Speaker 1: We originally released our interview with Lamon McIntyre on September seventeen.
Speaker 1: Since then, a monumental shift has occurred in the dynamic
Speaker 1: that resulted with Lamont behind bars and the guy who
Speaker 1: deliberately framed him for a crime he didn't commit living
Speaker 1: free as a detective for Kansas City, Kansas. It's alleged
Speaker 1: that Roger Golupski was notorious in the black community for
Speaker 1: using his authority to coerce women into sexual acts in
Speaker 1: exchange for leniency, turning a blind eye, or just for
Speaker 1: the courtesy of having him not framed them or a
Speaker 1: family member. I'm cautiously optimistic about what appears to be
Speaker 1: the beginning of some semblance of justice for Grupski and
Speaker 1: the good people of Kansas City. Golupski has now been
Speaker 1: formally charged in several cases in September for two counts
Speaker 1: of sexual assault the same m O as we just mentioned,
Speaker 1: and then in November, an indictment was revealed in which
Speaker 1: Glupski was alleged to have conspired with a drug kingpin
Speaker 1: to run a sex trafficking operation that routinely victimized minors.
Speaker 1: Gorupski allegedly shielded the operation from investigation in exchange for
Speaker 1: cash and sexual acts from his choice of girls. One
Speaker 1: of the victims alleged that Gorupsky choked and raped her
Speaker 1: when she was just sixteen years old. Gorupski maintains his innocence,
Speaker 1: but if these allegations are true, I hope he burns
Speaker 1: in the very real health in which he puts so
Speaker 1: many innocent and at risk people. On April fifteenth, Dannielle
Speaker 1: Quinn and Donald Ewing were fatally shot while sitting at
Speaker 1: a powder blue Cadillac when a man dressed in black
Speaker 1: pumped four shotgun rounds into the car. One alleged witness
Speaker 1: claimed to have recognized the shooter as an acquaintance, quote unquote,
Speaker 1: Lamont something. Another eye witness identified seventeen year old Lamont
Speaker 1: McIntyre from a photo lineup. Both witnesses made positive identifications
Speaker 1: in court, and despite a total lack of corroborating physical evidence,
Speaker 1: this case appeared to be as open and shut as
Speaker 1: they come, resulting in two consecutive life prison terms for
Speaker 1: Lamont McIntyre. On this episode, we speak with Lamont, a
Speaker 1: Pellet attorney, Cheryl Pilot, a former FBI agent and police
Speaker 1: corruption expert al Generic as well as Lamont himself from
Speaker 1: behind bars to find out how this seemingly righteous prosecution
Speaker 1: had actually been corrupted from the very start. This is
Speaker 1: wrongful conviction. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason flam
Speaker 1: Today's episode will make your blood boil and it will
Speaker 1: blow your mind. So settle in because this is going
Speaker 1: to be a crazy ride. Guilty one word ceiling Lamont
Speaker 1: McIntyre's fate. Lamont McIntyre, aged seventeen and nine, has so
Speaker 1: far been imprisoned for twenty two years. Twenty two years ago,
Speaker 1: two young men, twenty one year old Don Yell Quinn
Speaker 1: and his thirty four year old cousin Donald Ewing, were
Speaker 1: gunned down in a horrible double homicide. Six hours after
Speaker 1: the murders, police arrested McIntyre, but never searched his house
Speaker 1: for evidence. Moreover, it was a trial which prosecutors offered
Speaker 1: no physical evidence tying McIntyre to the crime, no motive,
Speaker 1: no connection between him and the victims, no weapon, no fingerprints,
Speaker 1: nor did Kansas City Campus believe even request search warrants
Speaker 1: to find any of that material. A retired officer who
Speaker 1: reviewed the case calls the investigation grossly deficient. Most notable
Speaker 1: is that the family of the victims for twenty two
Speaker 1: years have steadfastly insisted that he is innocent. Other witnesses,
Speaker 1: also relatives of the victim, insisted as soon as they
Speaker 1: saw McIntyre sitting at the defense table, they knew he
Speaker 1: was not the shooter. They told the prosecutor, but were ignored.
Speaker 1: One family member has signed and Affidavid claiming that under
Speaker 1: pressure from police and the prosecutor, she lied at McIntyre's trial.
Speaker 1: We're the first time a jury is speaking publicly about
Speaker 1: the case. Greg Lover says that he now believes that
Speaker 1: Wyandotte County jury was wrong. They didn't care about anything.
Speaker 1: They just had their man and it was enough for
Speaker 1: the twelve person jury. In deliberations, Loudber says he and
Speaker 1: another juror were holdouts, but it was late in the
Speaker 1: day and there was mounting pressure from others who wanted
Speaker 1: a verdict. Maybe I had an opportunity to, you know,
Speaker 1: do something good on that jury, but I sure didn't
Speaker 1: do it. I took a coward's way out. It is
Speaker 1: the speedy investigation and prosecution of that crime in this
Speaker 1: place that a team of exonerators now insist was also
Speaker 1: the focus of a terrible injustice. Lt. McIntyre, aged seventeen
Speaker 1: and nine, has so far been imprisoned for twenty two years,
Speaker 1: convicted and given two consecutive life sentences for a crime
Speaker 1: they say you never commit. Well, I'm just gonna say
Speaker 1: I'm really happy that today joining us to discuss the
Speaker 1: insane case of Lamont McIntyre. We have with us Lamont's attorney,
Speaker 1: Cheryl Pilot, as well as retired FBI Special Agent Al
Speaker 1: gener Rich. Cheryl and Al, thank you for being here.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. We're glad to be here, happy
Speaker 1: to be here, and we will be hearing later on
Speaker 1: in the episode from Lamont, who will be calling in
Speaker 1: from president in Kansas, where he has been incarcerated for
Speaker 1: approximately twenty four years now since he was a teenager
Speaker 1: for a crime that he did not commit. Now, let's
Speaker 1: go back to the beginning. On April there are two
Speaker 1: men sitting in a Cadillac in Kansas City, Kansas, when
Speaker 1: they were approached by a man with a shotgun. These
Speaker 1: facts are not in dispute right and what we know
Speaker 1: is that war shots were fired into the car, killing
Speaker 1: the passenger Don yelle Quinn instantly and the driver, Donald Ewing,
Speaker 1: who died later in the hospital. And amazingly, within six hours,
Speaker 1: they managed to find a guy who had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the crime, Lamont McIntyre, who was seventeen at
Speaker 1: the time, and he was arrested and charged with two
Speaker 1: counts of first degree murder in spite of a total
Speaker 1: lack of any physical evidence connecting him to the crime.
Speaker 1: How did this happen? Cheryl? And I'll jump in whenever
Speaker 1: you want. Lamont was arrested and prosecuted after police obtained
Speaker 1: three interviews from eyewitnesses, one of them never testified, but
Speaker 1: the taped interviews of these eyewitnesses in a very serious
Speaker 1: crime obviously where someone can go to prison for the
Speaker 1: rest of their life, amounted to a total of twenty
Speaker 1: taped minutes, and one of the eyewitness is was only
Speaker 1: interviewed for four minutes. Is that an investigation? What is that?
