Speaker 1: We originally released our interview with Lamon McIntyre on September
Speaker 1: twenty fifth, twenty seventeen. Since then, a monumental shift has
Speaker 1: occurred in the dynamic that resulted with Lamont behind bars
Speaker 1: and the guy who deliberately framed him for a crime
Speaker 1: he didn't commit living free as a detective for Kansas City, Kansas.
Speaker 1: It's alleged that Roger Golupski was notorious in the black
Speaker 1: community for using his authority to coerce women into sexual
Speaker 1: acts in exchange for leniency, turning a blind eye, or
Speaker 1: just for the courtesy of having him not frame them
Speaker 1: or a family member. I'm cautiously optimistic about what appears
Speaker 1: to be the beginning of some semblance of justice for
Speaker 1: Gallupski and the good people of Kansas City. Gallupski has
Speaker 1: now been formally charged in several cases. In September twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two for two counts of sexual assault the same
Speaker 1: mom as we just mentioned, and then in November twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, an indictment was revealed in which Glupski was
Speaker 1: alleged to have conspired with a drug kingpin to run
Speaker 1: a sex trafficking operation that routinely victimized miners. Kallupski allegedly
Speaker 1: shielded the operation from investigation in exchange for cash and
Speaker 1: sexual acts from his choice of girls. One of the
Speaker 1: victims alleged that Glupski choked and raped her when she
Speaker 1: was just sixteen years old. Klupski maintains his innocence, but
Speaker 1: if these allegations are true, I hope he burns in
Speaker 1: the very real hell in which he puts so many
Speaker 1: innocent and at risk people. On April fifteenth, nineteen ninety four,
Speaker 1: Donnielle Quinn and Donald Ewing were fatally shot while sitting
Speaker 1: at a powder blue Cadillac when a man dressed in
Speaker 1: black pumped four shotgun rounds into the car, and one
Speaker 1: alleged witness claimed to have recognized the shooter as an acquaintance,
Speaker 1: quote unquote Laman Something. Another witness identified seventeen year old
Speaker 1: Lamont McIntyre from a photo lineup. Both witnesses made positive
Speaker 1: identifications in court, and despite a total lack of corroborating
Speaker 1: physical evidence, this case appeared to be as open and
Speaker 1: shut as they come, resulting in two consecutive life prison
Speaker 1: terms for Lamont McIntyre. On this episode, we Speak with
Speaker 1: Lamont's appellet attorney Cheryl Pilot, former FBI agent and police
Speaker 1: corruption expert Al Jeneric, 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 flamm
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.
Speaker 2: Guilty one word ceiling Lamont McIntyre's fate.
Speaker 3: Lamont McIntyre, aged seventeen in nineteen ninety four, has so
Speaker 3: far been imprisoned for twenty two years. Twenty two years ago,
Speaker 3: two young men, twenty one year old Donielle Quinn and
Speaker 3: his thirty four year old cousin Donald Ewing, were gunned
Speaker 3: down in a horrible double homicide.
Speaker 2: Six hours after the murder's police arrested McIntyre, but never
Speaker 2: searched his house for evidence.
Speaker 3: Moreover, it was a trial which prosecutors offered no physical
Speaker 3: evidence tying McIntyre to the crime, no motive, no connection
Speaker 3: between him and the victims, no weapon, no fingerprints, Nor
Speaker 3: did Kansas City Kansas Belief even request search warrants to
Speaker 3: find any of that material.
Speaker 2: A retired officer who reviewed the case calls the investigation
Speaker 2: grossly deficient.
Speaker 3: Most notable is that the family of the victims for
Speaker 3: twenty two years have steadfastly insisted that he is innocent.
Speaker 3: Other witnesses also relatives of the victim, insisted as soon
Speaker 3: as they saw McIntyre sitting at the defense table they
Speaker 3: knew he was not the shooter. They told the prosecutor,
Speaker 3: but were ignored. One family member has signed an affi David,
Speaker 3: claiming that under pressure from police and the prosecutor, she
Speaker 3: lied at McIntyre's trial.
Speaker 2: For the first time, a jur is speaking publicly about
Speaker 2: the case, Greg Lauber says that he now believes that
Speaker 2: yan Dot County jury was wrong.
Speaker 4: They didn't care about anything. They just had their man.
Speaker 2: And it was enough for the twelve person jury. In deliberations,
Speaker 2: Lauber says he and another juror were holdouts, but it
Speaker 2: was late in the day and there was mounting pressure
Speaker 2: from others who wanted a verdict.
Speaker 3: Maybe I had an opportunity to, you know, do something
Speaker 3: good on that jury, but I sure didn't do it.
Speaker 5: I took a coward's way out.
Speaker 3: It is the speedy investigation and prosecution of that crime
Speaker 3: in this place that a team of exonerators now insist
Speaker 3: was also the focus of a terrible injustice. Lamont McIntyre,
Speaker 3: aged seventeen in nineteen ninety four, has so far been
Speaker 3: imprisoned for tw twenty two years, convicted, and given two
Speaker 3: consecutive life sentences for a crime they say you never committed.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm just gonna say I'm really happy that today
Speaker 1: joining us to discuss the insane case of Lamont McIntyre.
Speaker 1: We have with us Lamont's attorney, Cheryl Pilot, as well
Speaker 1: as retired FBI special agent Al Jenerich. Cheryl and Al,
Speaker 1: thank you for being here.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much.
Speaker 6: We're glad to be here, happy to be.
Speaker 1: Here, and we will be hearing later on in the
Speaker 1: episode from Lamont, who will be calling in from president Kansas,
Speaker 1: where he has been incarcerated for approximately twenty four years
Speaker 1: now since he was a teenager for a crime that
Speaker 1: he did not commit. Now, let's go back to the beginning.
Speaker 1: On April fifteenth, nineteen ninety four, there are two men
Speaker 1: sitting in a Cadillac in Kansas City, Kansas, when they
Speaker 1: were approached by a man with a shotgun. These facts
Speaker 1: are not in dispute right correct, And what we know
Speaker 1: is that four shots were fired into the car, killing
Speaker 1: the passenger Donielle 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 Al jump in whenever
Speaker 1: you want.
Speaker 5: Lamont was arrested and prosecuted after police obtained three interviews
Speaker 5: from eyewitnesses, one of them never testified. But the taped
Speaker 5: interviews of these eyewitnesses in a very serious crime obviously
Speaker 5: where someone can go to prison for the rest of
Speaker 5: their life, amounted to a total of twenty taped minutes,
Speaker 5: and one of the eyewitnesses was only interviewed for four minutes.
Speaker 5: Is that an investigation?
Speaker 4: What is that?
Speaker 1: So? Al, You've done a lot of research and you
Speaker 1: were in the FBI for quite a while, is that right.
