1: The prosecution in turn promised leniency to jail house informants
Speaker 1: who could help him send James Daily to where he's
Speaker 1: been since nineteen seven. Florida's infamous death row Jack Piercy
Speaker 1: has since claimed sole responsibility for Shelley Boggio's death, but
Speaker 1: has so far avoided actually affirming that claim in a
Speaker 1: court of law. We're going to speak with James's attorney,
Speaker 1: Josh Dubin, a man whose name you've heard on this
Speaker 1: podcast from me many times and also from the mouths
Speaker 1: of several of the people that he's helped free. And
Speaker 1: he'll tell us about the evidence that he's uncovered that
Speaker 1: the state of Florida refuses to hear, even though it
Speaker 1: clears James Daily's name with or without the word of
Speaker 1: the one and only killer, Jack Piercy. This is Wrongful
Speaker 1: Conviction with Jason flamer Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction with
Speaker 1: Jason Flamo. On today's episode, we're going to tell the
Speaker 1: terrifying tale of James Daily, man who was wrongfully convicted
Speaker 1: decades ago in Florida and sentenced to death. And with
Speaker 1: us to tell that story is his attorney, Josh Dubin.
Speaker 1: And for listeners of the show, you'll recognize Josh's name
Speaker 1: because I reference him often. Josh is not only a
Speaker 1: pro bono council of great repute for the Innocence Project.
Speaker 1: He is a jury selection expert and has been an
Speaker 1: integral part of many cases that you've heard on the show,
Speaker 1: including just a few names, John Rastevo, Clementia gear Ay,
Speaker 1: Herman Atkins, and he is a sort of a force
Speaker 1: of nature. So, without further ado, let me introduce my
Speaker 1: friend and the personal hero of mine, Josh duben Well.
Speaker 1: That made me blush. I appreciate it. So when you're
Speaker 1: old and gray and sitting in your rocking chair and
Speaker 1: someone asks you what case troubles you the most, I
Speaker 1: know that the is one case that will come to mind.
Speaker 1: Is that fair statement? I mean, I feel like it's
Speaker 1: making me old and gray and putting me in a
Speaker 1: rock and chair already, especially coming off this latest decision
Speaker 1: by the court. It's just, um, yeah, it's doing a
Speaker 1: number on me. But it's really not about me. It's
Speaker 1: about the victim, Shelley Boggio, her family's fight for justice
Speaker 1: and closure, and a clearly innocent man that's been sitting
Speaker 1: on death row for more than three decades for a
Speaker 1: crime that his co defendant has admitted he committed on
Speaker 1: his own. So yeah, it's it's troubling to say the least,
Speaker 1: let's go back to fourteen year old Shelley Boggio was
Speaker 1: found choked, stabbed over thirty times, and finally not even
Speaker 1: dead yet, was drowned in Florida's Intracoastal Waterway. Josh, can
Speaker 1: you take us back to the circumstances this case and
Speaker 1: explain how James Daily came to be a suspect. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he was roommates with the person that committed the crime,
Speaker 1: like gentlemen by the name of Jack Piercy, and God,
Speaker 1: I said a gentleman, I want to shove those words
Speaker 1: back in my mouth. I mean Jack Piercy was a
Speaker 1: guy that had a very, very violent criminal past. He
Speaker 1: had been implicated in a murder for higher scheme where
Speaker 1: he flipped on his co defendants and got himself immunity.
Speaker 1: He had been arrested for terroristic threats against the mother
Speaker 1: of his child. He had been in and out of jail,
Speaker 1: and James Daly didn't know this about him. James Daly
Speaker 1: had done a tour in Korea, two tours in Vietnam.
Speaker 1: His criminal record was all of one arrest for like
Speaker 1: a one punch bar fight, and he met Jack Piercy.
Speaker 1: I think playing pool at a bar. You know, he
Speaker 1: didn't really know too much about Jack, but they were
Speaker 1: hanging out in Kansas. James Daly's having a hard time
Speaker 1: after getting back from Vietnam, just getting along and adjusting,
Speaker 1: and you know, his wife had sort of had it
Speaker 1: with him and kicks him out. So he was sort
Speaker 1: of down on his luck, had a where to go.
Speaker 1: I didn't really know too much about Jack Piercy, but
Speaker 1: they ended up living together in Florida with Jack Piercy's girlfriend,
Speaker 1: Gayl Bailey, who was pregnant with Jack Piercy's child, and
Speaker 1: then May there's a group of them, Gayle Bailey, Jack Piercy,
Speaker 1: of course, James Daily, and a man by the name
Speaker 1: of Oza Shaw. Osa Shaw was a friend of Jack
Speaker 1: Piercy's from Kansas. He was down there staying with them,
Speaker 1: and they are, you know, going from a bar or
Speaker 1: to a bar, and they see Shelley Boggio and her sister,
Speaker 1: and Jack Piercy knows them. He had been to their
Speaker 1: house before and bought drugs from their father, and he
Speaker 1: had hung out with Shelly Boggio before. He had, in
Speaker 1: fact been told by Shelly Boggio's father, look, you're too
Speaker 1: old to be hanging out with my young daughters, and
Speaker 1: especially Shelly. They end up going to some bars, and
Speaker 1: there's really no dispute about the fact that Shelley bow Gggio,
Speaker 1: Jack Piercy, Gayle Bailey, James Daily, Osa Shaw are back
Speaker 1: at the home where Gayl, James and Jack live. What
Speaker 1: happens afterwards had been the subject of sort of great debate.
