Speaker 1: If you're gonna place your left hand on the Bible
Speaker 1: and raise your right hand, and please repeat after me
Speaker 1: and I do solemnly swear theven titled action find the
Speaker 1: defendant guilty of the crime. It makes no sense, it
Speaker 1: doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must equit. We
Speaker 1: all took the same of office. We're all bound by
Speaker 1: that common commitment to support and defend the Constitution. Do you
Speaker 1: you bear true faith and allegiance to the same that
Speaker 1: you faithfully discharge the duties of our office? Do you
Speaker 1: solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to
Speaker 1: give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
Speaker 1: but the truth. From Tenderfoot TV and I Heart Radio,
Speaker 1: this is Sworn. I'm your host, Philip Holloway. My name
Speaker 1: is William Michael Dillon. I was arrested for murder in August,
Speaker 1: for a crime I didn't commit. I'm released in November eighteen,
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight. Thank you for the keepers of
Speaker 1: justice took me away when I was a teen, not
Speaker 1: really mar than the far justly sent to Hell's prison
Speaker 1: to see my faith, only my will to survived. Let
Speaker 1: me read that game. Let me read that again. We
Speaker 1: read that a game dead said like roads and like justice.
Speaker 1: Third it will be done like go to lock. Lady
Speaker 1: just has lost its war. Song you heard at the
Speaker 1: beginning of the episode is called Black Robes and Lawyers
Speaker 1: by William Dillon. William is another innocent man who we
Speaker 1: met through the California Innocence Project. He was convicted after
Speaker 1: a series of mistakes and misconduct in the legal system.
Speaker 1: His story caught my attention because of faulty forensic evidence.
Speaker 1: I'll let him tell you about it. Before I went
Speaker 1: to prisoner was very shy when I was released. Through
Speaker 1: this journey got this voice to start talking about the journey.
Speaker 1: As horrific as it was, it was also inspiring to
Speaker 1: look back on, like walking through the fire and coming
Speaker 1: out in shiny air. When I was wrongfully convicted, I
Speaker 1: was sitting in Florida State Prison, total hellhole, and I
Speaker 1: had been put in isolation for being assaulted. They didn't
Speaker 1: allow me to have anything, so I started writing Robes
Speaker 1: and Lawyers on the toilet paper with a little plastic
Speaker 1: vendible pen that they gave me. It wasn't a song.
Speaker 1: It was sort of like a testament to the fact
Speaker 1: that nobody was listening to me, so I felt that
Speaker 1: this was a way to speak it out. My journey
Speaker 1: started in I was twenty years old, six days away
Speaker 1: from me in one and I was arrested for murder
Speaker 1: of a man on a beach. My brother part we
Speaker 1: were checking out the waves. The detectives came up to
Speaker 1: the car and told us they were investigating a murder.
Speaker 1: A man had been beaten on a beach. I told
Speaker 1: him that I didn't have anything to do with and
Speaker 1: it didn't know anything about it other than the fact
Speaker 1: that it happened over on over that side over there,
Speaker 1: and to that point that they began to ask me
Speaker 1: to get out of the car. I told him that
Speaker 1: I had a prior engagements whatever that we needed to go,
Speaker 1: and they said, okay, that's fine. Can you come back
Speaker 1: tomorrow at the Sheriff's office. I said, sure, no problem,
Speaker 1: And that was basically just to get out of there.
Speaker 1: I wasn't involved and I didn't want to be involved
Speaker 1: in it personally. Days past, I had forgotten all about
Speaker 1: our interview, and next thing you know, seems that the
Speaker 1: police had come down to a beach a few miles
Speaker 1: north of that beach to where my brother was and
Speaker 1: asked him if he had seen me. I show up
Speaker 1: there a little while later, and he says, Bill, the
Speaker 1: police were here. I called him and I told him
Speaker 1: where I was, and within a matter of minutes they
Speaker 1: were coming with sirens. Blaren came and all the exits
Speaker 1: and says, we have to take you downtown. I was
Speaker 1: a little a little scared about it, but I went
Speaker 1: with him. They questioned me, of course I really didn't
Speaker 1: know a lot of the answers answering questions of ten
Speaker 1: days prior, and one of them, where were you? I
Speaker 1: honestly did no, So I gave them a bunch of
Speaker 1: places that I might have been. It just so happens
Speaker 1: that I frequent in a bar that was across the
Speaker 1: street of the place where the man was killed. I
Speaker 1: see instances like this in my work all the time,
Speaker 1: Innocent people who talk to the police because they've got
Speaker 1: nothing to hide, at least in their mind, But unwittingly
Speaker 1: they wind up giving authorities incriminating information anyway, even if
Speaker 1: they had nothing at all to do with the case.
