Speaker 1: Nelson Serrano emigrated from Ecuador to the US in nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty four, building a family a successful business, and in
Speaker 1: the late eighties joined forces with two partners, George Gonzalvez
Speaker 1: and Philidasso. Meanwhile, Phil's son Frank, had a side business
Speaker 1: trafficking drugs from Miami to New York. A nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: six drug bust left Frank a million dollars in debt
Speaker 1: to some dangerous characters, which coincided with an unapproved withdrawal
Speaker 1: from the business in that amount, causing a rift between
Speaker 1: the partners. Then, on December third, nine seven, in the
Speaker 1: wake of a second drug bust, four people were shot
Speaker 1: and killed at their factory in Bartow, Florida. Frank Dasso,
Speaker 1: his sister Diane, her husband George, as well as George Gonzalves.
Speaker 1: Due to the ongoing rift, attention focused on Nelson Serrano,
Speaker 1: even though he was in Atlanta at the time of
Speaker 1: the murders. Years of investigation turned up zero evidence against Nelson,
Speaker 1: so he retired to Ecuador in two thousand, But when
Speaker 1: pressure mounted in Florida, authorities indicted Nelson anyway. Floridian authorities
Speaker 1: circumvented Ecuador's request for evidence and concerns over the death penalty,
Speaker 1: and instead arranged to have Nelson kidnapped and illegally brought
Speaker 1: to the US. Prosecutors ignored evidence of a multiple shooter
Speaker 1: drug hit and instead presented false evidence and an impossible
Speaker 1: theory of Nelson's guilt that is disproven by video time
Speaker 1: stamps and the limits of reality. Ultimately, the jury was
Speaker 1: fooled and sentenced Nelson to death. His attorney as well
Speaker 1: as his son Francisco, joined us Now to share the
Speaker 1: current status of his case. This is wrongful Conviction. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to Wrongful Conviction. I'm your host, Jason Flaman. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I don't even know I I'm ready for this episode.
Speaker 1: It's an international story and it involves a middle aged
Speaker 1: Ecuadorian man named Nelson Serrano, a guy who had no
Speaker 1: prior record of any kind. I don't even know if
Speaker 1: you ever had a parking ticket. This is a guy
Speaker 1: who was a very successful businessman who was illegally kidnapped
Speaker 1: from Ecuador by the State of Florida like and they
Speaker 1: did it in order so that they could prosecute him
Speaker 1: for a quadruple murder for which he had an air
Speaker 1: tight alibi. But as we record this and Nelson Serrano
Speaker 1: is eighty three years old and still on death row
Speaker 1: in Florida. So without further ado, please allow me to
Speaker 1: introduce the son of Nelson Serrano, who is it's fiercest
Speaker 1: advocate and a son that I'm sure Mr Serrano couldn't
Speaker 1: be more proud of. Francisco Serrano. I'm so sorry you're
Speaker 1: here today under these circumstances, but thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being here. Thank you. And joining him is Greg Eisenmanger,
Speaker 1: who as the attorney for Mr. Serrano and who is
Speaker 1: fighting tooth and nail to save this man's life while
Speaker 1: he still has some life left to live. So Greg,
Speaker 1: thank you for taking the time to be here with
Speaker 1: us today. Well, thank you very much for including me so.
Speaker 1: Nelson Serrano was born in Ecuador in nineteen thirty eight.
Speaker 1: He was educated at the University of Rosario in Argentina,
Speaker 1: was a businessman in his home country before emigrating to
Speaker 1: United States way back in nineteen sixty four and then
Speaker 1: becoming an American citizen in nineteen seventy one. Francisco, tell
Speaker 1: us about your dad. In nineteen sixty four, my father
Speaker 1: came here with a few dollars in his pocket and
Speaker 1: his wife to be my mother. They went to New York,
Speaker 1: got married, found a job as a draftsman. Little by
Speaker 1: little in this world of engineering, he made a name
Speaker 1: for himself over his designs. He got picked up by
Speaker 1: one of the biggest companies in material handling at the time,
Speaker 1: and little by little climbed the ladder in different companies
Speaker 1: until he formed his own in four I mean, this
Speaker 1: ounds like one of those really beautiful immigrant success stories.
Speaker 1: And it was until this satity came to pass. Nelson
Speaker 1: started a company right, his own company, Garment Conveyor Systems,
Speaker 1: it was called and he partnered with another company called
Speaker 1: Eerie Manufacturing Cooperative, which was started by Phil Dasso and
Speaker 1: George Gonzalves. And in the late ninet eighties of three
Speaker 1: men decided to become business partners, equal shareholders in each company,
Speaker 1: and they moved both businesses from New York to Bartow, Florida.
Speaker 1: And after the relocation you started working there as well, Francisco,
Speaker 1: and things really started to take off. Right. He took
Speaker 1: their business from barely scratching up to a million dollars
Speaker 1: a year in sales, going past nine million within a
Speaker 1: few years, so everything was going great, but then things
Speaker 1: went downhill from there, and things went downhill in a
Speaker 1: profoundly terrifying way, which brings us to Nelson's business partner's son,
Speaker 1: Frank Dasso, who had also come down from New York
Speaker 1: to join the family business, starting at forty five thousand
Speaker 1: a year with the promise of moving up in the business.
Speaker 1: So it seems that instead of waiting for that to
Speaker 1: pay out, Frank got involved in drug trafficking with a
Speaker 1: Staten Island man named Bobby Venaria, in which he began
Speaker 1: an operation moving large amounts of cocaine from Miami to
Speaker 1: New York. And in December of ninety six, d e
Speaker 1: A busted one of these moves and Venaria held Frank
Speaker 1: responsible to the tune of one million dollars. And then,
Speaker 1: coincidentally or not, in April n Well tell us what happened, Francisco. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I get back from one of my business trips and
Speaker 1: I have to do my my due diligence every month,
Speaker 1: right check the bank records, struck and style accounts, and
Speaker 1: then I noticed there's a million dollars missing from the
Speaker 1: jumbo money market. So of course I immediately go to
Speaker 1: the bank and go, hey, what happened here, and they say, well,
Speaker 1: George pulled that money out. Went to George and failed
Speaker 1: and said why did you do that? And they just
Speaker 1: looked at me and he said, we don't tell you anything.
Speaker 1: We're two shareholders and we can do anything we want.
Speaker 1: So of course I call my father up. He's on
Speaker 1: a busines this trip, and I tell him what goes on.
