Speaker 1: Pushkin previously on Deep Cover. Greg, you gotta I can't
Speaker 1: just call a prosecutor over here and waste his time.
Speaker 1: You've got to tell us what is it we're asking
Speaker 1: the prosecutor to come for. And that's when he says,
Speaker 1: I'm not the shooter and I want immunity, and so he.
Speaker 2: Starts telling us how it went down. That basically that
Speaker 2: he and Tommy decided one night to go and find
Speaker 2: a black man to kill that black man so that
Speaker 2: they could get their spider web tattoos. As skinheads.
Speaker 3: It was definitely a different type of case. You know,
Speaker 3: a skinhead coming to fill a to kill somebody, a
Speaker 3: cowardly act.
Speaker 4: The family and I thought that this would be good
Speaker 4: if we found at least what happened to him. Can't
Speaker 4: do nothing about it, can't bring him back, but at
Speaker 4: least we would find out the truth.
Speaker 1: Aroan Wood was murdered in the spring of nineteen eighty nine.
Speaker 1: The case had been called for almost twenty years until
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight. That's when tom Guybison was put
Speaker 1: on trial. He stood accused of four charges, ethnic intimidation,
Speaker 1: carrying a firearm without a license, conspiracy to commit murder,
Speaker 1: and murder in the first degree. So far, I'd heard
Speaker 1: a great deal about the prosecution's case against him, and
Speaker 1: I wanted to hear the defense's case directly from the
Speaker 1: man who made it himself.
Speaker 5: He's scared to death, Jake. They're taking away his life.
Speaker 1: This is Mike Ferrell. He was Tom Guybison's lawyer, and
Speaker 1: he was quick to tell me just how precarious his
Speaker 1: client situation was at the time.
Speaker 5: He's facing life without parole and the only comfort he has,
Speaker 5: and he's got this crooked Irish kid who's trying to
Speaker 5: help him.
Speaker 1: Crooked Irish kid being you correct, Why do you call
Speaker 1: yourself a crooked Irish kid?
Speaker 5: Well, I have a crooked face, Jake.
Speaker 1: He means that quite literally, by the way, when he
Speaker 1: was just a baby, Mike had an operation and as
Speaker 1: a result, the left side of his face is paralyzed.
Speaker 1: It's not a parent immediately unless he smiles, and then
Speaker 1: you notice because it's really only a half smile. When
Speaker 1: I arrived at Mike's house in Philadelphia, he was prepared
Speaker 1: to retry this case. And I'm being serious here. He
Speaker 1: had his opening remarks printed and laid out on dining
Speaker 1: room table. He'd retrieved all the files from this case,
Speaker 1: boxes of it, and after a brief introduction, you know,
Speaker 1: explaining his crooked face as he called it, he launched
Speaker 1: right into his opening arguments.
Speaker 5: I believe Tom Geybison is innocent.
Speaker 1: Tom Guybison is innocent, he told me, is as if
Speaker 1: the trial were going on right now in his dining room.
Speaker 5: They had no physical evidence, they had no gun, They
Speaker 5: had nothing but the ear witnesses of scorned girlfriends and
Speaker 5: Craig Peterson, who had been made an offer he couldn't
Speaker 5: refuse to escape prosecution in return for full immunity.
Speaker 1: Mike got worked up, read in the face, raised voice,
Speaker 1: leaning in close to me. At one point he actually
Speaker 1: apologized for getting so animated, said he couldn't help it.
Speaker 1: I learned that over the course of his career, Mike
Speaker 1: had carved out a niche for himself defending what Mike
Speaker 1: calls quote, unpopular persons, people who might alienate a jury.
Speaker 1: He represented a bunch of skinheads, but also guys like
Speaker 1: Mumiya abou Jamal, a black activist who is convicted of
Speaker 1: murdering a white Philadelphia cop. Mike was on his legal
Speaker 1: team too.