Speaker 1: Who was with Shelley Boggio alone during the time frame
Speaker 1: that the state established at both the trial of Jack
Speaker 1: Piercy and James Daily she was murdered. They said it
Speaker 1: was between one thirty and three thirty am. That's never
Speaker 1: really been challenged, all right, that is the window of
Speaker 1: the time of death. At some point Jack Piercy leaves
Speaker 1: that house was Shelley Boggio. In the past, Jack has
Speaker 1: tried to push back the time frame of when this
Speaker 1: happened because he knows what the state's been able to
Speaker 1: establish in terms of when Shelley Boggio died. So he
Speaker 1: claims I left with Shelley Boggio around eleven thirty. I
Speaker 1: then came back to get James Daily and the three
Speaker 1: of us went out together, which makes absolutely no sense.
Speaker 1: He was with this girl that he obviously want to
Speaker 1: have sex with. He was flirting with her by all accounts,
Speaker 1: Gayle Bailey hasn't even admitted that he had been flirting
Speaker 1: with her earlier in the night that he danced with her,
Speaker 1: Gayl Bailey got Piste off, so it makes no sense
Speaker 1: that he would want to go back and get James
Speaker 1: dally get another man involved. But he claims that he
Speaker 1: went back to the house and got James Daily, and
Speaker 1: it's during that time that they went to a bar
Speaker 1: and that James Daily, Jack Pearcy, and Shelley Bogio drive
Speaker 1: to an area close to the bar, and before he
Speaker 1: knows what's going on, James Daily pounces on top of
Speaker 1: Shelley Boggio when she rebuffs his advances and and just
Speaker 1: starts stabbing her like a madman. So let me get
Speaker 1: this straight. Jack Piercy tells the police of story placing
Speaker 1: James Daily with he and Shelley Bogio between one thirty
Speaker 1: and three thirty in the morning, the timeframe of her death.
Speaker 1: But what prompted him to implicate his friend was it
Speaker 1: just the simplest way to shift the blame from himself. Well,
Speaker 1: we don't have to speculate because I asked him that
Speaker 1: I went to visit Jack Piercy back in December and
Speaker 1: January and March. He confessed to me that he did
Speaker 1: this alone. He doesn't know me. I just walked into
Speaker 1: the person off the street. I tell him, I'm from
Speaker 1: the Innocence Project. There's a death warrant signed for James Daly. Um,
Speaker 1: what are you going to do? The right thing? That
Speaker 1: was literally almost the extent of my conversation. And I
Speaker 1: remember counting to seven dred and sixty one, just sitting
Speaker 1: there and getting comfortable in the silence and just letting
Speaker 1: him think. He you know, got a kind of emotional
Speaker 1: and he said, do you have an affidavit? And I,
Speaker 1: you know, handed him one sheet of paper that basically
Speaker 1: said I did this alone. James Daily had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with it. And he signed it and he said,
Speaker 1: just to make sure my family's not there. So it
Speaker 1: was clear to me that he had not only done this.
Speaker 1: I knew that he had done it. He knew that
Speaker 1: he had done it, and he just didn't want to
Speaker 1: admit to it in front of his family. And I said,
Speaker 1: why did you even implicate James Daily in the first place?
Speaker 1: And he looked at me kind of like, do you
Speaker 1: really need to ask me that question, kind of smirk
Speaker 1: on his face, and he said, well, who admits to
Speaker 1: committing a murder on their own? He said, I was
Speaker 1: trying to get the attention off of me. And look,
Speaker 1: he had done this before. He had accepted money to
Speaker 1: murder someone, staked the person out, and he got caught.
Speaker 1: He never actually went through with the murder because there
Speaker 1: was too much sort of heat on him, but he
Speaker 1: ended up flipping on his co defendant and getting himself
Speaker 1: out of that crime. He had done this before and
Speaker 1: he figured, I'm gonna do it again, and he told
Speaker 1: me that, So we don't have to speculate there this.
Speaker 1: Let's call him what he has, a scumbag. Piercy kept
Speaker 1: slipping through the cracks, and he should, by anybody's definition,
Speaker 1: have been in prison. And had that been the case,
Speaker 1: Shelley Boggio would still be alive and your client would
Speaker 1: not be in prison for this crime because it never
Speaker 1: would have happened. And that's a tragedy on top of
Speaker 1: a tragedy. So, Josh, we know this story that Jack
Speaker 1: Piracy made up, but what about the real story of
Speaker 1: what happened that awful night. You know, they say that
Speaker 1: the truth always catches up to the lie, especially when
Speaker 1: someone is talking. Jack Piercy has talked over the years.
Speaker 1: He has confessed to this crime. He has signed affidavits, declarations,
Speaker 1: and what ends up happening is he ends up getting
Speaker 1: pressure applied on him by his family and he ends
Speaker 1: up having to go to court to affirm the affidavit
Speaker 1: or the declaration, and he gets cold feet, as family
Speaker 1: says to him, you know you should not be admitting
Speaker 1: to this. You're gonna break our hearts. We've been telling
Speaker 1: people you're innocent, and now we can't do that anymore.
Speaker 1: Your son will never come visit you again, and so forth.