Speaker 1: He called them, They tell him the same thing. My
Speaker 1: father comes back early from his business trip, confronts them
Speaker 1: with the corporate attorney and the corporate accounting basically says
Speaker 1: to them, you guys got to return that money. You
Speaker 1: can't do this. This is embezzlement, this is fraud. And
Speaker 1: they said no, it's two against one. So they said,
Speaker 1: all right, well then I gotta sue you. And it
Speaker 1: didn't make any sense. We're doing incredible, our reputation in
Speaker 1: the industry is at its highest. It didn't make any
Speaker 1: sense until later with what this million dollars meant. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the police to save his son's life, but at the
Speaker 1: time there was just no reasoning behind it. So Nelson
Speaker 1: sued Dasso and Gunzalves, who then demoted Nelson from president
Speaker 1: to general manager, removed his access to accounting and changed
Speaker 1: the locks on the building. So Nelson quit. Now this
Speaker 1: brings us to December third. Frank, also George Gunzalvis, Diane Petiso,
Speaker 1: and George Petiso were shot and killed at the Eerie
Speaker 1: Manufacturing planned in Bartow, Florida. Dianne Petiso was Filidasso's daughter,
Speaker 1: but she was also an assistant States attorney. Get that,
Speaker 1: and that evening she went to pick up her brother
Speaker 1: Frank and her husband George Petiso at the factory to
Speaker 1: go back home for a family birthday party. Talk about
Speaker 1: wrong place, wrong time, and it looks like she may
Speaker 1: have walked in on something terrible that was about to
Speaker 1: go down and got pulled tragically, got pulled into it,
Speaker 1: so filled into details here. It appears to shooting started
Speaker 1: where Diane Petiso's body laid and then the three men
Speaker 1: found in the one office all killed with small caliber weapons,
Speaker 1: short range shots, execution style and was actually termed as
Speaker 1: an execution you know, a hired hit type of murders
Speaker 1: family members. Again, calling Frank Dasso did not get an answer,
Speaker 1: so Phil Dasso and his wife Nicoletto, drove to the plant.
Speaker 1: Phil stayed in the car, sending his wife in the
Speaker 1: front door of the facility. When she went into the
Speaker 1: front door of the facility and immediately saw the body
Speaker 1: of her daughter, Diane, she started screaming. Phil left the car,
Speaker 1: called nine on one and ran into the building, and
Speaker 1: he ran pass his daughter and into Frank's office. Nicoletta
Speaker 1: moved her daughter's body, cratling her or holding her. Phil
Speaker 1: tracked bloody footprints into Frank's office, and the other three
Speaker 1: people were found at Frank's office. Blood splatter evidence shows
Speaker 1: that George Patissa was actually shot at least one time
Speaker 1: and a different part of the facility before he was
Speaker 1: brought into Frank's office and executed. When officers arrived that evening,
Speaker 1: they found fourteen shell casings, eleven from a twenty to
Speaker 1: caliber weapon, one from a thirty two which was pulled
Speaker 1: from Diane, and two from a thirty caliber rifle in
Speaker 1: Frank's arm. Now, all of the victims had been shot
Speaker 1: in the head with twenty two caliber bullets execution style,
Speaker 1: and the murder weapons were never located. Now the crime
Speaker 1: scene provided no clear physical evidence to link anyone to
Speaker 1: the crime, let alone Nelson, although relatives of the victims
Speaker 1: immediately pointed fingers at Nelson because of all the bad
Speaker 1: blood and the current litigation. Now, there were some shoeprints
Speaker 1: that didn't match the dossas or the victims, but no
Speaker 1: fingerprints or biological evidence from anyone but the victims was present,
Speaker 1: which makes it sound an awful lot like a professional hit.
Speaker 1: As we go through the evidence from the crime scene,
Speaker 1: it strains the imagination to think that one single person
Speaker 1: could have carried out this awful crime. As the state
Speaker 1: eventually contended these four people, according to blood splatter evidence,
Speaker 1: who shot at three different locations in the facility. So
Speaker 1: you've got one guy running around shooting people in different locations,
Speaker 1: moving at least one wounded person from one location to
Speaker 1: another where the final execution took place, and killing the
Speaker 1: assistant state Attorney I am in a completely different location. Now,
Speaker 1: at least two guns were clearly used in this, and
Speaker 1: the evidence suggests that there was three. Well, one of
Speaker 1: them is a long rifle, two of them are handguns,
Speaker 1: and less Ness Serrano grew an extra arm. One person
Speaker 1: cannot manage three weapons and four people, so this is
Speaker 1: significant evidence that shows that there were two shooters involved.
Speaker 1: Then you start to talk about all the blood that
Speaker 1: this would have created. When the deceased were discovered, some
Speaker 1: of the family members actually walked in the blood, and
Speaker 1: there were bloody footprints by them later matched up to
Speaker 1: their shoes. Yet no blood was ever found on anything
Speaker 1: belonging to Nelson Serrano. Yeah, and we'll talk later about
Speaker 1: the prosecution's crazy theory that Nelson drove a rental car
Speaker 1: to and from airports to make flights in an unbelievably
Speaker 1: tight travel itinerary. Yet where's the blood evidence in the
Speaker 1: alleged rental car. His body and clothing would have been
Speaker 1: covered in blood if he shot four people, right, where
Speaker 1: did he manage to stop and rinse off all of
Speaker 1: this blood evidence? They never answered that question. We'll come
Speaker 1: back to the state's impossible theory in a minute, but
Speaker 1: first let's talk about the eye witnesses, because again, this
Speaker 1: is another super strong indication that Nelson Serrano did not
Speaker 1: commit this crime. Now, eyewitnesses said there were several Latin
Speaker 1: or Asian men in their twenties and thirties at the scene,
Speaker 1: and a man named John Purvis, who worked across the
Speaker 1: street from the factory, said that when he left work
Speaker 1: that day, he noticed a beige luxury vehicle, perhaps a Cadillac,
Speaker 1: part next to Erie's main entrance, and he saw a
Speaker 1: man on the side of the road lighting a cigarette.
Speaker 1: When Purvis comes out of the driveway of where he works,
Speaker 1: his car is pointing right at Erie Manufacturing, and that's
Speaker 1: where he sees this young guy who's well dressed. Right,
Speaker 1: he's got a blazer, he's got a sweater stan and
Speaker 1: the whole thing, which is not common in rural Bartow
Speaker 1: so that stood out. And then he sees that this
Speaker 1: kid is trying to light a cigarette when it's windy.
Speaker 1: He's so close to him that he's able to see
Speaker 1: that he's got a Zippo type lighter and that it's silver,
Speaker 1: and that he lighting a cigarette. And he's able to
Speaker 1: tell you that he's got jet black hair, which doesn't
Speaker 1: sound like a description of Nelson, who was nearly sixty
Speaker 1: years old at that point and well known to smoke
Speaker 1: a pipe, not cigarettes. But despite the lack of evidence,
Speaker 1: Nelson and Francisco continued to be targeted and thoroughly investigated,
Speaker 1: even harassed. Officers searched Nelson's house, where several guns were found.