Speaker 6: I was in the FBI for twenty five years. I
Speaker 6: was a special agent. I specialized in investigating police corruption.
Speaker 6: I worked in Chicago very successfully, and then in Kansas City, Kansas.
Speaker 5: Agent Generich was not involved with this murder case at
Speaker 5: all when it happened. I knew mister Generich through other cases,
Speaker 5: and after he retired a number of years. After he retired,
Speaker 5: actually and I was working on trying to achieve Lamont's exoneration,
Speaker 5: I approached him to talk to him about the Kansas City,
Speaker 5: Kansas Police Department and things that I had uncovered in
Speaker 5: my investigation. And it was at that point that Alan
Speaker 5: I started talking about some of the things he had
Speaker 5: learned while working for the FBI, and they matched up
Speaker 5: with some of the things I had uncovered in my investigation.
Speaker 5: And it was because of that that he became a
Speaker 5: witness in this case that I hope to use at
Speaker 5: our hearing.
Speaker 1: So, prior to Lamont's arrest, can we talk about what
Speaker 1: was happening with this particular cop, whose name was Roger Glubski.
Speaker 6: Sometime around nineteen eighty eight or so, I was able
Speaker 6: to open an investigation into police corruption in Kansas City, Kansas.
Speaker 6: And as the investigation went on over time, over many years,
Speaker 6: we developed maybe somewhere between twelve and fifteen police officers
Speaker 6: who were titled subjects of the investigation. Some of it
Speaker 6: involved civil rights like beating people up, stealing their shoes
Speaker 6: when they were walking down the street because the officer
Speaker 6: liked the shoes, or in the case of Kulupski, you know,
Speaker 6: sexual extortion. But most of it involved corruption involving drugs,
Speaker 6: mostly cocaine. And in the course of this investigation, just
Speaker 6: by talking to people, which is what I'm pretty good at,
Speaker 6: over time, you know, a number of people told us
Speaker 6: about Gaulupski extorting sex from black women and he liked
Speaker 6: black women. We never developed enough evidence on Gallupski to
Speaker 6: prosecute him. That's the extent of my knowledge about Gallupski.
Speaker 1: I always believed that that police were good, and the
Speaker 1: police were on our side and they're there to protect
Speaker 1: us all and so I always find these stories, even
Speaker 1: as long as I've been working on this issue, and
Speaker 1: I've got twenty five years now of experience, but I
Speaker 1: always find these stories so just depressing and shocking, and
Speaker 1: it flips everything upside down.
Speaker 6: Well, like you, I was very naive until I went
Speaker 6: to Chicago, and then I sought police corruption on the
Speaker 6: mass of scale. But then when I got back to
Speaker 6: Kansas City in eighty six and probably got involved in
Speaker 6: Kansas City, Kansas in eighty eight, and I saw the
Speaker 6: same activity there, it wasn't on the grand scale. You know.
Speaker 6: It's that it's conducted in Chicago. It's basically police officers,
Speaker 6: most of whom are white, picking on minorities, most of
Speaker 6: whom are black, some of them are Hispanic. Because when
Speaker 6: you're a drug dealer, you know, you can't go to
Speaker 6: the police or the FBI and say, hey, these cops
Speaker 6: are stealing my drugs, these cops are stealing my drug money.
Speaker 6: You basically have to you have to suck it up.
Speaker 6: So that's what they do in Chicago's what they do everywhere.
Speaker 1: So Lamont his troubles really began when his mom was
Speaker 1: at a car with I guess was her boyfriend at
Speaker 1: the time. Shoyl Right Glubski approached the car and told
Speaker 1: her to get out and threatened her with arrest or
Speaker 1: the rest of her boyfriend unless she agreed to come
Speaker 1: down to the police station. And then the problems really
Speaker 1: began when she refused to become one of his girls,
Speaker 1: so to speak. Right, I mean, obviously, she was in
Speaker 1: a terrible situation where she's very vulnerable, not able to
Speaker 1: defend herself from a cop who's willing to go to
Speaker 1: almost any lengths to fulfill his desires. She had a
Speaker 1: tremendous problem, and she decided that she wanted to maintain
Speaker 1: her dignity, really right, And so what seems like happened
Speaker 1: is that as a consequence, Golubski decided that he would
Speaker 1: target and frame her son in something that is so
Speaker 1: evil that makes me want to quit the human race.
Speaker 5: There was an encounter that Lamon's mother had with the
Speaker 5: detective some years earlier. I mean it was years actually
Speaker 5: before the double homicide happened. And at the time of
Speaker 5: the double homicide, my client was inexplicably dragged into the case.
Speaker 5: One of the eyewitnesses told the police she thought the
Speaker 5: shooter looked like a Lamont dating her niece. Police never
Speaker 5: bothered to find out what Lamont that was. They don't
Speaker 5: go ask the niece what Lamont that was. They simply
Speaker 5: put another Lamont. And it's undisputed an entirely different. Lamont,
Speaker 5: my client into the case and somehow obtain this identification.
Speaker 5: What's interesting about the lineup, and I've never seen anything
Speaker 5: like this before, is three of the five photos were
Speaker 5: of young male members of the McIntyre family.
Speaker 1: You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to say, well,
Speaker 1: that doesn't make a lot of sense. It's one perpetrator.
Speaker 1: It's not like somebody said there were three brothers that
Speaker 1: were involved. It's one perpetrator, you know. And then the
Speaker 1: justice system, we know has a tendency to chew people
Speaker 1: up and spit them out when they are poor, particularly
Speaker 1: if they're minorities and underrepresented. It's really it's not a
Speaker 1: fair fight, is it.
Speaker 5: Well, I mean, this whole thing was an impossible battle
Speaker 5: for Lamont to begin with. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 5: the investigation itself, I don't think really qualified is a
Speaker 5: true investigation because so little was done. No evidence of
Speaker 5: motive was ever uncovered. There was no physical evidence that
Speaker 5: tied Lamont to the crime. There was not even any
Speaker 5: evidence that he knew the two victims. There are backgrounds
Speaker 5: of the two victims and who might have a motive
Speaker 5: to harm them that was never investigated. There was an
Speaker 5: eyewitness directly across the street who was never interviewed, whose
Speaker 5: mother said, you know, she knows who the suspect is.
Speaker 5: I mean, the failures and lapses and irregularities in this
Speaker 5: case just go on and on. I mean, other than
Speaker 5: the twenty minutes of taped interviews from the eyewitnesses, there
Speaker 5: was very little else and the only evidence at trial
Speaker 5: against Lamont were two eyewitnesses. One of them has admitted
Speaker 5: that she lied, that she was coursed. The other eyewitness
Speaker 5: seems frankly, very perplexed by her testimony, and it's very
Speaker 5: clear that it's an eyewitness a misidentification based on manipulation.
