Speaker 1: Hey folks, Kate Judson here, I'm a lawyer and the
Speaker 1: executive director of the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences.
Speaker 1: We're back with another episode of Junk Science, a series
Speaker 1: we first released in twenty twenty. But these stories are
Speaker 1: just as relevant as ever. In this week's episode, Josh
Speaker 1: will dive into the story of Dale Johnson and the
Speaker 1: use of footwear analysis to wrongfully convict an innocent man.
Speaker 1: It's yet another example of a highly subjective analysis that
Speaker 1: is presented in court as objective fact. Just like other
Speaker 1: types of pattern matching evidence, in court, testifying experts may
Speaker 1: overstate the certainty of the evidence, overstate their conclusions, or
Speaker 1: exaggerate their reliability. In fact, when looking at hair comparison
Speaker 1: analyst testimony another type of flawed pattern matching, the FBI
Speaker 1: and others found that analysts overstated their conclusions more than
Speaker 1: ninety five percent of the time. There's no reason to
Speaker 1: believe that other types of pattern analysis are any different.
Speaker 1: So sometimes analysts overstate or exaggerate, and of course sometimes
Speaker 1: they're just playing wrong. Dale Johnson's case is an extreme
Speaker 1: example of this area of flawed analysis, but there are
Speaker 1: plenty more cases where footwear comparisons are used in a
Speaker 1: problematic way, and likely many more exonerations to come.
Speaker 2: It's a clear fall day in America's heartland. You sit
Speaker 2: in a chair outside your trailer, contently looking out over
Speaker 2: your farm. It's cool and the sun is setting behind
Speaker 2: the dense forest that surrounds your property. Everything seems just right.
Speaker 2: That evening, your stepdaughter in Net stops by with her boyfriend.
Speaker 2: You and your wife were pretty upset when Annette told
Speaker 2: you she was moving away from the farm and moving
Speaker 2: in with her boyfriend, Todd and his parents downtown. You
Speaker 2: don't want a Net to be caught up with someone
Speaker 2: from town. All those townies seem to care about his
Speaker 2: church and gossip. You want nothing to do with them,
Speaker 2: and they don't seem to want anything to do with you.
Speaker 2: But in Nette's already eighteen, she's an adult. You can't
Speaker 2: really control her. You try to act supportive, so you
Speaker 2: nod to Todd and help a Nette pack the last
Speaker 2: of her things into his trunk. You give her a
Speaker 2: hug before she gets into the car with him, and
Speaker 2: you watch as Todd pulls away to drive them back
Speaker 2: into town, and you're feeling a little helpless. The next
Speaker 2: day is pretty routine for you. You pick up loads
Speaker 2: of hay to bring to your barn. It's strenuous work.
Speaker 2: You work hard all day. You're exhausted, and you go
Speaker 2: to bed early. The next morning, the phone rings. It's
Speaker 2: Todd's mother. She says, are net in Todd with you? No,
Speaker 2: you say, I thought they were with you. Tod's mother
Speaker 2: becomes frantic. She says, the kids went for a walk
Speaker 2: around four pm yesterday and they never came home last night.
Speaker 2: But there's something else going on there. There's a hint
Speaker 2: of something, a tone of accusation in her voice, like
Speaker 2: she's somehow blaming you. You hang up and call the
Speaker 2: police immediately. You wait all day, hoping to hear something,
Speaker 2: but there's nothing. You're just waiting and waiting, and the
Speaker 2: police finally get back to you in the evening. They
Speaker 2: can't find them. One sleepless night bleeds into another, and
Speaker 2: then another and another. This is one terrible nightmare for
Speaker 2: you and your wife. Ten days go on like this.
Speaker 2: All you and your wife can do is it and worry.
Speaker 2: You're not eating, you're not sleeping, you don't know what
Speaker 2: to do with yourselves. It's raining outside when you finally
Speaker 2: get a call from an officer and you can hear
Speaker 2: it in the tone of their voice. This is not
Speaker 2: going to be good. The news I have for you
Speaker 2: is not going to be easy to hear. He says,
Speaker 2: we found Todd in a net in the Hawking River.
Speaker 2: Oh my god, you can't stand. Your body is trembling.