Speaker 1: So all? You've done a lot of research and you
Speaker 1: were in the FBI for quite a while, Is that right?
Speaker 1: I was in the FBI for twenty five years. I
Speaker 1: was a special agent. I specialized in investigating police corruption.
Speaker 1: I worked in Chicago very successfully, and then in Kansas City, Kansas.
Speaker 1: Agent Jenner was not involved with this murder case at
Speaker 1: all when it happened. I knew Mr Jenner Rich through
Speaker 1: other cases and after he retired a number of years
Speaker 1: after he retired, actually and I was working on trying
Speaker 1: to achieve Lamont's exoneration, I approached him to talk to
Speaker 1: him about the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department and things
Speaker 1: that I had uncovered in my investigation. And it was
Speaker 1: at that point that Alan I started talking about some
Speaker 1: of the things he had learned while working for the FBI,
Speaker 1: and they, you know, matched up with some of the
Speaker 1: things I had uncovered in my investigation. And it was
Speaker 1: because of that that he became a witness in this
Speaker 1: case that I hope to use at our hearing. So,
Speaker 1: prior to la Month's arrest, can we talk about what
Speaker 1: was happening with this particular cop whose name was Roger Globski.
Speaker 1: Sometime around or so, I was able to open an
Speaker 1: investigation into police corruption in Kansas City, Kansas. And as
Speaker 1: the investigation went on over time, over many years, we
Speaker 1: developed maybe somewhere between twelve and fifteen police officers who
Speaker 1: were titled subjects of the investigation. Some of it involved
Speaker 1: civil rights, like beating people up, stealing their shoes when
Speaker 1: they were walking down the street because the officer like
Speaker 1: the shoes, or in the case of Glupski, you know,
Speaker 1: sexual extortion. But most of it involved corruption involving drugs,
Speaker 1: mostly cocaine. And in the course of this investigation, just
Speaker 1: by talking to people, which is when I'm pretty good
Speaker 1: at over time, you know, a number of people told
Speaker 1: us about Grupski extorting sex from black women and he
Speaker 1: liked black women. We never developed enough evidence on on
Speaker 1: Glupski to prosecute him. That's the extent of my knowledge
Speaker 1: about Grupski. I always believe that that police were good,
Speaker 1: and the police were on our side and they're there
Speaker 1: to protect us all and so I always find these stories,
Speaker 1: even as long as I've been working on this issue,
Speaker 1: and I've got twenty five years now of experience, but
Speaker 1: I always find these stories so just depressing and shocking,
Speaker 1: and it flips everything upside down. Well, like you, I
Speaker 1: was very naive until I went to Chicago and then
Speaker 1: I saw police corruption on the mass of scale. But
Speaker 1: then when I got back to Kansas City in six
Speaker 1: and it's probably got involved in Kansas City, Kansas. You know,
Speaker 1: I saw the same activity. There wasn't on the grand scale.
Speaker 1: You know that it's that it's conducted in Chicago. It's
Speaker 1: basically police officers, most of whom are white, picking on minorities,
Speaker 1: most of whom are black, some of them are Hispanic.
Speaker 1: Because when you're a drug dealer, you know, you can't
Speaker 1: go to the police the FBI and say, hey, these
Speaker 1: cops are stealing my drugs, these cops are stealing my
Speaker 1: drug money. You basically have to you have to suck
Speaker 1: it up. So that's what they do in Chicago. That's
Speaker 1: what they do everywhere. So Lamont his troubles really began
Speaker 1: when his mom was at a car with I guess
Speaker 1: was her boyfriend at the time, Cheryl Right. Glubski approached
Speaker 1: the car and told her to get out and threatened
Speaker 1: her with arrest or arrest of her boyfriend unless she
Speaker 1: agreed to come down to the police station. And then
Speaker 1: the problems really began when she refused to become one
Speaker 1: of his girls so to speak. Right, I mean, obviously
Speaker 1: she was in a terrible situation where she's very vulnerable,
Speaker 1: not able to defend herself from a cop who's willing
Speaker 1: to go to almost any lanes to fulfill his desires.
Speaker 1: She had a tremendous problem, and she decided that she
Speaker 1: wanted to maintain her dignity, really right, And so what
Speaker 1: seems like happen is that as a consequence, Gloobski decided
Speaker 1: that he would target and frame her son. And something
Speaker 1: that is so evil that, you know, makes me want
Speaker 1: to quit the human race. There was an encounter that
Speaker 1: Lamont's mother had with the detective some years earlier. I
Speaker 1: mean it was years actually before the double homicide happened.
Speaker 1: And at the time of the double homicide, my client
Speaker 1: was inexplicably dragged into the case. One of the eyewitnesses
Speaker 1: told the police she thought the shooter looked like a
Speaker 1: Lament dating her niece. Police never bothered to find out
Speaker 1: what Lamont that was. They don't go ask the niece
Speaker 1: what Lamont that was. They simply put another Lament and
Speaker 1: it's undisputed, an entirely different Lamont my client into the
Speaker 1: case and somehow obtain this identification. What's interesting about the lineup,
Speaker 1: and I've never seen anything like this before, is three
Speaker 1: of the five photos were of young male members of
Speaker 1: the MC entire family. You don't have to be a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist to say, well, that doesn't make a lot
Speaker 1: of sense. What it's one perpetrator. It's not like that
Speaker 1: somebody said there were three brothers that were involved. It's
Speaker 1: one perpetrator, you know. And then the justice system we
Speaker 1: know as a tendency to chew people up and spit
Speaker 1: them out when they are poor, particularly if they're minorities
Speaker 1: and underrepresented. It's really it's not a fair fight, is it. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, this, this whole thing um was an impossible
Speaker 1: battle for Lamont to begin with. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: the investigation itself, I don't think really qualified is is
Speaker 1: a true investigation because so little was done. No evidence
Speaker 1: of motive was ever uncovered. There was no physical evidence
Speaker 1: that tied Lamont to the crime. There was not even
Speaker 1: any evidence that he knew the two victims, their backgrounds,
Speaker 1: of the two victims, and who might have a motive
Speaker 1: to harm them. That was never investigated. There was an
Speaker 1: eyewitness directly across the street who was never interviewed, whose
Speaker 1: whose mother said, you know, she she knows who the
Speaker 1: suspect is. I mean, the the failures and lapses and
Speaker 1: irregularities in this case just go on and on. I mean,
Speaker 1: other than the twenty minutes of taped interviews from the eyewitnesses,
Speaker 1: there was very little else and the only evidence at
Speaker 1: trial against Lamont were two eyewitnesses. One of them has
Speaker 1: admitted that she lied, that she was coerced. The other
Speaker 1: eyewitness seems frankly, very perplexed by her testimony, and it's
Speaker 1: it's very clear that it's an eye witness a misidentification
Speaker 1: based on manipulation. And we know also that had this
Speaker 1: trial taken place twenty years later or so, with everything
Speaker 1: that's known now about the unreliability of eyewitness identification, there's
Speaker 1: a very good chance that that would have been discredited
Speaker 1: because there was no other evidence connecting to the crime.