Speaker 1: After all, Nelson did collect guns. However, none of Nelson's
Speaker 1: guns matched the murder weapons, and a paraffin test showed
Speaker 1: conclusively that Nelson had not fired a weapon. Now, let
Speaker 1: me not leave out the complicity of the media in
Speaker 1: this slow moving disaster, right because the media ran with
Speaker 1: the story of Nelson as the prime suspect, always displaying
Speaker 1: his picture when offering the story and referring to him
Speaker 1: as quote the Mexican which is like any old brown
Speaker 1: country will do, right, I mean, And Francisco, if I'm
Speaker 1: understanding this correctly, they were targeting you at the time,
Speaker 1: as well as your dad, right. Yeah. We realized that
Speaker 1: because I was suing the company basically George and Phil
Speaker 1: for breach of contract for my employment agreement, and my
Speaker 1: father was suing them for the money they took that,
Speaker 1: you know, they would want to look at us. So
Speaker 1: from day one they co operated. When they asked to
Speaker 1: do a paraffin test on me, I didn't have a
Speaker 1: problem with it, you know, And I was looking to help.
Speaker 1: My father came back early from his business trip just
Speaker 1: so he can come in and see what he can
Speaker 1: help with. This is the way we were until they
Speaker 1: started targeting us and making our lives miserable, the searches
Speaker 1: in my father's home, the tapping of his phones and
Speaker 1: of our emails, and and the way they went after
Speaker 1: all our friends. It was just crazy. You can't even
Speaker 1: believe that it really happened. This episode is underwritten by
Speaker 1: A i G, a leading global insurance company. A i
Speaker 1: G is committed to corporate social responsibility and is making
Speaker 1: a positive difference in the lives of its employees and
Speaker 1: in the communities where we work and live. In light
Speaker 1: of the compelling need for pro bono legal assistance, and
Speaker 1: in recognition of A I g's commitment to criminal and
Speaker 1: social justice reform, the A i G Pro Bono Program
Speaker 1: provides free legal services and other support to underrepresented communities
Speaker 1: and individuals. Meanwhile, investigators received an eyewitness account that should
Speaker 1: have busted this case wide open and tied together all
Speaker 1: of the loose threads. And of course, I'm referring to
Speaker 1: the statements from Robert Fowler. Man named Robert Fowler was
Speaker 1: in jail and unrelated charges and reached out to police
Speaker 1: with information about this crime, looking for leniency in his
Speaker 1: own case. Now, normally, jailhouse informants are not to be
Speaker 1: leaved unless what they're saying is corroborated by the physical evidence,
Speaker 1: and in this case, it was like Frank Dasso. Robert
Speaker 1: Fowler worked for Bobby Vaneria, the Staten Island drug dealer.
Speaker 1: The d e A busted Frank's trafficking operation for the
Speaker 1: second time. Fowler said that that after this, Veneria was
Speaker 1: done with Frank Dasso and sent two hitmen, Anton and
Speaker 1: a guy named Binny Aspirins. You can't make those names up.
Speaker 1: He sent these guys to Florida to kill Frank. Now,
Speaker 1: according to Mr Fowler, the hitmen found Frank at Erie.
Speaker 1: They had two lookouts. They confronted the group and demanded
Speaker 1: that Frank come with them. Diane Patisso was there and
Speaker 1: identified herself as an assistant States attorney and told them
Speaker 1: to leave, and that's when the shooting started. Diane was killed,
Speaker 1: the men scattered, George was shot somewhere else in the factory,
Speaker 1: and then the three men were corralled into the office
Speaker 1: where they were killed execution style. That's the statement from Mr. Fowler,
Speaker 1: and it makes sense. It's the first thing we've heard
Speaker 1: that actually makes sense. The work was done for them
Speaker 1: at this point, and it's not like Fowler is trying
Speaker 1: to help the Serrantos. He doesn't even know the Serrandos.
Speaker 1: He was just trying to help himself. And you don't
Speaker 1: just make up information that matches the crime scene to
Speaker 1: a t and less law enforcement than you that information.
Speaker 1: But they hadn't because if they had, investigators wouldn't have
Speaker 1: ignored Fowler's statement and instead let the case go cold. Now, eventually,
Speaker 1: in two thousand, your dad did what he had always
Speaker 1: planned to do, for my understanding, which was to retire
Speaker 1: to Ecuador after a life well lived, Right, And that's
Speaker 1: where this story of Nelson Serranto should have ended peacefully,
Speaker 1: back at home in Ecuador. It's important to note that
Speaker 1: Nelson has dual citizenship. He has natural citizenship of Ecuador
Speaker 1: and he was a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Speaker 1: The liquidated business interests Petra and moved Equador, the place
Speaker 1: of this birth. This was later mischaracterized at trial as
Speaker 1: him fleeing to Ecuador to avoid prosecution, but there was
Speaker 1: no reason for him to believe that he was still
Speaker 1: a suspect in this crime when he moved back to Ecuador, right,
Speaker 1: because they had no evidence against him. But back at
Speaker 1: Bartow Florida. People were upset that no perpetrator had been
Speaker 1: found for this crime. After all, the local media had
Speaker 1: held up your father's picture and told the public for
Speaker 1: years that the quote Mexican, the Mexican did it. And
Speaker 1: so on May seventeenth, two thousand one, Nelson Serrano was
Speaker 1: indicted on four accounts of first degree murder and his
Speaker 1: extradition was requested from Ecuador. So at that point Tommy Ray,
Speaker 1: his the investigating agent in this case, and Assistant State
Speaker 1: Attorney Paul Wallace traveled to Ecuador and arguably they're going
Speaker 1: to Ecuador to seek Nelson Serrano's extradition. They discovered Ecuador,
Speaker 1: under circumstances, would extradite Mr. Serrano if he was going
Speaker 1: to be facing the death penalty. Additionally, Ecuador requested information
Speaker 1: about the particulars of the evidence that would show Nelson
Speaker 1: Serrano was involved in this before they would extradite. At
Speaker 1: that point, Wallace and Ray pretty much broke off any
Speaker 1: attempt to extradite Mr. Serrano legally. Instead, according to Tommy
Speaker 1: Ray's own testimony, they came into contact with someone who
Speaker 1: was associated with the American embassy in Ecuador who had
Speaker 1: previously worked for the d e A, and he connected
Speaker 1: Tommy Ray to some Ecuadorian police officers that he had
Speaker 1: worked with while he was with the d e A.