Speaker 5: At cocktail parties, criminal defense attorneys are always asked, you know,
Speaker 5: how do you represent people who are accused of doing
Speaker 5: horrible things. My answer was, because I'm a sinner.
Speaker 1: When you say you're a sinner, though, what exactly do
Speaker 1: you mean by that? Do you mean that in a
Speaker 1: way that we're all sinners or you speaking specifically, or.
Speaker 5: Yes, we're all centers. I'm a sinner, and ultimately, no
Speaker 5: one is the worst thing that they've done in their life.
Speaker 1: One more thing that I should mention about Mike. Years
Speaker 1: after he defended Tom, he was convicted of money laundering
Speaker 1: and attempted witness tampering in another case involving marijuana dealers.
Speaker 1: It's safe to say Mike's entire career, start to finish
Speaker 1: defies convention. One of Mike's challenges in this case was
Speaker 1: to keep the jury from jumping to conclusions about his client,
Speaker 1: Tom Guybison. The whole skinhead thing was potentially a liability.
Speaker 1: It threatened to bias the jury against Tom from the start.
Speaker 1: To counter this, Mike described Tom in a very specific way.
Speaker 1: You might recall Tom once told a local newspaper that
Speaker 1: he was at one time a certain type of skinhead,
Speaker 1: a blue collar skinhead. Mike claimed that this was a
Speaker 1: very important distinction.
Speaker 5: Tom Geybison was a blue collar skinhead, and a blue
Speaker 5: collar skinhead did not advocate racism. He advocated, frankly, not
Speaker 5: on like our current magla, which is America First. Blue
Speaker 5: collar skinheads do not advocate racism.
Speaker 1: I had read that he had a Hitler tattoo though
Speaker 1: on his body.
Speaker 5: He did, and at some point in his younger life
Speaker 5: that was part of his ideology, but it was not
Speaker 5: his ideology when I represented him.
Speaker 1: I haven't been able to speak with Tom directly about this.
Speaker 1: He never responded to my requests for an interview. But
Speaker 1: based on the court records, Tom got the Hitler tattoo
Speaker 1: after the alleged murder. I know this because before the
Speaker 1: trial even started, his lawyer, Mike argued that the jury
Speaker 1: did not need to know about that tattoo, and the
Speaker 1: judge agreed. It was a win for the defense. Even so,
Speaker 1: it would be easy for a jury to make some
Speaker 1: snap judgments about who Tom Guybison was and what he believed.
Speaker 1: It was Mike's job to prempt these judgments. Mike hoped
Speaker 1: that he could focus the jury's attention instead on what
Speaker 1: he saw as the problems with the prosecution's case.
Speaker 5: This was a case that was absolutely backwards. Would nearly
Speaker 5: you have a murder and law enforcement searches for the murder.
Speaker 5: In this case, they started with a murderer and searched
Speaker 5: for a murder.
Speaker 1: In other words, the FEDS had taken the rumor of
Speaker 1: a killing, linked it to a cold case, and blamed
Speaker 1: his client. That was the argument. Anyhow, Mike didn't have
Speaker 1: to offer any answers. He didn't have to identify the
Speaker 1: quote real killer. All he had to do was create
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt, poked just enough holes in the prosecution's argument
Speaker 1: that jurors might start scratching their heads. And the thing
Speaker 1: about Mike is he's really good at poking holes. This
Speaker 1: became apparent to me the minute I set foot in
Speaker 1: his dining room. But of course it wasn't me. He
Speaker 1: needed to convince it was a jury of twelve Philadelphians
Speaker 1: back in two thousand and eight. His adversary was the
Speaker 1: legendary prosecutor Roger King. His audience was a courtroom packed
Speaker 1: with spectators. They included lawyers who had come to witness
Speaker 1: this showdown, a Ron Wood's family who was praying for justice,
Speaker 1: and Of course, the press was there too, because this
Speaker 1: trial would make headlines. How could it not. A cold
Speaker 1: case almost two decades old have been resuscitated in rather
Speaker 1: epic fashion, and if the prosecution was to be believed,
Speaker 1: hate itself was on trial from Jay Calburn and This
Speaker 1: is Deep Cover Season four, The Nameless Man, Episode five,
Speaker 1: the trial. The prosecutor in this case was Roger King,
Speaker 1: a legendary figure, a distant cousin of Martin Luther King Junior.