Speaker 1: You take a person who's traumatized, who has just witnessed
Speaker 1: a really horrific event, and they can be pretty easy
Speaker 1: to pressure or manipulate. And in fact, this witness provided
Speaker 1: in a tape statement my client's last name, a man
Speaker 1: she did not know and had never heard of, which
Speaker 1: raises the very interesting question of who gave her the name.
Speaker 1: It was disputed at trial that she did not know
Speaker 1: my client. Yet the fact that there was an original
Speaker 1: tape statement where she provided his name never came out.
Speaker 1: That was never admitted at trial. She also stated wrongly
Speaker 1: that my client was the Lamont who had dated her niece.
Speaker 1: At trial undisputed that that was not true. It was
Speaker 1: an entirely different Lamont who was in fact identified by
Speaker 1: his name to the jury, an entirely different person. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, the whole thing is is troubling beginning to end,
Speaker 1: really a perfect storm of chaos and horror and misconduct,
Speaker 1: things being done improperly. So you have this cop in
Speaker 1: this department that is so corrupt isn't even the right word,
Speaker 1: but that's engaged in so many legal activities. And isn't
Speaker 1: it ironic and tragic that Lamont is in prison living
Speaker 1: in hell after twenty four years and this this cop
Speaker 1: who was from what I've read, raping people, robbing people,
Speaker 1: dealing drugs, protecting drug dealers, he's out. How How is that?
Speaker 1: I mean, that must not not sit well with you,
Speaker 1: with your whole background either. What I'm really hoping for,
Speaker 1: what our entire team is hoping for, and what we
Speaker 1: have sought for a long time, is a very full
Speaker 1: investigation into the activities of this detective. There needs to
Speaker 1: be an investigation by people who have the power to
Speaker 1: follow all the leads, develop information, compel the testimony of witnesses,
Speaker 1: and obtain other evidence. Let me let me turn it
Speaker 1: to you for a second, because we have not had
Speaker 1: somebody with your background and experience on the show before,
Speaker 1: and I would venture to say that you had a
Speaker 1: very very difficult and dangerous job right investigating cops. Particularly
Speaker 1: when you're investigating cops, we've got a lot to hide,
Speaker 1: makes you a very unpopular person, I would think, so,
Speaker 1: looking back on it, how did this manage to go
Speaker 1: on for so long without somebody coming along and saying, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, besides you, hey, hey, we're not going to
Speaker 1: tolerate this. They don't give a ship. At the time
Speaker 1: we were doing these investigations, the police chief of Kansas City, Kansas,
Speaker 1: a guy named Tom Daily. He had previously been indicted
Speaker 1: by the Federal Strike Force for extorting money at a
Speaker 1: whorehouses along the kar River in Kansas. He was doing
Speaker 1: that allegedly when it was a captain. He was acquitted
Speaker 1: because it was a real weak case. But after being
Speaker 1: an acquitted for extortion, the city wound up eventually making
Speaker 1: him the chief is that the actions you know, of
Speaker 1: a responsible a city administration or a police department. So
Speaker 1: he had the chief over here, Tom Dale. He had
Speaker 1: previously been indicted by the FEDS. He despised the federal government.
Speaker 1: He hated the U. S. Attorney's Office and UH and
Speaker 1: the FBI. And he's the chief. He was part of it.
Speaker 1: So you have this guy Golubski, who, in that scenario
Speaker 1: is operating basically with impunity, right because he knows his
Speaker 1: chief doesn't give a ship. And with the chief having
Speaker 1: literally what it sounds like, gotten away with that particular
Speaker 1: pattern of activity as well as I'm sure other things
Speaker 1: that he was doing. The people underneath them are probably thinking, hey,
Speaker 1: this is great, no one's going to touch us, and
Speaker 1: they're right, and nobody did. So how frustrated was that
Speaker 1: for you? There? You are really fighting an unwinnable war,
Speaker 1: right You're you're there trying to protect the public from
Speaker 1: the police force. Were the chief of police who not
Speaker 1: only doesn't give a fuck, but doesn't want that He
Speaker 1: wants you. He probably wants you to funk out of
Speaker 1: his hair so he could just you know, run the
Speaker 1: streets how he wants to write. When I started working
Speaker 1: over there. You had a person, you know, some guy
Speaker 1: I knew, had a lot of people in the county jail,
Speaker 1: and they would say so and so confronted me and
Speaker 1: stole my money, stole my drugs. You go, what, what's
Speaker 1: the CoP's name? I don't know his name. You know
Speaker 1: what's he looked like? Well, you know he's some white guy.
Speaker 1: Well you go to the police. The police did not
Speaker 1: have photographs of their police officers, So if a victim
Speaker 1: came in there alleging that so and so officer robbed
Speaker 1: from me, extorted me, they didn't even have photographs to
Speaker 1: show people so they could identify who the police officer was.
Speaker 1: So good luck, you know, through the U. S. Attorney's Office,
Speaker 1: through UH Julie Robinson, who was a prosecutor at the time,
Speaker 1: we subpoenaed photographs of every sworn officer in the Kansas City,
Speaker 1: Kansas Police Department, and there was how to pay for that.
Speaker 1: I was almost removed from the investigation because of that.
Speaker 1: You know, I think one of the problems is that
Speaker 1: other law enforcement officers don't want to investigate law enforcement
Speaker 1: and as a general rule, I think they find it
Speaker 1: distasteful something they would rather avoid and there is a
Speaker 1: tendency to minimize misconduct. I found that really pretty shocking,
Speaker 1: not in light of everything else we're talking about, but
Speaker 1: I can see how you would, and it's it really
Speaker 1: gets easier and easier to see how these wrongful convictions
Speaker 1: are so common. I mean, here we have an interesting situation, right,
Speaker 1: We're talking to Al, who's in there with his badge
Speaker 1: working for the Federal Beer of Investigation and basically being
Speaker 1: told go fund himself. So what chance does a seventeen
Speaker 1: year old black kid from the poorer side of town,
Speaker 1: what chance does he have against this blue wall, this
Speaker 1: blue monster that was out to get him. He had
Speaker 1: no chance. So now fast forward to twenty four years later,
Speaker 1: Lamont sits in a prison studying reading. By all accounts,
Speaker 1: a model prisoner, somebody who maintains a positive outlook in
Speaker 1: spite of this. You know what can only be described
Speaker 1: as the worst faith that can be fall an individual
Speaker 1: to be cars rave or something he didn't do for
Speaker 1: the rest of your life. But now we have hope, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, he has hope thanks to you and the
Speaker 1: years of work that you've done in this case and
Speaker 1: Al and other brave people who have devoted their time
Speaker 1: and in some cases probably even risk their own personal
Speaker 1: safety to try to get justice in this case. What
Speaker 1: does it look like now? What happens next? Tell us
Speaker 1: what's going on. We have a evidentiary hearing coming up
Speaker 1: in October and we intend to present somewhere between forty
Speaker 1: and fifty witnesses who provide very powerful testimony on various
Speaker 1: aspects of the case. Was almost nothing really to support
Speaker 1: the conviction to begin with, nothing other than the testimony
Speaker 1: of the two eye witnesses, and I believe that has
Speaker 1: been thoroughly shredded at this point through recantations and admissions
Speaker 1: and the result of other investigation. And we are also
Speaker 1: focusing on the very troubling misconduct in the case. It
Speaker 1: is intimately connected to how the investigation was conducted, and
Speaker 1: we're going to bring all that out and show how
Speaker 1: we believe this went wrong, and we very much hope
Speaker 1: to be successful. What's the date of the hearing October twelfth.