Speaker 1: Some money exchanged hands. Mr Ray says that was for
Speaker 1: expensives only. But the upshot of that was that Nelson
Speaker 1: was snatched up off of the street, taken before a
Speaker 1: sham extradition hearing on the theory that he was not
Speaker 1: an Ecuadorian citizen, which was untrue. The sham proceeding took
Speaker 1: about fifteen minutes, and then they took him from that place,
Speaker 1: stuck him in a dog kennel where he spent the night,
Speaker 1: and then he was taken at handcuffs, placed on a plane,
Speaker 1: and flown back to Florida. The data the kidnapping was
Speaker 1: August two thousand and two, and then the trial didn't
Speaker 1: happen until late two thousand and six. So he spent
Speaker 1: four years in a county jail in Polk County. You
Speaker 1: won't even imagine that the kind of torture that he
Speaker 1: went through. Two and eighty six of those days he
Speaker 1: spent in solitary confinement, naked, with the air conditioning being
Speaker 1: blown full ice cold, stadium lights on twenty four hours
Speaker 1: a day, wasn't allowed to sleep, eat, and his walls
Speaker 1: were covered in human excrement that entire time. There just
Speaker 1: seems to be no bottom to this, you know. But
Speaker 1: then comes to trial, so Robert Fowler's statement was withheld
Speaker 1: by the prosecution until five days before trial in two
Speaker 1: thousand six, at which time the statement was downplayed. Now
Speaker 1: it's important to remember that none of the witnesses called
Speaker 1: the trial actually witnessed the murder, and the state brought
Speaker 1: up the person scene lighting the cigarette outside the building
Speaker 1: that day of the murder, trying to suggest that it
Speaker 1: was Nelson. John Purvis was the witness that saw him,
Speaker 1: and he gave them a sketch. First of all, Nelson
Speaker 1: Serrano did not smoke cigarettes. He smoked a pipe, which
Speaker 1: everyone knew. So the state actually mischaracterized his testimony from
Speaker 1: that he was lighting a cigarette and he clearly saw
Speaker 1: a cigarette that it appeared that he was lighting a cigarette.
Speaker 1: The other thing that they did, instead of submitting this
Speaker 1: composite sketch to the jury in its original form, they
Speaker 1: reworked the PDF so that it changed the look of
Speaker 1: the composite sketch. We have both the original composite sketch,
Speaker 1: and we have the reworked one. The original sketch, which
Speaker 1: appeared to be a much younger, thinner person, didn't look
Speaker 1: anything like Nelson. Serrano changed to a heavier type look,
Speaker 1: which is more consistent with the way Nelson looked at trial.
Speaker 1: So that was highly disturbing. There's no way the who
Speaker 1: ever introduced that piece of evidence did not know that
Speaker 1: this had been altered. They also outfitted this composite sketch
Speaker 1: with the kind of classes Nelson was known to wear.
Speaker 1: It's just unbelievable, I mean, and what about the firearms
Speaker 1: evidence from the scene, I think the most significant thing.
Speaker 1: According to the autopsies, there were four people and there
Speaker 1: were a total of fourteen gunshot wounds. Now, the police
Speaker 1: claimed to trial, but they only found twelve casings. That
Speaker 1: really isn't true because they ignored the fact that twelve
Speaker 1: casings were found at one point in time, and two
Speaker 1: other thirty caliber case things were found on a palette
Speaker 1: that had been moved, but at the time of the murders,
Speaker 1: this pallet would have been lined up with one of
Speaker 1: the hallways where one of the deceased was shot. Frank's
Speaker 1: autopsy showed that there were what they described as through
Speaker 1: and through wounds. The state attempted to say that one
Speaker 1: single projectile made these through and through wounds, which is
Speaker 1: sort of a torturous way to try and explain too
Speaker 1: many wounds and not enough case things. But not even
Speaker 1: the medical examiner who testified was willing to adopt that.
Speaker 1: We did discover as we reviewed the evidence in this
Speaker 1: case that these two thirty caliber casings had been marked
Speaker 1: for identification but never entered into evidence by the state. Now,
Speaker 1: there's also this story with the chair in his office.
Speaker 1: Tell us about that they tried to bring in a
Speaker 1: footprint on a chair thing. It was consistent with Nelson Serrano.
Speaker 1: It was the wrong shoe size for one thing. But basically,
Speaker 1: if you stop and think about what's going on, the
Speaker 1: state's theory is there's a single shooter who is managing
Speaker 1: four people. But at some point, while these four people
Speaker 1: were inside the manufacturing facility, Serrano, unarmed, would have to
Speaker 1: go into his old office, stand on this chair, remove
Speaker 1: a ceiling tile, and recover a gun that the prosecution
Speaker 1: claimed that he had secreted back when he was an
Speaker 1: employee there, before any dispute ever happened, and before he
Speaker 1: was cast out of the company. Why he would have
Speaker 1: a gun hidden in the ceiling of his office at
Speaker 1: that point in time was never explained, but that was
Speaker 1: their theory because someone had seen him do something with
Speaker 1: that ceiling tile on a previous occasion, we don't know what,
Speaker 1: according to that witness. And on another occasion he was
Speaker 1: seen with a gun at the facility. That actually was
Speaker 1: explained because employees used to shoot target practice behind the
Speaker 1: facility and a makeshift shooting range, and several people participated
Speaker 1: in that, including the Dossos. There wasn't anything unusual about
Speaker 1: the fact that someone might bring a gun to the
Speaker 1: facility for use of this makeshift shooting range. And let's
Speaker 1: talk about Nelson's alliby here, because we know he was
Speaker 1: on a business trip from December two to the fourth,
Speaker 1: first in Washington, d c. Followed by Atlanta, five hundred
Speaker 1: miles away from the crime scene, which of course was
Speaker 1: in Bartow, Florida, And the prosecution came up with a
Speaker 1: bairy tale story to try to shoehorn in how he
Speaker 1: could have well been in both places at the same time.
Speaker 1: Pretty much here was their theory of how he committed
Speaker 1: these murders. So they knew, and we know that Nelson
Speaker 1: was seen on camera in Atlanta on December three at
Speaker 1: his hotel at twelve nineteen pm, and then again less
Speaker 1: than ten hours later at ten seventeen pm, wearing the
Speaker 1: exact same clothes in both instances. Now, the States theory
Speaker 1: was that in those ten hours, Nelson made an unbelievable
Speaker 1: round trip journey from Atlanta to Barto, in which he
Speaker 1: would have flown from Atlanta to Orlando, picked up a
Speaker 1: rental car around rush hour and we all know what
Speaker 1: that's like three PM, and left for the factory in Bartow,
Speaker 1: which is an eighty mile drive. It typically takes ninety
Speaker 1: minutes or even longer, so at the earliest he would
Speaker 1: have arrived around five PM, but probably much later. The
Speaker 1: time of the murders was after normal working hours of
Speaker 1: the business. In order to believe that Nelson flew down
Speaker 1: from Atlanta committed these murders, you would have to believe
Speaker 1: that he did that on a leap of faith, with
Speaker 1: no knowledge that any of his targets would even be
Speaker 1: on the scene at the time that he would have arrived.
Speaker 1: He would have had to believe that someone was willing
Speaker 1: to let him into a building that he had been
Speaker 1: denied access to on multiple occasions, and every employee had
Speaker 1: been told to keep him out of the building. Right,
Speaker 1: so he went to a place where he was not
Speaker 1: welcome to which he had no keys. He somehow gained
Speaker 1: access without leaving any signs of a break in. With
Speaker 1: all of his old co workers there, he was given
Speaker 1: plenty of time and space to go to his old
Speaker 1: office which was now Frank Dassell's new office, to retrieve
Speaker 1: a gun from the ceiling tiles and begin a killing
Speaker 1: spree that involved three separate guns, starting with Diane in
Speaker 1: the hallway, then chasing the other three around, and somehow
Speaker 1: he was able all by himself to corral three men
Speaker 1: into Frank's office, where he shot them all execution style.
