Speaker 1: In the eighties and nineties, Los Angeles gang culture was
Speaker 1: much more nuanced than anyone outside of it bothered to know.
Speaker 1: For some, gangs meant socializing, while the criminal activity of
Speaker 1: others colored all affiliated with the same broadbrush gangs were
Speaker 1: viewed as a problem that needed a swift and harsh solution,
Speaker 1: and it seems that simply connecting it defended into a
Speaker 1: gang was enough to get a conviction. While fifteen year
Speaker 1: old Duardo Dambrican eighteen year old John Clinny were affiliated
Speaker 1: with Lawn Del thirteen for the girls, parties and camaraderie,
Speaker 1: three older Lawn Del thirteen members, Santo Alvarez, Lester mom Laura,
Speaker 1: and Chad Landrum were in it for the drugs and violence.
Speaker 1: On June seven, Antonio aller Khan, a rival gang member,
Speaker 1: was killed in a drive by shooting. A few days later,
Speaker 1: to escape unrelated charges, Santo Alvarez used his knowledge of
Speaker 1: that drive by to blame me, Duardo, and John. A
Speaker 1: few weeks later, Alvarez, mont Laure and Landrum committed another murder,
Speaker 1: and the police were happy to pin alvare As role
Speaker 1: on a woman who knew that deceased rather than their
Speaker 1: star witness against Eduardo and John. With Alvarez a statement
Speaker 1: and a corrupt identification process that was immediately recanted and
Speaker 1: protested by the witness the two boys were taken to trial.
Speaker 1: Chad Landrum was willing to confess to the drive by,
Speaker 1: but his continued violence behind bars kept him unavailable. Despite
Speaker 1: both Alvarez and the witnesses less than willing participation to trial,
Speaker 1: the prosecutor and the detectives were able to harp on
Speaker 1: Eduardo and John's gang affiliation in order to send them
Speaker 1: away for life without parole. This is wrongful conviction. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to wrongful conviction today, we're covering a case. It
Speaker 1: gives us a peek into the gang world of Los
Speaker 1: Angeles in the nine nineties and the way in w
Speaker 1: the l a p D and the Prosecutor's office dealt
Speaker 1: with that issue. We have two men that were affected
Speaker 1: by those policies when they were just boys. There's a
Speaker 1: third ronthly convicted person, Susan Mellen, from a related crime.
Speaker 1: She's not recording with us today, but they're amazing. Lawyer
Speaker 1: is one of the founders of Innocence Matters. Deirdre O'Connor,
Speaker 1: Welcome to wrongful Conviction. Thank you for having me and
Speaker 1: now our guests of honor, the two men themselves. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm I always say this, but it's true. I'm sorry
Speaker 1: that you guys are here because of why you're here,
Speaker 1: but I'm really happy to have you on Wrongful Conviction today.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to introduce John Clinny First. John, thank
Speaker 1: you for being here with us today on wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me, And of course Ed dambri Que,
Speaker 1: thank you for joining us, Thanks for having me. Appreciate
Speaker 1: So you two guys grew up together. Can you give
Speaker 1: us a little background there. I've known Ed since I
Speaker 1: was about maybe fift We both grew up in Lawndale, California.
Speaker 1: Lawn Bells kind of typical middle class city in the
Speaker 1: South Bay. You know, it has its little areas that
Speaker 1: aren't so great, and it's some areas are are decent.
Speaker 1: So it's about ten minutes fifteen minutes from the beach.
Speaker 1: I think it's it's a nice city. It's got a
Speaker 1: good high school. So growing up in Lawndale, there was
Speaker 1: a gang in your neighborhood called the Lawndale Thirteam. Well,
Speaker 1: we grew up there and we were part of that.
Speaker 1: So you two grew up in the gang culture of
Speaker 1: Los Angeles in the eighties and nineties and really came
Speaker 1: of age in the nineties. And I think it's news
Speaker 1: to some people that the word gang and gang culture
Speaker 1: in general is a bit more nuanced than most of
Speaker 1: the country realized back then. You know, many of our
Speaker 1: listeners are old enough to remember seeing news reports of
Speaker 1: the violence associated with gangs, and that's pretty much all
Speaker 1: anyone outside of that culture knew about it at the time.
Speaker 1: Only negative connotations, of course, So society reacted to that
Speaker 1: perception by electing quote unquote tough on crime politicians who
Speaker 1: implemented these kinds of ham fisted policing tactics, which of
Speaker 1: course had very real effects, as you can both attest
Speaker 1: to locking people up for the sake of doing it,
Speaker 1: but not the right people, and in too many cases
Speaker 1: it's wrong people like in yours. But gang culture was
Speaker 1: not just criminality and violence, right, It was much much
Speaker 1: more nuanced than that. Would you say that's an accurate depiction, Yeah,
Speaker 1: for sure, even in a single gang it maybe, like
Speaker 1: you know, some people are just families, some people are
Speaker 1: just friends. Of course, you have a criminal element to it,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is involved in crime.
Speaker 1: The term gang is is not a good one. But
Speaker 1: it's like when you're young and growing up and and
Speaker 1: and you experienced the friendship and the camaraderie, and I
Speaker 1: mean that's kind of where you end up at, especially
Speaker 1: if you're growing up like in a neighborhood, you know
Speaker 1: where gangs are there. You know, not everybody is on
Speaker 1: the same page, not everybody gets along. We were having fun,
Speaker 1: you know, whether we're trying to get girls, trying to
Speaker 1: have a good time the so what it was. But
Speaker 1: then you definitely had other guys that their version of
Speaker 1: fun or or you know, what they would do is
Speaker 1: drugs and violence. What I think is true for all gangs, right,
Speaker 1: is that there are little subsets inside the gangs where
Speaker 1: people gravitate towards certain activities, you know, chasing girls, maybe
Speaker 1: scoring some weed, that kind of thing. And there was
Speaker 1: that kind of group, and then there were the people
Speaker 1: like Piasso, which is Santo Alvarez, or Ghosts Chad Landrum
Speaker 1: or Wicked Lester Monlare that were really wanting to make
Speaker 1: a name for themselves. They were getting high all the
Speaker 1: time and doing some real vicious stuff. And they were
Speaker 1: the ones out there doing the drive bys and the
Speaker 1: kind of gratuitous violence that everybody associates gangs with. Did
Speaker 1: you get along with these guys? We know them. Uh,
Speaker 1: they're all significantly older than us. I knew Lester when
Speaker 1: I was growing up a little bit, like just as
Speaker 1: a as a younger kid it, but he kind of
Speaker 1: went the druggie kind of violent route, and I just
Speaker 1: was there for kind of like the camaraderie and the
Speaker 1: friendships and the fun I saw Santos on my block
Speaker 1: a lot here and there, and my neighbor that lived
Speaker 1: in the backhouse, I guess he got his radio stolen,
Speaker 1: you know, out of his car in my driveway, you know,
Speaker 1: and I always pretty much suspected Santos as being the
Speaker 1: one that that stole it, you know. Okay, so so
Speaker 1: much for camaraderie. So this kind of accurately paints a
Speaker 1: picture of the divide that's at the crux of this story.
