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 Phil Dosso. Meanwhile, Phil's son Frank, had a side
Speaker 1: business trafficking drugs from Miami to New York. A nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety six drug bus left Frank a million dollars in
Speaker 1: debt to some dangerous characters, which coincided with an unapproved
Speaker 1: withdrawal from the business in that amount, causing a rift
Speaker 1: between the partners. Then, on December third, nineteen ninety seven,
Speaker 1: in the wake of a second drug bust, four people
Speaker 1: were shot and killed at their factory in Bartow, Florida.
Speaker 1: Frank Dosso, his sister Diane, her husband George, as well
Speaker 1: as George Gonzalvez. Due to the ongoing rift, attention focused
Speaker 1: on Nelson Serrano, even though he was in Atlanta at
Speaker 1: the time of the murders. Years of investigation turned up
Speaker 1: zero evidence against Nelson, so he retired to Ecuador in
Speaker 1: two thousand, but when pressure mounted in Florida, authorities indicted
Speaker 1: Nelson anyway, Floridian authorities circumvented Ecuador's requests for evidence and
Speaker 1: concerns over the death penalty, and instead arranged to have
Speaker 1: Nelson kidnapped and illegally brought to the US. Prosecutors ignored
Speaker 1: evidence of a multiple shooter drug hit and instead presented
Speaker 1: false evidence and an impossible theory of Nelson's guilt that
Speaker 1: is disproven by video timestamps and the limits of reality. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: the jury was fooled and sentenced Nelson to death. His
Speaker 1: attorney as well as his son Francisco, join us now
Speaker 1: to share the current status of his case. This is
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Jason Floman. Honestly, I don't even know if I'm ready
Speaker 1: for this episode. It's an international story and it involves
Speaker 1: a middle aged Ecuadorian man named Nelson Serrano, a guy
Speaker 1: who had no prior record of any kind. I don't
Speaker 1: even know if he ever had a parking ticket. This
Speaker 1: is a guy who was a very successful businessman who
Speaker 1: was illegally kidnapped from Ecuador by the State of Florida,
Speaker 1: and they did it in order so that they could
Speaker 1: prosecute him for a quadruple murder for which he had
Speaker 1: an air tight alibi. But as we record this and
Speaker 1: Nelson Serrano is eighty three years old and still on
Speaker 1: death row in Florida. So without further ado, please allow
Speaker 1: me to introduce the son of Nelson Serrano, who is
Speaker 1: it's fiercest advocate and a son that I'm sure mister
Speaker 1: Serrano couldn't be more proud of. Francisco Serrano. I'm so
Speaker 1: sorry you're here today under these circumstances, but thank you
Speaker 1: so much for being here.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 1: And joining him is Greg Eisenmenger, who as the attorney
Speaker 1: for mister Serrano and who is fighting tooth and nail
Speaker 1: to save this man's life while he still has some
Speaker 1: life left to live. So Greg, thank you for taking
Speaker 1: the time to be here with us today.
Speaker 3: 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: I was a businessman in his home country before emigrated
Speaker 1: to the United States way back in nineteen sixty four
Speaker 1: and then becoming an American citizen in nineteen seventy one. Francisco,
Speaker 1: tell us about your dad.
Speaker 2: Sure in nineteen sixty four. My father came here with
Speaker 2: a few dollars in his pocket and his wife to
Speaker 2: be my mother. They went to New York, got married,
Speaker 2: found a job as a draftsman. Little by little in
Speaker 2: this world of engineering, he made a name for himself
Speaker 2: over his designs. He got picked up by one of
Speaker 2: the biggest companies in material handling at the time, and
Speaker 2: little by little climbed the ladder in different companies till
Speaker 2: he formed his own in nineteen eighty four.
Speaker 1: I mean this like one of those really beautiful immigrant
Speaker 1: success stories. And it was until this Saturday came to pass.
Speaker 1: Nelson started a company right, his own company, Garment Conveyor Systems.
Speaker 1: It was called it. He partnered with another company called
Speaker 1: Eerie Manufacturing Cooperative, which was started by Phil Dosso and
Speaker 1: George Gonzalvez. And in the late nineteen eighties the 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.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: He took their business from barely scratching up to a
Speaker 2: million dollars a year in sales to going past nine
Speaker 2: million within a few years. So everything was going great.
Speaker 2: But then things went downhill from there.
Speaker 1: And things went downhill in a profoundly terrifying way, which
Speaker 1: brings us to Nelson's business partner's son, Frank Dosso, who
Speaker 1: had also come down from New York to join the
Speaker 1: family business, starting at forty five thousand a year with
Speaker 1: the promise of moving up in the business. So it
Speaker 1: seems that instead of waiting for that to pan out,
Speaker 1: Frank got involved in drug trafficking with a Staten Island
Speaker 1: man named Bobby Venaria, in which he began an operation
Speaker 1: moving large amounts of cocaine from Miami to New York.
Speaker 1: And in December of ninety six, the DEEA busted one
Speaker 1: of these moves and Veneria held Frank responsible to the
Speaker 1: tune of one million dollars. And then, coincidentally or not,
Speaker 1: in April nineteen ninety seven, well, tell us what happened, Francisco.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I get back from one of my business trips
Speaker 2: and I have to do my due diligence every month, right,
Speaker 2: check the bank records, strike in style accounts, and then
Speaker 2: I noticed there's a million dollars missing from the jumbo
Speaker 2: money market. So of course they immediately go to the
Speaker 2: bank and go, hey, what happened here, and they say, well,
Speaker 2: George pulled that money out. Went to George and failed
Speaker 2: and said why did you do that? And they just
Speaker 2: looked at me and they said, we don't have to
Speaker 2: tell you anything. We're two shareholders and we can do
Speaker 2: anything we want. So of course I call my father up.
Speaker 2: He's on a busines the strip, and I tell him
Speaker 2: what goes on. He calls them, they tell him the
Speaker 2: same thing. My father comes back early from his business trip,
Speaker 2: confronts them with the corporate attorney and the corporate accountant.
Speaker 2: Basically says to them, you guys got to return that money.
Speaker 2: You can't do this. This is embezzlement, this is fraud.
Speaker 2: And they said no, it's two against one. So they said,
Speaker 2: all right, well then I got assue you. And it
Speaker 2: didn't make any sense. We're doing incredible, our reputation in
Speaker 2: the industry is at its highest. It didn't make any
Speaker 2: sense until later with what this million dollars meant. Obviously,
Speaker 2: the police to save his son's life, but at the
Speaker 2: time there was just no reasoning behind.