Speaker 1: And we know also that had this trial taken place
Speaker 1: twenty years later or so, with everything that's known now
Speaker 1: about the unreliability of eyewitness identification, there's a very good
Speaker 1: chance that would have been discredited because there was no
Speaker 1: other evidence connecting him to the crime.
Speaker 5: You take a person who's traumatized, who has just witnessed
Speaker 5: a really horrific event, and they can be pretty easy
Speaker 5: to pressure or manipulate. And in fact, this witness provided
Speaker 5: in a tape statement my client's last name a man.
Speaker 5: She did not know and had never heard of, which
Speaker 5: raises the very interesting question of who gave her the name.
Speaker 5: Was disputed at trial that she did not know my client,
Speaker 5: yet the fact that there was an original tape statement
Speaker 5: where she provided his name never came out. That was
Speaker 5: never admitted at trial. She also stated wrongly that my
Speaker 5: client was the Lamont who had dated her niece. At
Speaker 5: trial undisputed that that was not true. It was an
Speaker 5: entirely different Lamont who was in fact identified by his
Speaker 5: name to the jury, an entirely different person. So, I mean,
Speaker 5: the whole thing is troubling beginning to end, really a
Speaker 5: perfect storm of chaos and horror and misconduct, things being
Speaker 5: done improperly.
Speaker 1: So you have this cop and this department that is
Speaker 1: so corrupt isn't even the right word, but that's engaged
Speaker 1: in so many illegal activities. And isn't it ironic and
Speaker 1: tragic that Lamont is in prison living in hell after
Speaker 1: twenty four years and this cop who was from what
Speaker 1: I've read, raping people, robbing people, dealing drugs, protecting drug dealers,
Speaker 1: he's out. How is that? I mean, that must not
Speaker 1: sit well with you, with your whole background either.
Speaker 5: What I'm really hoping for. What our entire team is
Speaker 5: hoping for, and what we have sought for a long time,
Speaker 5: is a very full investigation into the activities of this detective.
Speaker 5: There needs to be an investigation by people who have
Speaker 5: the power to follow all the leads, develop information, compel
Speaker 5: the testimony of witnesses, and obtain other evidence.
Speaker 1: Let me turn it to you for a second, because
Speaker 1: we have not had somebody with your background and experience
Speaker 1: on the show before, and I would venture to say
Speaker 1: that you had a very very difficult and dangerous job,
Speaker 1: right I mean, investigating cops, particularly when you're investigating cops
Speaker 1: who've got a lot to hide, makes you a very
Speaker 1: unpopular person, I would think, so, looking back on it,
Speaker 1: how did this manage to go on for so long
Speaker 1: without somebody coming along and saying, you know, besides you, hey, hey,
Speaker 1: we're not going to tolerate this.
Speaker 6: They don't give a shit. At the time we were
Speaker 6: doing these investigations, the police chief of Kansas City, Kansas,
Speaker 6: a guy named Tom Daly. He had previously been indicted
Speaker 6: by the Federal Strike Force for extorting money at a
Speaker 6: whorehouses along the Kaw River in Kansas. He was doing
Speaker 6: that allegedly when it was a captain, he was acquitted
Speaker 6: because it was a real weak case. But after being
Speaker 6: acquitted for extortion, the city wound up eventually making him
Speaker 6: the chief. Is that the actions, you know, over responsible
Speaker 6: a city administration or a police department. So he had
Speaker 6: the chief over here, Tom Dale, who had previously been
Speaker 6: indicted by the Feds. He despised the federal government, he
Speaker 6: hated the US Attorney's Office and the FBI, and he's
Speaker 6: the chief. He was part of it.
Speaker 1: So you have this guy Glubski who in that scenario
Speaker 1: is operating basically with impunity, right because he knows his
Speaker 1: chief doesn't give a shit, And with the chief having literally,
Speaker 1: well for what it sounds like, gotten away with that
Speaker 1: particular pattern of activity as well as I'm sure other
Speaker 1: things that he was doing. The people underneath him are
Speaker 1: probably thinking, hey, this is great, no one's going to
Speaker 1: touch us, and they're right, and nobody did. So how
Speaker 1: frustrated was that for you?
Speaker 5: There?
Speaker 1: You are really fighting an unwinnable war, right You're there
Speaker 1: trying to protect the public from the police force with
Speaker 1: a chief of police who not only doesn't give a fuck,
Speaker 1: but doesn't want that he wants you. He probably wants
Speaker 1: you to fuck out out of his hair, so we
Speaker 1: could just you know, run the streets how he wants to.
Speaker 6: Right when I started working over there, you had a person,
Speaker 6: you know, some guy I knewed a lot of people
Speaker 6: in the county jail, and they would say so and
Speaker 6: so confronted me and stole my money, stole my drugs.
Speaker 6: You go, what's the cops name? I don't know his name,
Speaker 6: you know what's he looked like, Well, you know, he's
Speaker 6: some white guy. Well you go to the police. The
Speaker 6: police did not have photographs of their police officers, so
Speaker 6: if a victim came in there alleging that so and
Speaker 6: so officer robbed from me, extorted me, they didn't even
Speaker 6: have photographs to show people so they could identify who
Speaker 6: the police officer was. So good luck, you know, through
Speaker 6: the US Attorney's office, through Julie Robinson, who was a
Speaker 6: prosecutor at the time, we subpoenaed photographs of every sworn
Speaker 6: officer in the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department. And there
Speaker 6: was hell to pay for that. I was almost removed
Speaker 6: from the investigation because of that.
Speaker 5: You know, I think one of the problems is that
Speaker 5: other law enforcement officers don't want to investigate law enforcement,
Speaker 5: and as a general rule, I think they find it distasteful,
Speaker 5: something they would rather avoid, and there is a tendency
Speaker 5: 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 could see how you would, and it really gets
Speaker 1: easier and easier to see how these wrongful convictions are
Speaker 1: 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 Bureau of Investigation and basically being
Speaker 1: told go fuck 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 sets 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 what can only be described as the
Speaker 1: worst fate that can befall an individual, to be incarcerated
Speaker 1: with something he didn't do for the rest of your life.
Speaker 1: But now we have hope, right, I mean, he has
Speaker 1: hope thanks to you and the years of work that
Speaker 1: you've done in this case, in al and other brave
Speaker 1: people who have devoted their time and in some cases
Speaker 1: probably even risk their own personal safety to try to
Speaker 1: get justice in this case. What does it look like now?
Speaker 1: What happens next? Tell us what's going on.