Speaker 1: And I mean by that the larger perception of gangs
Speaker 1: in the nineties, and then how the issue was dealt with,
Speaker 1: like I said, in a ham fisted kind of way
Speaker 1: by detectives like the ones in this case. There was
Speaker 1: Sergeant Riggs, but also Marcella Win in a related case Deirdre.
Speaker 1: Have either of them had any other wrongful convictions that
Speaker 1: they've been tied to Win certainly does. She's uh, she
Speaker 1: real offender. There's at least five known people. Oh, b
Speaker 1: Anthony and Reggie Cole case, they were co defendants. Um,
Speaker 1: it was Win's first murder case at South Bay Homicide. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we covered that case here on Rathle conviction and we'll
Speaker 1: have it linked in to bio. Then she had these
Speaker 1: two guys and John and now she had a tangential
Speaker 1: role in that. But had she done the right thing,
Speaker 1: these guys would not have been in custody. She also
Speaker 1: had the Susan Mellon case where she relied on a
Speaker 1: non reliable person obviously unreliable, there was no question about it.
Speaker 1: And then she had another case, the Michelle Puo's case,
Speaker 1: she relied on the same unreliable witnesses she used against
Speaker 1: Susan Mellon. That is really disgusting tactic that we see
Speaker 1: over and over again revisiting and reusing the same useful
Speaker 1: liars like Mark Tabbans did in the Bronx and Upper Manhattan,
Speaker 1: and this kid Joey Morales who was a witness in
Speaker 1: six different murders and each time he was out getting
Speaker 1: milk for his mom. And Danny Wrinkling, who he interviewed
Speaker 1: on this podcast, which is still in prison three decades
Speaker 1: later because of this fake witness, and of course Mark
Speaker 1: Tavn's it looks like when was cut from the same cloth,
Speaker 1: she was a terrible detective and didn't follow the rules
Speaker 1: at all. Now, as far as Sergeant Riggs is concerned,
Speaker 1: you're gonna see what he does in this case in
Speaker 1: terms of the identification process, and one can only surmise
Speaker 1: that if he was so comfortable running rough shot over
Speaker 1: a witness who was protesting at the identification in the
Speaker 1: courtroom and in post conviction, Yeah, while at the identification,
Speaker 1: he's literally going, I can't see that far. I can't
Speaker 1: do this identification for you because I can't see. So
Speaker 1: this guy tried to stand up and do the right
Speaker 1: thing and was overruled and overridden and bullied by these cops.
Speaker 1: So it's fair to say that this is something that
Speaker 1: this particular officer had done before. The one thing I
Speaker 1: would say Jason in these In these gang cases, you know,
Speaker 1: all bets are off with these detectives. They can do
Speaker 1: whatever they want because they know that nobody has any sympathy.
Speaker 1: All they have to do is say the word gang member,
Speaker 1: and the prosecutors, adjurors, judges, everybody rallies around a conviction.
Speaker 1: So the rules are completely different in a gang case.
Speaker 1: And that's why you see detectives violate the rules as
Speaker 1: much as they do because they can get away with it, right.
Speaker 1: They violate the rules while lumping every gang member in
Speaker 1: under the umbrella of quote violent gang member, regardless of
Speaker 1: what subset of the gang that individual identified with. And
Speaker 1: what happened in this case, as happens unfortunately all over
Speaker 1: the country tragically, is that you have a violent character
Speaker 1: like Santo Alvarez who conveniently trades false information for his
Speaker 1: own freedom and then he and they remain free, i mean,
Speaker 1: other people like him to commit more acts of violence
Speaker 1: while getting innocent folks wrongfully convicted. And according to the
Speaker 1: fall this information that Alvarez eventually gave the police, this
Speaker 1: story began to unfold on the day before the incident
Speaker 1: in question, Jun won a few kids from around the
Speaker 1: lawn deal thirteen neighborhood who were not in any way affiliated,
Speaker 1: were the victims of a dry button. This was allegedly
Speaker 1: perpetrated by members of the Little Watts game. Now none
Speaker 1: of this was ever investigated or substantiated, but this story
Speaker 1: from Santo Alvarez was used as the alleged motive or
Speaker 1: retaliatory drive by the following night. But did either of
Speaker 1: you guys even know the kids who were shot or
Speaker 1: shot at the night before, and particularly did you know
Speaker 1: nineteen year old Luis Madrono. I didn't know the guy.
Speaker 1: Those guys were not associates of Londel. They were not
Speaker 1: friends of Londo that I know of. But somehow I
Speaker 1: guess to maybe create a motive for our case, they
Speaker 1: got brought into that as being a good way to say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: these guys are retaliating for this. And what happened the
Speaker 1: following night, June seven, was that a member of the
Speaker 1: Little Watts gang, year old Antonio Alercon, was that an
Speaker 1: auto body shop and while outside using the payphone next door,
Speaker 1: out of sight of those in the auto body shop,
Speaker 1: he was killed by a drive by shooter. Digital what
Speaker 1: else can you tell us? Alercon had a truck that
Speaker 1: was being worked on over a period of time at
Speaker 1: the shop, and the shop owner, Daniel Curio, was at
Speaker 1: the shops that night with a couple of other people
Speaker 1: in the shop, and Alercon happened to stop by and
Speaker 1: while he was there, I think he got a page
Speaker 1: and he wanted to use the phone to call uh
Speaker 1: this woman who turned out to be his mistress. So
Speaker 1: he was offered to use the inside phone, but he
Speaker 1: declined and decided to go outside because he wanted privacy.
Speaker 1: So he went out of the shop. There's an adjacent
Speaker 1: building and there's a pay phone outside of that, and
Speaker 1: he went to the payphone to speak with his mistress,
Speaker 1: and then suddenly a car pulled up. Somebody got out
Speaker 1: of the car and just unloaded multiple shots and he
Speaker 1: was killed really probably before he had any chance to
Speaker 1: react in any way. And then the shooter got back
Speaker 1: in the car and the car drove off, and as
Speaker 1: it drove off, it passed the opening of the body
Speaker 1: shop garage door. So basically there's the storefront on the corner.