Speaker 1: It, so Nelson sued Dasso and Gunzalvez, who then demoted
Speaker 1: Nelson from president to general manager, removed his access to
Speaker 1: accounting and changed the locks on the building. So Nelson quit.
Speaker 1: Now this brings us to December third, nineteen ninety seven.
Speaker 1: Frank Dasso, George Gunzalvez, Diane Patisso, and George Patiso was
Speaker 1: shot and killed at the Eerie Manufacturing plant in Barto, Florida.
Speaker 1: Diane Patiso was Phil Dosso's daughter, but she was also
Speaker 1: an assistant States attorney. Get that, and that evening she
Speaker 1: went to pick up her brother Frank and her husband
Speaker 1: George Patisso at the factory to go back home for
Speaker 1: a family birthday party. Talk about wrong place, wrong time,
Speaker 1: and it looks like she may have walked in on
Speaker 1: something terrible that was about to go down and got
Speaker 1: pulled tragically, got pulled into it. So Phil in the details.
Speaker 2: Here, it appears the shooting started where Diane Patisso's body
Speaker 2: laid and then the three men found in the one
Speaker 2: office all killed with small caliber weapons, short range shots,
Speaker 2: execution style and was actually termed as an execution you know,
Speaker 2: a hired hit type of murders.
Speaker 3: Family members began calling Frank Dosso did not get an answer,
Speaker 3: so Phil Dosso and his wife, Nicoletto, drove to the plant.
Speaker 3: Phil stayed in the car, sending his wife in the
Speaker 3: front door of the facility. When she went into the
Speaker 3: front door of the facility and immediately saw the body
Speaker 3: of her daughter, Diane, she started screaming. Phil left the car,
Speaker 3: called nine on one and ran into the building and
Speaker 3: he ran pass his daughter and into Frank's office. Nicoletta
Speaker 3: moved her daughter's body, cradling her or holding her. Phil
Speaker 3: tracked bloody footprints into Frank's office and the other three
Speaker 3: people were found in Frank's office. Blood splatter evidence shows
Speaker 3: that George Batistia was actually shot at least one time
Speaker 3: and a different part of the facility before he was
Speaker 3: brought into Frank's office and executed.
Speaker 1: When officers arrived that evening, they found fourteen shellcasings, eleven
Speaker 1: from a twenty two caliber weapon, one from a thirty
Speaker 1: two which was pulled from Diane, and two from a
Speaker 1: thirty caliber rifle in Frank's arm. Now, all of the
Speaker 1: victims had been shot in the head with twenty two
Speaker 1: caliber bullets execution style, and the murder weapons were never located. Now,
Speaker 1: the crime scene provided no clear physical evidence to link
Speaker 1: anyone to the crime, let alone Nelson, although relatives of
Speaker 1: the victims immediately pointed fingers at Nelson because of all
Speaker 1: the bad blood and the current litigation. Now, there were
Speaker 1: some shoe prints that didn't match the Dosos or the victims,
Speaker 1: but no fingerprints or biological evidence from anyone but the
Speaker 1: victims was present, which makes it sound an awful lot
Speaker 1: like a professional hit. As we go through the evidence
Speaker 1: from the crime scene, it strains the imagination to think
Speaker 1: that one single person could have carried out this awful crime.
Speaker 1: As the state eventually contended.
Speaker 3: These four people, according to blood splatter evidence, were shot
Speaker 3: at three different locations in the facility. So you've got
Speaker 3: one guy running around shooting people in different locations, moving
Speaker 3: at least one wounded person from one location to another
Speaker 3: where the final execution took place, and killing the assistant
Speaker 3: state attorney I am in a completely different location. Now,
Speaker 3: at least two guns were clearly used in this, and
Speaker 3: the evidence suggests that there was three. Well, one of
Speaker 3: them is a long rifle, two of them are handguns,
Speaker 3: and less. Serrano grew an extra arm. One person cannot
Speaker 3: manage three weapons and four people, So this is significant
Speaker 3: evidence that shows that there were two shooters involved. Then
Speaker 3: you start to talk about all the blood that this
Speaker 3: would have created. When the deceased were discovered, some of
Speaker 3: the family members actually walked in the blood, and there
Speaker 3: were bloody footprints by them later matched up to their shoes.
Speaker 3: Yet no blood was ever found on anything belonging to
Speaker 3: Nelson Serrano.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we'll talk later about the prosecution's crazy theory
Speaker 1: that Nelson drove a Renzl car to and from airports
Speaker 1: to make flights in an unbelievably tight travel itinerary. Yet
Speaker 1: where's the blood evidence in the alleged rental car. His
Speaker 1: body and clothing would have been covered in blood if
Speaker 1: he shot four people, right, where did he manage to
Speaker 1: stop and rinse off all of this blood evidence? They
Speaker 1: never answered that question. Well, come back to the state's
Speaker 1: impossible theory in a minute, But first let's talk about
Speaker 1: the eyewitnesses, because again this is another super strong indication
Speaker 1: that Nelson's Serrano did not commit this crime. Now, eyewitnesses
Speaker 1: said there were several Latin or Asian men in their
Speaker 1: twenties and thirties at the scene, and a man named
Speaker 1: John Purvis, who worked across the street from the factory,
Speaker 1: said that when he left work that day, he noticed
Speaker 1: a beige luxury vehicle, perhaps a Cadillac part next to
Speaker 1: Erie's main entrance, and he saw a man on the
Speaker 1: side of the road lighting a cigarette.
Speaker 2: When Purvis comes out of the driveway of where he works,
Speaker 2: his car is pointing right at Eerie Manufacturing, and that's
Speaker 2: where he sees this young guy who's well dressed. Right,
Speaker 2: he's got a blazer, he's got a sweater, ves and
Speaker 2: the whole thing, which is not common in rural Bartow
Speaker 2: so that stood out. And then he sees that this
Speaker 2: kid is trying to light a cigarette when it's windy.
Speaker 2: He's so close to him that he's able to see
Speaker 2: that he's got a Zippo type lighter and that it's silver,
Speaker 2: and that he's lighting a cigarette. And he's able to
Speaker 2: tell you that he's got jet black hair.
Speaker 1: Which doesn't sound like a description of Nelson, who is
Speaker 1: nearly sixty years old at that point and well known
Speaker 1: to smoke a pipe, not cigarettes. But despite the lack
Speaker 1: of evidence, Nelson and Francisco continued to be targeted and
Speaker 1: thoroughly investigated, even harassed. Officers searched Nelson's house, where several
Speaker 1: guns were found. After all, Nelson did collect guns. However,
Speaker 1: none of Nelson's guns matched the murder weapons, and a
Speaker 1: paraffin test showed conclusively that Nelson had not fired a weapon.