Speaker 1: He spoke with the cadence and the charisma of a
Speaker 1: big church pastor. Roger often made the papers he tried
Speaker 1: high profile cases. Back in the spring of two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, the city's Criminal Justice Center was buzzing with
Speaker 1: the news that Roger King was trying his very last case.
Speaker 1: This drew a bunch of spectators. Then one of them
Speaker 1: was another prosecutor named Carlos Vega. Carlos says he just
Speaker 1: had to be there.
Speaker 3: It's almost like saying goodbye. You know, it's a level
Speaker 3: of respect you're giving him, but also you're watching one
Speaker 3: of the greats do his last performance.
Speaker 1: Carlos, like so many prosecutors in Philadelphia, had been mentored
Speaker 1: by King.
Speaker 3: As a baby DA. When you first came through the office,
Speaker 3: he was a legend. He had tried these really complicated murders,
Speaker 3: you know that were in the front page, and you know,
Speaker 3: they go, that's Roger King.
Speaker 1: Eventually, Carlos ended up getting involved in this case as
Speaker 1: a prosecutor, but initially he was just a spectator sitting
Speaker 1: in the gallery watching Roger King's last performance. As he
Speaker 1: put it, Roger died back in twenty sixteen. The headline
Speaker 1: to his obituary read, Roger King seventy two, Large than life,
Speaker 1: and I should tell you his legacy was complicated. In
Speaker 1: a number of other murder cases that he tried. His
Speaker 1: convictions were later overturned. There are allegations that he hid evidence,
Speaker 1: manipulated witnesses, or otherwise broke the rules. Carlos told me
Speaker 1: Roger was not the kind of guy who would have
Speaker 1: been intimidated by anyone. That he was tough, and that
Speaker 1: he was always ready for anything.
Speaker 3: A lot of homicide prosecutors are are armed. So you
Speaker 3: know Roger always carried two guns. Why two? Because Roger
Speaker 3: is Roger.
Speaker 1: And then there was Roger's opponent, Mike Ferrell. Carlos remembers
Speaker 1: how Mike carried himself in the courtroom.
Speaker 3: He was very, very intense. He's not a bully because
Speaker 3: it's very gentle, but he looks like he run up
Speaker 3: and punched you, like he really You see the veins
Speaker 3: pop in his neck and everything like that.
Speaker 1: So that was the scene in the courtroom. Larger than life.
Speaker 1: Roger King who liked to carry his two guns, and
Speaker 1: the self proclaimed crooked face irishman vains ready to pop
Speaker 1: out of his neck, two impassion lawyers getting ready prelude
Speaker 1: to an epic standoff. The trial would hinge on two
Speaker 1: fundamental questions. Number one, did it really happen? In other words,
Speaker 1: do you believe that in nineteen eighty nine, Tom Guybison
Speaker 1: went to Philadelphia and murdered a complete stranger. The answer
Speaker 1: to this question would depend on the credibility of three
Speaker 1: star witnesses. There were the two ex girlfriends, both of
Speaker 1: whom claimed that Tom had confessed to them, and there
Speaker 1: was the old friend Craig Peterson, who claimed to be
Speaker 1: the accomplice. These witnesses would have to convince the jury
Speaker 1: that Tom had committed murder back in nineteen eighty nine.
Speaker 1: Then there was question number two. Was this the correct victim.
Speaker 1: In other words, was there enough evidence to convict Tom
Speaker 1: Guybison specifically for the murder of Iran Wood? And the
Speaker 1: answer to this question would focus on the detective work
Speaker 1: performed by Scott Duffy, Terry Mortimer and the Philadelphia PD.