Speaker 1: October twelfth, And is this in a federal court. We
Speaker 1: are in Windout County District Court, which is a state court.
Speaker 1: My client is litigating what's called a successive petition under
Speaker 1: sixty fIF seven and you have essentially a procedural barrier
Speaker 1: to get over before you can get back into court.
Speaker 1: But we do have this evidentiary hearing schedule that we
Speaker 1: are very very excited about. One of the most compelling
Speaker 1: things about the case we haven't mentioned this yet, is
Speaker 1: that the families of both victims have always known my
Speaker 1: client is innocent and are very much squarely supporting the
Speaker 1: quest to free him. They know that they did not
Speaker 1: get justice, their families did not get justice, and that cheryld.
Speaker 1: In your experience, that's not a common thing, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: most of the cases I've seen, even in the face
Speaker 1: of what could be overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the
Speaker 1: victims families sometimes stick with what they've been told all
Speaker 1: along because they just can't. They can't even process the
Speaker 1: idea that they may have been lied to and that
Speaker 1: the wrong person may have been serving time for the
Speaker 1: for the murder of their loved one. So in this case,
Speaker 1: this is a very unusual scenario, isn't it It is?
Speaker 1: And one of the eyewitnesses is related to both of
Speaker 1: the victims, and she her family in the family of
Speaker 1: the second victim, to whom she's a bit more distantly related,
Speaker 1: have always told me that they have known from the
Speaker 1: beginning that the authorities got the wrong man. They have
Speaker 1: always known this. They've made periodic efforts to correct this,
Speaker 1: to address this, to try and get some justice, all
Speaker 1: without success. And if there wasn't already enough to chew on,
Speaker 1: this is the part that really just sets me off,
Speaker 1: his courter pointed. Attorney Gary Long was on supervised probation
Speaker 1: at the time of the trial for failing to diligently
Speaker 1: handle three prior cases. He was suspended from the bar
Speaker 1: a couple of years later for failure to adequately hinder
Speaker 1: a separate criminal case, and he was this bar. How
Speaker 1: is it even possible that, in a life or death
Speaker 1: situation that you take somebody and you say, you know what,
Speaker 1: we're going to give you a lawyer who's already messed
Speaker 1: up three times when I said nobody gives a ship.
Speaker 1: Do you understand what I mean? Do you know that
Speaker 1: that you know that Tara Moore had you know she's
Speaker 1: now a federal prosecutor. Yes, So Tara Moorehead was the
Speaker 1: prosecutor in this case. Obviously didn't see anything wrong with
Speaker 1: her prosecuting a case in which a young man's life
Speaker 1: was at stake in front of a judge with whom
Speaker 1: she had carried on an affair a few years earlier.
Speaker 1: I think most reasonable people would agree that one or
Speaker 1: the other should have been recused from this particular scenario,
Speaker 1: because even if they were saints, and obviously they weren't,
Speaker 1: because she's also the same woman from what I've read,
Speaker 1: who threatened a witness who tried to come forward with
Speaker 1: the truth with losing custody of her own children. But yes,
Speaker 1: and now she's moved up the ladder. Seems like all
Speaker 1: the bad guys have won here. Al what the fuck? Well?
Speaker 1: I think are more heads currently married to a police officer.
Speaker 1: I think there's some other prosecutors over in the federal U. S.
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office that are married to other police officers. So
Speaker 1: you're not going to expect them to investigate police corruption,
Speaker 1: are you? Well? I guess that would make it tricky,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it. They're not going to do it, and they don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, there there's so much that could be investigated
Speaker 1: that ought to be investigated, and you know, I I
Speaker 1: should also point out that sexual misconduct among police officers
Speaker 1: is not unusual in some departments. When you have poor
Speaker 1: and vulnerable people encounter folks with ultimate authority over them,
Speaker 1: ultimate authority in that particular moment. You know, those things
Speaker 1: can happen all too easily, and they do, and they
Speaker 1: happen frequently. You know, when I was in age, and
Speaker 1: I'm about six ft four, I had a gun, a
Speaker 1: badge and radio and everything. At nighttime when I was
Speaker 1: on my way home or on the weekends, I would
Speaker 1: not drive to Kansas City, Kansas, unless I was accompanied
Speaker 1: by another FBI agent. Thought they might have run you
Speaker 1: off the road or something else. They could do anything.
Speaker 1: They could pull me over and not saying they don't
Speaker 1: know who I was, and they could say, pulled a
Speaker 1: gun and they could shoot me. So I have all
Speaker 1: that power and authority. What is some little black kid
Speaker 1: on the street half. I hope that in exposing the
Speaker 1: story of Lamont and some of the things that you've
Speaker 1: shared out that people, you know, get their backs up
Speaker 1: and get get angry and get involved. These are just people,
Speaker 1: They're just regular people, and they're they're being so terribly
Speaker 1: abused and victimized by people who are supposed to protect them.
Speaker 1: I I don't it makes me sick. I just say
Speaker 1: that the fear and the terror that some of the
Speaker 1: citizens experience cannot be overstated. I mean, you have someone
Speaker 1: with a badge with ultimate and really, as I said
Speaker 1: in that moment, unchecked authority, is enormous fear of the
Speaker 1: police and enormous, sometimes unmovable resistance to getting involved in
Speaker 1: anything that has to do with the criminal justice system.
Speaker 1: I've spent some years, honestly just earning the trust of
Speaker 1: some people in the community so that they will sit
Speaker 1: down and speak with me so that we can investigate
Speaker 1: the case. Nobody wants anything to do with a case
Speaker 1: you say, courthouse people walk the other way. They don't
Speaker 1: want anything to do with that. And ultimately we have
Speaker 1: been successful in securing some very good witnesses because they
Speaker 1: did want to help someone they've viewed as innocent. And
Speaker 1: you know, I should point out here that all of
Speaker 1: the street talk we have ever heard in the community
Speaker 1: is that Lamont is innocent, the guy who got wrongfully convicted.