Speaker 1: Now let me not leave out the complicity of the
Speaker 1: media in this slow moving disaster, right because the media
Speaker 1: ran with the story of Nelson as the prime suspect,
Speaker 1: always displaying his picture when the story and referring to
Speaker 1: him as quote the Mexican which is like any old
Speaker 1: brown country will do, right, I mean, oh, and Francisco,
Speaker 1: if I'm understanding this correctly, They were targeting you at
Speaker 1: the time, as well as your dad, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah. We realized that because I was suing the company
Speaker 2: basically George and Phil for breach of contract from my
Speaker 2: employment agreement, and my father was suing them for the
Speaker 2: money they took that, you know, they would want to
Speaker 2: look at us. So from day one we cooperated. When
Speaker 2: they asked to do a paraffin test on me, I
Speaker 2: didn't have a problem with it, you know, and I
Speaker 2: was looking to help. So my father came back early
Speaker 2: from his business trip just so he can come in
Speaker 2: and see what he could help with. This is the
Speaker 2: way we were until they started targeting us and making
Speaker 2: our lives miserable. The searches in my father's home, the
Speaker 2: tapping of the phones and of our emails, and the
Speaker 2: way they went after all our friends. It was just crazy.
Speaker 2: I can't even believe that it really happened.
Speaker 1: This episode is underwritten by AIG, a leading global insurance company.
Speaker 1: AIG 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 AIG's commitment to criminal and social justice reform,
Speaker 1: the AIG pro Bono Program provides free legal services and
Speaker 1: other support to underrepresented communities and individuals. Meanwhile, investigators received
Speaker 1: an eyewitness account that should have busted this case wide
Speaker 1: open and tied together all of the loose threads. And
Speaker 1: of course, I'm referring to the statements from Robert Fowler.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety eight, a man named Robert Fowler was
Speaker 1: in jail at unrelated charges and reached out to police
Speaker 1: with information about this crime looking for lateiency in his
Speaker 1: own case. Now, normally, jail house informants are not to
Speaker 1: be bled unless what they're saying is corroborated by the
Speaker 1: physical evidence, and in this case it was like Frank Dosso.
Speaker 1: Robert Fowler worked for Bobby Vanaria, the Staten Island drug dealer.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety seven, the DEA busted Frank's trafficking operation
Speaker 1: for the second time. Bowler said that after this, Venaria
Speaker 1: was done with Frank Dosso and sent two hitmen, Anton
Speaker 1: and a guy named Binny Aspirins. You can't make those
Speaker 1: names up. He sent these guys to Florida to kill Frank. Now,
Speaker 1: according to mister 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 state's 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
Speaker 1: mister Fowler, and it makes sense. It's the first thing
Speaker 1: we've heard that actually makes sense. The work was done
Speaker 1: for them at this point. And it's not like Fowler
Speaker 1: is trying to help the Serranos. He doesn't even know
Speaker 1: the Serranos. He was just trying to help himself. And
Speaker 1: you don't just make up information. It matches the crime
Speaker 1: scene to a t and less law enforcement veue 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, from 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 Serrano should have ended, peacefully,
Speaker 1: back at home in Ecuador.
Speaker 3: It's important to note that Nelson has dual citizenship. He
Speaker 3: has natural citizenship of Ecuador and he was a naturalized
Speaker 3: citizen of the United States. He liquidated business interests and
Speaker 3: moved Ecuador to the place of this birth. This was
Speaker 3: later mischaracterized at trial as him fleeing to Ecuador to
Speaker 3: avoid prosecution, but there was no reason for him to
Speaker 3: believe that he was still a suspect in this crime
Speaker 3: when he moved back to Ecuador.
Speaker 1: Right because they had no evidence against him. But back
Speaker 1: at Bartow, Florida, people were upset that no perpetrator had
Speaker 1: been found for this crime. After all, the local media
Speaker 1: had held up your father's picture and told the public
Speaker 1: for years that the quote Mexican, the Mexican did it.
Speaker 1: And so on May seventeenth, two thousand and one, Nelson
Speaker 1: Serrano was indicted on four counts of first degree murder
Speaker 1: and his extradition was requested from Ecuador.
Speaker 3: So at that point Tommy Ray, who's the investigating agent
Speaker 3: in this case, and Assistant State Attorney Paul Wallace traveled
Speaker 3: to Ecuador and arguably they're going to Ecuador to seek
Speaker 3: Nelson Serrano's extradition. They discovered Ecuador under no circumstances would
Speaker 3: extradite mister Serrano if he was going to be facing
Speaker 3: the death penalty. Additionally, Ecuador requested information about the particulars
Speaker 3: of the evidence that would show Nelson Serrano was involved
Speaker 3: in this before they would extradite him. At that point,
Speaker 3: Wallace and Ray pretty much broke off any attempt to
Speaker 3: extradite mister Serrano legally. Instead, according to Tommy Ray's own testimony,
Speaker 3: they came into contact with someone who was associated with
Speaker 3: the American Embassy and Ecuador, who had previously worked for
Speaker 3: the DEA, and he connected Tommy Ray to some Ecuadorian
Speaker 3: police officers that he had worked with while he was
Speaker 3: with the DEA. Some money exchanged hands, mister Ray says
Speaker 3: that was for expenses only, But the upshot of that
Speaker 3: was that Nelson was snatched up off of the street,
Speaker 3: taken before a sham extradition hearing on the theory that
Speaker 3: he was not an Ecuadorian citizen, which was untrue. The
Speaker 3: sham proceeding took about fifteen minutes, and then they took
Speaker 3: him from that place, suck him in a dog kennel
Speaker 3: where he spent the night, and then he was taken
Speaker 3: at handcuffs, placed on a plane and flowing back to Florida.
Speaker 2: The date of the kidnapping was August thirtieth, two thousand
Speaker 2: and two, and then the trial didn't happen until late
Speaker 2: two thousand and six, so he spent four years in
Speaker 2: a county jail in Polk County. You won't even imagine
Speaker 2: the kind of torture that he went through two hundred
Speaker 2: and eighty six of those days he spent in solitary confinement, naked,
Speaker 2: with the air conditioning being blown full ice cold stadium
Speaker 2: lights on twenty four hours a day, wasn't allowed to sleep, eat,
Speaker 2: and his walls were covered in human excrement that entire time.