Speaker 1: Sorry about this, but get the funk outta here with
Speaker 1: this story now it continues to get worse. And then,
Speaker 1: according to this cockamami theory, he would have had to
Speaker 1: find time and a place to clean himself up and
Speaker 1: get rid of his bloody clothing. And then, of course,
Speaker 1: by the matching clothing, right, he would have to buy
Speaker 1: the same exact set of clothes, because we know he
Speaker 1: was wearing the same clothes on both ends of this,
Speaker 1: then drive an hour to Tampa, drop off the rental
Speaker 1: car while leaving no blood evidence, and fly back to
Speaker 1: Atlanta to be back in his hotel again on camera
Speaker 1: by ten seventeen pm. The timeline that the state presented
Speaker 1: a trial was questionable at best. Everything had to click perfectly,
Speaker 1: there could not be any delays. Well, one of the
Speaker 1: things that they kept from the jury is that there
Speaker 1: actually was a delay in one of the flights that
Speaker 1: they claimed Nelson took, and instead of presenting the actual
Speaker 1: arrival time of that flight to the jury, they instead
Speaker 1: presented to the jury evidence of when the flight was
Speaker 1: supposed to arrive. So this is really questionable activity on
Speaker 1: the part of the state. And according to the closing argument,
Speaker 1: the plane landed at two but we know that the
Speaker 1: flight actually landed at nine fifty four PM. Either way,
Speaker 1: and don't forget that the government claims he was in
Speaker 1: row thirty. If you know how long it takes to
Speaker 1: get out of row thirty to the front of the airplane,
Speaker 1: even if it was in first class in the front seat,
Speaker 1: this would have been possible. But either way, getting to
Speaker 1: the hotel twenty three minutes later, getting the throw a
Speaker 1: bit well the busiest airports in the world, right Atlanta Airport,
Speaker 1: and getting to the hotel twenty three minutes later at
Speaker 1: exactly ten seventeen PM, in order to be seen on
Speaker 1: camera again wearing the same clothes that he was wearing
Speaker 1: in the morning, but miraculously with no blood on them.
Speaker 1: I don't care who the hell you are. No airline.
Speaker 1: I've ever flown deep planes that efficiently. It's impossible. Okay. Now,
Speaker 1: there's also no evidence of Nelson at any of the
Speaker 1: three airports, no video, no witnesses, no nothing. Now, this
Speaker 1: round trip journey has been attempted and failed on multiple occasions.
Speaker 1: It is simply not possibly. If this were an Olympic event,
Speaker 1: near sixty year old Nelson would have won gold where
Speaker 1: everyone else failed to finish. And the state goes further
Speaker 1: down this monstrously ridiculous and sinister path, claiming Nelson flew
Speaker 1: under two different aliases, one A Gassio and John White,
Speaker 1: and they needed something to hold this pile of horseship together,
Speaker 1: so they came up with two pieces of false evidence.
Speaker 1: One the coerced statement from his nephew Albaro Pania Herrera
Speaker 1: saying that Nelson had rented a car from him out
Speaker 1: of Orlando in order to commit the murders, which is
Speaker 1: a distant nephew of my father. His statement to the
Speaker 1: jury was that he had rented a car, a teal
Speaker 1: colored Nissan at Orlando Airport for my father or a
Speaker 1: friend of my father's to use on December three. Once
Speaker 1: he finished with his testimony and through counter across examination,
Speaker 1: he does admit that that wasn't his original story and
Speaker 1: that the reason he's saying what he's saying now is
Speaker 1: because the police badgered him so much. These are his words,
Speaker 1: and they threatened him. They basically said to him, were
Speaker 1: either going to convict you or we're gonna convict Nelson
Speaker 1: Serranto for these murders. And so he testifies understand in
Speaker 1: front of the jury that he finally decided, I'll say
Speaker 1: whatever the police want me to say, and that's what
Speaker 1: I'm saying today. And so he admits to basically changing
Speaker 1: his testimony to match what the cops want him to
Speaker 1: day in front of the jury. And then when they
Speaker 1: talk about the hundred thousand dollar reward, he doesn't deny
Speaker 1: taking that money, saying that you know what, anybody can
Speaker 1: use a hundred thousand dollars, and so we felt all right,
Speaker 1: his testimony was done. Now for the second piece of
Speaker 1: false evidence, they claimed that they found exactly half of
Speaker 1: Nelson's right index fingerprint on one parking ticket from the
Speaker 1: Orlando Airport parking garage and the exact other half of
Speaker 1: the same fingerprint on another ticket. The state calls up
Speaker 1: their own expert and across exam they asked them, do
Speaker 1: you think these fingerprints are legit or do you think
Speaker 1: they were planted? He says, well, I don't have the
Speaker 1: science to tell you that they're planted, because I don't
Speaker 1: have the fingerprints those parking tickets, and those fingerprints have
Speaker 1: been destroyed when they used the chemicals to lift the prints.
Speaker 1: He never saw the real tickets or the real fingerprints.
Speaker 1: He only saw a picture of them. Then he goes
Speaker 1: on to say, I find these is very suspicious and
Speaker 1: there for four reasons. One, it's his right finger, so
Speaker 1: you're telling me that instead of using your left finger,
Speaker 1: which is when you go to grab a parking stuff
Speaker 1: you're driving, you reach out with your left hand and
Speaker 1: you pull that ticket out. Why is it his right hand? Second,
Speaker 1: there's no other fingerprints on it. Will you go to
Speaker 1: pull your ticket out, you use your thumb and press
Speaker 1: down and you pull it out, and then the teller
Speaker 1: when you give it to him, they've got to swipe it,
Speaker 1: so their fingerprints should be on it. Nothing. Third is
Speaker 1: that exactly half of that fingerprint was on the other
Speaker 1: parking ticket from November three, so we're talking two weeks prior.
Speaker 1: And he noted that if you took a solid fingerprint,
Speaker 1: cut it in half. Each half was on each ticket.
Speaker 1: He goes, it's completely odd, and there's no other smudges
Speaker 1: or fingerprints on the other ticket either. And then fourth,
Speaker 1: if you put a fingerprint, no matter how you try,
Speaker 1: you cannot make a straight edge on her fingerprint. And
Speaker 1: he actually put his finger on the water glass in
Speaker 1: front of him. He goes, it's just impossible. So for
Speaker 1: those four reasons, the fingerprints are suspicious to me. And
Speaker 1: so we thought, oh, well, the fingerprint evidence is done.
Speaker 1: And so what did the defense do with all of this?
Speaker 1: I mean, did they do anything at all? I'm ashamed
Speaker 1: to tell you guys this because it kicked myself left
Speaker 1: and right for allowing the defense attorneys to convince us
Speaker 1: not to present a defense. And you heard me right.