Speaker 2: You try to restate what the officer just said. You're
Speaker 2: trying to wrap your head around what this means. You
Speaker 2: found their bodies, their dead bodies. The officer says, they
Speaker 2: didn't find their whole bodies, just their torsos. Their bodies
Speaker 2: have been dismembered. You're completely sick. Officers spend two days
Speaker 2: searching the cornfields between the railroad tracks and the river
Speaker 2: where the torsos were found. They find Todd in the
Speaker 2: net's limbs and heads buried in shallow graves. You and
Speaker 2: your wife drive into town to the police station, and
Speaker 2: you're taken aback by the attitudes of these cops. When
Speaker 2: you're separated from your wife and pulled into an interrogation room,
Speaker 2: officers tell you to take off your boots, your shirt,
Speaker 2: your pants. You sit shivering in your underwear for eight
Speaker 2: and a half hours and then a detective comes in.
Speaker 2: He sits down right next to you, puts his finger
Speaker 2: in your face and says, you did this. We know
Speaker 2: you did this. We found your bootprint down by the riverbank.
Speaker 2: Once we match that boot to the print that was
Speaker 2: left at that riverbank, it'll prove you were there. You
Speaker 2: killed your stepdaughter, and then you sick bastard, you cut
Speaker 2: off for arms, her legs, her head. You better confess,
Speaker 2: because I'll tell you right now it's going to get
Speaker 2: worse for you if you don't. You say, over and
Speaker 2: over and over again, what in the world are you
Speaker 2: talking about. I didn't murder a net I just came
Speaker 2: here to help you find out who did What is
Speaker 2: this all about. They don't have enough evidence to charge
Speaker 2: you for the murder of a net and Todd, so
Speaker 2: they have to let you go. They impound your car
Speaker 2: so it can be searched for evidence. It's dark and
Speaker 2: cold when they drive you home. They let you and
Speaker 2: your wife out of the car and you're still naked
Speaker 2: except for your underwear. You walk barefoot to your trailer.
Speaker 2: Your toes are totally dumb. By the time you get
Speaker 2: to the door. Downtown, rumors start to spread. People are
Speaker 2: saying this murder must have been some kind of cult ritual,
Speaker 2: that it must have been you who did it. The quiet,
Speaker 2: stern stepfather who never says much, never goes to church,
Speaker 2: keeps his family hidden away. Who knows what goes on
Speaker 2: at that farm. They didn't like you before, but now
Speaker 2: they're straight a hostile. They cross the street to get
Speaker 2: away from you when they see you coming. It takes
Speaker 2: them a year to build the case against you. Are
Speaker 2: they even looking at other suspects. The whispering of your
Speaker 2: name around town grows to a fever pitch. You can
Speaker 2: hear their accusations ring in your ears. Murderer, molester. You're
Speaker 2: eventually arrested in charge with the butchering murder of your
Speaker 2: stepdaughter and net and her boyfriend Todd. When you finally
Speaker 2: go to court, you do something very out of the ordinary.
Speaker 2: You waive the right to a jury trial. Finding twelve
Speaker 2: impartial people in Logan, Ohio really not going to happen.
Speaker 2: The newspapers, everyone around town, they all think you're guilty.
Speaker 2: Everyone just wants to feel safe again. They won't be
Speaker 2: satisfied until someone is convicted and they are sure that
Speaker 2: person is you instead of a jury. You put your
Speaker 2: fate in the hands of a three judge panel. A
Speaker 2: jury might not see it, but three judges they have to.
Speaker 2: It's their job to apply the facts to the law
Speaker 2: without any outside influence from the court of public opinion.
Speaker 2: Your lawyer calls to the stand and FBI analyst who
Speaker 2: says the plaster mold of what the prosecution claims is
Speaker 2: your bootprint at the riverbank is quote unquote unsuitable. The
Speaker 2: analyst says it lacks sufficient detail for meaningful comparison, and
Speaker 2: that it looks more like the footprint of someone who
Speaker 2: is walking barefoot. There is no way to claim your
Speaker 2: boots match that print, So you're optimistic. But then the
Speaker 2: prosecution calls an anthropology professor or to the stand. She
Speaker 2: says she studied footwear impressions of countless samples. Her delivery
Speaker 2: is slow and deliberate and really credible. She says, quote
Speaker 2: no person's footprints are the same as another. They're as
Speaker 2: unique as a fingerprint. I've analyzed the wear patterns on
Speaker 2: the inside of the defendant's boot, and I can say
Speaker 2: with certainty, scientific certainty, that the footprint found by the
Speaker 2: riverbank was made by the defendant. This sounds unbelievable, but
Speaker 2: you see the judges are nodding along. There's no wather
Speaker 2: buying this is there. After a very short deliberation, the
Speaker 2: judges apparently believe the testimony of the prosecution's anthropologists who
Speaker 2: put you right at the scene of the crime. They
Speaker 2: convict you, and you are sentenced to death. The story
Speaker 2: you just heard is based on the murders of Nette
Speaker 2: Cooper Johnston and Todd Schultz. Dale. Johnston was wrongfully convicted
Speaker 2: and sentenced to death in nineteen eighty four. He was
Speaker 2: exonerated in nineteen ninety, over twenty years after the murder.