Speaker 1: And when he goes to court, he then just takes
Speaker 1: the fifth. So here's what really happened. And now Jack
Speaker 1: Piercy has admitted it, although he didn't realize he was
Speaker 1: admitting it. And I'll explain that in a minute. What
Speaker 1: really happened is that they go back to the house.
Speaker 1: Gayl Bailly, his pregnant girlfriend, is in the bathroom, James
Speaker 1: Daily is in his room, Osa Shaw is on the couch,
Speaker 1: and Jack Piercy uses this as an opportunity to leave
Speaker 1: with Shelly Boggio. Jack Piercy says, Shelly, let's get out
Speaker 1: of here. Osa Shaw says, I want to go with you.
Speaker 1: I have to make a phone call. And remember we're
Speaker 1: in the mid eighties, So they took him to a
Speaker 1: pay phone. Osa Shaw has been consistent that he leaves
Speaker 1: the house with Jack Piercy, Shelly Boggio. It's just the
Speaker 1: three of them. James Daily and Gayle Bailey are back
Speaker 1: at the house, all right, There is no dispute about that.
Speaker 1: Jack Piercy drives Osa Shaw with Shelly Boggio to a
Speaker 1: pay phone. Osa Shaw is calling his wife and a
Speaker 1: girlfriend of his and he's on the phone for ten
Speaker 1: fifteen minutes, and Shelly Boggio and Jack Piercy get impatient
Speaker 1: and they start honking the horn. Osa Shaw finally says,
Speaker 1: go ahead and take off because the payphone is a
Speaker 1: short walk away from where the house is. So Shelly
Speaker 1: Boggio and Jack Piercy leave and they're alone now. Up
Speaker 1: until March of this year, Jack Piercy has always maintained that, yes,
Speaker 1: that happened, but it was at about eleven thirty at night,
Speaker 1: because he knows what the time of death is. He
Speaker 1: knows what that window is, so he always pushes this
Speaker 1: event back to earlier in the evening. He claims that
Speaker 1: he went back to the house and got James Daily.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of problems with that. Oza Shaw has
Speaker 1: always been consistent to the following. At some point in
Speaker 1: the evening, Jack Piercy comes back to the house and
Speaker 1: he does not have Shelly Boggio with him anymore, goes
Speaker 1: into James Daily's bedroom, wakes James Daily up, and the
Speaker 1: two of them leave together. And this is critical, right
Speaker 1: because when was this? When in time was this? And
Speaker 1: you know, we get to the next part of the story,
Speaker 1: which is Jack Piercy's unwitting admission in the latest turn
Speaker 1: in this case, and he gives me that time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but he's done this to you time and again, an
Speaker 1: admission which he then won't fess up to in open court.
Speaker 1: How many times has he played this game with you?
Speaker 1: So Jack Piercy, back in back in two thousand seventeen,
Speaker 1: and then as recently as late last year, has admitted
Speaker 1: and sworn statements that he committed the crime alone, that
Speaker 1: James Daley had nothing to do with it, and then
Speaker 1: he always wiggles out of it. So after he gives
Speaker 1: me the affidavit, I have to file it in court,
Speaker 1: and the papers in Tampa back in December and January
Speaker 1: pick it up. Piarcy has confessed again. But I have
Speaker 1: phone calls between his mother and him after the papers
Speaker 1: pick up that he's confessed now to me. His mother
Speaker 1: starts telling him, how could you do this to us?
Speaker 1: We've always maintained that you were innocent. Now we can
Speaker 1: never say that again. Your son will never come visit
Speaker 1: you again. And he comes up with this crazy story
Speaker 1: to his mother on the phone and he says, you know,
Speaker 1: I just did this because they're digging around, these lawyers
Speaker 1: for James Daily, and they'll be able to do something
Speaker 1: that will benefit me one day. How in the world
Speaker 1: could something that we are doing as James Daily's lawyers
Speaker 1: to show that Jack Piercy committed the crime alone somehow
Speaker 1: help Jack Piercy one day. I mean, it's just the opposite.
Speaker 1: But putting that aside for a minute, I then go
Speaker 1: see him in Um I believe February or March of
Speaker 1: this year, because the court has set a hearing. I
Speaker 1: asked to go and take his deposition, and he tells me,
Speaker 1: I've changed my mind. I'm no longer going to say
Speaker 1: I did this alone. You know, I guess not out
Speaker 1: of the realm of possibility that he would try to
Speaker 1: wiggle out again. So I am there deposing him. Okay
Speaker 1: with me, There's a prosecutor from the state of Florida
Speaker 1: sitting there, and it's myself and an attorney from Millbank
Speaker 1: who is working on the case with me, Scott Edelman,
Speaker 1: and I'm asking him questions, all within the context of
Speaker 1: him now recanting and saying James Daley committed the crime.