Speaker 1: Adjacent to it is the body shop, but the body
Speaker 1: shop sits in from the sidewalk so that there's parking
Speaker 1: in front of it. So when you're inside the body
Speaker 1: shop with the door open and looking out, you would
Speaker 1: not have a direct line to the phone booth because
Speaker 1: the wall of the building would be blocking it. But
Speaker 1: once the car moved forward, they would be able to
Speaker 1: see the car pass by right, So no one actually
Speaker 1: got a good look at the shooter, including the shop owner,
Speaker 1: who told detectives that, but detectives cajoled him anyway into
Speaker 1: making an idea that he has never supported. Curiel even
Speaker 1: demonstrated later at trial that he can't reliably see twenty
Speaker 1: feet in front of him. Can you talk a bit
Speaker 1: about his vantage point curios Working on a car with
Speaker 1: his back to the street, he hears the sound of
Speaker 1: the gunshots going off, but he thought it was fireworks,
Speaker 1: and because of the the echoing effect, he thought it
Speaker 1: was coming from the back. So he goes to the
Speaker 1: back and he looks out to see what's going on
Speaker 1: back there, and that's when he realizes it's coming from
Speaker 1: the front. And by then the car is moving past
Speaker 1: the shop, so he would have been I think more
Speaker 1: than twenty feet away from the car at the time
Speaker 1: that he first observed it. So what he and others
Speaker 1: did see was that this was a black or darker
Speaker 1: in college to Dan, and that the front passenger had
Speaker 1: yelled some kind of gang epithetic alercon as they drove off.
Speaker 1: So this shooting happened around eleven PM on June, And
Speaker 1: from looking into this case, I realized that this state
Speaker 1: has some other significance and most of our audience will
Speaker 1: remember this like I do, because early here that same night,
Speaker 1: Mike Tyson bit a Vander Holyfield's ear off during a
Speaker 1: heavyweight championship fight. So people remember that night very very clearly.
Speaker 1: In fact, you guys were friends. Ed was fifteen, John
Speaker 1: was eighteen, and you were hanging out to watch the
Speaker 1: fight together. Is that right? Yes? Yeah, the day of
Speaker 1: barbecue invited me and it was actually a great night.
Speaker 1: You know, we've never seen something like that before, right,
Speaker 1: It was pretty memorable. There was multiple people there, you know, cooking, eating, drinking.
Speaker 1: It was it was a good night. Yeah, that was insane.
Speaker 1: I remember calling my friends and family just to check
Speaker 1: if they had seen it. Yeah, people called the house,
Speaker 1: a few people and they're like, what the hell happened?
Speaker 1: Seeing it on the news, and you know, if they
Speaker 1: didn't watch the fight, you know, right, they knew you
Speaker 1: were watching and called to ask about it. You were
Speaker 1: seeing on the front lawn talking on your cordless phone
Speaker 1: by a neighbor as well, who got home aroundled. So
Speaker 1: not only the people at the party, but also those
Speaker 1: that called you and your neighbor, they all placed you
Speaker 1: at home at the time of the shooting, which was
Speaker 1: about an eight to twelve minute drive away from your home.
Speaker 1: And this shooting was alleged to be in retaliation for
Speaker 1: the shooting of some kid you didn't even know. Now,
Speaker 1: this case was being investigated by Sergeant DORYL. Riggs. Several
Speaker 1: days go by and on July one, Santo Alvarez a
Speaker 1: Kasso got picked up for possession of a weapon and
Speaker 1: a hypodermic needle by Torrance p D. And this is
Speaker 1: when the story started. So basically, Santos Alvarez is in
Speaker 1: jail trying to find his way out of jail, starts
Speaker 1: telling the I believe it was a Torrance police department
Speaker 1: where he was at. You know, hey, I know something
Speaker 1: about about a murder that happened, and they called the
Speaker 1: Sheriff's Homicide right, so Torrance p D called over to
Speaker 1: l A County Sheriff's Homicide department and Sergeant Riggs came
Speaker 1: to interview Santo Alvarez and they started asking about this
Speaker 1: dark colored car, maybe black, perhaps Queen, And while distancing
Speaker 1: himself from Lawndale gang activity, he said that the only
Speaker 1: person he can think of from Lawndale with a car
Speaker 1: like that was a guy named Robert Caputo. And he
Speaker 1: said that he saw the two of you in Caputo's
Speaker 1: car on the day of the murder, among other things.
Speaker 1: By also, Santo Alvarez creates this story that he saw
Speaker 1: me the day of the murder and I was upset
Speaker 1: about that shooting from the prior day of Luis Madrono,
Speaker 1: and that I wanted to retaliate. And then he said
Speaker 1: that he saw me like you know, a few days
Speaker 1: later or whatever, and and says that he overhears me
Speaker 1: talking to someone else saying that I shot someone or
Speaker 1: blasted that for something like along those lines is what
Speaker 1: he used. So with that, for my understanding, they let
Speaker 1: him out. Then they go back to the witnesses. I
Speaker 1: feel they put pressure the most on probably Daniel curie
Speaker 1: El since he was a shop owner and showed him
Speaker 1: six packs and coerced him and who identifying us because
Speaker 1: of what Santos said. So you mentioned that Albert said
Speaker 1: that we were in Campoodle's car, right, but the computer
Speaker 1: had turned that car in or sold it. They could
Speaker 1: tell there that he was lying about that. That's a
Speaker 1: significant thing to lie about it. You said they were
Speaker 1: in a car that the guy doesn't have exactly. Cappodo
Speaker 1: had sold it in February seven, about five or six
Speaker 1: months before the shooting. Yet, Riggs and his partner Garcia
Speaker 1: brought a six pack photo array over to Curio with
Speaker 1: the purpose of getting him to I D YouTube as
Speaker 1: if they couldn't spot that lie about Caputo's car right
Speaker 1: off the bat. This bogus photo lineup happened on July tenth,
Speaker 1: I believe, before Ed's arrest, and Curiel has always disputed this,
Speaker 1: but Riggs says that he identified Ed as the shooter
Speaker 1: and John is the front passenger. He held a gang epithet.
Speaker 1: So what really happened here, Well, Riggs convinces him basically, look,
Speaker 1: you're never gonna have to go to court. We don't
Speaker 1: even need you. This is just to help our case
Speaker 1: a little bit. We already got these guys, but in
Speaker 1: reality he was their entire case. So he convinces Curiel
Speaker 1: to say, all right, I'll sign for you to day
Speaker 1: my arrest. July on my way to the gym with
Speaker 1: a friend, and he noticed that there was cock cars
Speaker 1: behind us. Uh, and there was three of them, and
Speaker 1: then there was three coming in front of us. It
Speaker 1: had a bad feeling, like this is not a traffic ticket.
Speaker 1: They pulled us over, pull the guns out, drive us
Speaker 1: off the car. And one of my mom's friends happened
Speaker 1: to be driving by, and so she was across the
Speaker 1: street just observing. But I was trying to communicate with
Speaker 1: her to call my mom. Do I didn't want my
Speaker 1: mom not to know what happened to me either, you know.