Speaker 2: The true killer finally confessed, but even then the people
Speaker 2: in the town of Logan still chose to believe that
Speaker 2: Dale was guilty in one way or another. On today's episode,
Speaker 2: we're going to examine how a supposed footprint put an
Speaker 2: innocent man on death row. I'm Josh Dubin, civil rights
Speaker 2: and criminal defense attorney and Innocent ambassador to the Innocence
Speaker 2: Project in New York. Today, on Wrongful Conviction Junk Science,
Speaker 2: we examined footwear comparison evidence, even when done correctly, impression
Speaker 2: analysis of evidence like shoe prints and tire tracks as
Speaker 2: purely subjective. Many experts recognize its limitations, but one so
Speaker 2: called expert in particular push the limits of this forensic
Speaker 2: discipline to produce horrific outcomes. It turns out that Dale
Speaker 2: Johnson wasn't the only innocent person to be convicted of
Speaker 2: a crime based on faulty footwear comparison evidence.
Speaker 3: The Pacers Foundation is a proud supporter of this episode
Speaker 3: of wrongful conviction with Jason Flahm and of the Last
Speaker 3: Mile organization, which provides business and tech training to help
Speaker 3: incarcerated individuals successfully and permanently re enter the workforce. The
Speaker 3: Pacers Foundation is committed to improving the lives of Hoosiers
Speaker 3: across Indiana, supporting organizations dedicated primarily to helping young people
Speaker 3: and students. For more information on the work of the
Speaker 3: Pacers Foundation or the Last Mile Program, visit Pacersfoundation dot
Speaker 3: org or the Lastmile dot org.
Speaker 2: In nineteen seventy six, archaeologists made one of the most
Speaker 2: exciting discoveries of our time. They found footprints dating back
Speaker 2: three point seven million years immortalized in the volcanic ash
Speaker 2: in Tanzania, and they looked like human prints. Archaeologists were thrilled.
Speaker 2: They thought these footprints could shed some light on when
Speaker 2: human beings began walking upright on two feet. Luis Robbins
Speaker 2: was an anthropology professor at the University of North Carolina
Speaker 2: at Greensboro. She too was excited about these footprints and
Speaker 2: wanted to know exactly who left them behind. Louise had
Speaker 2: been conducting her own studies in footprint analysis. She started
Speaker 2: collecting footprints from people who were still alive. Five hundred
Speaker 2: people put ink onto their feet and then stood on
Speaker 2: a piece of paper. Based on those prince Louise tried
Speaker 2: to find characteristics and feet that were specific to age, sex, stature,
Speaker 2: and weight, using her own system of measurement. She would
Speaker 2: then compare those characteristics to the footprints found in the caves.
Speaker 2: Her conclusion, no two footprints are the same. In fact,
Speaker 2: she thought she could tell a great deal about a
Speaker 2: person just by looking at their footprint. Her methods were
Speaker 2: never tested by her peers, nor were they confirmed by
Speaker 2: other scientists, but Louise she thought she was onto something.
Speaker 2: She claimed to do something no one else could identify
Speaker 2: a person solely through their footprint, and so in nineteen
Speaker 2: seventy eight, when a team of scientists went to excavate
Speaker 2: the site in Tanzania where the prehistoric footprints were found.
Speaker 2: Louise went too. When she saw the prince, she claimed
Speaker 2: that one of them was left by a woman that
Speaker 2: was five and a half months pregnant. Now, other scientists
Speaker 2: on the expedition scratched their heads. It was hard enough
Speaker 2: to figure out if the prints that they were looking
Speaker 2: at were even human at all. No one had ever
Speaker 2: claimed to know the gender of the person that made
Speaker 2: the print, let alone of that person was carrying a child.