Speaker 5: We have a evidentiary hearing coming up in October, and
Speaker 5: we intend to present somewhere between forty and fifty witnesses
Speaker 5: who provide very powerful testimony on various aspects of the case.
Speaker 5: There was almost nothing really to support the conviction to
Speaker 5: begin with, nothing other than the testimony of the two eyewitnesses,
Speaker 5: and I believe that has been thoroughly shredded at this
Speaker 5: point through recantations and admissions and the result of other investigation.
Speaker 5: And we are also focusing on the very troubling misconduct
Speaker 5: in the case. It is intimately connected to how the
Speaker 5: investigation was conducted, and we're going to bring all that
Speaker 5: out and show how we believe this went wrong, and
Speaker 5: we very much hope to be successful.
Speaker 1: What's the data of the hearing October twelfth? October twelfth,
Speaker 1: and is this in a federal court?
Speaker 5: We are in Windott County District Court, which is a
Speaker 5: state court. My client is litigating what's called a successive
Speaker 5: petition under SIXTYSH fifteen oh seven, and you have essentially
Speaker 5: a procedural barrier get over before you can get back
Speaker 5: into court. But we do have this evidentiary hearing schedule
Speaker 5: that we are very very excited about. One of the
Speaker 5: most compelling things about the case we haven't mentioned this yet,
Speaker 5: is that the families of both victims have always known
Speaker 5: my client is innocent and are very much squarely supporting
Speaker 5: the quest to free him. They know that they did
Speaker 5: not get justice. Their families did not get justice.
Speaker 1: And that's Cheryl. In your experience, it's not a common thing, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, most of the cases I've seen, even in
Speaker 1: the face of what could be overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
Speaker 1: the victims' family sometimes stick with you what they've been
Speaker 1: told all along because they just can't They can't even
Speaker 1: process the idea that they may have been lied to
Speaker 1: and that the wrong person may have been serving time
Speaker 1: for the murder of their loved one. So in this case,
Speaker 1: this is a very unusual scenario, isn't it.
Speaker 5: It is, And one of the eyewitnesses is related to
Speaker 5: both of the victims, and she her family in the
Speaker 5: family of the second victim, to whom she's a bit
Speaker 5: more distantly related, have always told me that they have
Speaker 5: known from the beginning that the authorities got the wrong man.
Speaker 5: They have always known this. They've made periodic efforts to
Speaker 5: correct this, to address this, to try and get some justice,
Speaker 5: all without success.
Speaker 1: And if there wasn't already enough to chew on, this
Speaker 1: is the part that really just sets me off his court,
Speaker 1: a pointed attorney. Gary Long was on supervised probation at
Speaker 1: the time of the trial for failing to diligently handle
Speaker 1: three prior cases. He was suspended from the bar a
Speaker 1: couple years later for failure to adequately hnder a separate
Speaker 1: criminal case. And he was this bar in nineteen ninety eight.
Speaker 1: How is it even possible that, in a life or
Speaker 1: death situation that you take somebody and you say, you
Speaker 1: know what we're going to give you a lawyer who's
Speaker 1: already messed up three times.
Speaker 6: Well, when I said nobody gives a shit, do you
Speaker 6: understand what I mean? Do you know that that you
Speaker 6: know that Tara Morehead, do you know she's now a
Speaker 6: federal prosecutor.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so Tara Moorehead was the prosecutor in this case.
Speaker 1: Obviously didn't see anything wrong with her prosecuting a case
Speaker 1: in which a young man's life was at stake in
Speaker 1: front of a judge with whom she had carried on
Speaker 1: an affair a few years earlier. I think most reasonable
Speaker 1: people would agree that one or the other should have
Speaker 1: been recused from this particular scenario because even if they
Speaker 1: were saints, and obviously they weren't. Because she's also the
Speaker 1: same woman, from what I've read, who threatened a witness
Speaker 1: who tried to come forward with the truth with losing
Speaker 1: custody of her own children. But yes, so now she's
Speaker 1: moved up the ladder. Seems like all the bad guys
Speaker 1: have won here. Al what the fuck?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 6: I think Morehead's currently married to a police officer. I
Speaker 6: think there's some other prosecutors over in the federal US
Speaker 6: Attorney's Office that are married to other police officers. So
Speaker 6: you're not going to expect them to investigate police corruption,
Speaker 6: are you.
Speaker 1: Well? I guess that would make it tricky, wouldn't it.
Speaker 6: They're not going to do it, and they don't.
Speaker 5: I mean there is so much that could be investigated,
Speaker 5: that ought to be investigated. And you know, I should
Speaker 5: also point out that sexual misconduct among police officers is
Speaker 5: not unusual in some departments. When you have poor and
Speaker 5: vulnerable people encounter folks with ultimate authority over them, ultimate
Speaker 5: authority in that particular moment, you know, those things can
Speaker 5: happen all too easily, and they do, and they happen frequently.
Speaker 6: You know, when I was an agent, I'm about six
Speaker 6: foot four. I had a gun, a badge, and a
Speaker 6: radio and everything. At nighttime, when I was on my
Speaker 6: way home or on the weekends, I would not drive
Speaker 6: through Kansas City, Kansas unless I was accompanied by another
Speaker 6: FBI agent.
Speaker 1: So because you thought they might have run you off
Speaker 1: the road or something else.
Speaker 6: They could do anything. They could pull me over and
Speaker 6: not saying they don't know who I was, and they
Speaker 6: could say I pulled a gun and they could shoot me.
Speaker 6: So I have all that power and authority. What does
Speaker 6: some little black kid on the street half.
Speaker 1: I hope that in exposing the story of Lamont and
Speaker 1: some of the things that you've shared out that people,
Speaker 1: you know, get their backs up and get angry and
Speaker 1: get involved. These are just people They're just regular people
Speaker 1: and they're being so terribly abused and victimized by people
Speaker 1: who are supposed to protect them. I don't it makes
Speaker 1: me sick.
Speaker 5: I just say that the fear and the terror that
Speaker 5: some of the citizens experience cannot be overstated. I mean,
Speaker 5: you have someone with a badge with ultimate and really,
Speaker 5: as I said in that moment, unchecked authority, there's enormous
Speaker 5: fear of the police and enormous, sometimes unmovable resistance to
Speaker 5: getting involved in anything that has to do with the
Speaker 5: criminal justice system. I've spent some years, honestly, just earning
Speaker 5: the trust of some people in the community so that
Speaker 5: they will sit down and speak with me so that
Speaker 5: we can investigate the case. Nobody wants anything to do
Speaker 5: with a case you say, courthouse people walk the other way.
Speaker 5: They don't want anything to do with that. And ultimately
Speaker 5: we have been successful in securing some very good witnesses
Speaker 5: because they did want to help someone they viewed as innocent.