Speaker 1: The burden of proof was on the prosecution, and this
Speaker 1: was a point that Mike made both in his opening
Speaker 1: arguments and in the little re enactment that he did
Speaker 1: for me.
Speaker 5: Now, in a criminal case, it's very interesting in the
Speaker 5: sense that the prosecution side of the story they have
Speaker 5: to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. As to the defense
Speaker 5: side of the story, we just have to create reasonable doubt.
Speaker 5: But we did way more than that.
Speaker 1: Ultimately, Mike would present his own theory on how and
Speaker 1: why iron Wood was killed, but his job was simply
Speaker 1: to poke holes in the prosecution's case. Starting with the
Speaker 1: credibility of its three star witnesses, Let's start by talking
Speaker 1: about the testimony of the two ex girlfriends. If you recall,
Speaker 1: one of them was from high school. Her name was Jen.
Speaker 1: Tom was her prom date, and when she took the
Speaker 1: witness stand, she testified that Tom had shown off his
Speaker 1: spider web tattoo on a number of occasions, including the
Speaker 1: prom and that Tom had been very clear this tattoo
Speaker 1: was a badge of honor for killing a black man.
Speaker 1: Jen also claimed that Tom kept a newspaper article covering
Speaker 1: the man's death and boasted that this was his doing
Speaker 1: his murder. Jen testified quote, he told me that he
Speaker 1: was driving aimlessly and a man just walked out between
Speaker 1: two parked cars and he shot him in the head.
Speaker 1: Jen said her relationship with Tom ended because he was abusive.
Speaker 1: The other ex girlfriend was Patricia. She was Tom's girlfriend
Speaker 1: when he was older in his twenties. Patricia also testified
Speaker 1: to the fact that Tom liked to show off his
Speaker 1: tattoo and brag about the murder that he'd committed. She
Speaker 1: also talked about the newspaper article that Tom supposedly kept.
Speaker 1: She also alleged Tom had abused her in a brutal manner.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to get into all the details here,
Speaker 1: but the allegations were graphic, specific and disturbing. Carlos Vega,
Speaker 1: who you heard from earlier and who eventually got involved
Speaker 1: in this case as a prosecutor, said that Jen and
Speaker 1: Patricia showed real courage, not only for taking the stand,
Speaker 1: but for risking the potential consequences.
Speaker 3: Think of it. If they were intimate with him. They
Speaker 3: know who he is, They know what he is. People
Speaker 3: don't understand. It's not TV that it's cut and everybody's high.
Speaker 3: There is a life after a case, and people have
Speaker 3: to live the rest of their lives dealing with the murderer,
Speaker 3: his family, his friends, his associates. They're going to have
Speaker 3: to look behind their back for the rest of their lives.
Speaker 1: Mike, the defense lawyer, argued that both of these women
Speaker 1: had been cast aside by Tom, that they were quote
Speaker 1: scorned girlfriends. In particular, Mike attacked Patricia's credibility, noted that
Speaker 1: she'd struggled with substance abuse for years, and pointed out
Speaker 1: that Tom had cheated on her repeatedly.
Speaker 5: You know, he was not a faithful boyfriend, but he
Speaker 5: was not a murderer.
Speaker 1: Mike maintained that both ex girlfriends were lying on the
Speaker 1: stand to get back at Tom. In cross examination, Mike
Speaker 1: did his best to poke holes in the ex girlfriend's
Speaker 1: stories by pointing out inconsistencies. Over the preceding years, Jen
Speaker 1: and Patricia had told their stories multiple times to investigators
Speaker 1: and court officials, and there were some discrepancies. Patricia and
Speaker 1: Jen both testified at trial about seeing Tom's spider web tattoo,
Speaker 1: but years earlier, Patricia had originally told investigators the tattoo
Speaker 1: that Tom got for the murder was a tear drop
Speaker 1: within a spider web.