Speaker 1: They came to me and they said, the testimony from
Speaker 1: Alvaro is done, the fingerprint evidence is done. There's nothing
Speaker 1: to believe here. Reasonable doubt at the minimum exists everywhere.
Speaker 1: They're not going to convict your father. And if we
Speaker 1: don't present evidence, there was a law at the time
Speaker 1: in Florida. We get to talk twice, we get to
Speaker 1: give a closing argument, then that Florida can do what
Speaker 1: they want to do, and then we get to finish last.
Speaker 1: And at the end, I'm thinking, but what about the trip?
Speaker 1: Why can't we spend time on showing out impossible it is?
Speaker 1: So why can't we do that? And it goes because
Speaker 1: we want to have the end of it. And we
Speaker 1: took their advice because they were the experts. And so
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, how did this happen?
Speaker 1: And it was because this county had gone through nine
Speaker 1: years of two billboards with the pictures of the victims
Speaker 1: and the hundred thousand dollar reward plastered on it. Since
Speaker 1: ninety seven until two thousand and five, the papers were
Speaker 1: always listing my father with a picture as the prime suspect,
Speaker 1: calling him the Mexican and for the jurors and they
Speaker 1: interviewed them after the fact, They said, how did you
Speaker 1: do that? Why did you give him guilty? Because well,
Speaker 1: I kept waiting for them to show me why he's innocent.
Speaker 1: You can't make this stuff up. We couldn't believe it.
Speaker 1: My poor mother she never recovered. She still tests the
Speaker 1: floor that she's stepping on to make sure it doesn't
Speaker 1: get pulled away every day. You go through all those phases, right, denial, anger, depression.
Speaker 1: How could you possibly convict somebody who the state didn't
Speaker 1: even prove was there? How do you say he's guilty?
Speaker 1: You know, you pick up the pieces and then you're like,
Speaker 1: what do I do next? How don't we recover all this?
Speaker 1: In the attorney they look at you and they go, no, no,
Speaker 1: don't worry, We're gonna appeel this. It's like, who are
Speaker 1: you talking to We're talking about years, not decades, that
Speaker 1: this thing is going to continue going, which it has.
Speaker 1: It's been twenty years. And I want to talk for
Speaker 1: a second about the death penalty in Florida. Nelson's sentenced
Speaker 1: to death on a nine to three vote, which again
Speaker 1: is ridiculous, it's not even unanimous. But Florida and the
Speaker 1: death penalty. A very important fact that I hope people
Speaker 1: will remember is that at last count, Florida had executed
Speaker 1: people since the reinstatement of the death penalty. During that
Speaker 1: same period of time, thirty one people were found innocent
Speaker 1: on death row and freed. Now that doesn't include, of course,
Speaker 1: the innocent people that Florida has executed, people like Jesse
Speaker 1: Tafaraoh and the other innocent people that we know are
Speaker 1: languishing on death row in Florida who haven't been freely
Speaker 1: Pablo Ibar or James Daily, Chris Maharaj, who is the
Speaker 1: subject of a fantastic podcast right now on Audible called
Speaker 1: Abusive Power Season two. So it's not unreasonable to say
Speaker 1: that Florida is not even getting it right sixty of
Speaker 1: the time when it comes to sentencing people to death.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll be generous and give the benefit of the
Speaker 1: doubt to the State of Florida, say maybe they're getting
Speaker 1: it right seventy percent of a time. So I ask,
Speaker 1: if someone is in favor of the death penalty, are
Speaker 1: you okay with thirty percent of the people being executed
Speaker 1: being innocent? And if not, then you cannot support the
Speaker 1: death penalty any longer. Because that is what's going on
Speaker 1: in Florida. And here we have today living proof of
Speaker 1: another innocent man languishing, experiencing torture day and a day out,
Speaker 1: being on death row, the notorious death row in the
Speaker 1: state of Florida, for a crime he didn't commit. And
Speaker 1: how is he holding up? I can't get you any
Speaker 1: answer to that, chasing. All I know is if he
Speaker 1: can survive being in a six ft by nine ft cell,
Speaker 1: twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, not
Speaker 1: being able to go outside, constantly being harassed by these guards,
Speaker 1: going through all this medical negligence and torture, and he
Speaker 1: can still keep his mental integrity and still to stay
Speaker 1: somewhat positive in all of this. You know, I can't
Speaker 1: express my admiration for what he's done to stay true.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's a stubborn guy. He's always said to me,
Speaker 1: I'm never gonna let them win on this. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: fight this till the end. I know the truth is
Speaker 1: going to come out. It's gonna liberate me, it's gonna
Speaker 1: liberate my name. But the state of Florida isn't just
Speaker 1: hoping he dies. And I'll be very frank with this
Speaker 1: they're making sure he dies. My father is an old
Speaker 1: man and he's been under medical care for the last
Speaker 1: twenty years under these contracted medical providers, which are nothing
Speaker 1: but shysters. He has three different medicines for his heart condition.
Speaker 1: He has osteoporosis. He's completely deaf. He needs hearing aids.
Speaker 1: He's already lost his eye sight in one eye, and
Speaker 1: now he's losing it in his one last good eye.
Speaker 1: They're not doing anything, even though he was diagnosed in
Speaker 1: jail as being deaf. Now they've said he's not deaf anymore,
Speaker 1: and they're not giving him his hearing aches. He hasn't
Speaker 1: had teeth to chew on, and they don't give him dentures.
Speaker 1: He's saving the teeth that had fallen out, and every
Speaker 1: morning he pulls string out of his uniform and he
Speaker 1: ties his teeth together so he can chew. And then
Speaker 1: at night, before he goes asleep, he breaks the string,
Speaker 1: takes his teeth, puts it in his pocket so he
Speaker 1: doesn't swallow it at night so he can redo that.
Speaker 1: The next day. He suffers from a sciatic condition. They
Speaker 1: don't give him pain killers for that. Then he's got
Speaker 1: three different heart medications. Which twice in the last eighteen months.
Speaker 1: They took away from him for six weeks at a time.
Speaker 1: He said his heart was going so crazy that he
Speaker 1: didn't know if he was going to wake up. He
Speaker 1: didn't know if the heart was gonna explode. And this
Speaker 1: is how he lived for those six weeks until the
Speaker 1: game his medication back. You can't be taking heart medication
Speaker 1: for twenty years and then go cold turkey for six weeks.
Speaker 1: So they're attempting to kill him in doing all these things.