Speaker 1: So I was fifteen. They tried MS an adult, and
Speaker 1: they sent me to the county jail, and I found
Speaker 1: myself in in a very violent section of the other
Speaker 1: college job and that was my kind of introduction to
Speaker 1: the system. Three weeks after the aller Con shooting, Santo Alvarez,
Speaker 1: Luster Monler, and Chad Landrum were hanging out in this
Speaker 1: house that had been vacated that was referred to as
Speaker 1: the melon Patch because the family that owned it their
Speaker 1: last name was Melan. So they break in the back.
Speaker 1: They're getting high homeless guy Richard Daily, who had prior
Speaker 1: connection with the woman who used to live there. Susan
Speaker 1: Mellon stops by their originally partying with him, and then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, Chad Landrum viciously attacks daily Max's
Speaker 1: head multiple times with a hammer and kills him. And
Speaker 1: then with the help of Santo and Lester, they wrap
Speaker 1: up the body and bring it to an alley in
Speaker 1: San Pedro, where they set it on fire in hopes
Speaker 1: of destroying any evidence. Said, well, enable the police to
Speaker 1: connect them, right, And you all didn't find out about
Speaker 1: this until post conviction, even though the person who prosecuted
Speaker 1: both Ed and John prosecuted this case as well, and
Speaker 1: we talked a bit about her before. But the Daily
Speaker 1: murder fell on Marcella Wind's desk, right, and all of
Speaker 1: these informants came to her saying it was Piasso ghost
Speaker 1: and wicked with the hammer right in the melon patch,
Speaker 1: open and shut, right, But that's not what happened. This person,
Speaker 1: Susan Melon, ended up getting dragged into it in Piassa's
Speaker 1: stead right instead of him. How did that happen? Well,
Speaker 1: I think initially, when you know she takes the path
Speaker 1: of least resistance in all of her investigations, so when
Speaker 1: people were handing up to the three gang members, she
Speaker 1: was going to pursue that and go after them. She
Speaker 1: even submitted an affidavit for restaurants for all three of them. However,
Speaker 1: she doesn't want to do any heavy lifting, so there
Speaker 1: wasn't enough evidence for the d A to pursue Piasso,
Speaker 1: and when didn't do the investigation, she needed to build
Speaker 1: a case against him. So at the same time that
Speaker 1: it was becoming clear that she'd have to work to
Speaker 1: get Piasso further implicated in it, this other tweaker, June Patty,
Speaker 1: came along and said, Hey, I got some information on Melon.
Speaker 1: You can pursue her. And so Wind shifted gears and
Speaker 1: went after Melon. And while she was doing this, she
Speaker 1: was in communication with Riggs about Piasso's role as a
Speaker 1: witness as their star witness in that case. So in
Speaker 1: those conversations that were never documented, the substance of that
Speaker 1: was never documented. Clearly, these detectives made decisions that benefited
Speaker 1: both of them. So Riggs was allowed to use Piasso
Speaker 1: in the Alarcon shooting, and Win was free to pursue
Speaker 1: Melan another innocent person for the daily murder. So ultimately
Speaker 1: Chad Lange, I mean, Lester Mon Laura were rightfully pursued,
Speaker 1: along with Susan Mellon, who was wrongfully pursued. They were
Speaker 1: all tried separately, and Landrum and Melon were both convicted.
Speaker 1: Man Laura was acquitted, so both Mon Laura and Alvarez
Speaker 1: got off scott free, ready willing and able to commit
Speaker 1: even more crimes. Jesus Christ. So now August fourteen rolls
Speaker 1: around and John, you were arrested for the Alercon drive
Speaker 1: by as the front seat passenger. Yeah, that was a shocker, obviously,
Speaker 1: but for the first you know, six months of going
Speaker 1: to jail. When I got arrested, I thought the next
Speaker 1: court date they would realize this guy is not supposed
Speaker 1: to be here, We're gonna go ahead and release him.
Speaker 1: And you know, every court date turned into a next
Speaker 1: court date until I finally realized, like, these guys are serious,
Speaker 1: they really, you know, they're really trying to charge me
Speaker 1: with this. So now October seven, curial was brought into
Speaker 1: view a live lineup, and on the advice of your lawyer, John,
Speaker 1: you tried to change your appearance. So even though you
Speaker 1: were innocent of this crime. This move made you look
Speaker 1: not so great. My lawyer drank to Jacomo. He tells me,
Speaker 1: you know, hey, this guy, he's already seen pictures of you.
Speaker 1: They've shown him your six pack or whatever. Let's kind
Speaker 1: of make it a little more difficult for him to
Speaker 1: pick you out. So, you know, grow your hair out,
Speaker 1: shave your mustache. And I'm listening to the advice of
Speaker 1: my attorney, so I'd say, all right, you know, I
Speaker 1: grow my hair out, shave my mustache. I go to
Speaker 1: my lineup and then I'm waiting. They bring me off
Speaker 1: the stage from the lineup, and the deputy is like,
Speaker 1: who are you? And I'm like, what do you mean
Speaker 1: You're not John Clenny? Who are you? And I'm like, yes,
Speaker 1: I am. And he's like, no one recognizes you out there.
Speaker 1: Your your lawyer doesn't recognize you. The detective doesn't recognize you.
Speaker 1: You did you switch wristbands? And I'm like, no, I
Speaker 1: didn't switch wristbands, Like it's me, you know, And I said,
Speaker 1: how did my lawyer not recognize me? He just saw
Speaker 1: me two weeks ago. He's the one that told me
Speaker 1: to change my appearance. Little did I know that was
Speaker 1: going to be used against me. They used that as
Speaker 1: a sign of a consciousness of guilt. So later on
Speaker 1: Curiel and identifying you in the live lineup, he went
Speaker 1: on to testify that he had just recognized John from
Speaker 1: the photo race and in referring to Riggs quote, I
Speaker 1: already knew who he was looking for end quote. Now
Speaker 1: you two are on your way to be tried together,
Speaker 1: and Chad Landrum has already been convicted and sentence to
Speaker 1: life without the possibility of parole. Amazingly, Landrum reached out
Speaker 1: to Ed's family because he wanted to come clean about
Speaker 1: the alercon drive by. He wanted to testify in the case,
Speaker 1: and my Lord did bring him down to our trial
Speaker 1: or it was maybe a pre trial most or something,
Speaker 1: and they never got his his statement. It didn't give
Speaker 1: him a chance to testify or confess. From what I've read,
Speaker 1: there's a reason why he didn't get that chance. He
Speaker 1: was actually brought down to the courthouse. What happened, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess he got into it or something with someone.