Speaker 1: The advice I give to people is not to talk
Speaker 1: to the police ever. Just don't do it. Hell, even
Speaker 1: the police will tell you it's in your best interest
Speaker 1: not to talk to them. It's counterintuitive. People think that
Speaker 1: if they talk to the police, they can prove their innocence.
Speaker 1: But I've seen over and over again people give away
Speaker 1: information that just happens to connect them with a crime,
Speaker 1: even one they didn't commit, things like in William's case,
Speaker 1: going to a bar nearby knowing that the crime took
Speaker 1: place at all, or even knowing someone distantly connected to
Speaker 1: the case. If you give the police, or any government
Speaker 1: authority for that matter, the kind of information that even
Speaker 1: remotely connects you to a crime, or even the area
Speaker 1: of a crime, then suddenly you were involved. There are
Speaker 1: no consequences. However, if you refuse to talk to the police,
Speaker 1: you have an absolute right to remain silent. It's a
Speaker 1: constitutional right. It's one that our servicemen and women have
Speaker 1: fought and died for for generations. The police know this,
Speaker 1: judges know this, and juries are not ever even told
Speaker 1: if someone exercises their right to remain silent. Next thing,
Speaker 1: you know, she says, can you sign this piece of paper?
Speaker 1: So I looked at the paper, make sure it wasn't
Speaker 1: a confession of any kind, and it was some sort
Speaker 1: of agreements to do something or whatever that didn't involve
Speaker 1: me in my mind. So I signed the paper. She
Speaker 1: told me, before you go, we don't need this paper.
Speaker 1: Go ahead and waded up and throw it in the
Speaker 1: trash can. So I took the paper and waded it
Speaker 1: up through in the trash can. She says, no, waded
Speaker 1: up real good. So I took both my hands and
Speaker 1: bawled it up like a baseball. That night, the police
Speaker 1: came back. They knocked on the door and my dad
Speaker 1: answered the door. They said, we have some questions for
Speaker 1: your son. If he passes these tests, we won't bother
Speaker 1: him anymore. They took me down to a courthouse. Finally,
Speaker 1: a man came out of another door. He says, come
Speaker 1: with me. He doesn't say who he is or nothing,
Speaker 1: he just says come with me. So I walked with him,
Speaker 1: and just to my left as I go in the
Speaker 1: door as another door with a big mirror on it.
Speaker 1: It's one way glass and there's a chair to the right,
Speaker 1: a big sofa chair. He takes that chair and turns
Speaker 1: that chair towards is facing the door, and then he
Speaker 1: tells me to sit in the chair, and he says,
Speaker 1: hold up, before you do that, face that wall, which
Speaker 1: is my left ear facing the door, and he says,
Speaker 1: take your right hand and pull your hair all the
Speaker 1: way over to the right. Now my hair is on
Speaker 1: my shoulders. Description that they put out for the killer
Speaker 1: is short haired with a dark, medium length mustache. I've
Speaker 1: never had a mustache in my life. So what he
Speaker 1: wanted me to do was look like I had short
Speaker 1: hair to somebody was behind the glass. I did not
Speaker 1: know this at the time, and it didn't occur to me.
Speaker 1: I was just passing their test. Supposedly, the man that
Speaker 1: had picked up the killer was behind the glass, and
Speaker 1: he was supposed to be identifying whoever it was that
Speaker 1: they had in the room. I was supposed to look
Speaker 1: like I was a passenger in his vehicle, so if
Speaker 1: he looks at me, he's looking at my left side.