Speaker 2: Then Louise took a dangerous leap. She positioned herself as
Speaker 2: a forensic expert, authoring a book on footprints. She didn't
Speaker 2: write this book with her scientific peers in mind, but
Speaker 2: she wrote it for law enforcement and crime labs. Only
Speaker 2: five pages in this book were dedicated to the analysis
Speaker 2: of actual shoe prints, and yet, based on these five pages,
Speaker 2: Louise claimed that she was an expert in this area
Speaker 2: of forensic science. Lawyers began to hire her as an
Speaker 2: expert witness. They told judges that her work was on
Speaker 2: the cutting edge of forensic science. Critics of her work
Speaker 2: called it Cinderella analysis. After all, she usually he made
Speaker 2: sure that the shoe fit when she matched the suspects
Speaker 2: foot to the shoe Prince found at a crime scene.
Speaker 2: In the more than twenty cases for which she testified,
Speaker 2: twelve people, some of whom who have since been proven
Speaker 2: to be innocent, were sent to prison, including Dale Johnston,
Speaker 2: who was sentenced to death.
Speaker 4: Dale Johnson and his wife Sarah at the time, came
Speaker 4: down to Logan several days after the bodies had been discovered,
Speaker 4: and they came to the Logan police department. They wanted
Speaker 4: to be helpful to them, and Dale was immediately taken
Speaker 4: up to an interrogation room. His boots, his pants, his
Speaker 4: shirt were all confiscated. So he was sitting there in
Speaker 4: the chair in his underwear and they were bombarding him.
Speaker 4: You did it, didn't you? And we know you did it?
Speaker 4: Over and over and over again. He kept saying, no,
Speaker 4: I have nothing. I would just I came into town
Speaker 4: to try to help.
Speaker 2: Here today is Bill Osinski, a journalist who covered the
Speaker 2: Dale Johnson case for years and wrote a book about
Speaker 2: it called Guilty by Popular Demand. So Bill, tell us
Speaker 2: a little bit about yourself and how you started covering
Speaker 2: this case.
Speaker 4: For nearly forty years. I was a reporter. I worked
Speaker 4: for eleven different newspapers around the country. I worked for
Speaker 4: the Akron Beacon Journal at that time, which is nearly
Speaker 4: two hundred miles away from Logan, Ohio, where the murders
Speaker 4: took place. But in those days, the newspapers valued a
Speaker 4: major story and would make that kind of an investment
Speaker 4: in time and resources to cover a widely publicized case
Speaker 4: like that.
Speaker 2: So, Bill, you actually went to Logan, Ohio to cover
Speaker 2: Dale's trial? What was that like?
Speaker 4: I drove into Logan, which is about thirty five miles
Speaker 4: southeast of Columbus, Ohio. I've ever been there before, and
Speaker 4: I drove in on a January morning, and it was
Speaker 4: one of the coldest things I can remember. The temperatures
Speaker 4: were well below zero. And I went to the center
Speaker 4: of the little town and found the courthouse. And here,
Speaker 4: you know, eight o'clock on a weekday morning, there was
Speaker 4: a line outside the courthouse. People were standing in that
Speaker 4: below zero cold waiting for a chance to get in
Speaker 4: to hear all this salacious details of this horrific murder
Speaker 4: of a teenage couple who were found dismembered, parts of
Speaker 4: their bodies buried in a cornfield near the Hawking River
Speaker 4: in Logan, Ohio.
Speaker 2: Wow, this is a really brutal crime. I mean, you
Speaker 2: have body parts buried in fields. And the prosecutors claimed
Speaker 2: that Dale Johnson committed these murders and putting aside what
Speaker 2: his motive would have been. How did they claim he
Speaker 2: committed the murders.
Speaker 4: The prosecutor alleged in his scenario that Dale Johnston had
Speaker 4: kidnapped these two kids in downtown Logan, made a stop
Speaker 4: on his way home at a doctor's office and drove
Speaker 4: him onto his trailer, where they got into an argument
Speaker 4: about a little used car that the parents were supposed
Speaker 4: to have given a net but hadn't yet, And out
Speaker 4: of that argument, Dale went into a jealous fit and
Speaker 4: pulled out a gun which they never found, and shot
Speaker 4: his stepdaughter and a boyfriend, and then took them outside,
Speaker 4: apparently and butchered them, and then brought them back to
Speaker 4: downtown Logan where they had last been seen and put
Speaker 4: some body parts, heads and limbs in the cornfield. I mean,
Speaker 4: it just it made absolutely no sense. They had no
Speaker 4: evidence that he was actually back in town at night
Speaker 4: trying to bury these bodies, but that's what they elect.