Speaker 1: There just seems to be no bottom to this, you know,
Speaker 1: But then comes the trial. So Robert Fowler's statement was
Speaker 1: withheld by the prosecution until five days before trial in
Speaker 1: two thousand and six, at which time the statement was downplayed.
Speaker 1: Now it's important to remember that none of the witnesses
Speaker 1: called the trial actually witnessed the murder, and the state
Speaker 1: brought up the person seen lighting the cigarette outside the
Speaker 1: building that day of the murder, trying to suggest that
Speaker 1: it was Nelson.
Speaker 3: John Purvis was the witness that saw him, and he
Speaker 3: gave them a sketch. First of all, Nelson Serrano did
Speaker 3: not smoke cigarettes. He smoked a pipe, which everyone knew.
Speaker 3: So the state actually mischaracterized his testimony from that he
Speaker 3: was lighting a cigarette and he clearly saw a cigarette,
Speaker 3: that it appeared that he was lighting a cigarette. The
Speaker 3: other thing that they did instead of submitting this composite
Speaker 3: sketch to the jury in its original form. They reworked
Speaker 3: the PDF so that it changed the look of the
Speaker 3: composite sketch. We have both the original composite sketch and
Speaker 3: we have the reworked one. The original sketch, which appeared
Speaker 3: to be a much younger, thinner person, didn't look anything
Speaker 3: like Nelson. Serrano changed to a heavier type look, which
Speaker 3: is more consistent with the way Nelson looked at trial.
Speaker 3: So that was highly disturbing. There's no way that whoever
Speaker 3: introduced that piece of evidence did not know that this
Speaker 3: had been altered.
Speaker 1: They also outfitted this composite sketch with the kind of
Speaker 1: classes Nelson was known to wear. It's just unbelievable. I mean,
Speaker 1: and what about the firearms evidence from the scene.
Speaker 3: I think the most significant thing. According to the autopsies,
Speaker 3: there were four people and there were a total of
Speaker 3: fourteen gun shot wounds. Now, the police claimed a trial
Speaker 3: that they only found twelve casings. That really isn't true
Speaker 3: because they ignored the fact that twelve casings were found
Speaker 3: at one point in time, and two other thirty caliber
Speaker 3: casings were found on a palette that had been moved
Speaker 3: but at the time of the murders, this palette would
Speaker 3: have been lined up with one of the hallways where
Speaker 3: one of the deceased was shot. Autopsy showed that they
Speaker 3: were what they described as through and through wounds. The
Speaker 3: state attempted to say that one single projectile made these
Speaker 3: through and through wounds, which is sort of a torturous
Speaker 3: way to try and explain too many wounds and not
Speaker 3: enough casings. But not even the medical examiner who testified
Speaker 3: was willing to adopt that. We did discover as we
Speaker 3: reviewed the evidence in this case that these two thirty
Speaker 3: caliber casings had been marked for identification but never entered
Speaker 3: into evidence by the state.
Speaker 1: Now there's also this story with the chair in his office.
Speaker 1: Tell us about that.
Speaker 3: They tried to bring in a footprint on a chair,
Speaker 3: saying it was consistent with Nelson Serrano. It was wrong
Speaker 3: shoe size for one thing. But basically, if you stop
Speaker 3: and think about what's going on, the state's theory is
Speaker 3: there's a single shooter who is managing four people. But
Speaker 3: at some point, while these four people were inside the
Speaker 3: manufacturing facility, Serrano, unarmed, would have to go into his
Speaker 3: old office, stand on this chair, remove a ceiling tile
Speaker 3: and recover a gun that the prosecution claimed that he
Speaker 3: had secreted back when he was an employee there, before
Speaker 3: any dispute ever happened, and before he was cast out
Speaker 3: of the company. Why he would have a gun hidden
Speaker 3: in the ceiling of his office at that point in
Speaker 3: time was never explained, but that was their theory because
Speaker 3: someone had seen him do something with that ceiling tile
Speaker 3: on a previous occasion, we don't know what, according to
Speaker 3: that witness. And on another occasion, he was seen with
Speaker 3: a gun at the facility. That actually was explained because
Speaker 3: employees used to shoot target practice behind the facility in
Speaker 3: a makeshift shooting range, and several people participated in that,
Speaker 3: including the Dossos, so there wasn't anything unusual about the
Speaker 3: fact that someone might bring a gun to the facility
Speaker 3: for use of this makeshift shooting range.
Speaker 1: And let's talk about Nelson's alibi here, because we know
Speaker 1: he was on a business trip from December second to
Speaker 1: the fourth, first in Washington, d C. Followed by Atlanta,
Speaker 1: five hundred miles away from the crime scene, which of
Speaker 1: course was in Bartow, Florida, And the prosecution came up
Speaker 1: with a fairytale story to try to shoehorn in how
Speaker 1: he could have well been in both places at the
Speaker 1: same time. Pretty much here was their theory of how
Speaker 1: he committed these murders. So they knew and we know
Speaker 1: that Nelson was seen on camera in Atlanta on December
Speaker 1: third at his hotel at twelve nineteen pm, and then
Speaker 1: again less than ten hours later at ten seventeen pm,
Speaker 1: wearing the exact same clothes in both instances. Now, the
Speaker 1: state's theory was that in those ten hours, Nelson made
Speaker 1: an unbelievable round trip journey from Atlanta to Bartow, in
Speaker 1: which he would have flown from Atlanta to Orlando, picked
Speaker 1: up a rental car around rush hour and we all
Speaker 1: know what that's like three forty nine pm, and left
Speaker 1: for the factory in Bartow, which is an eighty mile
Speaker 1: drive and typically takes ninety minutes or even longer. So
Speaker 1: at the earliest he would have arrived around five to
Speaker 1: nineteen PM, but probably much later.
Speaker 3: The time of the murders was after normal working hours
Speaker 3: of the business. In order to believe that Nelson flew
Speaker 3: down from Atlanta and committed these murders, you would have
Speaker 3: to believe that he did that on a leap of faith,
Speaker 3: with no knowledge that any of his targets would even
Speaker 3: be on the scene at the time that he would
Speaker 3: have arrived. He would have had to believe that someone
Speaker 3: was willing to let him into a building that he
Speaker 3: had been denied access to on multiple occasions, and every
Speaker 3: employee had been told to keep him out of the building.