Speaker 1: I think it was on the bus or I'm not
Speaker 1: too sure, but he ended up stabbing him in the
Speaker 1: courthouse tank and that was the end of that. So
Speaker 1: you're one shot at getting around the false testimony of Alvarez,
Speaker 1: and this protested identification just got dragged away for acting
Speaker 1: out violently again stabbing another guy. And then you go
Speaker 1: to trial in el A County Superior Court and no
Speaker 1: one brought up Landrum's involvement or went to get an
Speaker 1: Affidavid nothing. So Ed was represented by Walter Urban and
Speaker 1: John by Frank te Jacomo. The prosecutors Valerie Cole. So
Speaker 1: the prosecutions theory was that Ed, John and a third
Speaker 1: long Dale thirteen gang member we're in the dark green car.
Speaker 1: John was in the front passenger seat, Ed was in
Speaker 1: the backseat, and Ed was the shooter. So they never
Speaker 1: caught up with this alleged driver, right, John allegedly shouted
Speaker 1: an epithet about the Little Watch gang. This was allegedly
Speaker 1: retaliation for this other shooting. But of course this entire
Speaker 1: theory came from Santo Alvarez, who was deflecting the blame
Speaker 1: from his own crew. What was presented by the prosecution
Speaker 1: to support this wacky ass theory. The prosecution was entirely
Speaker 1: dependent on pre trial statements of Santo Alvarez and the
Speaker 1: pre trial identification of Curio. At the actual trial, Curio
Speaker 1: did not identify either Ed or John. He specifically testified
Speaker 1: that the only reason he made the pre trial identification
Speaker 1: was because he was, you know, kind of pressured to
Speaker 1: and he gave the whole story about how the police
Speaker 1: pointed out the pictures and said, hey, this guy's bragging
Speaker 1: about it, this guy was in the front seat, this
Speaker 1: guy's a shooter, all that. So the jurors weren't basing
Speaker 1: their verdict on what the testimony in front of them.
Speaker 1: They were basing their verdict on the statements made outside
Speaker 1: of their presence. Same thing with Piassa. When he gets
Speaker 1: into trial, he's like, I don't know, don't know, I
Speaker 1: don't know what I said, might have said whatever. So
Speaker 1: they used the tape recording of the statement that Piasso
Speaker 1: made to Riggs. And by the way, they rehearsed it
Speaker 1: before they did the official tape, right, they talked to
Speaker 1: him off record, and then they put the tape on
Speaker 1: and they talked to him, and so the jurors were told, hey,
Speaker 1: look it, this is a gang case. Piasso doesn't want
Speaker 1: to come in here and write out his homies, so
Speaker 1: you can believe what he said to Riggs when he's
Speaker 1: trying to get out of custody, and Curio, poor Curio,
Speaker 1: he's being intimidated and threatened by all these gang members.
Speaker 1: So that's why he's not going to say it in
Speaker 1: front of you all. But he looked what he said
Speaker 1: to the to the cops. You know, he made this idea,
Speaker 1: and that was the entirety of the prosecutor's case. And
Speaker 1: the other thing she did, without any legitimate basis for
Speaker 1: doing so, is she made every single one of the
Speaker 1: alibi witnesses look like liars and made it sound like
Speaker 1: the alibi was this last minute defense that defense lawyers
Speaker 1: put together at the very end, when John's mother had
Speaker 1: presented the lawyers with line by line, minute by minute
Speaker 1: timeline of where everybody was, who showed up, when, who
Speaker 1: left when, the names, the phone numbers and all of
Speaker 1: that the day she hired John's lawyer. So the alibi
Speaker 1: was known right from the get go, but the jurors
Speaker 1: were misled into believing it was all some fabrication by
Speaker 1: the tricky defense lawyers. I mean, I can see how
Speaker 1: you could impeach alibi witnesses as friends and loved ones
Speaker 1: or as they did in this case fellow gang members
Speaker 1: and friends of lawnd Al thirteen, So the messages that
Speaker 1: everyone is gang related and therefore lying. But your lawyer
Speaker 1: could have backed up the alibi with phone records. It's
Speaker 1: not that complicated it but even without that support though,
Speaker 1: from what I understand, the one witness that was used
Speaker 1: in this corrupt identification process, Curiel, was adamant that he
Speaker 1: did not stand by this identification. Did he really take
Speaker 1: off his glasses to demonstrate how bad his vision was,
Speaker 1: because that would have been pretty powerful. Does anyone remember that? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I remember that he took off his glasses in court
Speaker 1: and couldn't see anything. I mean, you could tell he
Speaker 1: couldn't see anything. You know when when someone I can
Speaker 1: take off my glasses and you can tell I need
Speaker 1: them just by looking at me. So, I mean, it
Speaker 1: was amazing, man, it was. It was crazy. Another thing
Speaker 1: that I remember happening with the district attorney. She said
Speaker 1: that I gave him my thumbs up. Yeah. I read
Speaker 1: about that to Curio, like as if he was helping
Speaker 1: you out. And I'm curious now she's ever used that
Speaker 1: tactic against other defendants. Because the whole court room focused
Speaker 1: on me and this is did you just give the
Speaker 1: guy a thumbs up an open quote room. Now mind,
Speaker 1: he wasn't doing me any favors, there was no reason,
Speaker 1: and I did not give him a thumbs up. I'm
Speaker 1: looking at the jury like I did not. But it
Speaker 1: was effective. It was that was dirty. It sounds like
Speaker 1: they were just running the disgraceful play book. I mean,
Speaker 1: part of Curio's testimony was that the cops just convinced
Speaker 1: him that they had the right guys, and at that time,
Speaker 1: everyone believed the police right. And then all they had
Speaker 1: to do is say gang and gang member enough times
Speaker 1: and it's almost like Pavlov's dog and just almost a
Speaker 1: knee jerk reaction from the jury to say, okay, great,
Speaker 1: when do I get to vote guilty? The alibis and
Speaker 1: the witness protesting the identification just didn't seem to matter
Speaker 1: at all, You got it? And then they throw that
Speaker 1: thumbs up in there. If I could jump in on
Speaker 1: that point. And in l A, they created this hardcore
Speaker 1: gang unit in the late eighties, I believe it was
Speaker 1: eight or eighty nine, and the whole purpose of that
Speaker 1: hardcore gang unit was like, damn, it's hard to prove
Speaker 1: these cases because everybody's a liar, and everybody has baggage,
Speaker 1: and and we don't have good witnesses. We got to
Speaker 1: figure out a way. And basically what they did was
Speaker 1: they created this unit where they recruited all these over
Speaker 1: zealous prosecutors and say, hey, you get to be the
Speaker 1: shining star here, and you can make these cases that
Speaker 1: nobody else can may And then they gave them strategies
Speaker 1: for how to do that. How do you what's the
Speaker 1: work around when you really can't prove your case beyond
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt, Just say gang gang, gang, gang, gang,
Speaker 1: as many times as you can make everything be about
Speaker 1: scaring the hell out of the jurors and making them
Speaker 1: think that whoever sitting in the dependence seat is the
Speaker 1: worst person in the world just because they happen to
Speaker 1: have affiliated with a gang for whatever reason, and regardless
Speaker 1: of their level of involvement, let's get him off the street.