Speaker 1: He was legally blind, but of course he was driving
Speaker 1: a car, and I've always asked that question, how can
Speaker 1: somebody be legally blind and driving a truck. So what
Speaker 1: they did is they made me come in and look
Speaker 1: at the wall, pull my hair all the way over
Speaker 1: to the right, so it looked like I had short
Speaker 1: hair to a person that can't see that well. Eyewitness
Speaker 1: testimony is questionable and dangerous to begin with, But when
Speaker 1: William was telling me this story, I was shocked at
Speaker 1: the links these investigators took to match him with the
Speaker 1: description of the criminal. I have never in my career
Speaker 1: heard of an instance where a suspect was asked to
Speaker 1: alter his or her appearance to better fit an eyewitness description,
Speaker 1: let alone from a man who is legally blind. There
Speaker 1: have been huge advances in what we now know about
Speaker 1: eyewitness testimony and the problems associated with it since this
Speaker 1: case occurred, But I'm honestly shocked that this kind of
Speaker 1: procedure happened in my lifetime. Facts be known as the
Speaker 1: guy did not ide me, but they lied. They said
Speaker 1: that he did, and then they started to tumble from
Speaker 1: that point on. Within a matter of minutes, doors slam's
Speaker 1: open and a big, huge, gentleman shepherd starts, I mean
Speaker 1: into the room. The dog's name was harassed too. He
Speaker 1: came over by me, sniffed all around me. It was
Speaker 1: kind of frightening. The officer pulled him back and says,
Speaker 1: how does it feel to be tracked by? Harassed too?
Speaker 1: He walked out the room and never saw him again.
Speaker 1: The dog Harassed Too was used to snip on the
Speaker 1: paper that I watered up. Then they supposedly watered up
Speaker 1: four other pieces of paper put it in the lineup,
Speaker 1: and harass Too is supposed to have picked my piece
Speaker 1: of paper off of a shirt that the killer left
Speaker 1: in a truck. And that's really what made me the suspect.
Speaker 1: Along with that salty eyewitness testimony, this aspect of William's case,
Speaker 1: the use of a scent dog, struck me as an
Speaker 1: important aspect of the legal system. What scientific processes are
Speaker 1: police investigators using to find criminals and what happens when
Speaker 1: that science is not used the right When I'm not
Speaker 1: working on this podcast or working on my own cases
Speaker 1: in court, sometimes I'm brought into our sister podcast Up
Speaker 1: and vanished. Fans of that show might recognize the next
Speaker 1: woman we spoke with, Tracy Sergeant, is a certified canine
Speaker 1: search and rescue specialist. After hearing about how William's case
Speaker 1: was led astray by a scent dog, I wanted to
Speaker 1: speak with Tracy about how she uses her canines and
Speaker 1: the ways in which they should and should not be used,
Speaker 1: particularly in criminal cases. My name is Tracy Trace Sergeant.
Speaker 1: I've been involved with canine operations for about twenty seven years,
Speaker 1: currently involved in investigations and missing person cases as well
Speaker 1: as production work. The question I get quite often is
Speaker 1: that how do you make your dogs do this, Tracy?
Speaker 1: And I'm like, oh, I do not. I'm really the
Speaker 1: chauffeur so to speak, to transport the dogs to the
Speaker 1: locations that we need them to serve, and then we
Speaker 1: just let the magic happen. My dogs are specifically trained
Speaker 1: to find missing persons, both dead and alive, and that's
Speaker 1: all they do. They tell us two things every time
Speaker 1: that they are used, regardless of the case, whether it's
Speaker 1: a life person or a deceased person. Those two things
Speaker 1: are they'll tell us where something is, and they'll tell
Speaker 1: us where something isn't. And it's interesting, Phil, When I
Speaker 1: started this, I was really blindfolded and you know, focusing
Speaker 1: on finding what we're looking for. Through the years and
Speaker 1: my experience, I've discovered that knowing where somebody isn't it
Speaker 1: is just as important and as helpful as whereas somebody is.
Speaker 1: For a life sent dog, we all smell very unique
Speaker 1: and different to that dog. But when we die, regardless
Speaker 1: of our background, whether we're male or female, or demographics
Speaker 1: where we live. It is a matter to the dog.