Speaker 1: Right, So he went to a place where he was
Speaker 1: not welcome to which he had no keys, He somehow
Speaker 1: gained access without leaving any signs of a break in
Speaker 1: with all of his old coworkers there, he was given
Speaker 1: plenty of time and space to go to his old
Speaker 1: office which was now Frank Dosso'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 Diana in
Speaker 1: the hallway, then chasing the other three around, and somehow
Speaker 1: he was able, while 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 fuck out of here
Speaker 1: with this story. Now it continues to get worse. And then,
Speaker 1: according to this Kakamemi 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: buy the matching clothing, right he would like 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.
Speaker 3: The timeline that the state presented a trial was questionable
Speaker 3: at best. Everything had to click perfectly, there could not
Speaker 3: be any delays. Well, one of the things that they
Speaker 3: kept from the jury is that there actually was a
Speaker 3: delay in one of the flights that they claimed Nelson took,
Speaker 3: and instead of presenting the actual arrival time of that
Speaker 3: flight to the jury, they instead presented to the jury
Speaker 3: evidence of when the flight was supposed to arrive. So
Speaker 3: this is really questionable activity on the part of the state.
Speaker 1: And according to the closing argument, the plane landed at
Speaker 1: nine forty two, but we know that the flight actually
Speaker 1: landed at nine point fifty four PM either way, And
Speaker 1: don't forget the government claimed he was in row thirty.
Speaker 1: If you know how long it takes to get out
Speaker 1: of road thirty to the front of the airplane. Even
Speaker 1: if he 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 rue a bit.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: The busiest airport's in the world, right, It led at
Speaker 1: the airport and getting to the hotel twenty three minutes
Speaker 1: later at exactly ten seventeen pm in order to be
Speaker 1: seen on camera again wearing the same clothes that he
Speaker 1: was wearing in the morning, but miraculously with no blood
Speaker 1: on them. I don't care who the hell you are,
Speaker 1: no airline. I've ever flown deeplanes 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 possible. 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 Agassio and John white, and
Speaker 1: they needed something to hold this pile of horseshit together.
Speaker 1: So they came up with two pieces of false evidence.
Speaker 1: One the coerce statement from his nephew, Albaro Panya Herrera,
Speaker 1: saying that Nelson had rented a car from him out
Speaker 1: of Orlando in order to commit the murders.
Speaker 2: Out of Roperrera, which is a distant nephew of my father.
Speaker 2: His statement to the jury was that he had rented
Speaker 2: a car, a teal colored Nissan, at Orlando Airport for
Speaker 2: my father or a friend of my father's to use
Speaker 2: on December third. Once he finished with his testimony and
Speaker 2: through counter cross examination, he does admit that that wasn't
Speaker 2: his original story and that the reason he's saying what
Speaker 2: he's saying now is because the police badgered him so much.
Speaker 2: These are his words, and they threatened him. They basically
Speaker 2: said to him, we're either going to convict you or
Speaker 2: we're going to convict Nelson Serrano for these murders. And
Speaker 2: so he testifies understand in front of the jury that
Speaker 2: he finally decided, I'll say whatever the police wants me
Speaker 2: to say, and that's what I'm saying today. And so
Speaker 2: he admits to basically changing his testimony to match what
Speaker 2: the cops wanted this say in front of the jury,
Speaker 2: and then when they talk about one hundred thousand dollars reward,
Speaker 2: he doesn't deny taking that money, saying that you know what,
Speaker 2: anybody can use one hundred thousand dollars. And so we
Speaker 2: felt all right, his testimony was done.
Speaker 1: Now for the second piece of false evidence, they claimed
Speaker 1: that they found exactly half of Nelson's right index fingerprint
Speaker 1: on one parking ticket from the Orlando Airport parking garage
Speaker 1: and the exact other half of the same fingerprint on
Speaker 1: another ticket.
Speaker 2: The state calls up their own expert and in cross exam,
Speaker 2: they ask them, do you think these fingerprints are legit
Speaker 2: or do you think they were planted? He says, well,
Speaker 2: I don't have the science to tell you that they're planted,
Speaker 2: because I don't have the fingerprints those parking tickets, and
Speaker 2: those fingerprints have been destroyed when they use the chemicals
Speaker 2: to lift the prints. He never saw the real tickets
Speaker 2: or the real fingerprints. He only saw a picture of them.
Speaker 2: Then he goes on to say, I find these is
Speaker 2: very suspicious and there for four reasons. One it's his
Speaker 2: right finger. So you're telling me that instead of using
Speaker 2: your left finger, which is when you go to grab
Speaker 2: a parking stuff you're driving, you reach out with your
Speaker 2: left hand and you pull that ticket out. Why is
Speaker 2: it his right hand? Second, there's no other fingerprints on it.
Speaker 2: Will you go to pull your ticket out? You use
Speaker 2: your thumb and press down and you.
Speaker 3: Pull it out.
Speaker 2: And then the teller when you get it to them,
Speaker 2: they've got to swipe it, so their fingerprints should be
Speaker 2: on it. Nothing. Third, is that exactly half of that
Speaker 2: fingerprint was on the other parking ticket from November twenty third,
Speaker 2: so we're talking two weeks prior. And he noted that
Speaker 2: if you took a solid fingerprint, cut it in half,
Speaker 2: each half was on each ticket. He goes, it's completely odd.
Speaker 2: And there's no other smudges or fingerprints on the other
Speaker 2: ticket either. And then fourth, if you put a fingerprint,
Speaker 2: no matter how you try, you cannot make a straight
Speaker 2: edge on our fingerprint. And he actually put his finger
Speaker 2: on the water glass in front of him. He goes,
Speaker 2: it's just impossible. So for those four reasons, fingerprints are
Speaker 2: suspicious to me, and so we thought, oh well, the
Speaker 2: 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?
Speaker 2: I'm ashamed to tell you guys this because it kicked
Speaker 2: myself left and right for allowing the defense attorneys to
Speaker 2: convince us not to present a defense. And you heard me, right.
Speaker 2: They came to me and they said, the testimony from
Speaker 2: Alvareau is done, the fingerprint evidence is done. There's nothing
Speaker 2: to believe here. Reasonable doubt at the minimum exists everywhere.