Speaker 1: I was just there and I say to him, when
Speaker 1: was it that you were with Shelly Boggio alone? He says,
Speaker 1: how about eleven thirty at night, because remember he knows
Speaker 1: the time frame. So I said to him, well, was
Speaker 1: it before or after you dropped Oza Shaw off of
Speaker 1: that phone booth. He says, without a doubt, I went
Speaker 1: with Shelly Boggio alone to have drinks after I dropped
Speaker 1: Oza Shaw at the phone booth. The following is not
Speaker 1: known to Jack Piercy. I have phone records from that
Speaker 1: phone booth call. I have the people that he called
Speaker 1: their phone records showing that the calls happened at one
Speaker 1: fifteen in the morning, and that the wife and the
Speaker 1: girlfriend claim as Oza Shaw does, that the calls took
Speaker 1: forty five minutes and hour. So now we're at two
Speaker 1: fifteen in the morning, that it takes fifteen minutes to
Speaker 1: walk back to the house, that Oza Shaw gets back
Speaker 1: to the house and Jack Piercy isn't back yet, that
Speaker 1: he sits on the couch for forty five minutes an
Speaker 1: hour with Gayl Bailey, and Gayl Bailey is distraught that
Speaker 1: Jack Piercy left with Shelley Boggio. Hours pass by Oza
Speaker 1: Shaw's estimation. It's now three thirty three, forty five in
Speaker 1: the morning, that is when Jack Piercy gets back alone.
Speaker 1: That is the truth catching up to the lie. That
Speaker 1: is the very first time Jack Piercy had ever under
Speaker 1: oath put himself square in the time frame that this
Speaker 1: murder is committed between one thirty and three thirty alone
Speaker 1: with the victim. And this should have been earth shattering
Speaker 1: to the courts. It's, sirly, was earth shattering to me.
Speaker 1: And as you know, I'm speaking these words just two
Speaker 1: days ago, you know, got an order from the court
Speaker 1: denying my motion to have a cumulative hearing of all
Speaker 1: of the overwhelming evidence of James Daily's innocence because they
Speaker 1: now claim that the deposition that I took was a
Speaker 1: quote discovery deposition and it's not admissible, and it is
Speaker 1: just you know, if I um had any tears left
Speaker 1: in me, I would cry them. You know, it's just
Speaker 1: beyond it frustrating. Doesn't do it justice. I mean, the
Speaker 1: fact that Jack Piercy has been able to wiggle out
Speaker 1: of these confessions and that the criminal justice system in
Speaker 1: Florida just continues to look the other way and allow
Speaker 1: it to happen because of these ridiculous legal technicalities. I
Speaker 1: don't even think that the judge respectfully was right about
Speaker 1: it is just mind bending. So Jack Piercy finally gave
Speaker 1: an admission that he couldn't wiggle out of. However, the
Speaker 1: court then won't allow it to be admitted as evidence,
Speaker 1: which is just fucking insane and of course doesn't make
Speaker 1: any of it less true. But I still have a
Speaker 1: few questions about the night of the crime, what happened
Speaker 1: when Piercy came back to the house to get James
Speaker 1: Daily out of bed, and how did his pants get wet,
Speaker 1: So it can be no earlier than three forty five
Speaker 1: in the morning. And Jack Pearcy gets home and he's
Speaker 1: by himself, and Oza Shaw is rock solid about this.
Speaker 1: He has never wavered on this in all the years
Speaker 1: he's given testimony in this case. Jack Pearcy goes into
Speaker 1: James Daily's room, wakes him up, and then they leave together. Now, look,
Speaker 1: I don't know whether that was because Jack Pearsy was
Speaker 1: freaked out, he was looking for an alibi. Who knows
Speaker 1: why he did what he did next, He probably didn't
Speaker 1: want to face the wrath of his girlfriend who he
Speaker 1: had just treated so horribly, right, I mean he left
Speaker 1: her pregnant in the house while he went out to
Speaker 1: try to have sex with this underage girl. I can
Speaker 1: tell you that he told me that he was freaked
Speaker 1: out and then he just wanted to talk and have
Speaker 1: some beers. He takes James Daily to a different location
Speaker 1: than the murder occurred. They have beers and smoke a
Speaker 1: joint and he says, look, you need you to move out.
Speaker 1: We need your room because the baby is coming soon. Remember,
Speaker 1: Gayle Bailey is pregnant, and what James Daly has said.
Speaker 1: And what Jack Piercy in fact told me is they
Speaker 1: popped the trunk on the car to sit on the
Speaker 1: back bumper, and that there's a frisbee in the backseat
Speaker 1: and there parked on the waterway, and that James Daily
Speaker 1: whips it up in the air. That was like his thing.
Speaker 1: He would always like fling the frisbee up in the
Speaker 1: air and try to boomerang it back to himself. And
Speaker 1: that at some point it went into like the shallow water,
Speaker 1: and that James Dailly waited it out there and got it,
Speaker 1: so he had wet pants when they both got back.
Speaker 1: Osa Shaw and Gayle Bailey see them come home, and
Speaker 1: Piercy is dry and James Daily has wet pants, and
Speaker 1: the police say, ha ha, he must have been the
Speaker 1: one that murdered Shelley Boggio. And look, Jack Piercy has
Speaker 1: told me that what happened with the frisbee happened. And
Speaker 1: you know, to any of the listeners that are thinking,
Speaker 1: well that sounds odd, well you know what it might.
Speaker 1: But I can tell you that in every single case
Speaker 1: that I have worked on where somebody is innocent, they
Speaker 1: always live with what can be an inconvenient fact and
Speaker 1: I'm gonna leave you with this thought when Jack Piercy
Speaker 1: implicates him. James Daly is living under his own name.
Speaker 1: He has moved to California at this point. It's six
Speaker 1: months later. He started a kitchen cabinet company with a
Speaker 1: friend and the police asked him. Six months later, we
Speaker 1: heard from Oza Shaw and Gayl Bailey that you had
Speaker 1: wet pants that night. You know, he can quickly compute.