Speaker 1: Death is life's perfect equalizer. Human remains scent is human
Speaker 1: remains scent to the dogs, regardless of how long that
Speaker 1: person has been deceased. I asked Tracy what made dogs
Speaker 1: in particular a good resource for finding missing people. They
Speaker 1: have to have that keen sense of smell just to survive. Also,
Speaker 1: their body is actually designed in such a way that
Speaker 1: makes them the perfect scent detecting machine, so to speak.
Speaker 1: The way their brain is shaped and design their nose,
Speaker 1: their ears, their drive to want to use that nose.
Speaker 1: We live through our eyes. Dogs live through their nose.
Speaker 1: When you look at it from that perspective, it really
Speaker 1: is a different way of looking at the world. And
Speaker 1: I would say the biggest difference between them and let's
Speaker 1: say other animals that also have a very keen sense
Speaker 1: of smell is that bond and relationship that dogs want
Speaker 1: to have with us naturally, and that's what sets them apart.
Speaker 1: They are truly the epitome of man's best friend. In
Speaker 1: one part, it's a unique situation. They are a partner,
Speaker 1: they are part of the investigative team, They are also
Speaker 1: a very unique resource or tool in the toolbox the
Speaker 1: investigators use. However, dogs should not be associated with That's
Speaker 1: the only thing that this case is going to stand on.
Speaker 1: We are a very small part of this investigative puzzle
Speaker 1: that we're trying to put together. We meaning myself, other investigators,
Speaker 1: law enforcement, the family, even the media. Whatever my dogs
Speaker 1: do or don't do, it's not quote a smoking gun,
Speaker 1: so to speak. It's simply part of the investigation. It
Speaker 1: should be based on the strength of the evidence and
Speaker 1: compounded by whatever additional evidence they have in addition to
Speaker 1: what the dogs do or don't do. Can your dogs
Speaker 1: identify someone in the lineup from evidence that's found at
Speaker 1: a crime scene? In other words, can they match a
Speaker 1: specific person with a specific item of evidence. I would say,
Speaker 1: you can train a dog if it has the right
Speaker 1: drives and temperament and personality, you can train them for
Speaker 1: almost anything. So I would say, as a broad stroke answer, yes,
Speaker 1: but it's not something that I do personally. My dogs
Speaker 1: aren't trained to do that, nor would I train my
Speaker 1: dogs to do that. Dog handlers and dogs themselves, everybody
Speaker 1: is different. How they approach something might be a little
Speaker 1: bit different. But nonetheless the same amount of professionalism, ethics,
Speaker 1: and integrity and character and honesty, preparation, preparing yourself as
Speaker 1: a handler, that means mentally physically in the training, preparing
Speaker 1: the dog, and again that means physically mentally in training.
Speaker 1: All of that is the important part of it. After
Speaker 1: talking with Tracy, I feel like I had a better
Speaker 1: handle on how canines can be used as just one
Speaker 1: of many tools in an investigation. But I know from
Speaker 1: the cases that I see all the time that some
Speaker 1: science is junk science and it simply should not be
Speaker 1: used at all, or at least not in the way
Speaker 1: that it is commonly used in the criminal justice system.
Speaker 1: Some of this so called science has become outdated, it's
Speaker 1: become debunked. I wanted to speak with an expert on
Speaker 1: the legal ramifications of debunk science, somebody who sees these
Speaker 1: types of cases all the time. This is Amelia max Field.
Speaker 1: I'm the forensic science specialist at the Pennsylvania Innocence Project.