Speaker 2: They're not going to convict your father. And if we
Speaker 2: don't present evidence there was a law at a time
Speaker 2: in Florida. We get to talk twice, give a closing
Speaker 2: argument and that Florida can do what they want to do,
Speaker 2: and then we get to finish last And at the end,
Speaker 2: I'm thinking, but what about the trip. Why can't we
Speaker 2: spend time on showing how impossible it is? So I go,
Speaker 2: why can't we do that? And he goes, because we
Speaker 2: want to have the end of it. And we took
Speaker 2: their advice because they were the experts. And so at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, how did this happen? And
Speaker 2: it was because this county had gone through nine years
Speaker 2: year of two billboards with the pictures of the victims
Speaker 2: and one hundred thousand dollars reward plastered on it. Since
Speaker 2: ninety seven until two thousand and five, the papers were
Speaker 2: always listing my father with a picture as the prime suspect,
Speaker 2: calling him the Mexican and four of the jurors, and
Speaker 2: they interviewed them after the fact. They said, how did
Speaker 2: you do that? Why did you give him guilty? He goes, well,
Speaker 2: I kept waiting for them to show me why he's innocent.
Speaker 2: You can't make this stuff up. We couldn't believe it.
Speaker 2: My poor mother she never recovered. She still tests the
Speaker 2: floor that she's stepping on to make sure it doesn't
Speaker 2: get pulled away every day. You go through all those phases, right, denial, anger, depression.
Speaker 2: How could you possibly convict somebody who the state didn't
Speaker 2: even prove was there? How do you say he's guilty?
Speaker 2: You know, you pick up the pieces and then you're like,
Speaker 2: what do I do next? How do we recover all this?
Speaker 2: In the attorney they look at you and they go, no, no,
Speaker 2: don't worry, We're going to repeal this.
Speaker 3: It's like, who are.
Speaker 2: You talking to We're talking about years, not decades that
Speaker 2: this thing is going to continue going, which it has.
Speaker 2: It's been twenty years.
Speaker 1: And I want to talk for a second about the
Speaker 1: death penalty in Florida. Nelson's sentenced to death on a
Speaker 1: nine to three vote, which again is ridiculous, it's not
Speaker 1: even unanimous. But Florida and the death penalty, a very
Speaker 1: important fact that I hope people will remember is that
Speaker 1: at last count, Florida had executed ninety nine people since
Speaker 1: the reinstatement of the death penalty. During that same period
Speaker 1: of time, thirty one people were found innocent on death
Speaker 1: row and freed. Now that doesn't include, of course, the
Speaker 1: innocent people that Florida has executed, people like Jesse Taferro,
Speaker 1: and the other innocent people that we know are languishing
Speaker 1: on death row in Florida who haven't been free, like
Speaker 1: Pablo Ebar or James Daily, Chris Maharaj, who is the
Speaker 1: subject of a fantastic podcast right now on Audible called
Speaker 1: Abuse of Power Season two. So it's not unreasonable to
Speaker 1: say that Florida is not even getting it right sixty
Speaker 1: percent of the time when it comes to sentencing people
Speaker 1: to death. Maybe we'll be generous and give the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt to the State of Florida and say,
Speaker 1: maybe they're getting it right seventy percent of the time.
Speaker 1: So I ask, if someone is in favor of the
Speaker 1: death penalty, are you okay with thirty percent of the
Speaker 1: people being executed being innocent? And if not, then you
Speaker 1: cannot support the death penalty any longer because that is
Speaker 1: what's going on in Florida. And here we have today
Speaker 1: living proof of another innocent man languishing, experiencing torture day
Speaker 1: in and day out, being on death row, the notorious
Speaker 1: death row in the state of Florida, for a crime
Speaker 1: he didn't commit. And how is he holding up?
Speaker 2: I can't give you any answer to that, chasing it
Speaker 2: at All I know is if he can survive being
Speaker 2: in a six foot by nine foot sale twenty four
Speaker 2: hours a day, seven days a week, not being able
Speaker 2: to go outside, constantly being harassed by these guards, going
Speaker 2: through all this medical negligence and torture, and he can
Speaker 2: still keep his mental integrity and still stay somewhat positive
Speaker 2: in all of this. You know, I can't express my
Speaker 2: admiration for what he's done to stay true. I mean,
Speaker 2: he's a stubborn guy. He's always said to me, I'm
Speaker 2: never gonna let them win on this. I'm going to
Speaker 2: fight this till the end. I know the truth is
Speaker 2: going to come out. It's going to liberate me. It's
Speaker 2: gonna liberate my name. But the state of Florida isn't
Speaker 2: just hoping he dies. And I'll be very frank with this.
Speaker 2: They're making sure he dies. My father is an old
Speaker 2: man and he's been under medical care for the last
Speaker 2: twenty years under these contracted medical providers, which are nothing
Speaker 2: but shysters. He has three different medicines for his heart condition.
Speaker 2: He has osteoporosis. He's completely deaf. He needs hearing aids.
Speaker 2: He's already lost his eyesight in one eye and now
Speaker 2: he's losing it in his one last good eye. They're
Speaker 2: not doing anything. Even though he was diagnosed in jail
Speaker 2: as being deaf. Now they've said he's not deaf anymore,
Speaker 2: and they're not giving him his hearing aides. He hasn't
Speaker 2: had teeth to chew on and they don't give him dentures.
Speaker 2: He's saving the teeth that had fallen out, and every
Speaker 2: morning he pulls string out of his uniform and he
Speaker 2: ties his teeth together so he can chew and then
Speaker 2: at night before he goes asleep, he breaks the string,
Speaker 2: takes his teeth, puts it in his pocket so he
Speaker 2: doesn't swallow it at night so he can redo that.
Speaker 2: The next day he suffers from a siatic condition. They
Speaker 2: don't give him pain killers for that. Then he's got
Speaker 2: three different heart medications, which twice in the last eighteen
Speaker 2: months they took away from him for six weeks at
Speaker 2: a time. He said his heart was going so crazy
Speaker 2: that he didn't know if he was going to wake up.
Speaker 2: He didn't know if the heart was going to explode.
Speaker 2: And this is how he lived for those six weeks
Speaker 2: until he gave him his medication back. You can't be
Speaker 2: taking heart medication for twenty years and then go cold
Speaker 2: turkey for six weeks. So they're attempting to kill him
Speaker 2: and doing all these things, and then what do they do.
Speaker 2: They take him to the doctor. They make him sit
Speaker 2: in an office for six hours. They make him sign
Speaker 2: something that says he was attended by a doctor, and
Speaker 2: he never was. You know, the guards they're sitting there
Speaker 2: telling him, you're going to lose your eyesight, You're going
Speaker 2: to be completely blind and completely deaf, and you're never
Speaker 2: going to know who comes at you or who's doing
Speaker 2: what to you. That's what we're gonna do to you.