Speaker 1: It's like everyone knows, the whole community knows. The victims
Speaker 1: family leads no. Everyone knows Lamont did not do this.
Speaker 1: Everyone knows. You have a prepaid call from an innate
Speaker 1: at Kansas Department of Corrections Lansing Correctional Facility. To accept
Speaker 1: this call, press or say five to refuse. This call
Speaker 1: will be recorded and subject to monitoring. At any time.
Speaker 1: You may begin speaking now, Lamont, welcome to the show. So, Lamont,
Speaker 1: I want to go back to the beginning, when you
Speaker 1: grew up and how this all started. I've seen photos
Speaker 1: of you with your family. Looked like you had not
Speaker 1: an easy but a happy childhood. Is that fair? Can
Speaker 1: you just describe what it was like. I've heard you
Speaker 1: talk about Christmas and stuff. Uh. Yeah, we was tightened it,
Speaker 1: you know. I was like my mother was just only
Speaker 1: paying in the house and it was close me and
Speaker 1: my siblings, and we did everything together. We stayed in
Speaker 1: one house, you know, we to carry of each other.
Speaker 1: So glowing off of me was my family was a
Speaker 1: big day. Didn't really bite about a lot of stuff.
Speaker 1: And I was me and my three brothers and my sister.
Speaker 1: My was a sister. My mother worked a lot, so
Speaker 1: my sister kind of watched that. There was a little
Speaker 1: bit some other family members liked to go with my
Speaker 1: family member's house uncles and be around them. Our mother
Speaker 1: was at work. I kind of still stayed around family
Speaker 1: I sat at my home, so real, family oriented and
Speaker 1: where you grew up. You had no idea at this
Speaker 1: time that the police force was really as corrupt as
Speaker 1: anyone could possibly imagine until this terrible incident occurred. And
Speaker 1: I want to go back to that. What happened. You
Speaker 1: were a setvent teen year old kid going along with
Speaker 1: your life, trying to make it in a difficult place,
Speaker 1: and then one day out of the blue, you get
Speaker 1: arrested and don't even know what's going on or what happened. Uh,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what happened. And I was it was a
Speaker 1: typical day. It was like a Friday, typical day. I
Speaker 1: was in Rode in a Downey Common program where it's
Speaker 1: all time of school when they wu help you get
Speaker 1: your high school to phone, and then that gets you
Speaker 1: in uh college, so like a little degree program as
Speaker 1: a part of and um, it was just a Friday.
Speaker 1: I get a call phone call saying the police over
Speaker 1: my grandmother's house looking for me. Called my mother. We
Speaker 1: go to the police station and they started talking about
Speaker 1: two murders. And I had no answers for him because
Speaker 1: I don't know if they were saying what they were
Speaker 1: talking about. So from that moment I was arrested, charged
Speaker 1: and uh eventually convicted of two murders. Then I had
Speaker 1: in the way what about And we know now that
Speaker 1: they were deliberately targeting you because of this particular police
Speaker 1: officer who was up to all kinds of criminal activity himself.
Speaker 1: And that's the irony of this is that he belongs
Speaker 1: in jail, and I'm hoping that by the end of
Speaker 1: this that's exactly what's going to happen. But the idea
Speaker 1: that this system, this so called justice system, had made
Speaker 1: a decision that you were going to be there. Guy,
Speaker 1: there was this double murder, right, two guys sitting in
Speaker 1: a car. They were involved in drug activity. They were dealers.
Speaker 1: We now know also that one of them had been
Speaker 1: beaten by the guys he was working for in the
Speaker 1: drug business. Right, he was working as a doorman in
Speaker 1: a crack then, and he had feared for his life,
Speaker 1: and in fact he had good reason to because I
Speaker 1: guess he had from what I've learned he has been
Speaker 1: he had been stealing from them, so that every reason
Speaker 1: and to know that this was a drug hit, and
Speaker 1: you weren't involved in that game or that business. Did
Speaker 1: you know these guys. I didn't know the witnesses, I
Speaker 1: don't know the victims that I would have connected to
Speaker 1: it at all. That's why I so it's so hard
Speaker 1: for me to understand how something that could happen because
Speaker 1: and I was forward about everything. I don't try to
Speaker 1: hide nothing because I knew that what they were talking
Speaker 1: about that time, I had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 1: I would involved. I don't know what the police officer's
Speaker 1: motive was to plan it on meal. I still don't
Speaker 1: know to this day what happened. Well, it does seem
Speaker 1: like now with everything we've learned that the officer involved,
Speaker 1: the first one who arrived on the scene was an
Speaker 1: officer named Glubski. It's a white guy who had a
Speaker 1: proclivity for women of color and when he didn't get
Speaker 1: his way, he would exact revenge. And so what it
Speaker 1: seems like is that in this particular case, he targeted
Speaker 1: you be because your mom wasn't having any part of that.
Speaker 1: And that's what makes this particularly sinister and sick. You
Speaker 1: end up going to trial, and I find it interesting,
Speaker 1: among all the other things in your case, that they
Speaker 1: offers you a plea bargain right and you didn't take it.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't the rest of the plea bargain. I can't
Speaker 1: understand how I sit in this situation, and I hadn't
Speaker 1: know nothing about the time itself. Sole bargains. Far from
Speaker 1: my mom I was, and why I find that and
Speaker 1: why I brought that up, Lemon, And I've seen the
Speaker 1: mugshot picture of you, and it really hurt my heart
Speaker 1: because I could see in your face just how confused
Speaker 1: you were and scared of a situation that you couldn't
Speaker 1: possibly imagine what was happening at that time. I also
Speaker 1: would think that if you were guilty and they're offering
Speaker 1: you a deal and you know your chances of winning
Speaker 1: in the court are going to be low because they
Speaker 1: have all these cops and everybody else is going to testify,
Speaker 1: I guess you would have taken the plea bar and
Speaker 1: anybody with the right mind would take a plea bargain.
Speaker 1: You're not crazy, are you right? You don't You don't
Speaker 1: sound crazy. You don't sound crazy at all. So in
Speaker 1: the situation like this, I mean, we have in this
Speaker 1: country over cases end up in plea bargains. So had
Speaker 1: you been guilty, that would have been a very logical
Speaker 1: thing to do. But as an innocent person and probably
Speaker 1: somebody who still trusted in the system, you went forward
Speaker 1: with your right to a trial, and you were represented
Speaker 1: by a guy who they knew your court appointed lawyer.
Speaker 1: They knew this guy was incompetent because he had already
Speaker 1: been disciplined for three previous cases that he had completely botched.
Speaker 1: It almost sounds like they did it on purpose. They
Speaker 1: assigned a guy who didn't go and interview witnesses, who
Speaker 1: didn't really didn't do anything he was supposed to do.