Speaker 1: To the bulk of our work is trying to rectify
Speaker 1: a wrongful conviction. On the back end, my caseload is
Speaker 1: primarily flawed forensic science cases, cases where a person was
Speaker 1: convicted based on a science that either was invalid at
Speaker 1: the time or was used improperly. It's so hard to
Speaker 1: pick mistakes on the back end. If we can make
Speaker 1: a difference on the front end and educating judges and
Speaker 1: juries and lawyers about these issues, and in trying to
Speaker 1: keep unreliable forensic sciences out of court in the first place,
Speaker 1: we can make a bigger difference in ensuring that block
Speaker 1: forensic sciences aren't being used in court. Forensic science developed
Speaker 1: in the law enforcement community, save for DNA testing, which
Speaker 1: was developed as an actual science, all other forensic sciences
Speaker 1: were developed as front fighting tools, not as sciences. These
Speaker 1: things were admitted in court for work decades without anyone
Speaker 1: questioning whether or not they were valid. In two thousand nine,
Speaker 1: the National Academies of Science issued kind of a landmark
Speaker 1: report looking at forensic science, and they found that everything
Speaker 1: except for nuclear DNA testing lacked scientific validity. Essentially, it
Speaker 1: undermined every forensic science except for straightforward nuclear DNA testing,
Speaker 1: so that even doesn't include things like DNA mixture analysis,
Speaker 1: which has some limits as well. I asked Amelia which
Speaker 1: forensic sciences are the most unreliable and just why some
Speaker 1: of these common law enforcement tools can be considered more
Speaker 1: subjective than scientific any discipline where as a human is
Speaker 1: just looking at the futures of one item and then
Speaker 1: looking at the features of another item and comparing them
Speaker 1: to determine whether they match or not. Things like white
Speaker 1: mark care comparison, tire shot analysis, old school arts and analysis,
Speaker 1: and even where you are just looking at a pattern
Speaker 1: and not even includes fingerprint analysis. Fingerprint analysis and ARSON
Speaker 1: are the only ones since two thousand nine that have
Speaker 1: gone back and tried to validy, But traditionally fingerprint analysis
Speaker 1: is just a person comparing two pictures of fingerprints and
Speaker 1: determining for themselves whether or not they matched. I think
Speaker 1: if you pulled the average criminal defense layer an average prosecutor,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't really know how a fingerprint is examined. They
Speaker 1: would assume it's like C S I and someone puts
Speaker 1: it into a fancily computer and then it spits out
Speaker 1: a match. That's actually not how it works at all.
Speaker 1: Working in a state lab is a grueling job. You
Speaker 1: have an extremely high caseload, you are not paid extremely well,
Speaker 1: and your access to continuing education into proper training is
Speaker 1: pretty limited. Most people are expected to sort of learn
Speaker 1: on the job, whereas we should be training experts in
Speaker 1: a uniform and unbiased way. Most labs are in the
Speaker 1: control of the state, so even though individual analysts don't
Speaker 1: necessarily think of themselves as an arm of the prosecution,
Speaker 1: they really are part of the prosecution team. They're funding
Speaker 1: typically comes through the state and the district attorney's budget.
Speaker 1: Sometimes we should have some sort of licensing body, something
Speaker 1: similar to the f d A, to test out emerging
Speaker 1: forensic sciences to be sure that they're valid before they're
Speaker 1: admitted in court. Many of these unreliable forensic sciences were
Speaker 1: first admitted in very high profile cases. The first time
Speaker 1: bite marks were admitted in Florida was in the Ted
Speaker 1: Bundy case. The prosecution really needs a conviction, so they
Speaker 1: reach outside of the bounds of what the discipline can
Speaker 1: actually say and admit an unvalid discipline, And in a
Speaker 1: case like that, a judge is much less likely to
Speaker 1: not admit evidence that could convict someone because the stakes
Speaker 1: are higher. I think we need some sort of body
Speaker 1: to validate these disciplines as they emerge. Science inherently evolved.
Speaker 1: If you're going to be using evidence that changes and
Speaker 1: developed to secure conviction, you have to be open to
Speaker 1: revisiting that conviction as the science or the evidence changes
Speaker 1: and evolved. Because so many of these wrongful conviction cases
Speaker 1: include flawed forensic science. There's a lot more to cover here,
Speaker 1: particularly as Amelia mentioned the problems with bite marks. But
Speaker 1: a perfect storm of circumstances came together in William's case
Speaker 1: that led to his wrongful conviction, and there's more to
Speaker 1: his story. So they take me and put me in
Speaker 1: a room with a bunch of police officers. It's not
Speaker 1: like the television where they put you in a room
Speaker 1: and there's two guys come in and talk to you.
Speaker 1: And this is like five, six of them. They were
Speaker 1: all different places, and they're all talking to me at
Speaker 1: once about different things. And I kept admirably denying any
Speaker 1: involvement in I didn't know any answers. I wasn't involved. Finally,
Speaker 1: they said, will you take a lot of detector tests?
Speaker 1: And I said, sure, I will. So they put me
Speaker 1: in a jail cell, gave me this plastic mattress with
Speaker 1: no sheets, no pellos, no nothing. I go up to
Speaker 1: the lie detector, do everything he tells me to do.