Speaker 1: Evidence be damned. Even their use of the word homies,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a racist dog whistle if I ever
Speaker 1: heard one. I saw the gang gang gang, pushed by
Speaker 1: the prosecutor, by the you know, by the detectives. You know,
Speaker 1: I saw my my lawyer not do a good job
Speaker 1: at all. The combination of all those things, I felt
Speaker 1: my life slipping away from me when they read the verdict.
Speaker 1: I remember her, you know, my family, my mom were willing.
Speaker 1: I remember looking up at the lights in the core
Speaker 1: room trying to not you know, let no tears come out. Man,
Speaker 1: I think I probably did shed a couple of tears.
Speaker 1: You know, people talk about the worst moment in their life.
Speaker 1: That was for sure the worst moment right there. You know,
Speaker 1: I get to prison, I'm brand new. I don't know
Speaker 1: what to expect. I know that I'm surrounded by a
Speaker 1: bunch of guys that are violent, angry, confrontational, and so
Speaker 1: I'm navigating through that. You gotta walk on eggshows to
Speaker 1: be sure. And I used to work out a lot
Speaker 1: because if I did end up having to get into
Speaker 1: a confrontation, I wanted to be able to defend myself,
Speaker 1: and so I used to work out for three hours
Speaker 1: a day in the beginning. I tell people this story
Speaker 1: all the time, like my kind of welcome to prison moment.
Speaker 1: I'm scared, but I'm also trying not to show fear.
Speaker 1: You know, that's not a good idea in prison. I'm
Speaker 1: walking on the yard, some guys sitting down on a
Speaker 1: curb and as I'm walking, I'm I'm, you know, probably
Speaker 1: a foot or two away from him, and a guy
Speaker 1: comes up behind him. It just slices his whole face open,
Speaker 1: from like his lip to his ear. And just seeing
Speaker 1: that happen, like, you know, a foot away from me,
Speaker 1: it was like, where the funk am I? So, like
Speaker 1: I said, it's just survival mode, that's it. As soon
Speaker 1: as I could, I started to read books and then
Speaker 1: I learned that, you know, the way the criminal fuel
Speaker 1: process works is your lawyer is gonna dump the case
Speaker 1: on you, and then it's gonna be on you to
Speaker 1: represent yourself. And that's when I started going to the library.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't go to the yard. I would go to
Speaker 1: the library instead, because you could go, we choose one
Speaker 1: or the other. And started to learn the law. And
Speaker 1: then I found myself in solitary and I had to
Speaker 1: try to figure out way how am I going to
Speaker 1: get out of solitary was I started to study solitary
Speaker 1: confinement cases and I put together a memorandum of law
Speaker 1: on why lawyers should come to California and challenge long
Speaker 1: term solitary confinement, and in those efforts I managed to
Speaker 1: meet Professor Joe's Lobell from the University of Pittsburgh. It
Speaker 1: was through his student Brett Groat, who's who now the
Speaker 1: director of the Abolitionist Law Center. They read my memorandum,
Speaker 1: they researched it, and they decided to come to California
Speaker 1: follow a class action, and that case settled in twenty
Speaker 1: And you know, I was partly responsible for getting guys
Speaker 1: that had been in there for thirty five years, twenty
Speaker 1: eight years, twenty seven years. Um Me myself, I was
Speaker 1: there for thirteen years. It is one of the things
Speaker 1: that I've done in my life that I still feel
Speaker 1: the rewards of because today there's people that are outside
Speaker 1: and seeing the sky, seeing their family, and that is
Speaker 1: due to the work that I did. Obviously, I wasn't
Speaker 1: acted alone. I had there was a team of lawyers.
Speaker 1: But I put in the work and it paid off. Well.
Speaker 1: You should be very proud of that. And as part
Speaker 1: of that settlement, California can no longer put a prisoner
Speaker 1: in solitary confinement for indeterminate periods. In Ed's case, it
Speaker 1: was thirteen years with no end in sight, simply based
Speaker 1: upon alleged gang membership. So now that you fought your
Speaker 1: way out of the prison. Within the prison, let's get
Speaker 1: to how you guys are here speaking with us today.
Speaker 1: So your initial appeals were denied. As far as I
Speaker 1: can see here, there's no real movement on this until
Speaker 1: Landrum once again reached out to Ed's family, saying that
Speaker 1: he wanted to confess the murdering Aller con Right. We
Speaker 1: knew this already, but I guess he hadn't ever gone
Speaker 1: on the record about it and wasn't exactly easily reachable.
Speaker 1: He was also by this time in solitary doing life
Speaker 1: without parole. So John, take us through this. My friend
Speaker 1: told me when I got convicted, like, I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: you a lawyer. I don't care how long it takes,
Speaker 1: you know, once I can afford one, I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: you one. So when this stuff came up with Landrum,
Speaker 1: that's when I talked to my best friend and I
Speaker 1: told him, you know, now is the time. You know,
Speaker 1: this guy's coming forward and confessing, Like, we need to
Speaker 1: get a lawyer, and thank god we got Dear Druft.
Speaker 1: John's friend reached out to me in May of two
Speaker 1: thousand and twelve, and what had happened prior to that
Speaker 1: was Chad Landrum had written out a confession and provided
Speaker 1: it to Ed's family and then Ed used it to
Speaker 1: file his own habeas petition, but he didn't have any
Speaker 1: resources or a lawyer to help him, so it was
Speaker 1: just the paper that went in and the judge just
Speaker 1: dismissed it without any thoughtful analysis at all. So when
Speaker 1: John's friend reached out to me, the first thing we
Speaker 1: did is we scheduled a trip to Pelican Bay to
Speaker 1: meet with Chad Landrum and at Dumbrici. Both of them
Speaker 1: were in the shoe unit and they had no ability
Speaker 1: to communicate with one another. My sense of it was
Speaker 1: if there was merit to Chad Landrum's confession, we needed
Speaker 1: to do a lot more work to build it up,
Speaker 1: and so we asked all kinds of details, including who
Speaker 1: else would have known back in the day about Chad's
Speaker 1: role in this killing and the details. He had not
Speaker 1: a single note in front of him reminding him about
Speaker 1: any of the details of the case, and he could
Speaker 1: give me specific information consistent with the police report, including
Speaker 1: the fact that he got out of the car and
Speaker 1: shot Alarcon. There were only two witnesses that saw that
Speaker 1: there were women across the street, and they were never
Speaker 1: used in the trial, so none of that was in
Speaker 1: the trial record. All of the people from the auto
Speaker 1: body shop never saw anybody out of the car because
Speaker 1: the car doesn't come into their line of sight until
Speaker 1: after the shooting is done. He also knew that Alercon
Speaker 1: was shot with different types of bullets. That was a
Speaker 1: fact that, although it was contained in the records, would
Speaker 1: not be something that some random person would have known about.