Speaker 1: And what was that like? Were you aware at that
Speaker 1: time that this guy wasn't I mean, I don't even
Speaker 1: know if it was really on your side, but I mean,
Speaker 1: as you're watching these proceedings, what were you thinking? Like
Speaker 1: a lawyer? He presented itself like a person is there
Speaker 1: on my behind to take care of this business, and
Speaker 1: he's seeing real professional at first, So I didn't know
Speaker 1: what to expect because I've never been in that situation
Speaker 1: before anyway, So his first impression was for me, it
Speaker 1: was a good impression because I didn't know what a
Speaker 1: lawyer was supposed to do. I was so ignorant to
Speaker 1: the law and our thing work. I just believed in
Speaker 1: the justice system at that time. I really did. I
Speaker 1: thought there was no possible way, being an innocent person
Speaker 1: or person that has nothing to do with that crime,
Speaker 1: that I would be found guilty. So I don't really
Speaker 1: pay too much attention to the credibility of this lawyer.
Speaker 1: It didn't die on me that I would be found
Speaker 1: guilty of the crime that I had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with it. So I didn't really think about it in
Speaker 1: those times. I was just thinking, you can't give me
Speaker 1: any lawyer, anybody from anywhere, and it'll be okay because
Speaker 1: once they realized they had the wrong person to get
Speaker 1: ironed out and trial, That's what I was thinking. But
Speaker 1: I didn't plan all how to think that people would
Speaker 1: get on the stand and line. It was on fabricade,
Speaker 1: and I didn't think that was gonna happen. I had
Speaker 1: no idea that they had already made up in their
Speaker 1: mind and I was going to escape God for this
Speaker 1: particular crime. So definitely being needed at a law and
Speaker 1: have these work in the justice system. I believe in
Speaker 1: the justice system at that time. I really did. I
Speaker 1: think all of us do when we're kids, especially brought
Speaker 1: up in a good home like you were. You brought
Speaker 1: up to believe that people are good and that the
Speaker 1: system is is going to work for you, and then
Speaker 1: you had a lawyer who, had he been competent, I
Speaker 1: still think would have one your case in spite of
Speaker 1: all this, because of the simple fact that it was
Speaker 1: an easy case. The witnesses were not credible at all.
Speaker 1: We now know that they also withheld exculpatory evidence, So
Speaker 1: you really didn't have a fair chance, especially not with
Speaker 1: a lawyer who was incompetent. And ultimately, let's not forget
Speaker 1: that this particular lawyer was disbarred not too long after
Speaker 1: your trial. And again for the listeners out there, think
Speaker 1: about that, this is a guy who had been disciplined
Speaker 1: in new merce cases prior to laments and then ultimately
Speaker 1: gets disbarred when the extent of his gross incompetence is
Speaker 1: brought to the Supreme Court of Kansas, the attention to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, and then he voluntarily gave up his
Speaker 1: license to practice law. And that wasn't the end of
Speaker 1: the nightmare. We now know too that your appellate lawyer
Speaker 1: was disbarred. I mean, you can't even make this stuff up.
Speaker 1: So what happened like now you're in the courtroom, the
Speaker 1: jury goes out, the arguments have been made. You saw
Speaker 1: these witnesses get up and lie. You saw these police
Speaker 1: officers get up and lie. Your defense made whatever arguments
Speaker 1: they made. Did you believe that they would come back
Speaker 1: and declare you innocent? I did. I did five of
Speaker 1: them up being I did. I just didn't know that
Speaker 1: this is how to sit them work. They found me
Speaker 1: guilty based all all evidence, for the kind of evidence
Speaker 1: by a certain as your attorney. They heard stuff about me.
Speaker 1: There wasn't even about Lemar Magnetize, and she just kind
Speaker 1: of made self up. They told his story, and the
Speaker 1: jury believed. But at the time before they came back
Speaker 1: with a guilty Birdie, I still didn't think I'll be
Speaker 1: found guilty because the whole time I'm sitting there, in
Speaker 1: the whole time I'm going through the process of getting
Speaker 1: to trial, I still had no knowledge of the actual crime.
Speaker 1: So I'm thinking, with my young mind being naive, that
Speaker 1: there's no way a jury can finally guilty when I'm
Speaker 1: really not guilty, when I had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 1: I'm not tied to it at all. The witnesses, the
Speaker 1: victims I'm not tied to it. I was in the
Speaker 1: area when it happened. When they came in, I noticed
Speaker 1: that no juries, no one looked me in my face,
Speaker 1: no one looked looked up. Everyone came in looking down
Speaker 1: at the floor. So I kind of had an eerie feeling,
Speaker 1: but I still had hope that it will work out
Speaker 1: in the right way. So when they read the verdict
Speaker 1: and they said guilty, it's like I've seen my whole
Speaker 1: life flash before me and I and for that moment,
Speaker 1: I fosed and I was sitting there and I stood up,
Speaker 1: and I remember saying something. I was screaming something, you know,
Speaker 1: to the effects of I'm not guilty, and you got
Speaker 1: the wrong person whatever. And I felt someone holding me
Speaker 1: or wrapping me from behind, and I wasn't shot, so
Speaker 1: I didn't really I was like a lost moment. But
Speaker 1: I turned around and I see my mother hold me, screaming,
Speaker 1: crying like don't take my baby away from me, don't
Speaker 1: take my baby. And I'm looking at her and I
Speaker 1: realized that this is a serious situation now, but it
Speaker 1: still didn't feel real. It was my life in my situation,
Speaker 1: but it didn't feel like my life in my situation.
Speaker 1: I felt like I was outside of myself looking at
Speaker 1: this event happened. I couldn't stop it. So I wasn't
Speaker 1: shot and that shot lasted for a few years after
Speaker 1: that I was in shot. So now now you're convicted
Speaker 1: of a double murder and sentence to life in prison?
Speaker 1: Where did they take you to the processes? Like? From
Speaker 1: this time you get them victed Standing County for about
Speaker 1: two months, then you go to citizen Now the how
Speaker 1: cinis in Wanna County. They gave me to life sentences
Speaker 1: to ron consecutive. You never that. They sent me to
Speaker 1: a process of center which we call RDU, where they
Speaker 1: see you to determine what classification you would be, what
Speaker 1: custody you would be in. I was considered max custody.
Speaker 1: So from there they sent me to prison other than us.
Speaker 1: That's a that's a prison in Kansas they called Glady
Speaker 1: in the school, one of those tough prisons. You know, people,
Speaker 1: you know, it's a prison. It's like the work not
Speaker 1: did you have a prison? Is that more? Is this dark?
Speaker 1: Is negative? This pension feel he's hopelessness. It's a world
Speaker 1: that is all I was just seventeen year old. Did
Speaker 1: you have plans. Did you have a career mind, what
Speaker 1: was the outlook for the future. We're still just trying
Speaker 1: to figure it out. Yeah, I wasthing I wanted to do,
Speaker 1: and it was just I was I was been gude
Speaker 1: in the line, and I was just in a place
Speaker 1: where everybody around me was either dine or going to
Speaker 1: jail or I was just in the kind of remindment.