Speaker 1: While Gayl Bailey is the mother of Jack Pearcy's child.
Speaker 1: At this point, Oza Shaw is an old friend of
Speaker 1: Jack Piercy's. They're both going to cover for Jack Piercy.
Speaker 1: He could have quickly said bullshit, I did my pants
Speaker 1: were dry, But he lives with the inconvenient fact because
Speaker 1: he's innocent, and he says, yeah, they were wet then night.
Speaker 1: Here's what happened. That is a hallmark of innocence. Hallmark
Speaker 1: of innocence. He lives with that because he thinks that
Speaker 1: the police are just gonna believe him and actually investigate this. Right,
Speaker 1: It's not like they could have gone back in time
Speaker 1: and found some wet stain on something. It would have
Speaker 1: been the easiest thing for him to say that you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right. That being said, Piercy goes to trial, it
Speaker 1: sounds like he didn't have a snowball chance. And how
Speaker 1: in sure enough, he's convicted and the state seeks the
Speaker 1: death penalty against Jack Piercy and they don't get it.
Speaker 1: He gets life. My understanding and correct me if I'm wrong,
Speaker 1: is that there's a line between the fact that the
Speaker 1: state failed to get the death penalty that they sought
Speaker 1: against Piercy, so they wanted to execute somebody for this
Speaker 1: awful crime, and that led them to do a number
Speaker 1: of terrible, terrible things. What happens next is the prosecutor
Speaker 1: send police in to the Penellas County Jail where James
Speaker 1: Daily is being held pre trial, to start building a
Speaker 1: better case against James Daily. And they don't have anything
Speaker 1: to go on with James Daily except these wet pants.
Speaker 1: And it is Operation Frame James Daily. And if you
Speaker 1: want more about exactly what happened, we could never cover
Speaker 1: in this timeframe you. Pamela Koloff wrote an amazing investigative
Speaker 1: piece of all jailhouse snitches in particularly the one in
Speaker 1: this case, in pro publica in the New York Times.
Speaker 1: But they start pulling people off the paw where James
Speaker 1: Daily was housed had been housed, and what they start
Speaker 1: hearing from inmates is over and over again, he tells
Speaker 1: us he had nothing to do with this, He's innocent.
Speaker 1: And then the detectives let it be known to inmates
Speaker 1: that if you have information leading to the conviction of
Speaker 1: James Daily, if you can help us with the case,
Speaker 1: there's a deal to be had for you. And at
Speaker 1: first they get no takers. They start pulling some of
Speaker 1: the same inmates off the pod and now they have
Speaker 1: newspaper articles about the crime sitting in front of them,
Speaker 1: and one of these inmates has has said in Pam
Speaker 1: Koloff story, look, I could have easily made something up
Speaker 1: by reading the newspaper articles that they put in front
Speaker 1: of me. But they get no takers. They ultimately sort
Speaker 1: of giving up hope getting a snitch against James Daily,
Speaker 1: and then enter Paul Skealnick. And Paul Skalnik was housed
Speaker 1: at that jail and he was uh someone that was
Speaker 1: known to Panellis County police officers. He was known to
Speaker 1: that prosecutor's office. He had cooperated in forty some odd cases,
Speaker 1: and they knew he was a liar. They knew that
Speaker 1: he had no way of knowing the things that he knew,
Speaker 1: and they knew that he was a liar in this
Speaker 1: case from the outset. Because what happens is Paul Skalnik
Speaker 1: had already tried to get himself a deal in connection
Speaker 1: with Jack Piercey's case. He goes to investigators and he says,
Speaker 1: I have information about Jack Piercy, and they said, duh,
Speaker 1: he's already been convicted. We don't need information about Jack Piercy.
Speaker 1: So then he takes another try and he says, well,
Speaker 1: now I have information about James Daly. They should have
Speaker 1: said to him, come on, buddy, enough, but shockingly they
Speaker 1: listened to him. And the tale he tells them has
Speaker 1: already been found by the Florida Supreme Court to be impossible.
Speaker 1: They have, in commenting on appeals that James Dally has made,
Speaker 1: said the layout of the jail makes his story nuts.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense. Now, remember he's a known snitch.
Speaker 1: In this jail, Paul Scalnik is radioactive. No one's going
Speaker 1: near him. He's cooperated in countless cases. Everybody knows he's
Speaker 1: in a single cell. So Scalnick tells us crazy story
Speaker 1: at James Daly's trial that James Daily is mosing past
Speaker 1: the cell stops, turns to him for some unknown reason
Speaker 1: and says, she wouldn't shut up and I killed her.