Speaker 5: And you know, I should point out here that all
Speaker 5: of the street talk we have ever heard in the
Speaker 5: community is that Lamon is innocent, the guy who got
Speaker 5: wrongfully convicted. It's like everyone knows the whole community knows.
Speaker 5: The victim's family leans now. Everyone knows Lamont did not
Speaker 5: do this. Everyone knows.
Speaker 7: You have a prepaid call from the font an Innate
Speaker 7: at Kansas Department of Corrections Lancing Correctional Facility. To accept
Speaker 7: this call, press or say five to refuse. This call
Speaker 7: will be recorded and subject to monitoring. At any time.
Speaker 7: You may begin speaking.
Speaker 1: Now, Lamont, welcome to the show.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: So, Lamont. I want to go back to the beginning,
Speaker 1: when you grew up and how this all started. I've
Speaker 1: seen photos of you with your family. Looked like you
Speaker 1: had not an easy but a happy childhood. Is that fair?
Speaker 1: Can you just describe what it was like. I've heard
Speaker 1: you talk about Christmas and stuff.
Speaker 4: Uh. Yeah, we was tight knit.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 4: It was like my mother was just an only parent
Speaker 4: in the house and we was close, me and my siblings,
Speaker 4: and we did everything together. We stayed in one house,
Speaker 4: you know, we took care of each other. So glowing
Speaker 4: up of me was my family was a big game.
Speaker 4: We didn't really fight about a lot of stuff. You know.
Speaker 4: It was me and my three brothers and my sister,
Speaker 4: my oldest sister. My mother worked a lot, so my
Speaker 4: sister kind of watched after us a little bit, some
Speaker 4: other family members. I used to go to my family
Speaker 4: member's house, my uncle's and be around them. Our mother
Speaker 4: was at work. I kind of still stayed around family
Speaker 4: outside my home.
Speaker 1: So real family oriented and where you grew up. You
Speaker 1: had no idea at this time that the police force
Speaker 1: was really as corrupt as anyone could possibly imagine until
Speaker 1: this terrible incident occurred. And I want to go back
Speaker 1: to that. What happened. You were a seen year old
Speaker 1: kid going along with your life, trying to make it
Speaker 1: in a difficult place, and then one day out of
Speaker 1: the blue, you get arrested and don't even know what's
Speaker 1: going on or what happened.
Speaker 4: Uh, that's exactly what happened. And I was it was
Speaker 4: a typical day. It was like a Friday, typical day.
Speaker 4: I was enrolled in a downity college program where there's
Speaker 4: alternate to school where they would help you get your
Speaker 4: high school and phone, and then they gets you in college.
Speaker 4: So it was like a little degree program I was
Speaker 4: a part of. And it was just a Friday. I
Speaker 4: get a car phone call saying the police is over
Speaker 4: at my grandmother's house looking for me. Call my mother.
Speaker 4: We go to the police station and they start talking
Speaker 4: about two murders and I had no answers for him
Speaker 4: because I didn't know what they were saying or what
Speaker 4: they were talking about. So from that moment I was arrested, charged,
Speaker 4: and eventually convicted of two murders.
Speaker 1: Then I had another 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 their 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.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 1: He was working as a doorman in a crack then,
Speaker 1: and he had feared for his life, and in fact,
Speaker 1: he had good reason to, because I guess he had
Speaker 1: from what I've learned he had been stealing from them,
Speaker 1: so that every reason to know that this was a
Speaker 1: drug hit, and you weren't involved in that game or
Speaker 1: that business. Did you know these guys?
Speaker 4: I didn't know the witnesses, I didn't know the victims.
Speaker 4: I would't connected to it at all. That's why so
Speaker 4: it so halted me to understand how something like that
Speaker 4: could happen, because and I was bored about everything. I
Speaker 4: tried to hide nothing because I knew what they was
Speaker 4: talking about at that time. I had nothing to do
Speaker 4: with it, and no one involved. I don't know what
Speaker 4: the police officer's motive was to plan it on me
Speaker 4: or I still don't know.
Speaker 8: To this day what happened.
Speaker 1: Well, it does seem like now with everything we've learned
Speaker 1: that the officer involved, the first one who arrived on
Speaker 1: the scene was an officer named Golubski. It's a white
Speaker 1: guy who had a proclivity for women of color and
Speaker 1: when he didn't get his way, he would exact revenge.
Speaker 1: And so what it seems like is that in this
Speaker 1: particular case, he targeted you because because your mom wasn't
Speaker 1: having any part of that. And that's what makes this
Speaker 1: particularly sinister. And sick, you end up going to trial,
Speaker 1: and I find it interesting, among all the other things
Speaker 1: in your case, that they offered you a plea bargain
Speaker 1: right and you didn't take it.
Speaker 4: I went in the rest of the plea bargan. I
Speaker 4: can't understand how was I sitting in that situation, and
Speaker 4: I didn't know nothing about the PM itself, So plea
Speaker 4: barg goes far from my mom.
Speaker 8: I was thinking about a plea bargain.
Speaker 1: And why I find that and why I brought that
Speaker 1: up Lamont, And I've seen the mugshot picture of you,
Speaker 1: and it really hurt my heart because I could see
Speaker 1: in your face just how confused you were and scared
Speaker 1: of a situation that you couldn't possibly imagine what's happening
Speaker 1: at that time. I also would think that if you
Speaker 1: were guilty and they're offering you a deal and you
Speaker 1: know your chances of winning in the court are going
Speaker 1: to be low because they have all these cops and
Speaker 1: everybody else that's going to testify, I guess you would
Speaker 1: have taken the plea barg and anybody with the right
Speaker 1: mind would take a plea bargain. You're not crazy, are you.
Speaker 1: I'm not right, you don't sound you don't sound crazy
Speaker 1: at all. So in the situations like this, I mean,
Speaker 1: we have in this country over ninety percent of cases
Speaker 1: end up in plea bargains. So had you been guilty,
Speaker 1: that would have been a very logical thing to do.
Speaker 1: But as an innocent person and probably somebody who still
Speaker 1: trusted in the system, you went forward with your right
Speaker 1: to a trial, and you were represented by a guy
Speaker 1: who they knew your court appointed lawyer. They knew this
Speaker 1: guy was incompetent because he had already been disciplined for
Speaker 1: three previous cases that he had completely botched. It almost
Speaker 1: sounds like they did it on purpose. They assigned a
Speaker 1: guy who didn't go and interview witnesses, who didn't really
Speaker 1: didn't do anything he was supposed to do. And what
Speaker 1: was that like? Were you aware at that time that
Speaker 1: this guy wasn't I mean, I don't even know if
Speaker 1: it was really on your side, but I mean, as
Speaker 1: you're watching these proceedings, what were you thinking.