Speaker 1: And then what do they do. They take him to
Speaker 1: the doctor. They make him sit in an office for
Speaker 1: six hours. They make him sign something that says he
Speaker 1: was attended by a doctor, and he never was. You know,
Speaker 1: the guards are sitting there telling him, you're gonna lose
Speaker 1: your eyesight. You're gonna be completely blind and completely deaf,
Speaker 1: and you're never gonna know who comes at you or
Speaker 1: who's doing what to you. That's what we're gonna do
Speaker 1: to you. He's been diagnosed for a hip replacement. They
Speaker 1: won't give it to him, and it's excruciating. You can't walk,
Speaker 1: you can't lie down, you can't stand, you can't sit
Speaker 1: for too long. Right, so I talked to him. I go,
Speaker 1: he needs to get hip replace. Well, we're not going
Speaker 1: to do that. That's way too much money. And I go,
Speaker 1: all right, well, then let me raise some money and
Speaker 1: let me do it. No, no, no no, no, you can't
Speaker 1: pay for that. And I go, you gotta be kidding me.
Speaker 1: He needs it. He's already been diagnosed by your own doctor.
Speaker 1: And he goes, well, he's in jail. He's gonna get
Speaker 1: killed sooner or later. So we're not going to spend
Speaker 1: the money. That's what they say to me. So they
Speaker 1: say to him. Lawsuits have been filed against the Department
Speaker 1: of Corrections in the state of Florida. They have lost
Speaker 1: twice not observing the American Disabilities Act, and even til
Speaker 1: to this day they're still not observing it, despite the
Speaker 1: court orders for them to do so. And then on
Speaker 1: top of all of that, you know, the miscarriage adjus,
Speaker 1: all the medical neglect, disgusting conditions in two decades of
Speaker 1: nothing but misery. And this is what's also been going
Speaker 1: on for my mother. You know, here's my mother since
Speaker 1: the conviction, completely insecure about the world around her, checking
Speaker 1: the ground beneath her every time she walks. And now
Speaker 1: as we record this, I'm letting you all know that
Speaker 1: she passed away last Monday, February seventh, two and she
Speaker 1: won't be around to see my father out, and my
Speaker 1: father wasn't able to leave the prison to be with
Speaker 1: her or to even come to the service. Jesus, I'm
Speaker 1: so sorry. Um, I mean, I don't know how much
Speaker 1: a person can take. It's like kind of a Greek
Speaker 1: tragedy or something like. I mean, it's more than anybody
Speaker 1: should ever go through. It already was, and now there's this,
Speaker 1: and I'm so sorry for you and your family and
Speaker 1: your dad's at this point, I mean, what can I
Speaker 1: say except he's one of the strongest people that I've
Speaker 1: ever heard of. To endure this and then still persevere
Speaker 1: and still keep the positive attitude that he has is
Speaker 1: inspiring to me, and I'm I'm sure to just everyone
Speaker 1: who's ever come across him or his story. And so
Speaker 1: now we look at post conviction, and so much of
Speaker 1: everything we've talked about has been brought up in post
Speaker 1: conviction appeals, from the kidnapping in Ecuador to exculpatory evidence
Speaker 1: about the crime scene, prosecutorial misconduct, and inadequate defense at trial.
Speaker 1: But all of the appeals have so far been denied.
Speaker 1: But in May of two thousand seventeen, four to three
Speaker 1: decision of the Florida Supreme Court vacated Nelson Serranto's death
Speaker 1: sentence as a result of the Hearst decision, which rendered
Speaker 1: Florida's death penalty process unconstitutional and declared that jurors must
Speaker 1: agree unanimously in their decision to recommend the death penalty.
Speaker 1: And remember, for an Elson, it was a nine to
Speaker 1: three decision back in two thousand six. So they sent
Speaker 1: this case back to the Circuit Court for resentencing. And
Speaker 1: they haven't actually done anything about it yet. Right here
Speaker 1: we are all the way in two thousand twenty two.
Speaker 1: What can be done? What are the prospects? This has
Speaker 1: caused a real outcry. I mean huge organizations have weighed
Speaker 1: in on this. Right. Yes, Ecuador has weighed in significantly.
Speaker 1: The International Commission and Human Rights has weighed in significantly.
Speaker 1: Where we are right now is that the Spring Court
Speaker 1: ordered a retrial on the sentencing aspect of the case.
Speaker 1: What I'm doing cannot actually find Nelson Serrano innocent. The
Speaker 1: federal appeals could actually overturn the guilt or innocence portion
Speaker 1: of the case. So that's why it's very important to
Speaker 1: get the case to where Bruce Fletcher and Charles White
Speaker 1: will be handling the federal appeals. However, at every status hearing,
Speaker 1: the State Attorney's office has continued to ask that the
Speaker 1: case to be pushed down the road and predict that
Speaker 1: it may be two years before they will be ready
Speaker 1: to try this case, and that delay has caused actual
Speaker 1: prejudice to Mr Toronto. We talked a little bit about
Speaker 1: some of the evidence that we've lost, the deterioration of
Speaker 1: d n A, the deterioration of the fingerprints. We've been
Speaker 1: robbed of the opportunity to bring in new experts who
Speaker 1: could really nail down the fact that that evidence is
Speaker 1: compelling for Mr Soronto's innocence. We've lost witnesses, people have
Speaker 1: died since this case was even remanded on appeal, and
Speaker 1: certainly many people have died since the original trial. Despite
Speaker 1: that significant prejudice, we believe there still is plenty of
Speaker 1: compelling evidence to overturn the death penalty in this particular case.
Speaker 1: Under the current State of Florida law has to be
Speaker 1: an unanimous decision, so we only have to convince one
Speaker 1: person on that twelve first in jury that this was
Speaker 1: a miscarrey your justice, and that person can keep the
Speaker 1: State of Florida from illegally executing Mr Serranto. If we
Speaker 1: can get the death penalty overturned, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of options that open up to undo this injustice. I mean,
Speaker 1: it sounds to me like the State of Florida is
Speaker 1: just stringing this damn thing out and hoping that he
Speaker 1: just passes away, you know, rather than have to address
Speaker 1: their filthy laundry here. And I hate to say, but
Speaker 1: that's really I don't think that's a far fetch theory
Speaker 1: at all. And So Francisco, for our audience listening today,
Speaker 1: if there is horrified, I'm disgusted by what's happened to
Speaker 1: your father as I am, and they want to do
Speaker 1: something to help, what would you like them to do?
Speaker 1: Go to Nelson Serrano dot org. Subscribe to our email list.