Speaker 4: Dale was not a warm guy. I mean, you know,
Speaker 4: he was the outsider. He didn't have a high opinion
Speaker 4: of the locals. They didn't like him. You know, he
Speaker 4: was convenient guy for them to hang in on.
Speaker 2: So, Bill, did anyone think that Dale was innocent? I mean,
Speaker 2: what was your sense of the atmosphere surrounding the case.
Speaker 4: There was such an atmosphere of the case having been
Speaker 4: already tried in the court of public opinion before the
Speaker 4: trial even started. More than a year passed between the
Speaker 4: murderers and the trial, and obviously the only story coming
Speaker 4: out of the investigation was that Dale Johnson did it.
Speaker 4: So that, in fact, was why the defense waived a
Speaker 4: jury trial and asked for a three judge panel, because
Speaker 4: they knew that people in Hocking County were so predisposed
Speaker 4: to believe that Dale Johnson was the killer.
Speaker 2: Now, very little evidence was found at the scenes where
Speaker 2: these body parts were found, but we know investigators found
Speaker 2: some sort of print in the mud by the riverbank.
Speaker 2: And Dale goes down to the police station with his
Speaker 2: wife Sarah, and he thinks he's going there to help
Speaker 2: them find the killers, but they confiscate his boots, and
Speaker 2: of course those boots would be compared to the impression
Speaker 2: found at the scene. So tell us a little bit
Speaker 2: more about what happened.
Speaker 4: There were so many cops out there that, according to
Speaker 4: the testimony of a Ohio Bureau of Investigation agent, they
Speaker 4: totally ruined the crime scene as far as being able
Speaker 4: to collect any valid evidence. They were cops stomping all over. Well,
Speaker 4: what happened was the share of Hockeing County had an
Speaker 4: impression made of a depression in the riverbank, and they
Speaker 4: made it casting, and they sent it off to the FBI,
Speaker 4: and it was examined by a nationally known footprint expert
Speaker 4: at the FBI, and he was brought in to testify
Speaker 4: to his findings, and he testified that, well, all he
Speaker 4: could say that this casting was more likely a footprint
Speaker 4: than any kind of a shoeprint or bootprint. And however,
Speaker 4: he forwarded this plaster cast at his own volition to
Speaker 4: a woman anthropologist, Luis Robbins, for her examination. And she
Speaker 4: had a theory of how he could identify footprints from
Speaker 4: the ware patterns on the inside of someone's footwear. She
Speaker 4: had this Kakamami theory that by examining the interior of
Speaker 4: a footwear she could get wear impressions and use that
Speaker 4: to analyze a casting of a print from a shoe
Speaker 4: or a boot. And so she testified and triwed it. Well,
Speaker 4: you can't really say that Dale Johnson's boot fits this,
Speaker 4: but from the wear patterns that she observed from the
Speaker 4: interior of the boot, when you looked at it that way,
Speaker 4: then yes, this was made by Dale Johnson's boot. And
Speaker 4: you know, I had never heard of that before. It
Speaker 4: didn't make any sense to me. It was only later,
Speaker 4: after the damage was done, that it came out how
Speaker 4: irresponsible and unreliable and untrue. Her testimony was.
Speaker 2: So let me hit this straight. This is like, you know,
Speaker 2: kind of mind blowing here. Louise Robbins said that she
Speaker 2: could match the depression found by the riverbank to Dale
Speaker 2: based on war patterns made by his foot inside his boot.
Speaker 2: I mean, it just sounds ridiculous. I've never even heard
Speaker 2: of that before. This seems to go so far outside
Speaker 2: the bounds of any verifiable science. And you know, it's
Speaker 2: important for our listeners to keep in mind that with
Speaker 2: impression pattern matching methods, that's the type of science we're
Speaker 2: talking about, or alleged science that we're talking about with
Speaker 2: shoe prints and tires. There's a database that experts have
Speaker 2: and they refer to this database when they're matching a
Speaker 2: shoe or a tire to an impression at a scene.