Speaker 1: It didn't produce a lot of hope. I didn't have.
Speaker 1: I didn't have a lot of people to look up
Speaker 1: to or emula, nothing like that. But I did enjoy
Speaker 1: taking care of my family. So my life was just
Speaker 1: basically about trying to take care of my family the
Speaker 1: best way I know how, or to look out for
Speaker 1: my loved ones. You know, I had skills and things
Speaker 1: I could do, Like I was a barber, I was
Speaker 1: cutting hair since I was twelve. You know, I was
Speaker 1: comedian and I had these in the back of my mind.
Speaker 1: I wanted to be a comedian and I had things
Speaker 1: I wanted to do. I just didn't know how to
Speaker 1: get to where I wanted to be. But I still
Speaker 1: didn't think that my life was of being in prison
Speaker 1: or going to jail, being in this kind of situation.
Speaker 1: What is a typical day like for you on the inside?
Speaker 1: How do you get through to it? What's the schedule? Uh,
Speaker 1: typical day. Typical day is re readjusted. It's like from
Speaker 1: Hunt day to the nexus. Finding a way to get
Speaker 1: by for one day, a line something for my days,
Speaker 1: and then I just try to it just sucks. I
Speaker 1: gotta repeat it like if I have a bad day
Speaker 1: or I'm frustrated for one day, I'm going to sleep,
Speaker 1: wake up to repeat this day again. So I try
Speaker 1: to find the best I can or get the best
Speaker 1: I can out of a day, because waking up to
Speaker 1: repeat it is the anxiety. That's where all that the
Speaker 1: worst stuff is knowing of it. For the last twenty
Speaker 1: three years and two huntres some months and they have
Speaker 1: a on a weeks and eight thousand days. It's the
Speaker 1: same thing. It never changes. So I devote my time
Speaker 1: to read it and studying and write like music right, poetry,
Speaker 1: trying to keep my mind free as possible. I try
Speaker 1: to stay out of prison mentionally. I tried out to.
Speaker 1: I'm not into prison politics, I'm not in prison mentally,
Speaker 1: but I'm here. I had to be my body here.
Speaker 1: But I try to keep my mind far from this
Speaker 1: places i can, so it's just a bunch of moments
Speaker 1: of readjusting every day. And I have a lot of
Speaker 1: love people that love me and care about me, so
Speaker 1: I'll focus on that. But it's bad. It used to
Speaker 1: be a lot worse than it is. Now. I'm starting
Speaker 1: to see I'm coming alive now because I can see
Speaker 1: a light at the end of this dark tundle. I've
Speaker 1: been there for so long, so I'm better now. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it wasn't so good before. It's better now. But it
Speaker 1: was always sad to wake up. I had to repeat
Speaker 1: this same cycle over and over again. That stuff is
Speaker 1: another drive of person crazy. There's a lot of moments
Speaker 1: where I felt like it's the point, you know, to
Speaker 1: keep going to wake up every day that I had
Speaker 1: to deal with the exact same nightmare you're trying to
Speaker 1: escape from the night before. But I had my mother,
Speaker 1: like she never gave up on me from day one.
Speaker 1: Like when the worst moments of my life, you know,
Speaker 1: I felt like I just couldn't do it no more
Speaker 1: so that I couldn't take another step. She would show
Speaker 1: up and when she would grab me and hold me
Speaker 1: and looked at my face of mean, this is not
Speaker 1: my life. I passed through, this is not my destination.
Speaker 1: And so I had a lot of support my family
Speaker 1: and and I gave my life to God and I
Speaker 1: pray a lot of meditate a lot. So initially I
Speaker 1: was kind of in this dark place where I was
Speaker 1: so hurt and sad and depressed, and so I kept
Speaker 1: people kept coming to my life. There was like beacons
Speaker 1: of light and hope for me and I and I
Speaker 1: and I thank God for all those people came into
Speaker 1: my life and supported me, and they short it up.
Speaker 1: I always have something to look forward to, because this
Speaker 1: is a dark place. It's a dark situation where if
Speaker 1: you don't have enough support. For me, it was just supporting.
Speaker 1: I found it supportant. Then years later Sheryl and to
Speaker 1: turn our ministries and innocent projects, they kept start coming
Speaker 1: into my life and they breathe, uh, they breathe license
Speaker 1: to me, it's like my second wind. And I'm grateful
Speaker 1: for those people. Everybody was for me and everybody who
Speaker 1: put forth effort, go out every day and do something
Speaker 1: to help me get my life back. I'm, however, grateful
Speaker 1: for those people. If you're even allow yourself, if you
Speaker 1: allow your mind to go there. What are you dreaming
Speaker 1: about when you get out? Because I'm convinced you are
Speaker 1: going to come home and I'm gonna be there fighting
Speaker 1: right alongside with everybody else. What's the first thing you
Speaker 1: want to do? And then how do you see the
Speaker 1: future The first day I'm gonna do with eat something.
Speaker 1: That's what I fantasized about. Mostly, I want to eat
Speaker 1: something that is there. From there, I want to have
Speaker 1: some type of impact or effect on young people making
Speaker 1: poor decisions. It was eventively uh landed in a situation
Speaker 1: like this, you know. So I want to just raise
Speaker 1: any kind of awareness I can about decision making because
Speaker 1: you know, had I've been told how to make better
Speaker 1: decisions to myself. I think even no I was even
Speaker 1: to the law and this is something that had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with me, and uh that I still gonna
Speaker 1: been making better insist myself before this stuff even came about.
Speaker 1: So I don't want to be able to be there
Speaker 1: for young people as much as I can. So I
Speaker 1: can I can help them understand that even though you
Speaker 1: don't do something wrong, even though you don't commit a crime,
Speaker 1: you can be you still got to be accountable and
Speaker 1: you still got to be a mindful of the fact
Speaker 1: that you're out there floating around and you can easily
Speaker 1: be put in a situation like that, and if you're
Speaker 1: not being productive and doing something this uh productive out
Speaker 1: their life. So I just want to be able to
Speaker 1: reach the young people as much as I can, and
Speaker 1: now that there's that to be young, just anybody, I
Speaker 1: don't want to be able to share my experience and
Speaker 1: hopefully in all help out in any kind of way.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that you will do that, and then you're
Speaker 1: gonna have a very positive impact on a lot of
Speaker 1: people because you have a very rare combination of intelligence
Speaker 1: and a manner that is so positive and strong but
Speaker 1: still gentle that I believe that you'll be able to
Speaker 1: affect a lot of a lot of young people, and
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to watching you do that. There's one
Speaker 1: other thing I wanted to raise. I'm always amazed when
Speaker 1: I speak to someone in your situation, and especially so
Speaker 1: with you, that you don't seem to be bitter after
Speaker 1: everything that's happened. And I know you talked about your
Speaker 1: faith and family and the strength that you get from
Speaker 1: from them, But how is it possible that someone can
Speaker 1: go through this most unimaginable nightmare, still be in it
Speaker 1: and yet be as positive and strong as you are now. Well,
Speaker 1: I had my moments with anger. Books You've always like
Speaker 1: taking point and hoping someone else died from it. I
Speaker 1: would only want to affect about me being angry. No
Speaker 1: one else seeing the notice of attention to me being angry.