Speaker 5: Well, the theory of the girlfriends, the theory that began
Speaker 5: this whole snowball rolling down the side of a snow
Speaker 5: covered hill, was not to earn the web tattoo, but
Speaker 5: to earn a red tear drop within the web tattoo.
Speaker 1: For the record, Tom did have a web tattoo, but
Speaker 1: there was no tear drop in it. Mike found things
Speaker 1: like this, small inconsistencies and hammered away at them. In
Speaker 1: my mind, the most confounding issue that Mike raised involved
Speaker 1: the newspaper article about the murder, the one that Tom
Speaker 1: allegedly kept. This article was important because in theory, if
Speaker 1: Iran would was the victim, then this article would have
Speaker 1: Iran's name in it right because it would be about Iran.
Speaker 1: But no one, not the FEDS, or the police or
Speaker 1: the prosecutors, was able to find such an article, not
Speaker 1: at Tom's house or the library, or anywhere. It's a
Speaker 1: loose end that remains unexplained, and according to Mike Farrell,
Speaker 1: this was another hole in the prosecution's case. More on
Speaker 1: the prosecution after the break. By far the most important
Speaker 1: witness was Craig Peterson, the supposed accomplice. He was really
Speaker 1: the lynchpin to the prosecution's case. When Craig finally walked
Speaker 1: into the courtroom, it was a dramatic moment. Craig and
Speaker 1: Tom had been friends since the fourth grade. They knew
Speaker 1: each other's families, they had grown up alongside one another
Speaker 1: in Delaware, and if Craig was to be believed, they'd
Speaker 1: finished out their adolescence by committing murder together. Now, almost
Speaker 1: two decades later, the former friends were in their late thirties.
Speaker 1: One was the defendant, possibly facing life in prison, the
Speaker 1: other the star witness who had a get out of
Speaker 1: jail free card. When he took the stand, Craig described
Speaker 1: the night of the murder in detail, just as he
Speaker 1: had done with Scott and Terry, the two federal agents
Speaker 1: two years prior. It was the same story that he
Speaker 1: had helped to kill a man all because of the
Speaker 1: color of his skin, and that he had watched as
Speaker 1: Tom Guybison shot him in the head, and then, as
Speaker 1: Craig told the jury, he quote slowly drove off like
Speaker 1: nothing happened and just kept going.
Speaker 5: Craig Peterson was a liar, He was a corrupt source. Frankly,
Speaker 5: he was given an offer that no one could refuse.
Speaker 1: This is the argument that the defense made a trial
Speaker 1: that Craig lied to the federal agents Scott and Terry
Speaker 1: to save his own skin.
Speaker 5: If in fact their theory was that he was the
Speaker 5: driver of Tom Guybison to Philadelphia from Warmington to kill
Speaker 5: a black man. He's a co conspirator first degree murder,
Speaker 5: life without parole.
Speaker 1: So you can is that they explicitly threatened him or
Speaker 1: said you're going to go away from murder if you
Speaker 1: don't cooperate with us.
Speaker 5: It's not my theory, Jake, it's the truth. It's exactly
Speaker 5: what happened. You know, mister Peterson, you know, didn't Tom Guybison.
Speaker 5: Didn't you drive Tom Guybison to Philadelphia to cooble backman?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 5: Second time? Didn't you drive Tom Guybison to Philadelphia to
Speaker 5: cool back man?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 5: Third time? Well, look, you know you're facing life without parole.
Speaker 5: First degree murder co conspirator, but we'll we'll let you
Speaker 5: go scott free with total immunity if you essentially tell
Speaker 5: us what we want to hear.