Speaker 2: And tires and shoes are mass produced, so the same
Speaker 2: rubber mold is used to make them. But that just
Speaker 2: tells an expert what class that piece of evidence came from. So,
Speaker 2: for instance, they can say that this footwear impression was
Speaker 2: made by a size ten Nike Air Jordan. But the
Speaker 2: problem is a lot of people own a size ten
Speaker 2: Nike Air Jordan, so it's not enough to put somebody
Speaker 2: at the scene. So impression analysis really comes down to
Speaker 2: the individual characteristics in the specific shoe or shoes that
Speaker 2: belong to the accused, and we're talking about things like
Speaker 2: cracks in the sole of the shoe, comes stuck to
Speaker 2: the bottom of the heel, you know, characteristics that are
Speaker 2: often caused by routine wear and tear. But the problem
Speaker 2: is there is no standard regarding the number of unique
Speaker 2: characteristics that are needed to make a positive identification. And
Speaker 2: it sounds like from the mold they were working with
Speaker 2: in this case that the FBI analysts couldn't even tell
Speaker 2: if the impression was made by a bare foot or
Speaker 2: a shoe, let alone, what kind of a shoe? So
Speaker 2: that should tell you something about the quality of the
Speaker 2: impression they were working with. But Ms Robbins makes this
Speaker 2: huge leap, and it's really really hard to imagine that
Speaker 2: this could have been allowed in a courtroom when someone's
Speaker 2: freedom was on the line. And yet he or she
Speaker 2: is one of the prosecution's key witnesses when it came
Speaker 2: to analyzing the physical evidence of the scene. So how
Speaker 2: prominently did Miss Robbin's testimony play in the prosecution's closing arguments?
Speaker 4: Bill, Well, it was very prominent because it was the
Speaker 4: only piece of evidence that linked Dale Johnson to the
Speaker 4: murder scene. I thought it was a very weak link
Speaker 4: to begin with, but apparently it was strong enough for
Speaker 4: three judges. His closing line was, murder is the ultimate
Speaker 4: form of molestation, so you must be guilty of the
Speaker 4: murder too. He had, of course, been alleging without evidence,
Speaker 4: that Dale Johnson had inappropriate relationship with Annette.
Speaker 2: So after he's convicted and sentence, what happens next?
Speaker 4: Bill? He was sent immediately to death row. But you know,
Speaker 4: it was such a weird, hostile atmosphere in that town.
Speaker 4: I mean, I will never forget when it came time
Speaker 4: for the verdict, all the spectators had gathered on the
Speaker 4: lower level of the courthouse but listened to the verdict
Speaker 4: by radio, and I will never forget that when the
Speaker 4: guilty verdict was announced, there was this eerie cheering that
Speaker 4: came from below, you know, that filled up the courtroom.
Speaker 4: And these people wanted somebody to pay, and Dale Johnston
Speaker 4: happened to be the guy who they were able to
Speaker 4: hang it on.
Speaker 2: I mean, it seems Bill that they didn't even have
Speaker 2: anything other than a hunch that Dal Johnston did this.
Speaker 2: I mean, I it's hard to make sense of this.
Speaker 2: I mean, do you think that they did this on purpose?
Speaker 2: Do you think that they've set out to frame Dale Johnson?
Speaker 4: Well, I don't think anyone wants to accept that the
Speaker 4: prosecutors and police would knowingly fabricate an entire case against
Speaker 4: a murder defendant. And I know I came down to
Speaker 4: Logan with no preconceptions. I do remember, you know, having
Speaker 4: the belief that you know, the state wouldn't bring these
Speaker 4: charges unless they had something against this guy. And by
Speaker 4: the end, I said, where is the case I was
Speaker 4: shocked at the prosecutor's summary. I mean it, it was
Speaker 4: total high opera and total fantasy. Everything that was presented
Speaker 4: in that trial was a lie. I believe somewhere before
Speaker 4: I die, I'm going to learn the truth in this case,
Speaker 4: and it just so happens that I did.
Speaker 2: You know, it's interesting that oftentimes, when one of these
Speaker 2: disciplines of junk science is used in a case and
Speaker 2: the person is convicted, it's not the exposure of that
Speaker 2: junk science as being total bullshit that leads to the exoneration.