Speaker 1: The chief investigator, he says, we got you your lying.
Speaker 1: I said, you got the wrong guys said, and I
Speaker 1: don't have anything to do with it. Must be something
Speaker 1: wrong with your machine. The results of polygraph tests or
Speaker 1: lie detectors are not admissible in court. And there's a
Speaker 1: good reason. I know from first hand personal experience that
Speaker 1: it is possible to fail a lot of detector tests
Speaker 1: on purpose. It is possible to pass a lot detector
Speaker 1: tests when you have lied, and it is possible to
Speaker 1: fail a lot of detector tests when you have told
Speaker 1: the truth. Polygraphs and a lot of detectors are simply unreliable,
Speaker 1: and the only people that I know who advocate for
Speaker 1: their use these days are the polygraph examiners themselves, the
Speaker 1: people who have an interest in the business surviving. Eventually,
Speaker 1: they had gotten tired and they were ranting, and Raven
Speaker 1: and I kept putting up to say a thing, and
Speaker 1: finally I said, Okay, we'll offer you five years manslaughter.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about it. You'll do the two years and
Speaker 1: you'll be on your own. You'll beat free. I said,
Speaker 1: I'm not taking any deals. I didn't have anything to
Speaker 1: do with it. I'm not taking no kind of deal. Finally,
Speaker 1: I said, okay, we're gonna put you in an electric chair.
Speaker 1: You're gonna be arrested for first degree murder felony murder.
Speaker 1: I said, you got the wrong guy. They locked me
Speaker 1: up and sent me to the county jail. Another commonality
Speaker 1: that we see among people who are wrongfully in prison
Speaker 1: is the situation where the government comes along and they
Speaker 1: offer an incredible deal if someone just pleads guilty. I
Speaker 1: was arrested on August and I was convicted by November.
Speaker 1: I saw my lawyer twice. He asked me to write
Speaker 1: down what I remember about the night. The next time
Speaker 1: I saw him was to get a haircut. When William
Speaker 1: told me he only saw his lawyer twice before his trial,
Speaker 1: I was horrified. That's just not enough time to get
Speaker 1: the job done right now. I get the defense council,
Speaker 1: particularly public defenders. They're often stretched thin, but it's like
Speaker 1: going to a good barber with bad scissors. They may
Speaker 1: have the best of intentions, but if they don't have
Speaker 1: the tools or the time to get the job done,
Speaker 1: you're going to get a bad result. My experience in
Speaker 1: the trial was very aggravating for me, not factual in
Speaker 1: any way. Most of the information came from people that
Speaker 1: I had given the police, people I might have been
Speaker 1: with on the night of the murder took place. Their
Speaker 1: statements initially were that I wasn't involved, but progressively their
Speaker 1: statements got worse and worse as time went on. The
Speaker 1: next thing, I knew my friends that I told him
Speaker 1: I was either at their place or somewhere, have me
Speaker 1: with blood on me in a shirt that was found
Speaker 1: in the truck. And also I was saying that I
Speaker 1: did something terrible. One of the most shocking things William
Speaker 1: told us was that the state's main witness was a
Speaker 1: woman William had been on a handful of dates with.
Speaker 1: She testified that William was at the scene of the crime,
Speaker 1: covered in blood, vocally admitting to the murder. It came
Speaker 1: out only after his trial was over that this woman
Speaker 1: was having a sexual affair with the chief investigator on
Speaker 1: William's case. But for his friends to also turn on
Speaker 1: him means that they were probably some other kinds of
Speaker 1: deals being made behind the scenes. He was promising our
Speaker 1: jobs and certain things, and they got the guys that
Speaker 1: were involved that we're selling weed or doing this or
Speaker 1: that there that they would look the other way or
Speaker 1: they wouldn't bother him with this if they just saw
Speaker 1: me in the shirt or just put me at a
Speaker 1: certain place. It only lasted four days, I think, convicted
Speaker 1: me within forty five minutes. My father chester five. My
Speaker 1: sister testified. When I took the stand, I felt like,
Speaker 1: now I was going to get the truth out. The
Speaker 1: factually is that I actually don't remember the night as
Speaker 1: far as it goes, you know, to put it down
Speaker 1: to pin points, that I was right here at this point,
Speaker 1: at this certain time. That didn't help the situation. But
Speaker 1: at the same time, I didn't make me a murderer either.