Speaker 1: It is true that initially Craig denied taking part in
Speaker 1: this murder when Scott and Terry made that trip to Vermont,
Speaker 1: But it's also true that once he confessed, his story,
Speaker 1: with all its many details, remained consistent. In the courtroom,
Speaker 1: under cross examination, Craig held his own At one point,
Speaker 1: Mike asked him, pointedly, you decided to tell them what
Speaker 1: they want to hear, that you'd get immunity and not
Speaker 1: have the worry about prosecution. Correct, Craig replied, I didn't
Speaker 1: tell them what they wanted to hear. I told them
Speaker 1: what happened. It's impossible to underscore just how important Craig
Speaker 1: was as a witness. In order to convict Tom Guybison,
Speaker 1: the jury would not only have to believe that Craig
Speaker 1: was credible, they would also have to believe that Craig's
Speaker 1: memory was reliable because all the details they connected this
Speaker 1: murder to iron Wood came from Craig's confession. Scott, Terry,
Speaker 1: and Luby, the detective from the flipd All testified for
Speaker 1: the prosecution. They walked the jury through the years of
Speaker 1: work they'd done to bring this cold case out of
Speaker 1: the basement literally and into the courtroom. Talked about how
Speaker 1: several key facts from Greig's confession, the general location, the
Speaker 1: type of weapon, the nature of the wound, and the
Speaker 1: time frame spring of eighty nine led them to a
Speaker 1: single match iron Wood. But in the end, it would
Speaker 1: all come down to a gut feeling about Craig. The
Speaker 1: prosecution presented him as someone with a checkered past who'd
Speaker 1: finally redeemed himself and told the truth. The defense was
Speaker 1: calling him a liar and an opportunist. It would be
Speaker 1: up to the jury to decide. After the prosecution rested,
Speaker 1: Mike Ferrell had an opportunity to present his own witnesses
Speaker 1: to build out an alternate theory of how Iran Wood
Speaker 1: died to suggest that Tom wasn't the one who killed him.
Speaker 1: His counter narrative is a bit spotty, not all of
Speaker 1: it connects, but I'm going to walk you through it.
Speaker 5: Would it was supposedly the victim, Tom Guyvenson, didn't kill him,
Speaker 5: Drugs and guns killed him.
Speaker 1: Mike called a bunch of witnesses to build out his
Speaker 1: theory that Iran was murdered over a drug debt. One
Speaker 1: of these witnesses was an old girlfriend of Iran's. She
Speaker 1: testified that Iran sold drugs and that she'd once received
Speaker 1: a threatening phone call from a guy who was looking
Speaker 1: for Iran. In response, Roger King pointed out that this
Speaker 1: call occurred more than a year before the murder, so
Speaker 1: he argued, connecting these two events was a real stretch.
Speaker 1: Mike brought into other witnesses too, including a bartender who'd
Speaker 1: seen Iran on the night of the murder in an
Speaker 1: agitated state.
Speaker 5: We proved that Aaron Wood was in a bar, nervous, afraid,
Speaker 5: indicating that he may never come back. The bartender called
Speaker 5: Iran saying, quote, you probably won't be seeing me no
Speaker 5: more man after today.
Speaker 1: It went on like this. Mike brought in someone who
Speaker 1: had been interviewed by the police back in nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: nine at the scene of the crime.
Speaker 5: And we have an eye witness of heard the gunshot
Speaker 5: and saw three black males in hoods running from the
Speaker 5: scene of the gunshot.
Speaker 1: On cross examination, Roger asked this witness if he thought
Speaker 1: the three men in the hoods running away were involved
Speaker 1: in the crime, No, said the witness. This man also admitted,
Speaker 1: in a moment of absurdity, that he had no idea
Speaker 1: why he was being called to testify because he knew
Speaker 1: nothing about this murder. Okay, at this point, if you're
Speaker 1: scratching your head trying to keep all this straight, I
Speaker 1: hear you information overload. That, however, seemed to be part
Speaker 1: of the defense's strategy here. Mike wasn't offering complete answers
Speaker 1: or a counter narrative that made total sense, and he
Speaker 1: didn't have to. He was just trying to see doubts
Speaker 1: in the jurors minds. I should mention Tom Guybison never
Speaker 1: took the witness stand. He waved his right to testify,
Speaker 1: so the jury never heard from him. The trial would
Speaker 1: last for twelve days, and as the lawyers sparred and
Speaker 1: the witnesses testified, one man in the gallery watched on silently.