Speaker 2: It's often that DNA testing is used to prove that
Speaker 2: they have the wrong person. What's really interesting about this
Speaker 2: case is that Dale is eventually released from prison because
Speaker 2: his lawyers were able to prove that some of the
Speaker 2: evidence that was used the convictim was not admissible. And
Speaker 2: oddly enough, it wasn't the shoe evidence that was thrown out,
Speaker 2: but another witness's testimony. It turns out that a witness
Speaker 2: had been hypnotized by a detective and was persuaded to
Speaker 2: give this awful testimony against Dale at the trial, and
Speaker 2: testimony that he like forcefully put a net in and
Speaker 2: Todd into a car and that testimony was never supposed
Speaker 2: to be admitted in court, and that was what was
Speaker 2: deemed inadmissible, and Dale was let out because of that.
Speaker 2: And of course Louise Robbin's testimony about his you know,
Speaker 2: the inside wear patterns on his boots, you know, being
Speaker 2: definitive proof that the impression left on the riverbank was
Speaker 2: his that was left undisturbed. And everyone still believed he
Speaker 2: was guilty. But then someone else confessed to murdering and
Speaker 2: it and Todd so Bill tell us about that. Who
Speaker 2: actually committed this crime, A.
Speaker 4: Sorry little fellow named Chester mcnight was nicknamed Chester the
Speaker 4: Molester just because apparently because he was weird and was
Speaker 4: an habitual criminal, habitual drunk, even though he had a
Speaker 4: history of assaults against women. And Chester actually got married
Speaker 4: and it lasted a couple of weeks before she kicked
Speaker 4: him out and left. And it was in that atmosphere
Speaker 4: where Chester just went over the deep end and was
Speaker 4: drinking day in and day out. He was obviously depressed,
Speaker 4: the wife had left him, and he was just drinking incessantly.
Speaker 4: He came on that afternoon, early evening of October fourth,
Speaker 4: to Kenny Lynn Scott's house, a local drug dealer, you know,
Speaker 4: they were drinking buddies. Anyway, there was a kind of
Speaker 4: a makeshift party in Kenny's yard and Chester joined in,
Speaker 4: and here comes Todd and Annette. So they joined the
Speaker 4: party for a little while. I think they may have
Speaker 4: had a beer and Chester decided to hey, let's keep
Speaker 4: the party going. I've got some I've got some stuff.
Speaker 4: And so they start walking down the railroad tracks and
Speaker 4: according to Chester's account, he wanted to have a group
Speaker 4: sex with Annette, and she of course know and Todd
Speaker 4: tried to get her out of the situation, and that's
Speaker 4: when Chester pulled a gun and shot him, and that
Speaker 4: started screaming. She shot her. At that point, Chester and
Speaker 4: Kenny dragged the bodies down to the riverfront at the
Speaker 4: edge of the cornfield and dismembered them. And Kenny, maybe
Speaker 4: with help maybe not, got the bodies back into the
Speaker 4: cornfield and dug shallow holes and put the limbs and
Speaker 4: the heads into a kind of a bare spot in
Speaker 4: the middle of the cornfield that he knew about. And
Speaker 4: Kenny the next few nights he would go out to
Speaker 4: that railroad bridge and cry and moan and friends saying,
Speaker 4: what's wrong Kenny and he told them, Yo, you wouldn't understand.
Speaker 4: His neighbors knew what he was doing. His neighbors saw
Speaker 4: his behavior. His neighbors told the police that they should
Speaker 4: be investigating him, but they never did, and they did
Speaker 4: have a record then of this strange call made the
Speaker 4: night before the body parts were found. Kenny Linscott made
Speaker 4: the call and said, have you found the bodies yet?
Speaker 4: And nobody at that point knew that the kids were
Speaker 4: even dead or that there were bodies to be found,
Speaker 4: And that call was logged and it became the thing
Speaker 4: that led to Kenny and ultimately to Chester. And so
Speaker 4: I have a law enforcement source that helped me with this,
Speaker 4: and he told me that, you know, everybody knew Kenny
Speaker 4: was acting weird after the killings. And he said, well,
Speaker 4: let's go talk to Kenny. And the sheriff says, oh, no,
Speaker 4: we confined him, when then we need him. So at
Speaker 4: the very beginning, Lin Scott's name came up, but yet
Speaker 4: the police just dismissed him right out of hand.
Speaker 2: In reflecting on all this, I just want to go
Speaker 2: back to Luiz Robin's testimony about the shoeprint for a moment.
Speaker 2: I understand why jurors would be persuaded by her. She's
Speaker 2: got this anthropology degree, she's a professor. She comes across
Speaker 2: short convincingly. She went and studied these ancient footprints in Tanzania.