Speaker 2: He's been diagnosed for a hit for placement. They won't
Speaker 2: give it to him, and it's excruciating. You can't walk,
Speaker 2: you can't lie down, you can't stand, you can't sit
Speaker 2: for too long. Right, So I talked to him. I go,
Speaker 2: he needs to get hit replaced. Well, we're not going
Speaker 2: to do that. That's way too much money. And I go,
Speaker 2: all right, well, then let me raise some money and
Speaker 2: let me do it. Oh no, no, no, you can't pay
Speaker 2: for that. And I go, you got to be kidding me.
Speaker 3: He needs it.
Speaker 2: He's already been diagnosed by your own doctor. And he goes, well,
Speaker 2: he's in jail. He's going to get killed sooner or later.
Speaker 2: So we're not going to spend the money. It's what
Speaker 2: they say to me, So they say to him. Lawsuits
Speaker 2: have been filed against the Department of Corrections in the
Speaker 2: state of Florida. They have lost twice not observing the
Speaker 2: American Disabilities Act, and even till to this day, they're
Speaker 2: still not observing it despite the court orders for them
Speaker 2: to do so. And then, on top of all of that,
Speaker 2: you know, the miscarriage is justice, all the medical neglect,
Speaker 2: disgusting conditions in two decades of nothing but misery. And
Speaker 2: this is what's also been going on for my mother.
Speaker 2: You know, here's my mother since the conviction, completely insecure
Speaker 2: about the world around her, checking the ground beneath her
Speaker 2: every time she walks. And now as we record this,
Speaker 2: I'm letting you all know that she passed away last Monday,
Speaker 2: February seventh, twenty twenty two, and she won't be around
Speaker 2: to see my father out. And my father wasn't able
Speaker 2: to leave the prison to be with her or to
Speaker 2: even come to the service.
Speaker 1: Jesus, I'm so sorry. I mean, I don't know how
Speaker 1: much a person can take. It's like kind of a
Speaker 1: Greek tragedy or something. 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 sure to just everyone who's
Speaker 1: ever come across him or his story. So now we
Speaker 1: look at post conviction, and so much of everything we've
Speaker 1: talked about has been brought up in post conviction appeals
Speaker 1: from the kidnapping and Ecuador to exculpatory evidence about the
Speaker 1: crime scene, prosecutorial misconduct, and inadequate defense at trial. But
Speaker 1: all of the appeals have so far been denied. But
Speaker 1: in May of twenty seventeen, a four to three decision
Speaker 1: of the Florida Supreme Court vacated Nelson Serrano's death sentence
Speaker 1: as a result of the Hearst decision, which rendered Florida's
Speaker 1: death penalty process unconstitutional and declare that jurors must agree
Speaker 1: unanimously in their decision to recommend the death penalty. And remember,
Speaker 1: for Nelson, it was a nine to three decision back
Speaker 1: in two thousand and six. So they sent this case
Speaker 1: back to the Circuit Court for resentencing, and they haven't
Speaker 1: actually done anything about it yet. Right here we are
Speaker 1: all the way in twenty twenty two. What can be done?
Speaker 1: What are the prospects? This has caused a real outcry,
Speaker 1: I mean huge organizations have weighed in on this. Right.
Speaker 3: Yes, Ecuador has weighed in significantly, The International Commission and
Speaker 3: Human Rights has weighed in significantly. Where we are right
Speaker 3: now is that the Supreme Court ordered a retrial on
Speaker 3: the sentencing aspect of the case. What I'm doing cannot
Speaker 3: actually find Nelson Serrano innocent. The federal appeals could actually
Speaker 3: overturn the guilt or innocence portion of the case. So
Speaker 3: that's why it's very important to get the case to
Speaker 3: where Bruce Fletcher and Charles White will be handling the
Speaker 3: federal appeals. However, at every status hearing, the State Attorney's
Speaker 3: office has continued to ask that the case to be
Speaker 3: pushed down the road and predict that it may be
Speaker 3: two years before they will be ready to try this case,
Speaker 3: and that delay has caused actual prejudice to mister Serrano.
Speaker 3: We talked a little bit about some of the evidence
Speaker 3: that we've lost, the deterioration of DNA, the deterioration of
Speaker 3: the fingerprints. We've been robbed of the opportunity to bring
Speaker 3: in new experts who could really nail down the fact
Speaker 3: that that evidence is compelling for mister Serrano's innocence. We've
Speaker 3: lost witnesses, people have died since this case was even
Speaker 3: remanded on appeal, and certainly many people have died since
Speaker 3: the original trial. Despite that significant prejudice, we believe there
Speaker 3: still is plenty of compelling evidence to overturn the death
Speaker 3: penalty in this particular case. Under the current State of
Speaker 3: Florida law has to be an unanimous decision, so we
Speaker 3: only have to convince one person on that twelve person
Speaker 3: jury that this was a miscarrier you justice, and that
Speaker 3: person can keep the State of Florida from illegally executing
Speaker 3: mister Serrano. If we can get the death penalty of return,
Speaker 3: there are a lot of options that open up to
Speaker 3: undo this injustice.
Speaker 1: I mean, it sounds to me like the State of
Speaker 1: Florida is just stringing this damn thing out and hoping
Speaker 1: that he just passes away, you know, rather than have
Speaker 1: to address their filthy laundry here. I hate to say,
Speaker 1: but that's really I don't think that's a far fetch
Speaker 1: theory at all. And so Francisco, for our audience listening today,
Speaker 1: if there is horrified and 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 2: Go to Nelson Serrano dot org. Subscribe to our email list.
Speaker 2: You'll see a link to change dot org. We just
Speaker 2: surpassed fifty four thousand supporters in this Be one of them,
Speaker 2: and then write your congressman tweaked Instagram A Governor DeSantis,
Speaker 2: Ashley Moody look at this case for Nelson Serrano. We
Speaker 2: cannot let Florida continue to do this to an innocent man.
Speaker 2: He should be free. Follow the Inter American Commission on
Speaker 2: Human Rights. Liberate Nelson Serrano, immediately approve his custody transfer
Speaker 2: to Ecuador immediately, and push for the resentencing hearing that
Speaker 2: happen now, not in twenty twenty three, not at the
Speaker 2: end of twenty twenty two. That's what you can do.
Speaker 2: I want to bring to everybody's attention to February eighteenth.
Speaker 2: We're going to be in Miami at Florida International University
Speaker 2: on February eighteenth from five pm to seven pm. The
Speaker 2: cameras are going to be on Telemundo, Univision, CNN. We've
Speaker 2: got a book that's come out of this. The government
Speaker 2: of Ecuador is going to be speaking there. We have
Speaker 2: four exoneries that are going to tell their story about
Speaker 2: what happened to them, and you will freak when you
Speaker 2: hear the similarities between what happened to my father. It's
Speaker 2: going to bring attention to the need of reform in
Speaker 2: our judicial system in the state of Florida, and we
Speaker 2: want you to be there. We actually be part of it.