Speaker 1: He was there every day from start till finish, taking
Speaker 1: it all in. That man was Tyrone Wood, Aron's youngest brother.
Speaker 4: I felt like I had to go to trial every day,
Speaker 4: and I feel like I had to find truthful not
Speaker 4: only for the family, for my mom because she said
Speaker 4: should I go, and I said no.
Speaker 1: No, because he didn't want her hearing all the details,
Speaker 1: reliving the whole nightmare, so he went instead, though it
Speaker 1: was no easy to ask for him either. In the
Speaker 1: lead up to the trial, kind of amazingly, no one
Speaker 1: had shared any details with him, the whole story about
Speaker 1: Tom and Craig and the prom and the tattoos. That
Speaker 1: was all news to him. Tyrone intently listened to all
Speaker 1: the witnesses, especially Craig, and he found him credible. It
Speaker 1: was a tortuous situation. On the one hand, Craig's testimony
Speaker 1: is what made this whole trial possible. He was the
Speaker 1: key to the family shot at justice or at least
Speaker 1: a closure. On the other hand, Craig was also the
Speaker 1: man who supposedly helped kill Roan, the man who drove
Speaker 1: away quote like nothing happened. I asked Tyrone how he
Speaker 1: felt about Craig testifying.
Speaker 4: I was actually thinking that I was glad he did
Speaker 4: at least for my family and for my mother, so
Speaker 4: at least they can close their eyes knowing that they
Speaker 4: knew who did it. And that's the way I look
Speaker 4: at it. Also, I just thank God for that I
Speaker 4: know who did it.
Speaker 1: Occasionally during the trial, Tyrone found himself looking right at
Speaker 1: Tom Guybison, looking and thinking.
Speaker 4: I said, I'm not gonna let him win. I just
Speaker 4: wanted you to be convicted of my brother's death. You
Speaker 4: did it, you know, you did it so and I
Speaker 4: felt like he was a coward, you know, because you
Speaker 4: didn't face no man. You went up and just shot
Speaker 4: a man just because the sport. I don't hate, but
Speaker 4: I was kind of hating for a little bit. And
Speaker 4: then at the same token, I thought to myself, I
Speaker 4: came that this guy overtake me again. So I'm thinking
Speaker 4: that we're gonna get justice and then everything will be okay.
Speaker 1: His family's hopes, just like Tom's fate, were now in
Speaker 1: the hands of twelve Philadelphians. It was their call. They
Speaker 1: had to sort through the witness's testimonies, the narrative, the
Speaker 1: counter narrative, the lofty rhetoric of Roger King, the doubts
Speaker 1: sewed by Mike Ferrell, all in search of the elusive
Speaker 1: prospect that buried somewhere in this tangled, tragic mess was
Speaker 1: a verdict. It was truly just next time I'm deep cover.
Speaker 3: My name is Bob.
Speaker 5: I'm a Philadelphian and.
Speaker 3: I was selected to serve on the Jewelry that heard
Speaker 3: the case of Thomas Guybison.
Speaker 6: Pressure was growing within the group to come to a conclusion.
Speaker 6: There was a feeling of we don't have more to
Speaker 6: go on.
Speaker 1: Deep Cover is produced by Amy Gaines McQuaid and Jacob Smith.
Speaker 1: It's edited by Karen Schakerji mastering by Jake Gorski. Our
Speaker 1: show art was designed by Sean Carney. Original scoring in
Speaker 1: our theme was composed by Luis Gara, fact checking by
Speaker 1: Arthur Gomberts. Our story consultant was James Foreman Jr. Special
Speaker 1: thanks to Jerry Williams, Sarah Nix, Greta Cone, and Jake Flanagan.
Speaker 1: I'm Jake halpern
Speaker 5: S