Speaker 1: So how is this a learning experience? Like being angry
Speaker 1: doesn't help me? So I didn't want to help myself
Speaker 1: because I know I always knew I was gonna be
Speaker 1: here forever. I know that basically the truth was surface
Speaker 1: and I would have a life outside of it. Oh,
Speaker 1: so I devoted a lot of time and energy towards
Speaker 1: helping myself, and I hurt myself. So being angry was
Speaker 1: something that was a hinterest to me, not a benefit.
Speaker 1: So I try to say positive because these places you
Speaker 1: got to keep up with a seven take care of yourself,
Speaker 1: and anger and stress and all those things is just
Speaker 1: short in your life span, and I got to like
Speaker 1: to live. So I just choose. I choose to be positive.
Speaker 1: I choose to not be angry and allow anger to
Speaker 1: kill me. I don't want to die in this place,
Speaker 1: and I don't want to have a short life. So
Speaker 1: I stick firm to what I believe in, and I
Speaker 1: believe in my faith, and I believe in meditation, I
Speaker 1: believe in exercise. I'm believing to take care of my mom,
Speaker 1: body and soul. And that's another to vote my time too. Wow. Um,
Speaker 1: all I can do is tell you that you have
Speaker 1: you have all my respect and support. And I was saying, then,
Speaker 1: you know, I've seen too many miracles to stop believing
Speaker 1: in miracles. So I'm excited to watch you be the
Speaker 1: next one or one of the next ones, and we'll
Speaker 1: never stop fighting for you and for other people in
Speaker 1: your situation. I'm looking forward to a positive outcome and
Speaker 1: to getting to know you on the outside the mind.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to turn it over to you and
Speaker 1: say it is your microphone. What do you want to
Speaker 1: share with the audience? Well, these these kind of cases
Speaker 1: having or more than they should, you know. So it's
Speaker 1: like I always see on TV or day line, we
Speaker 1: see anything man so many years in prison didn't get exonerated,
Speaker 1: and you see this happened time and time again. But
Speaker 1: what you never ever see a hairy here about how
Speaker 1: much that stuff impact the effect of the families, but
Speaker 1: those people like I had a post knit family. We
Speaker 1: was close and it was a thing. This is not
Speaker 1: just like me being affected by it, invent it happened
Speaker 1: in my life. It hurts me to see how much
Speaker 1: how much it affected not only me, was my family.
Speaker 1: And it's difficult because if theF a man had to
Speaker 1: go through a certain thing by himself, that's a that's
Speaker 1: his life, that's his his path and life. He got
Speaker 1: to go through that. I had to do what I
Speaker 1: had to do, no matter what. But when you see
Speaker 1: someone you care about being affected about what you had
Speaker 1: to do or what you had to endure, it it's
Speaker 1: a it's a different kind of feeling. And it's like
Speaker 1: people don't really pay attentions that I know about that,
Speaker 1: Like when uh, this is attorneys of of being dishonest
Speaker 1: when they're trying to get from victions and all that.
Speaker 1: I don't think they take that consideration how many people
Speaker 1: they are affecting, but just not going by the law,
Speaker 1: just not being truthful about certain things, not just me,
Speaker 1: whatever issue personal issue they may add about with me.
Speaker 1: My family is affected by that, my brothers, my brother's kids.
Speaker 1: When all this happened and they feel like they lost
Speaker 1: a mother because my mother devoted so much time for
Speaker 1: trying to give me back out of the system that
Speaker 1: they felt like they were neglected. So they were affected
Speaker 1: by that. My older sister was affected, my brother was affected.
Speaker 1: I mean, everybody was affected. One minute remaining and when
Speaker 1: you're trying to hold onto something good, even when you're
Speaker 1: trying to get something good in this kind of situation,
Speaker 1: there's still nothing good come from it. It's just always bad.
Speaker 1: It's always negative as always a challenge is always hurdles,
Speaker 1: so always something. But for the person that's in the
Speaker 1: middle of it, that's just my experience. But on the
Speaker 1: outside of it, that's something people don't never get a
Speaker 1: chance to see. That's that's that's just a harsh or
Speaker 1: harsh reality for a person to live based on someone
Speaker 1: else being in competition when all this stuff basically could
Speaker 1: have been avoided by someone just doing their job. But
Speaker 1: the job people was uh employed them to do, you know.
Speaker 1: So I think people should understand that and know that
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people to be affected by something
Speaker 1: like that. I think a lot of tissues should be
Speaker 1: brought to this moment and this kind of situation. So
Speaker 1: a lot of people can uh, if you ever find
Speaker 1: another person that situation, it can be more mindful of that,
Speaker 1: try to help in a different kind of way. They could,
Speaker 1: because it's not just about me, somebody everybody here about.
Speaker 1: On October thirteenth, two thousand seventeen, Wayan Dot County District
Speaker 1: Attorney Mark dupri moved to vacate the conviction and dismissed
Speaker 1: all charges against Lamont. Hours later, Lamont McIntyre walked out
Speaker 1: of the courthouse a free man for the first time
Speaker 1: in over twenty three years. Since then, Lamont has won
Speaker 1: his wrong conviction civil suit, as well as a civil
Speaker 1: suit against a number of officers, including Roger Globski. The
Speaker 1: suit included the initials of at least seventy three other
Speaker 1: women that Glupski allegedly victimized. After thirty years in the
Speaker 1: uniform of the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department, Roger Glupski
Speaker 1: went to work for nearby Edwardsville p D in two
Speaker 1: thousand ten. Since Lamont's exoneration, Glupski faces three criminal indictments,
Speaker 1: and from what I understand, there are more on the way.
Speaker 1: It's also been rumored that Glupski may have been an
Speaker 1: active participant in at least a dozen murders. And while
Speaker 1: there might be an attempt to cut him down as
Speaker 1: only one bad apple, we must remember as a director
Speaker 1: of the Midwest Innocence Project, Tricia Bushnell put it, quote
Speaker 1: there's an entire system that not only permitted him to
Speaker 1: do it, but supported him and promoted him end quote.
Speaker 1: Golubski had been made captain and his former partner was
Speaker 1: chief of police until two thousand nineteen. Thank you for
Speaker 1: listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank our production
Speaker 1: team Connor Hall, Jeff Clyverne, and Kevin Wardis, with research
Speaker 1: by Lila Robinson. The music in this production was supplied
Speaker 1: by three time Oscar nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure
Speaker 1: to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook
Speaker 1: at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction,
Speaker 1: as 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 flock Rangful Conviction is a production of
Speaker 1: babl for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company. Number
Speaker 1: one m