Speaker 4: He presented himself like a lawyer, He presented itself like
Speaker 4: a person is there on my behalf to take care
Speaker 4: of this business. And he seeing real professional at first,
Speaker 4: So I didn't know what to expect because I've never
Speaker 4: been in that situation before anyway, So his first impression
Speaker 4: was for me. It was a good impression because I
Speaker 4: didn't know what my lawyer was supposed to do, or
Speaker 4: I was so ignorant to the law and how things worked.
Speaker 4: I just believed in the justice system at that time,
Speaker 4: I really did. I thought there was no possible way,
Speaker 4: being an innocent person or person that has nothing to
Speaker 4: do with that crime, that I would be found guilty.
Speaker 4: So I didn't really pay too much attention to the
Speaker 4: credibility of this lawyer. It didn't down on me that
Speaker 4: I would be found guilty of the crime that I
Speaker 4: had nothing to do with, so I didn't really think
Speaker 4: about it in those times. I was just thinking, you
Speaker 4: can give me any lawyer, anybody from anywhere, and it'd
Speaker 4: be okay because once they realized they had the wrong
Speaker 4: person to get ironed out in trial. That's what I
Speaker 4: was thinking. But I didn't plan all. I didn't think
Speaker 4: that people would get on the stand and lie they
Speaker 4: was going fabricate, and I didn't think that was gonna happen.
Speaker 4: I had no idea that they had already made up
Speaker 4: in their mind that I was going to be escaped
Speaker 4: goal for this particular crime, so being needed at all,
Speaker 4: have they worked in the justice system. I believe in
Speaker 4: the justice system at that time, I really did.
Speaker 1: I think all of us do. When we're kids, especially
Speaker 1: brought up in a good home like you were. You
Speaker 1: brought up to believe that people are good and that
Speaker 1: the system 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 won 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 cases prior to Lamont's and then ultimately gets
Speaker 1: disbarred when the extent of his gross incompetence is brought
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court of Kansas. The attention to the
Speaker 1: Supreme court, and then he voluntarily gave up his license
Speaker 1: to practice law. And that wasn't the end of the nightmare.
Speaker 1: We now know too that your appellate lawyer was disbarred.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't even make this stuff up. So
Speaker 1: what happened? Like now, you're in the courtroom, the jury
Speaker 1: goes out, the arguments have been made. You saw these
Speaker 1: witnesses get up and lie. You saw these police officers
Speaker 1: get up and lie. Your defense made whatever arguments they made.
Speaker 1: Did you believe that they would come back and declare
Speaker 1: you innocent?
Speaker 8: I did.
Speaker 4: I did every fire of my being. I did. I
Speaker 4: just didn't know that this is how the system work.
Speaker 4: They've found me guilty based false evidence for kind of
Speaker 4: evidence that was presented by a certain she coun attorney.
Speaker 4: They heard stuff about me that wasn't even about Lama Mcatize,
Speaker 4: and she just kind of made stuff up. They told
Speaker 4: his story and the jury believed it. But at the
Speaker 4: time before they came back it was guilty verdict. I
Speaker 4: still didn't think I'll be found guilty because the whole
Speaker 4: time I'm sitting there and the whole time I'm going
Speaker 4: through the process of getting too trial, I still had
Speaker 4: no knowledge of the actual crimes. So I'm thinking, with
Speaker 4: my young mind being naive, that there's no way a
Speaker 4: jury can find me guilty when I'm really not guilty,
Speaker 4: when I had nothing to do with it. I'm not
Speaker 4: tied to it at all. The witnesses, the victims, I'm.
Speaker 8: Not tied to it.
Speaker 4: I wasn't in the area when it happened. When they
Speaker 4: came in, I noticed that no jury's no one looked
Speaker 4: me in my face, no one looked looked up. Everyone
Speaker 4: came in looking down at the floor. So I kind
Speaker 4: of had an eerie feeling, but I still had hope
Speaker 4: that it would work out in the right way. So
Speaker 4: when they read the verdict and they said guilty, it's
Speaker 4: like I seen my whole life flash before me and
Speaker 4: I and for that moment, I posed, and I was
Speaker 4: sitting there, and I stood up, and I just remember
Speaker 4: saying something. I was screaming something, you know, to the
Speaker 4: effects of I'm not guilty, and you got the wrong
Speaker 4: person whatever. And I felt someone hold me or grab
Speaker 4: me from behind, and I was in shot, so I
Speaker 4: didn't really I was like a lost moment, but I
Speaker 4: turned around. I see my mother hold me, screaming crying like,
Speaker 4: don't take my baby away from me, don't take my baby.
Speaker 4: And I'm looking at her and I realized that this
Speaker 4: is a serious situation. Now I'm but it still didn't
Speaker 4: feel real. It was my life in my situation, but
Speaker 4: it didn't feel like my life or my situation. I
Speaker 4: felt like I was outside of myself looking at this
Speaker 4: event happened and I couldn't stop it. So I was
Speaker 4: in shot and that shot lasted for a few years
Speaker 4: after that, I was in shot.
Speaker 1: So now now you're convicted of a double murder and
Speaker 1: sentence to life in prison. Where did they take you to.
Speaker 4: The process is like from the time you get convicted
Speaker 4: and stay in the county for about two months, then
Speaker 4: you go to citizen now the cenizen in Juanna County.
Speaker 4: It gave me two life sentences to ront consecutive. Then
Speaker 4: after that they send me to a process and center
Speaker 4: which we kind of ark you where they see you
Speaker 4: to determine what classification.
Speaker 8: You would be, what custody you will be in. I
Speaker 8: was considered max custody.
Speaker 4: So from there they send me to prison. I was
Speaker 4: in Hutson that's a that's a prison in Kansas. They
Speaker 4: kind glad they're in school. One of those tough prisons,
Speaker 4: you know with people. You know, it's a prison. It's
Speaker 4: like the work idea you have a prison?
Speaker 7: Is that more?
Speaker 8: It's it's this dark, it's negative, it's pension field, it's hopelessness.
Speaker 4: It's a world that is all.
Speaker 1: As a seventeen year old, Did you have plans? Did
Speaker 1: you have a career mind? What was the outlook for
Speaker 1: the future where we're still just trying to figure it out.
Speaker 8: Yeah, it was things I wanted to do.
Speaker 4: It was just I was being guiding the line, and
Speaker 4: I was just in a place where everybody around me
Speaker 4: was either dying or going to jail or I was
Speaker 4: just in the kind of environment. It didn't produce a
Speaker 4: lot of hope or didn't have I didn't have a
Speaker 4: lot of people to look up to or emulate, nothing
Speaker 4: like that. But I did enjoy taking care of my family.