Speaker 2: So be aware that this is going to happen February eighteenth.
Speaker 2: You'll see it on social media over support us to
Speaker 2: get the word out.
Speaker 1: Please tell your dad we're all thinking of him, and
Speaker 1: we all wish that we could open those doors right now,
Speaker 1: this minute and whisk him out of there. And the
Speaker 1: closing of our show is always, I think the most
Speaker 1: important part. It's called closing arguments, and it works like this.
Speaker 1: First of all, I'm going to thank each of you
Speaker 1: for being here, taking your time and sharing this incredible story.
Speaker 1: And so now closing arguments works like this. I'm going
Speaker 1: to turn my microphone off, sit back in my chair,
Speaker 1: and close my eyes and just listen to anything else
Speaker 1: you guys want to share. Greg, let's start with you,
Speaker 1: and then you can just pass the mic to Francisco
Speaker 1: and he can close it out, and that's how we'll
Speaker 1: end the show.
Speaker 3: Well, i'd like to start with justice delayed is justice denied.
Speaker 3: We believe absolutely that if we can get this case
Speaker 3: back before a jury, we can show that Nelson Serrano
Speaker 3: was wrongfully convicted and is not guilty of this crime.
Speaker 3: I would point out that it's very unusual for.
Speaker 4: Defense attorney to take the tactic in a resentencing that
Speaker 4: his client is not guilty because he's already had another
Speaker 4: jury determine his guilt and now we're looking for mitigating factors.
Speaker 3: As to why he should not be executed. Well, the
Speaker 3: major mitigating factor in mister Serrano's case is he's innocent.
Speaker 3: There are others, his age, his ill health, many many
Speaker 3: mitigating factors, and we will present all of those to
Speaker 3: the jury as well. But the message that we believe
Speaker 3: will be compelling is the fact that Nelson Serrano is
Speaker 3: an innocent man and Nelson Serrano has been nineteen years
Speaker 3: on death row wrongfully and this needs to change as
Speaker 3: soon as possible. And I believe that the State of
Speaker 3: Florida is aware of the fact that if we get
Speaker 3: a resentencing hearing, that the likelihood is that the death
Speaker 3: sentence will be overturned. That's why we've seen unprecedented attempts
Speaker 3: to delay this process by the state attorney in this
Speaker 3: particular case, and that's why we filed an appeal with
Speaker 3: the Florida Supreme Court saying these the ways are illegal,
Speaker 3: they violate due process, and we believe the death penalty
Speaker 3: should be taken off the table simply because of the delay.
Speaker 3: But even if you're not willing to give us that step,
Speaker 3: then order the state to go forward immediately. We are
Speaker 3: ready to go to trial now. We want trial now,
Speaker 3: and we're hoping that we will get it as soon
Speaker 3: as possible.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Greg and Jason. You know, I want to
Speaker 2: thank you for this opportunity to bring this story to light.
Speaker 2: It's so important that people understand that this is real,
Speaker 2: this is true. These things are happening, not just in Florida,
Speaker 2: all over the country. These tactics that the police and
Speaker 2: the prosecutors and the judges use to convict the innocent
Speaker 2: for the sake of convicting somebody for these heinous crimes
Speaker 2: is going on and it continues to go on. It's
Speaker 2: serving their purpose and not society. You know, what it
Speaker 2: comes down to is action. One of the things that
Speaker 2: my father has always been saying, do what you can
Speaker 2: for me. We got to make sure this doesn't happen
Speaker 2: to anybody else. You think that's not going to happen
Speaker 2: to me. I don't get involved in those things. Well,
Speaker 2: you know my dad wasn't either. Everything would happen. There
Speaker 2: all comes down to this drug deal that we knew
Speaker 2: nothing about, and there he's been nineteen years on death row.
Speaker 2: Wrong place, at the wrong time, you might think. But
Speaker 2: it's more than that, right, it's these prosecuted, these cops,
Speaker 2: these judges that look at this and say, well, we
Speaker 2: need to resolve this case, and this is the easiest path.
Speaker 2: This is the least amount of resistance that we're going
Speaker 2: to get to put somebody up. Almost every state has
Speaker 2: a law that says that even if the prosecutor intentionally
Speaker 2: manipulates the system or evidence, or does anything to intentionally
Speaker 2: give somebody the death penalty when they knew that this
Speaker 2: guy was innocent, you can't civilly or criminally try them.
Speaker 2: Those are the laws that we need to reverse. So,
Speaker 2: if these are things you're committed to you want to
Speaker 2: do something about it, you can. It doesn't take a
Speaker 2: lot of time either, or effort or money. You just
Speaker 2: need to be a part of it and find the
Speaker 2: organization you want, whether it's Floridinustry, alternative, a death penalty,
Speaker 2: it's the Innocence Project. Anything. Contribute five bucks, write some time,
Speaker 2: say hey, I want to help. How can I do that?
Speaker 2: You'll stop being part of the solution and believe me.
Speaker 2: We're getting there. The numbers are growing. We need more
Speaker 2: help to make this thing happen. Let's get Congress to
Speaker 2: pass laws. Conviction integrity units are huge, huge amount of
Speaker 2: exonerations happen because of the conviction Integrity Unit. Make the
Speaker 2: mandatory and wherever you live, civil review boards over prosecutorial
Speaker 2: and misconduct that there are things that we can do.
Speaker 2: It's great to do something about my father. We want
Speaker 2: that to happen. He's eighty three. He deserves to finish
Speaker 2: his life in Ecuador. We want to make that happen.
Speaker 2: But let's make sure this doesn't happen to anybody else.
Speaker 2: So join us, Join Wrongful Convictions, Join Innocence Project, Join
Speaker 2: all these other places that are doing things and help.
Speaker 2: And thank you. Thank you again for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Conviction. I'd like to thank
Speaker 1: our production team, Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Cliburn and
Speaker 1: Kevin Wartis, with research by Lyla Robinson. The music in
Speaker 1: this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer
Speaker 1: Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram at
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on
Speaker 1: Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good.
Speaker 1: On all three platforms, you can also follow me on
Speaker 1: both TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason Flam. Wrongful Conviction
Speaker 1: is the production of Lava for Good podcast and association
Speaker 1: with Signal Company Number one