Speaker 1: I mean, I was being as truthful as I could.
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess if I was a murderer, i'd
Speaker 1: have an out by at least close to something. One
Speaker 1: question I'll always remember prosecutor asking me, She says, Mr Dillon,
Speaker 1: do you mean to tell me that all the people
Speaker 1: here are lying and that you're the only one telling
Speaker 1: the truth. And I said, yes, ma'am, not just the
Speaker 1: way it seems to me. And it took twenty seven years,
Speaker 1: but I proved it. I was sentenced life with the
Speaker 1: mandatory quarter I had to serve at least twenty five
Speaker 1: years before I was eligible for parole. I had served
Speaker 1: every single day of maximum security, and I went up
Speaker 1: for parole, I to my twenty six year and he
Speaker 1: gave me a date. It was like thirty years off.
Speaker 1: So I was never gonna see any freedom. They weren't
Speaker 1: going to release me. William was exonerated in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight with the help of the Innocence Project of
Speaker 1: Florida and DNA testing from the shirt found in the
Speaker 1: witnesses truck. He has been cleared of all charges after
Speaker 1: spending twenty seven years of his life locked away in
Speaker 1: a prison. There's so much to talk about in the
Speaker 1: area of forensic science, particularly junk science, so we're going
Speaker 1: to spend next week's episode covering more stories. Next time
Speaker 1: on sworn. Our system in California here is probably one
Speaker 1: of the biggest prison systems in the world. We have
Speaker 1: more people in prison here than most countries. I kind
Speaker 1: of described it like being the bottom of a well.
Speaker 1: You're looking up at this you know you're innocent only
Speaker 1: with their sayings a lie, but you can't get any representation.
Speaker 1: NET would stand up and present this. Let a description
Speaker 1: be jumping out of airplane without a parachute. You know
Speaker 1: you're gonna die, but you just keep lapping your ears anyway.
Speaker 1: Sworn is a production of Tenderfoot TV and I Heart Radio.
Speaker 1: Our lead producer is Christina Dana. Executive producers are Payne
Speaker 1: Lindsay and Donald Albright for Tenderfoot TV, Matt Frederick and
Speaker 1: Alex Williams for I Heart Radio, and myself Philip Holloway.
Speaker 1: Additional production by Trevor Young, Mason Lindsay, Mike Rooney, Jamie Albright,
Speaker 1: and Halle Beadall original music and sound designed by Makeup
Speaker 1: and Vanity Set. Our theme song is Blood in the
Speaker 1: Water by Layup. Show art and design is by Trevor Eisler,
Speaker 1: editing by Christina Dana, Mixing and mastering by Mike Rooney
Speaker 1: and Cooper Skinner. Special thanks to the team at I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio from u t a or In Rosenbound and
Speaker 1: Grace Royer, Ryan Nord and Matthew Papa from the Nord
Speaker 1: Group back Media and Marketing, and Station sixteen. I'd also
Speaker 1: like to extend a very personal and special thanks to
Speaker 1: all of our contributors and guests who have helped to
Speaker 1: make all of these episodes possible. You can find Sworn
Speaker 1: on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram at sworn podcast and follow
Speaker 1: me your host, Philip Holloway on Twitter at phil Holloway
Speaker 1: e s Q. Our website is sworn podcast dot com
Speaker 1: and you can check out other Tenderfoot TV podcasts at
Speaker 1: www dot tenderfoot dot tv. If you have questions or comments,
Speaker 1: you can email us at Sworn at tenderfoot dot tv
Speaker 1: or leave us a voicemail at four zero four for
Speaker 1: one zero zero four four one as always and I
Speaker 1: for listening, Tell us what the Axono E Band is.
Speaker 1: The Axonorey Band is a group of guys that have
Speaker 1: all been wrongfully convicted for numbers of years, And myself,
Speaker 1: Raymond Taler, Antoine Day, Eddie Lowry and uh Ted Bradford
Speaker 1: and all of those people were wrongfully convicted, every one
Speaker 1: of them. Wow.