Speaker 2: That all makes sense. But the three judges hearing this,
Speaker 2: you know, the inside wear patterns on the boot and
Speaker 2: that being definitive proof that it was Dale Johnson's bootprint.
Speaker 2: I mean, what did they make of her testimony?
Speaker 4: I can tell you how strongly her testimony was accepted.
Speaker 4: Twenty five years later, you know, when the real truth
Speaker 4: came out. I interviewed two of the three judges on
Speaker 4: the case and they both said, well, we had doctor
Speaker 4: Robin's testimony before us, and that was very convincing. This
Speaker 4: was even after they learned the truth, after they learned
Speaker 4: that everything this woman said was a lie, they still
Speaker 4: wanted to believe in her. I have summed up this
Speaker 4: case as a total collapse of a local justice system,
Speaker 4: and I still believe that it left me with such
Speaker 4: a sense of outrage that this kind of thing can
Speaker 4: be done in our system of justice toom and I mean,
Speaker 4: you know it was it was not even close. But
Speaker 4: the lies that were told in that courtroom were enough
Speaker 4: to send an into some man to death row sitting
Speaker 4: there through the entire trial. Is they never they never
Speaker 4: presented a rational case, and the evidence that they did
Speaker 4: present was you know, challenged very successfully by the defense.
Speaker 4: I mean, what I learned is that someone with an
Speaker 4: academic position and the claim of scientific expertise is automatically
Speaker 4: granted some level of believability, even by judges and prosecutors
Speaker 4: and investigators. And they really accepted Louise robins testimony and
Speaker 4: as fact I called it in my book fantasy Forensics,
Speaker 4: and as events have proven, it was totally fabricated. I
Speaker 4: can only attribute it to the desire to get a conviction,
Speaker 4: any conviction. That people in that town were petrified. The
Speaker 4: judges knew it, They knew what would happen if they
Speaker 4: didn't get a conviction, and they knew that they wouldn't
Speaker 4: have another crack at Dale Johnson if they acquitted him.
Speaker 4: So they convicted him and just went back home.
Speaker 2: The use of doctor Robins as a forensic expert is
Speaker 2: an example of what can go horribly wrong when courts
Speaker 2: allow unverified signs into our courtrooms. She testified in twenty
Speaker 2: cases truly a hired gun by attorneys looking for a
Speaker 2: particular outcome. Her work was reviewed by a panel of
Speaker 2: one hundred and thirty five anthropologists, forensic scientists, lawyers, and
Speaker 2: legal scholars sponsored by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences,
Speaker 2: and they concluded that her methodology for identification had no
Speaker 2: basis in science, but the damage had already been done.
Speaker 2: Dale Johnson spent four years on death row for a
Speaker 2: double homicide that he didn't commit. But he was fortunate
Speaker 2: and that even though his trial left him impoverished, his
Speaker 2: attorneys stayed on his case pro bono and took on
Speaker 2: the appeals. The psychological trauma inflicted on those who were
Speaker 2: wrongfully convicted, especially for people who are innocent and sit
Speaker 2: on death row, is well documented. It isn't just the
Speaker 2: conviction that stays with the wrongfully convicted, it's the aftermath.
Speaker 2: Dale lost it all. He lost his stepdaughter, his property,
Speaker 2: his wife divorced him. It wasn't until well into his
Speaker 2: eighties earlier this year that Dale finally received some compensation
Speaker 2: for his time spent in prison. The Innocence Project provides
Speaker 2: support for therapy and social services for its clients who
Speaker 2: are forced to cope with the harms associated with their
Speaker 2: wrongful conviction. You can donate to the Innocence Project by
Speaker 2: visiting www. Dot Innocenceproject dot org, slash give. Next week,
Speaker 2: we'll explore the junk science of fingerprint evidence. Wrongful Conviction
Speaker 2: Junk Science is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
Speaker 2: in association with Signal Company Number One. Thanks to our
Speaker 2: executive producer Jason Flam and the team at Signal Company
Speaker 2: Number One executive producer Kevin Wardis and senior producers Karen
Speaker 2: Kornhaber and Britz Spangler. Our music was composed by Jay Ralph.
Speaker 2: You can follow me on Instagram at dubin Josh. Follow
Speaker 2: the Wrongful Conviction podcast on Facebook and on Instagram at
Speaker 2: wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at wrong Conviction