Speaker 1: So we cannot overstate the disgusting practice of using lying,
Speaker 1: incentivized jail house snitches who basically condemned their victims to
Speaker 1: death in exchange for extremely lenient treatment. And Skalnik is
Speaker 1: one of the most grotesque examples of this. And what
Speaker 1: I mean by that is two he was charged with
Speaker 1: sexually assaulting a child. The case was strong and the victim,
Speaker 1: this brave little girl, was prepared to testify, but officials
Speaker 1: never prosecuted him for the crime. Instead, he pleaded no
Speaker 1: contest to a separate and far less serious charge of
Speaker 1: grand theft. There is incontrovertible evidence that the prosecutors knew
Speaker 1: that Paul Scownick lied on the witness stand about his
Speaker 1: past charges of of sexual assault against miners, and they
Speaker 1: did nothing about it. They didn't correct it. And you know,
Speaker 1: Paul Skalnik lies to the jury and says that he
Speaker 1: wasn't promised any deal. He ends up walking out of
Speaker 1: jail five days after James Daily is sentenced to death
Speaker 1: the State of Florida. Where and I'll never forget you
Speaker 1: saying this to me as we've spoken one of our many,
Speaker 1: many conversations about this case, Josh's five or six months ago,
Speaker 1: he said to me, you know, my client, James Daily
Speaker 1: is either going to be the hundredth person executed by
Speaker 1: the State of Florida or the thirtieth exonerated from death row.
Speaker 1: And that gives me the chills because what that says
Speaker 1: to us is that the State of Florida, even if
Speaker 1: everyone who they've executed before was guilty, and we know
Speaker 1: that that is not the case because Jesse to Pharaoh,
Speaker 1: and the list goes on. But they're not even batting
Speaker 1: seven hundred, and yet they continue to let the machinery
Speaker 1: of death wind its way, grind its way through, and
Speaker 1: and Daily is in their sights. M has been for
Speaker 1: a long time, but now so more than ever, which
Speaker 1: makes this even more urgent that you're here. This case
Speaker 1: has gained so much attention, and hopefully through this podcast
Speaker 1: it gains more because it is just the perfect unfortunate
Speaker 1: storm of injustice. James Daily has been sitting there in
Speaker 1: this narrow, dank cell for thirty US years suffocating in
Speaker 1: the eventuality that the State of Florida is going to
Speaker 1: take his life for something he did not do. And
Speaker 1: you know, if the courts are not going to give
Speaker 1: him the justice that he deserves and give the Boggio
Speaker 1: family the proper closure they deserve by making sure that
Speaker 1: we don't compound a tragedy by taking another innocent life,
Speaker 1: I have to keep fighting. You know, the state of
Speaker 1: Florida has an opportunity to be a catch all, a
Speaker 1: fail safe. Governor Rhonda Santis can make clemency in Florida matter.
Speaker 1: Pam Colloff said it best. There is a problem with
Speaker 1: the death penalty in Florida. It is no small wonder
Speaker 1: and it is not some coincidence that Florida has more
Speaker 1: death rogues generations than any other state in the country.
Speaker 1: And there's a clemency process in Florida that does not
Speaker 1: really apply to death penalty prisoners unless they're willing to
Speaker 1: go and show some sort of contrition. And James Daily
Speaker 1: is not going to show contrition for something he didn't do.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot to fight for these days, and
Speaker 1: the James Daily cases one of them we're seeing right now.
Speaker 1: The power of united voices, Unity, brings change, pressure breaks pipes.
Speaker 1: To stand by Idoly. You know, in the face of
Speaker 1: injustice is not an option anymore. That applies to cases
Speaker 1: of innocence, police brutality against people of color in this country.
Speaker 1: We have to stand up to it all. I'm sure
Speaker 1: people are listening saying, I want to do something about
Speaker 1: this James Daily situation. It's awful. Is there something that
Speaker 1: people can do in terms of the James Daily case.
Speaker 1: We need as many listeners as we can to sign
Speaker 1: the petition to the Governor's office that this cannot stand.
Speaker 1: That if the courts do not give James Daily justice,
Speaker 1: that we need there to be a real clemency hearing
Speaker 1: where I can present all of the stunning evidence of
Speaker 1: James Daily's innocence. Please everyone, scroll down into this episode's description,
Speaker 1: click the link, sign the petition and help bring James
Speaker 1: Daily hume. There really is a wind at all cost
Speaker 1: mentality when prosecutors. It's at the heart of a lot
Speaker 1: of the problems plaguing our criminal legal system, you know,
Speaker 1: resorting to the use of jailhouse snitches who are totally
Speaker 1: unreliable and notoriously incentivized and wrongly incentivized. It's just one
Speaker 1: of the many, many symptoms of a systemic disease at
Speaker 1: the root of so many wrongful conviction cases. Now, Josh,
Speaker 1: if you could focus on one particular way in which
Speaker 1: wrongful convictions are obtained, what's the first thing that comes
Speaker 1: to mind. The first thing that comes to mind to
Speaker 1: me is reverse engineering, working from a place of wanting
Speaker 1: to get a desired result, having an a hunch, of
Speaker 1: feeling a notion that someone did something, and then using
Speaker 1: pseudo science or some justification for it. And that's what
Speaker 1: we see in so many of these cases. The almost
Speaker 1: every single case that I have worked on that involves
Speaker 1: an innocent man or woman involves some form of junk science.