Speaker 1: You'll see a link to change dot org. We just
Speaker 1: surpassed the fifty four thousand supporters in this be one
Speaker 1: of them, and then write your congressman fleet Instagram. The
Speaker 1: governor to auntis Ashley Moody. Look at this case for
Speaker 1: Nelson Serranto. We cannot let Florida continue to do this
Speaker 1: to an innocent man. He should be free. Follow the
Speaker 1: Inter American Commission on Human Rights liberate Nelson Serrano, immediately
Speaker 1: approve his custody transfer to Ecuador immediately and push for
Speaker 1: the resentencing hearing that happen now, not in three not
Speaker 1: at the end of that's what you can do. I
Speaker 1: want to bring to everybody's attention to February eighteenth. We're
Speaker 1: gonna be in Miami at Florida International University on February
Speaker 1: eighteenth from five pm to seven pm. The cameras are
Speaker 1: going to be on Telemundo, Univision, CNN. We've got a
Speaker 1: book that's come out of this. The government of Ecuador
Speaker 1: is going to be speaking there. We have four exonorees
Speaker 1: that are going to tell their story about what happened
Speaker 1: to them, and you will freak when you hear the
Speaker 1: similarities between what happened to my father. It's going to
Speaker 1: bring attention to the need of reform in our judicial
Speaker 1: system in the state of Florida, and we want you
Speaker 1: to be there eventually be part of it. So be
Speaker 1: aware that this is going to happen February eighteenth. You'll
Speaker 1: see it on social media all over. Support us to
Speaker 1: get the word out. Please tell your dad we're all
Speaker 1: thinking of him, and we all wish that we could
Speaker 1: open those doors right now, this minute and whisk him
Speaker 1: out of there. And the closing of our show is always,
Speaker 1: I think, the most important part. It's called closing arguments,
Speaker 1: and it works like this. First of all, I'm going
Speaker 1: to thank each of you for being here, taking your
Speaker 1: time and sharing this incredible story. And so now closing
Speaker 1: arguments works like this. I'm gonna turn my microphone off,
Speaker 1: sit back in my chair and close my eyes and
Speaker 1: just listen to anything else you guys want to share. Greg,
Speaker 1: let's start with you, and then you can just pass
Speaker 1: the mic to Francisco and he can close it out.
Speaker 1: And that's how we'll end the show. Well, I'd like
Speaker 1: to start with justice delayed is justice denied? We believe
Speaker 1: absolutely that if we can get this case back before jury,
Speaker 1: we can show the Nelson Serrano was wrongfully convicted and
Speaker 1: is not guilty of this car. I would point out
Speaker 1: that it's very unusual for defense attorney to take the tactic,
Speaker 1: you know, resentencing that his client is not guilty because
Speaker 1: he's already had another jury determined as guilt, and now
Speaker 1: we're looking for mitigating factors as to why he should
Speaker 1: not be executed. Well, the major mitigating factor in Mr
Speaker 1: Serrano's cases he's innocent. There are others, his age, his
Speaker 1: ill health, many many mitigating factors, and we will present
Speaker 1: all of those to the jury as well. But the
Speaker 1: message that we believe will be compelling is the fact
Speaker 1: that Nelson Serrano is an innocent man. And Nelson Serrano
Speaker 1: has been nineteen years on death row wrongfully and this
Speaker 1: needs to change as soon as possible. And I believe
Speaker 1: that the State of Florida is aware of the fact
Speaker 1: that if we get a resentencing hearing, that the likelihood
Speaker 1: is that the death sentence will be overturned. That's why
Speaker 1: we've seen unprecedented attempts to delay this process by the
Speaker 1: state attorney in this particular case, and that's why we
Speaker 1: filed an appeal with the Florida Supring Courts saying these
Speaker 1: the ways are illegal, they violate due process, and we
Speaker 1: believe the death penalty should be taken off the table
Speaker 1: simply because of the delay. But even if you're not
Speaker 1: willing to give us that step then order the state
Speaker 1: to go forward immediately. We are ready to go to
Speaker 1: trial now. We want trial now, and we're hoping that
Speaker 1: we will get it as soon as possible. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Greig and and Jason. You know, I want to thank
Speaker 1: you for this opportunity to bring this story to light.
Speaker 1: It's so important that people understand that this is real,
Speaker 1: this is true. These things are happening, not just in Florida,
Speaker 1: all over the country. These tactics that the police and
Speaker 1: the prosecutors and the judges used to convict the innocent
Speaker 1: for the sake of convicting somebody for these heinous crimes
Speaker 1: is going on and it continues to go on. It's
Speaker 1: serving their purpose and not society. You know what, It
Speaker 1: comes down to his action. One of the things that
Speaker 1: my father has always been saying, do what you can
Speaker 1: for me. We got to make sure this doesn't happen
Speaker 1: to anybody else. You think it's not gonna happen to me.
Speaker 1: I don't get involved in those things. Well, you know
Speaker 1: my dad wasn't either. Everything would happen there all comes
Speaker 1: down to this drug deal that we knew nothing about,
Speaker 1: and there he's been nineteen years on death row, wrong
Speaker 1: place at the wrong time, you might think. But it's
Speaker 1: more than that, right, it's these prosecuted, these cops, these
Speaker 1: judges that look at this and say, well, we need
Speaker 1: to resolve this case, and this is the easiest path.
Speaker 1: This is the least amount of resistance that we're going
Speaker 1: to get to put somebody up. Almost every state has
Speaker 1: a law that says that even if the prosecutor intentionally
Speaker 1: manipulates the system or evidence or does anything to intentionally
Speaker 1: give somebody the death penalty when they knew that this
Speaker 1: guy was innocent, you can't civilly or criminally try them.
Speaker 1: Those are laws that we need to reverse. So if
Speaker 1: these are things you're committed to you want to do
Speaker 1: something about it, you can. It doesn't take a lot
Speaker 1: of time either, or effort or money. You just need
Speaker 1: to be a part of it. Find the organization you want,
Speaker 1: whether it's flirting industry, alternative a death penalty, it's the
Speaker 1: Innocence Project, anything. Contribute five bucks right, Sometimes say hey,
Speaker 1: I want to help. How can I do that? You'll
Speaker 1: stop being part of the solution and believe me, we're
Speaker 1: getting there. The numbers are growing. We need more help
Speaker 1: to make this thing happen. Let's get Congress to pass laws.
Speaker 1: Conviction integrity units are huge, huge amount of exonerations happen
Speaker 1: because of the conviction Integrity Unit. Make the mandatory and
Speaker 1: wherever you live, civil review boards over prosecutorial misconduct. There
Speaker 1: are things that we can do. It's great to do
Speaker 1: something about my father. We want that to happen. He's
Speaker 1: eighty three. He deserves to finish his life in Ecuador.
Speaker 1: We want to make that happen. But let's make sure
Speaker 1: this doesn't happen to anybody else. So join us, Join
Speaker 1: Wrongful Convictions, Join Innocence Project, join all these other places
Speaker 1: that are doing things and help. And thank you. Thank
Speaker 1: you again for your time, Thank you for listening to
Speaker 1: Rumful Conviction. I'd like to thank our production team Connor Hall,
Speaker 1: Justin Golden, Jeff Clyburne, and Kevin Wardis. With research by
Speaker 1: Lila Robinson. The music in this production was supplied by
Speaker 1: three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to
Speaker 1: follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as
Speaker 1: well as at Lava for Good. On all three platforms,
Speaker 1: you can also follow me on both TikTok and Instagram
Speaker 1: at it's Jason flom Ronful Conviction is the production of
Speaker 1: Lava for Good podcasts and association with signal company Number
Speaker 1: one