Speaker 4: So my life was just basically about trying to take
Speaker 4: care of my family the best way I knew how,
Speaker 4: or to look out for my loved ones. You know,
Speaker 4: I had skills and things I could do, Like I
Speaker 4: was a barber. I was cut here since I was twelve,
Speaker 4: or you know, I was a comedian. You know, I
Speaker 4: had these in the back of my mind. I wanted
Speaker 4: to be a comedian. I had things I wanted to do.
Speaker 4: I just didn't know how to get to where I
Speaker 4: wanted to be. But I still didn't think that my
Speaker 4: life was just of being in prison or going to
Speaker 4: jail or 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 it? What's the schedule, typical day?
Speaker 4: Typical day is I'll re readjusted. It's like from one
Speaker 4: day to the next is finding a way to get
Speaker 4: by for one day, learn something from my days, and
Speaker 4: then I just try to it just sucks. I gotta
Speaker 4: repeat it. Like if I have a bad day or
Speaker 4: I'm frustrated for one day, I go to sleep, wake
Speaker 4: up to repeat this day again. So I try to
Speaker 4: find the best I can or get the best I
Speaker 4: can out of a day, because waking up and repeat
Speaker 4: it is the anxiety. That's why all that the worst
Speaker 4: stuff is knowing that for the last twenty three years
Speaker 4: and two hundred some months and eleven hundred weeks and
Speaker 4: eight thousand days, it's the same thing. It never changes.
Speaker 4: So I devote my time to reading and studying and write.
Speaker 4: I write music and write poetry. I try to keep
Speaker 4: my mind free as possible. I try to stay out
Speaker 4: of prison mentally. I try not to. I'm not into
Speaker 4: prison politics. I'm not in prison mentally, but I'm here.
Speaker 4: I have to be in my body here, but I
Speaker 4: try to keep my mind far from as place as
Speaker 4: I can. So it's just a bunch of moments of
Speaker 4: readjusted every day. And I have a lot of love
Speaker 4: people that love me and care about me, so I
Speaker 4: focused on that. But it's bad. It used to be
Speaker 4: a lot worse than it is now. I'm starting to
Speaker 4: see I'm coming alive now because I can see a
Speaker 4: light and then it just dark toddled. I've been there
Speaker 4: for so long. Something better now, But yeah, it wasn't
Speaker 4: so good before. It's better now. But it was always
Speaker 4: sad to wake up. I had to repeat this same
Speaker 4: cycle over and over again. That stuff is another driving
Speaker 4: person crazy. There's a lot of moments while I'm feeling
Speaker 4: like it was the point, you know, to keep going
Speaker 4: to wake up every day, that I have to deal
Speaker 4: with the exact same nightmare. You trying to stay something
Speaker 4: the night before. But I had my mother, like she
Speaker 4: never gave up on me from day one. Like when
Speaker 4: the worst moments of my life, you know, I'm feeling
Speaker 4: like I just couldn't do it no more, so like
Speaker 4: I couldn't take another step, she would show up and
Speaker 4: when she would grab me and hold me and look
Speaker 4: me my face, this is not my life. I'm passing through.
Speaker 4: This is not my destination. And so I had a
Speaker 4: lot of support my family, and and I gave my
Speaker 4: life to God and I pray a lot, I meditated
Speaker 4: a lot. So initially I was kind of in this
Speaker 4: dark place where I was just so hurt and sad
Speaker 4: and depressed. And so I kept people kept coming to
Speaker 4: my life. That was like beacons of light and hope
Speaker 4: for me and I and I and I thank God
Speaker 4: for all those people came into my life and supported me.
Speaker 4: They sure that, uh, I always had something to look
Speaker 4: forward to, because this is a dark place. It's a
Speaker 4: dark situation where if you don't have enough support. For me,
Speaker 4: it was just support I had. Family is important. Then
Speaker 4: years later Chryl and she turning on ministries and anything projects.
Speaker 4: They kept start coming into my life and they breathed,
Speaker 4: they breed life into me. It's like my second win.
Speaker 4: And I'm grateful for those people. Everybody was poor me
Speaker 4: and everybody who put forth effort go out every day
Speaker 4: and do something that helped me get my life back.
Speaker 4: I'm very grateful for those people.
Speaker 1: If you're even allow yourself, if you allow your mind
Speaker 1: to go there, what are you dreaming about when you
Speaker 1: get out, Because I'm convinced you are going to come
Speaker 1: home and I'm going to be there fighting right alongside
Speaker 1: with everybody else. What's the first thing you want to do,
Speaker 1: and then how do you see the future?
Speaker 4: First day I'm gonna do with eat something. That's what
Speaker 4: I fantasized about. Mostly, I want to eat something that
Speaker 4: there From there, I want to have some type of
Speaker 4: impact or sect on young people making poor decisions that
Speaker 4: was eventually land them in a situation like this, you know.
Speaker 4: So I want to just raise any kind of awareness
Speaker 4: I can about decision making, because, you know, had I
Speaker 4: been taught how to make better decisions myself, I think
Speaker 4: even though I was eiger to the law and this
Speaker 4: is something that had nothing to do with me, and
Speaker 4: I'm still could have been making better desistons for myself
Speaker 4: before this stuff even came about. So I don't want
Speaker 4: to be able to be there for young people as
Speaker 4: much as I can. So I can I can help
Speaker 4: them understand that even though you don't do something wrong,
Speaker 4: even though you don't commit a crime, you can be
Speaker 4: you still got to be accountable, and you still got
Speaker 4: to be a momful of the segments you're out there
Speaker 4: floating around and you can easily be put in a
Speaker 4: situation like that and if you're not being productive and
Speaker 4: doing something that's productive out there in life. So I
Speaker 4: don't want to be able to reach the young people
Speaker 4: as much as I can. And now that this that'd
Speaker 4: be young just anybody that doesn't want to be able
Speaker 4: to share my experience and hopefully it will help out
Speaker 4: in any kind of way.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that you will do that, and then you're
Speaker 1: going to have a very positive impact on a lot
Speaker 1: of people because you have a very rare combination of
Speaker 1: intelligence and manner that is so positive and strong but
Speaker 1: still gentle that I believe that you will be able
Speaker 1: to affect a lot of a lot of young people,
Speaker 1: and I'm looking forward to watching you do that. There's
Speaker 1: one other thing I wanted to raise. I'm always amazed
Speaker 1: when I speak to someone in your situation, and especially
Speaker 1: so with you, that you don't seem to be bitter
Speaker 1: after everything that's happened. And I know you talked about
Speaker 1: your faith and family and the strength that you get
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?
Speaker 8: Well?
Speaker 4: I had my moments with anger, but it was always
Speaker 4: like taking poison helping someone else die from it. I
Speaker 4: was the only one to fact about me being angry.