Speaker 1: You know. Look, the gold standard for forensic science in
Speaker 1: this country is the National Academy of Sciences. And there
Speaker 1: was a bombshell report in two thousand nine when the
Speaker 1: National Academy of Science has found that many of these
Speaker 1: so called forensic disciplines that are used in cases all
Speaker 1: over the country going backwards thirty fifty years and still
Speaker 1: to this date. This is in two thousand nine, found
Speaker 1: that they weren't science at all. Called out bite mark
Speaker 1: evidence is saying there's no scientific basis for it whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And still to this day, courts all over the country
Speaker 1: except bite mark evidence. They were critical blood spatter evidence
Speaker 1: of footwear impressions. Arson Are these disciplines objective, reliable? Can
Speaker 1: they be repeated? Can they be confirmed? And because of
Speaker 1: this phenomenon called legal precedent, where judges just say, well
Speaker 1: it was accepted before, I'll keep on accepting it, they
Speaker 1: keep on admitting it all over the country, and innocent
Speaker 1: men and women are having their lives destroyed because so
Speaker 1: called experts get on a witness stand and say, well,
Speaker 1: I can match these teeth marks to this individual, on
Speaker 1: these bite marks on that victim, and to a degree
Speaker 1: of scientific certainty that individual did the biting. They were
Speaker 1: the perpetrator. And Clementia Geary's case, there was blood all
Speaker 1: over the crime scene. It was no small wonder that
Speaker 1: the blood came from the two victims. The reason that
Speaker 1: they were collecting the blood of the crime scene was
Speaker 1: to try to determ who the perpetrator was. And that's
Speaker 1: not because I say so. The crime scene investigators in
Speaker 1: that very case admitted that the reason that they were
Speaker 1: collecting the blood was to figure out who the perpetrator was.
Speaker 1: They never tested a single drop of blood. We had
Speaker 1: to test it. They were analyzing footwear impressions, and Clementia
Speaker 1: Geary had admitted that he happened upon the bodies and
Speaker 1: walked through the crime scene. There was no small wonder
Speaker 1: that his shoes made some impressions. There were impressions that
Speaker 1: were never looked at. That's a case of just ignoring
Speaker 1: the the forensic evidence. But you know, in so many cases,
Speaker 1: the conviction comes down to the jury buying a so
Speaker 1: called expert that says only the defendant's teeth could have
Speaker 1: left that mark on the victim, when in fact you
Speaker 1: find out that the mark on the victim wasn't even
Speaker 1: a bite mark at all, or that the blood spatter
Speaker 1: came from this direction, and an expert reconstructs the crime
Speaker 1: in a way that sounds so convincing to the jury,
Speaker 1: and they use acronyms and fancy words, and you find
Speaker 1: out that this so called x for doesn't even have
Speaker 1: a high school education and took a forty hour course
Speaker 1: from a man that you know, gave birth to the
Speaker 1: discipline of blood spatter and a basement in Corning, New
Speaker 1: York that he called the Forensic Institute of Science. If
Speaker 1: we really peel back the curtain and people really see
Speaker 1: what's going on, what I think is going to happen
Speaker 1: is I think you are going to be just horrified
Speaker 1: that courts admit this stuff, people rely on it, and
Speaker 1: it's not juris false. It sounds super convincing. But what
Speaker 1: what I would like is for there to be a
Speaker 1: greater awareness about what this is, had a spot it
Speaker 1: if you're a juror, and had to scrutinize it, so
Speaker 1: that we are not convicting innocent people for crimes they
Speaker 1: didn't commit. I emphatically agree with you, Josh. That's why
Speaker 1: I'm particularly proud and actually humbled to announce that we
Speaker 1: are going to be presenting a brand new series, Wrawful
Speaker 1: Conviction Junk Science, and the host will be none other
Speaker 1: than Josh Stubin, the man you've been listening to today.
Speaker 1: And I'm so excited to be involved with it because
Speaker 1: I think we're going to do what I've always wanted
Speaker 1: to do, which is to help make better decisions that
Speaker 1: will lead not only to less wrongful convictions, but to
Speaker 1: more rightful ones. Yeah. So let me start by saying
Speaker 1: I'm I'm the one, and there's like a big love fest.
Speaker 1: I'm the one that's humbled and honored. I mean, Jason,
Speaker 1: you're a personal hero of mine. I tell you privately
Speaker 1: all the time, I'll tell you publicly now, I mean
Speaker 1: I'm I am honored, humbled and everything in between. To
Speaker 1: be the host of the what I think is a
Speaker 1: really important podcast. Um, it's inspiring and I think it's
Speaker 1: a real opportunity for people to instead of asking how
Speaker 1: do I get out of jury service, which I always
Speaker 1: tell people, Well, if you were wrongfully accused of a crime,
Speaker 1: wouldn't you want you on the jury? Um, instead of
Speaker 1: getting out of jury service if you're there wanting to
Speaker 1: be a part of it, especially in a criminal case,
Speaker 1: and make or that justice is really done and that
Speaker 1: you're highly inquisitive asking the right questions to yourself throughout
Speaker 1: the trial and to your fellow jers when you deliberate.
Speaker 1: So we do not have more of these stories about
Speaker 1: people getting out after decades have passed, and rather more
Speaker 1: stories about them getting acquitted before the damage is done
Speaker 1: or more damage is done, because any criminal prosecution against
Speaker 1: the innocent is damaging to their families, to them, and
Speaker 1: of course to the victim and the victims families. So, Josh,
Speaker 1: as we get ready to sign off, this is the
Speaker 1: part of the show where I first of all thank
Speaker 1: my guest in this case you for being here, and
Speaker 1: then turn my microphone off and kick back and listen,
Speaker 1: because this is the segment of the show called closing arguments,
Speaker 1: you know, because I feel like this fell on deaf
Speaker 1: ears to some extent. I'll just read to you my
Speaker 1: closing argument to the court that was recently denied, and
Speaker 1: let the listeners judge for themselves how they would have
Speaker 1: ruled if they were the judge. This is no ordinary case.