Speaker 1: So there was a lot of key points in Chad
Speaker 1: Landrum's statements to me that made me think that he
Speaker 1: probably was telling the truth. And so I asked him
Speaker 1: to tell me confirmation as to who else knew back then,
Speaker 1: and he told me his brother knew, and we followed
Speaker 1: up and talked to the brother, and the brother gave
Speaker 1: us all kinds of information. And I also asked Chad
Speaker 1: if he would take a polygraph, and he immediately agreed to,
Speaker 1: but the prison wouldn't allow us to go up there.
Speaker 1: And so then you know, all of the places you
Speaker 1: would go logically in an investigation like this, including contact
Speaker 1: and Curiel stopped by his work out of the blue.
Speaker 1: He agrees to talk to us at an eyehop as
Speaker 1: soon as he gets off of work, and he lays
Speaker 1: it all out. He tells us consistent with his recantation, everything,
Speaker 1: and it's all on tape, so nobody, nobody can say
Speaker 1: we put words in his mouth or anything. And then
Speaker 1: we did the same thing with all the alibi witnesses
Speaker 1: to find out, you know, was there more that could
Speaker 1: have been done to show that they were telling the truth,
Speaker 1: including the logical things like phone records and other people
Speaker 1: who could corroborate what they said. And it all fell
Speaker 1: into place, and it was like I remember talking to John,
Speaker 1: you know, we filed our brief and three months after investigation,
Speaker 1: and we felt like, this is a no brainer. He
Speaker 1: should be out that year. I think that's how we
Speaker 1: all hope our system works, but unfortunately that's not how
Speaker 1: it usually goes, and this was no exception. So John's
Speaker 1: habeas was filed in October two thousand twelve. You presented
Speaker 1: all of this material, and like you said, it was
Speaker 1: a no brainer. In two thousand thirteen, Landrum made a
Speaker 1: formal confession on the record. Then Ed joined the Habeous
Speaker 1: as well. So it seems like they're a lot of momentum,
Speaker 1: and in an effort to further support landrom confession, you
Speaker 1: reached out to his co defendant on the Richard Daily Murder,
Speaker 1: another wrongfully convicted person, Susan Mellon Right. So we went
Speaker 1: and visited her. There was some delays along the way
Speaker 1: because she was being represented by someone else, but a
Speaker 1: year later I ended up representing her and in a
Speaker 1: lot of what I needed to prove her innocence overlapped
Speaker 1: with what I needed to prove for John and ultimately
Speaker 1: ed because there were so many witnesses in common, and
Speaker 1: representing Susan gave me access to witnesses that I didn't
Speaker 1: have before that. So this is two thousand fourteen, Landrum
Speaker 1: and even alvare as one of the record confessing to
Speaker 1: their roles in the Daily Murder and clearing Susan of
Speaker 1: any responsibility. And after seventeen years in prison, seventeen long years,
Speaker 1: Susan's conviction was vacated, charges were dismissed and she went
Speaker 1: on to sue Marcella win and one twelve million. Good
Speaker 1: for her. So we're obviously very happy for Susan. That
Speaker 1: seemed to be our system operating at the speed that
Speaker 1: it should, I mean, notwithstanding the seventeen long years wrongfully incarcerated.
Speaker 1: But for John and Ed there was a court order
Speaker 1: in November of two thousand twelve for the d A
Speaker 1: to respond to this habeas petition. What happened there was
Speaker 1: one delay after another. There was transfers of district attorneys
Speaker 1: and all kinds of stuff that just a month turned
Speaker 1: into six month, turned into a year, turned into five years.
Speaker 1: And uh, it's hard. I can't even imagine, excuse me,
Speaker 1: what it's like for these guys, uh, to have to
Speaker 1: count on a lawyer on the outside saying, don't worry,
Speaker 1: I got you back. I'm gonna I'm gonna do this.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm gonna get it taken care of, when
Speaker 1: they have been disappointed every step of the way. And I,
Speaker 1: you know, my experience of it is like, you know,
Speaker 1: the frustration I feel on my end can't even begin
Speaker 1: to compare to what these guys are going through. Right.
Speaker 1: Imagine having the keys to the prison gates staring you
Speaker 1: in the face for eight years before the district attorney
Speaker 1: or the courts even pretend to not ignore them. It
Speaker 1: wasn't until a judge finally made a ruling that amounts
Speaker 1: to basically a brain fart of a man in cognitive decline.
Speaker 1: So tell us about this, Judge, Edmund Clark Jr. And
Speaker 1: how this thing finally turned around. So it was clear
Speaker 1: we weren't going to be able to force anybody's hand
Speaker 1: until we filed this supplemental brief. And I mean, this
Speaker 1: is this brief because of all of the evidence that
Speaker 1: was developed during Susan Mellon's case was even stronger than
Speaker 1: what we had, and we had a clear winner from
Speaker 1: from the beginning. But it lands in the hands of
Speaker 1: a judge who couldn't care less and in a heartbeat,
Speaker 1: without any hearing or anything, he denies it. He characterizes
Speaker 1: it as a proceed proper petition. When I have my
Speaker 1: name all over it, it's clear I'm representing him, and
Speaker 1: I had already been on the record, and he completely
Speaker 1: distorted the history of it and made it sound like
Speaker 1: it was a brand new petition that was relitigating issues
Speaker 1: that had already been decided against John. So he dismissed it,
Speaker 1: and then he retired soon after that. So I filed
Speaker 1: two motions, one for reconsideration and one for a ruling
Speaker 1: on the original petition and either way, we were prepared
Speaker 1: to go to the Court of appeal. That's where we
Speaker 1: thought we were going to end up. But fortunately the
Speaker 1: judge who took the other judge's place really was concerned
Speaker 1: that this might be a case involving innocent people, and
Speaker 1: she told the d A, you're gonna need to commit
Speaker 1: get yourself on paper, tell me what your position is
Speaker 1: on this case, because if these are innocent people, we
Speaker 1: have to deal with it. And once they were forced
Speaker 1: to deal with it, then they submitted. Then they just
Speaker 1: read the document and answered the document. Back in two
Speaker 1: thousand and twelve, it would have been the same answer
Speaker 1: they submitted. They said that based on the cumulative error
Speaker 1: in the case, that the conviction should be vacated and
Speaker 1: they were not going to pursue the charges. They were
Speaker 1: going to recommend that it be dismissed. They could have
Speaker 1: done that back in two thousand. I'm rarely at a
Speaker 1: loss for words, but this just really makes my stomach turn.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just so it makes me so angry, frustrated,
Speaker 1: and just I feel a sense of deep sadness. And
Speaker 1: this didn't even happen to me, but I just hate injustice.