Speaker 4: No one else seemed to notice a payettition to me
Speaker 4: being angry, So I was just earn experience like being
Speaker 4: angry doesn't help me. So I just wanted to help
Speaker 4: myself because I knew, I always knew I was going
Speaker 4: to be here forever. I know that basically the truth
Speaker 4: was surface and I would have a life outside of it.
Speaker 4: So I devoted a lot of time and energy towards
Speaker 4: helping myself and not hurt myself. So being angry was
Speaker 4: something that was a hindrance to me, not a benefit.
Speaker 4: So I try to say positive because this place is
Speaker 4: you got to keep up with yourself and take care
Speaker 4: of yourself. And anger and stress and all those things
Speaker 4: is just shorten your lifespan. And I got life to live,
Speaker 4: so I just choose. I choose to be positive. I
Speaker 4: choose to not be angry and allow anger to kill me.
Speaker 4: I don't want to die in this place, and I
Speaker 4: don't want to have a short life, So I stick
Speaker 4: fine to what I believe in. And I believe in
Speaker 4: my faith, and I believe in meditation, I believe in exercise.
Speaker 4: I believe in taking care of my mom, body and soul,
Speaker 4: and that's what I'll devote my time to.
Speaker 1: Wow, all I can do is tell you that you
Speaker 1: have you have all my respect and support, and I
Speaker 1: have a saying you know, I've seen too many miracles
Speaker 1: to stop believing in miracles. So I'm excited to watch
Speaker 1: you be the next one or one of the next ones,
Speaker 1: and we'll never stop fighting for you and for other
Speaker 1: people in your situation. I'm looking forward to a positive
Speaker 1: outcome and to getting to know you on the outside
Speaker 1: my mind. I'm just going to turn it over to
Speaker 1: you and say it's your microphone. What do you want
Speaker 1: to share with the audience.
Speaker 4: Well, these kind of cases having well more than they should,
Speaker 4: you know. So it's like a I always see on
Speaker 4: TV or Dayline twenty twenty. We see and it said,
Speaker 4: man so many years in prison. Then you get exonerated
Speaker 4: and you see this happen time and time again. But
Speaker 4: what you never ever see or hear or hear about
Speaker 4: is how much that stuff impact the affected the families
Speaker 4: of those people. Like I had a close knit family.
Speaker 4: We was close and it was a thing. This is
Speaker 4: not just like me being affected by it invented, happened
Speaker 4: in my life. It hurts me to see how much
Speaker 4: how much it affected not only me but my family.
Speaker 4: And it's difficult because if a man had to go
Speaker 4: through a certain thing by himself, that's his life, that's
Speaker 4: his path and life he got to go through that.
Speaker 4: I had to do what I had to do, no
Speaker 4: matter what. But when you see somebody you care about
Speaker 4: being affected by what you have to do or what
Speaker 4: you have to endure, it's a different kind of feeling.
Speaker 4: And it's like people don't really pay attentions that I
Speaker 4: know about that, Like when district attorneys of being dishonest
Speaker 4: when they're trying to get convictions and all that. I
Speaker 4: don't think they take that consideration how many people they
Speaker 4: are affected by just not going by the law, just
Speaker 4: not being truthful about certain things. It's not just me,
Speaker 4: whatever issue, personal issue they may add about with me.
Speaker 4: My family is affected by that. My brothers, my brother's
Speaker 4: kids when all this happened, and they feel like they
Speaker 4: lost a mother because my mother devoted so much time
Speaker 4: for trying to get me back out of the system
Speaker 4: that they felt like they was neglected. So they were
Speaker 4: affected by that. My older sister was affected, my brother
Speaker 4: was affected. I mean, everybody was affected.
Speaker 7: One minute remaining.
Speaker 4: When you try to hold onto something good, even when
Speaker 4: you try to get something good this kind of situation,
Speaker 4: it's still nothing good comes from it. It's just always bad.
Speaker 4: It's always negative, it's always a challenge, it's always hurdles,
Speaker 4: it's always something. But for the person that's in the
Speaker 4: middle of it, that's just my experience. But on the
Speaker 4: outside of it, that's something that people don't ever get
Speaker 4: a chance to see. That's just a harsh or harsh
Speaker 4: reality for the person to live based on someone else
Speaker 4: being incompetent, when all this stuff basically could have been
Speaker 4: avoided by someone that's doing their job. But the job
Speaker 4: people was employed them to do, you know, So I
Speaker 4: think people should understand that and know that it's a
Speaker 4: lot of people to be affected by something like that.
Speaker 4: I think a lot of tastes should be brought to
Speaker 4: this moment and this kind of situation, so a lot
Speaker 4: of people can if you ever find another person in
Speaker 4: that situation, it can be more mindful of that trying
Speaker 4: to help in a different kind of way if they could,
Speaker 4: because it's not just about me, it's about everybody here.
Speaker 4: Bobby Hill.
Speaker 1: On October thirteen, twenty seventeen, Wayan Dot County District Attorney
Speaker 1: Mark dupri moved to vacate the conviction and dismissed all
Speaker 1: charges against Lamont. Hours later, Lamont McIntyre walked out of
Speaker 1: the courthouse a freeman for the first time in over
Speaker 1: twenty three years. Since then, Lamont has won his wroeful
Speaker 1: conviction civil suit, as well as a civil suit against
Speaker 1: a number of officers, including Roger Glubski. The suit included
Speaker 1: the initials of at least seventy three other women that
Speaker 1: Gallupski allegedly victimized. After thirty years in the uniform of
Speaker 1: the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department. Roger Glupski went to
Speaker 1: work for nearby Edwardsville PD in twenty ten. Since Lamont's exoneration,
Speaker 1: Glupski faces three criminal indictments, and from what I understand,
Speaker 1: there are more on the way. It's also been rumored
Speaker 1: that Glubski may have been an active participant in at
Speaker 1: least a dozen murders. And while there might be an
Speaker 1: attempt to cut him down as only one bad apple,
Speaker 1: we must remember as a director of the Midwest Innocence Project,
Speaker 1: Tricia Bushnell put it, quote, there's an entire system that
Speaker 1: not only permitted him to do it, but supported him
Speaker 1: and promoted him end quote. Goolupski had been made captain
Speaker 1: and his former partner was chief of police until twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Cliburn, and Kevin Wartis,
Speaker 1: with research by Lyla Robinson. The music in this production
Speaker 1: was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 1: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction,
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at
Speaker 1: wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good on
Speaker 1: all three platforms. You can also follow me on both
Speaker 1: TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason plog Ronful Conviction is
Speaker 1: the production of Java for Good podcasts and association with
Speaker 1: Signal Company Number one