Speaker 1: There is no more important legal question in the American
Speaker 1: system of justice than whether someone may be executed without
Speaker 1: ever had a meaningful opportunity to present the complete evidence
Speaker 1: of his or her innocence. Recognizing that the execution of
Speaker 1: an innocent person is quote the quintessential miscarriage of justice
Speaker 1: end quote, the request is simple. This court should hear
Speaker 1: and consider the totality of the evidence before permitting the
Speaker 1: State of Florida to execute James Daily. Jack Piercy has
Speaker 1: confessed time and time again that he killed Shelley Boggio
Speaker 1: and that James Daily had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Speaker 1: There has been some debate over the years about the
Speaker 1: motives behind Piercy's confessions. Indeed, throughout the course of James
Speaker 1: Daily's three decade long fight to clear his name, many
Speaker 1: have speculated as to why Jack Piercy would repeatedly confess
Speaker 1: to sole responsibility for the murder only till later account
Speaker 1: But if in fact James Daly was the person who
Speaker 1: murdered Chili Boggio, and makes absolutely no sense that Jack
Speaker 1: Piercy would ever confess to her murder. After all, it
Speaker 1: would be James Daly who was responsible for Jack Piercy's
Speaker 1: three decade long wrong phonecarceration for in essence, ruining his life.
Speaker 1: No person in Pearcy's position would ever confess to a
Speaker 1: murder that would allow Daily to escape responsibility. Piercy's most
Speaker 1: recent effort to explain why he would have given such
Speaker 1: a false confession is so irrational and self serving that
Speaker 1: it is obviously made up. He claims that he hoped
Speaker 1: to gain some advantage of his own by capitalizing on
Speaker 1: the efforts of James Daly's legal team to overturn Mr.
Speaker 1: Daly's conviction. But how could Pearcy's legal position ever be
Speaker 1: helped by his confession that he committed the crime alone.
Speaker 1: Once he confessed, there's no chance that anything Mr Daley's
Speaker 1: legal team would be doing could somehow benefit Piercy. Moreover,
Speaker 1: we James Daley's legal team remain engaged in a tremendous
Speaker 1: effort to fight his wrongful conviction. So even if you
Speaker 1: take Piercy at his word that he confessed against some
Speaker 1: sort of legal benefit of his own, which again makes
Speaker 1: no sense, he would be more incentivized than ever to
Speaker 1: sit back and see how things unfold. So what changed?
Speaker 1: The only thing that changed is that Piercy's mother read
Speaker 1: about his latest confession in the newspaper and expressed her
Speaker 1: genuine despair. Piercy's mother also alerted him to the consequences
Speaker 1: of his confession with respect to his son. So what
Speaker 1: is far more probable is that Jack Piercy's guilty conscience,
Speaker 1: burdened by the knowledge that he may be responsible for
Speaker 1: yet another innocent person, has caused him to confess his
Speaker 1: sole responsibility numerous times, only to recant when faced with
Speaker 1: his mother's grief and the fear that his family might
Speaker 1: shun him if he finally comes clean about what he did.
Speaker 1: The court need not reach a conclusion on this issue.
Speaker 1: Reasonable minds can disagree about the motive behind Jack Piercey's
Speaker 1: confessions and ensuing recantations. However, one thing is for certain.
Speaker 1: Jack Piercy has managed to wiggle out of these confessions
Speaker 1: in the past by disgracefully gaming the legal system at
Speaker 1: the expense of James Dally's grueling pursuit of the truth
Speaker 1: and the Boggio family's right to closure. At long last,
Speaker 1: the games should end here under oath, when the state,
Speaker 1: at the full and fair opportunity to cross examine him,
Speaker 1: Piercy let the truth slip, and he did so in
Speaker 1: the context of yet another recantation of a confession that
Speaker 1: he committed the crime alone. This is earth shattering for
Speaker 1: James Daily's fight for justice. This is the truth catching
Speaker 1: up to the lie. Now, the Florida Evidence Code requires
Speaker 1: that this new evidence, in fact, this critical admission that
Speaker 1: places Piercy alone with Shelley Boggio during the time frame
Speaker 1: in which he was murdered, be held up to the
Speaker 1: bright light of the truth. Indeed, let it be placed
Speaker 1: on the scales of justice along with the cumulative extraordinary
Speaker 1: evidence of James Daily's innocence that until now has been
Speaker 1: hidden from the eyes of the law due to procedural obstacles.
Speaker 1: Let us then see how the scales tip once and
Speaker 1: for all. Now that was rejected by the court. And
Speaker 1: I ask you, is that asking too much? If the
Speaker 1: courts are not going to listen and simply have a
Speaker 1: hearing and let us present the evidence. I would ask
Speaker 1: your listeners to please help by joining the fight. Don't
Speaker 1: forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. It really helps. And I'm a proud donor
Speaker 1: to the Innocence Project and I really hope you'll join
Speaker 1: me in supporting this very important cause and helping to
Speaker 1: prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to Innocence Project dot org
Speaker 1: to learn how to donate and get involved. I'd like
Speaker 1: to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wardis.
Speaker 1: The music in the show is by three time OSCAR
Speaker 1: nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on
Speaker 1: Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast.
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction with Jason flam is a production Lava for
Speaker 1: Good Podcasts in association with signal Company Number one