Speaker 1: And this is such a grotesque example of this system
Speaker 1: at its worst. Um. We see it a lot on
Speaker 1: the show, but this one, this one's really leaving a
Speaker 1: bitter taste. But the silver lining, of course, is that
Speaker 1: you're out, even if it took so much longer than
Speaker 1: it should have. And never mind that it should have
Speaker 1: never even happened in the first place. And John, I
Speaker 1: understand that despite it all, you have somehow managed to
Speaker 1: maintain a positive out luck. Every day is a blessing
Speaker 1: for sure, you know. And as each day goes by,
Speaker 1: it seems so much farther away from everything that happened.
Speaker 1: But it just feels great to be out and great
Speaker 1: to be free. And words can't express it or describe it. Really. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I getting arrested at fifteen and sent off
Speaker 1: to prison. I, um, there's a lot of things in
Speaker 1: normal society that I've never experienced. Um, you know, just
Speaker 1: this last year was the first time I took a
Speaker 1: plane ride, the first time I've been to a lake,
Speaker 1: to a river. But also like the first time I
Speaker 1: had to pay bills, Um, the first time I had
Speaker 1: to keep up with the appointments, responsibilities, bouncing school and work.
Speaker 1: What I'm finding is that it doesn't just fall in
Speaker 1: the place. It doesn't and I'm working through that. But
Speaker 1: there are times when I feel a little bit lost
Speaker 1: out here. I really do, I really do. But I'm
Speaker 1: confident and optimistic that it's going to come together. And
Speaker 1: and I understand that you'd like to start a nonprofit.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us a little bit about what you're
Speaker 1: doing now. I applied for a job in Pittsburgh and
Speaker 1: a nonprofit abolitionist law center. I'm hopeful that I get
Speaker 1: the job. If I do, I'm headed out that way
Speaker 1: in order for me to work there, but also to
Speaker 1: learn about nonprofits and how it runs and m with
Speaker 1: the goal of creating my own. I want to call
Speaker 1: it juvenile Justice for All, and the goal would be
Speaker 1: to have children treated equally and fairly, to have their
Speaker 1: their parents rights respected. A lot of times they just
Speaker 1: adopted out laws. The adult prison system doesn't help children
Speaker 1: at all. I looked to filing cases in court, but
Speaker 1: also working on policy changes, speaking to other nonprofits and
Speaker 1: getting them to support some of these ideas. My goal
Speaker 1: is to have a uniform system in America treating children
Speaker 1: equally and fairly across the board well and you've already
Speaker 1: been able to accomplish so much from behind bars, So
Speaker 1: we're gonna be on the lookout for juvenile justice for all.
Speaker 1: And we'll also link to Innocence Matters, the organization that
Speaker 1: Deirdre co founded, so please show them your support, and
Speaker 1: John's Instagram as well, where he'll keep you up to
Speaker 1: date on the continued fight for justice in this case.
Speaker 1: The courts are still trying to deny the factual innocence
Speaker 1: claim here, but after what we've heard here today, I
Speaker 1: can't see any reason for it. And with that we're
Speaker 1: going to go to closing arguments, where first of all,
Speaker 1: I thank each of you from the bottom of my
Speaker 1: heart for joining us here, and then I'm gonna kick
Speaker 1: back in my chair, shut my microphone off, and leave
Speaker 1: my headphones on and just listen to anything else you
Speaker 1: feel is left to be said. Deirdre please start us off,
Speaker 1: and then we'll leave it to the guys to take
Speaker 1: us off into the sunset. I think that it's essential
Speaker 1: for these stories to be told, and I'm so grateful
Speaker 1: that you guys give people like John and Ed the
Speaker 1: opportunity to tell the story said they lived through. I
Speaker 1: think it's important for the public to understand how fallible
Speaker 1: the system is, and I wish it was limited to
Speaker 1: the nineties, but I represent people who are charged today.
Speaker 1: It's the same fight, the same struggle, and we've got
Speaker 1: to get it right the first time. We have to
Speaker 1: want to get it right the first time, because it
Speaker 1: doesn't serve anybody, even if all we care about collectively
Speaker 1: as a society is the money aspect of this. We're
Speaker 1: throwing money away. We're paying for people to be housed
Speaker 1: in prisons for crimes they didn't commit, and the real
Speaker 1: criminals are out there committing other crimes. So we need
Speaker 1: to get it right. We need to want to get
Speaker 1: it right, and we need to applaud people like John
Speaker 1: and Ed who have gone through hell and back and
Speaker 1: we need to make their lives easier once they get out.
Speaker 1: We need to we need to help them in whatever
Speaker 1: way we can. Well. I um, I do appreciate this
Speaker 1: opportunity to speak about our case and what we went
Speaker 1: through to I know that there's a lot of other
Speaker 1: people out there that are in the same circumstances and
Speaker 1: during the same struggle. UM So I do appreciate the
Speaker 1: work that you're doing, and I just I'm happy to
Speaker 1: be free. You know, I'm happy to be free. I'm
Speaker 1: looking forward to making a difference out here. I think
Speaker 1: it kind of for me would give my life meaning
Speaker 1: when I feel like I've lost so much of it already. UM,
Speaker 1: I'm hopeful that what's left of it I can actually
Speaker 1: make a difference and my experience will help other people. UM.
Speaker 1: A couple of things. I'd just like to thank you
Speaker 1: Jason for what you do and Wrongful Conviction podcast Lava
Speaker 1: for Good. I follow all that stuff very closely. Keep
Speaker 1: it up because it's needed. I think it helps a lot,
Speaker 1: and even if it helps a little, a little is
Speaker 1: more than nothing. So for me, the one thing I
Speaker 1: would tell people is never to lose hope, never to
Speaker 1: give up. That's the key to everything, because I know
Speaker 1: in my case, I never gave up hope. I kept
Speaker 1: the fight, never got away from that. If you're innocent,
Speaker 1: you better fight until you can't fight anymore. Hope is
Speaker 1: all you got, That's all that's gonna keep you going.
Speaker 1: Don't lose it. Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction.
Speaker 1: I'd like to thank our production team Connor Hall, Jeff Clyburne,
Speaker 1: and Kevin Wardis with research by Lila Robinson. The music
Speaker 1: in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated
Speaker 1: composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram
Speaker 1: at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast, and
Speaker 1: on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava
Speaker 1: for Good. On all three platforms, you can also follow
Speaker 1: me on both TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason flom
Speaker 1: Raleful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
Speaker 1: and association with Signal Company Number one