Speaker 1: Pushkin. Hey, it's Jake Today. We're continuing with the Ronnie
Speaker 1: Karraschillo story. This is part two, so if you haven't
Speaker 1: listened to part one yet, you should definitely go back
Speaker 1: and do that now. So last episode we ended with
Speaker 1: Ronnie getting some good news or what seemed like it. Anyhow,
Speaker 1: the court basically told him, we think your sentence of
Speaker 1: two hundred to six hundred years may have violated a
Speaker 1: clause in the Illinois Constitution. That clause, by the way,
Speaker 1: says quote, all penalties shall be determined both according to
Speaker 1: the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of
Speaker 1: restoring the offender to useful citizenship. Bottom line, Ronnie could
Speaker 1: now be resentenced. Well maybe. Last June there was yet
Speaker 1: another hearing to figure this all out. It took days.
Speaker 1: Ronnie's lawyer, Michael Deutsch, brought in over a dozen witnesses
Speaker 1: to testify about who Ronnie was and is now, about
Speaker 1: the type of man that Ronnie has become in prison.
Speaker 1: One of those witnesses was Ali Prewett, a lawyer and
Speaker 1: Chicago activist. She talked about Ronnie and the people he'd
Speaker 1: mentored or inspired.
Speaker 2: What really has stuck out to me over the years
Speaker 2: is the positive impact he's left on not only folks
Speaker 2: who have been incarcerated, but folks who haven't. He has
Speaker 2: this sort of positive influence and inspiring story and is
Speaker 2: just such a motivator for so many people, for his family,
Speaker 2: for his friends.
Speaker 1: The State of Illinois had lawyers there arguing the other side, it's.
Speaker 3: Always difficult in a post conviction proceeding to take what
Speaker 3: we know today and apply it to a trial proceeding
Speaker 3: that happened years.
Speaker 2: And in this case, decades ago.
Speaker 3: The circumstances of the crime, the facts of the unknw
Speaker 3: line crime, those have all been litigated, and as council said,
Speaker 3: we're not here to relitigate the facts of the case.
Speaker 1: Basically, the state was saying, look, we're not here for
Speaker 1: a new trial. We're only here to determine if Ronnie
Speaker 1: Kerriskillo should be re sentenced. Now, Ronnie claimed that his
Speaker 1: sentence was unfair and disproportionate to his crime, but the
Speaker 1: state then argues, what really matters here is that Ronnie
Speaker 1: has a shot at release, and as long as he
Speaker 1: does well, then the sentence is fair.
Speaker 4: And that is key to the decision and the key
Speaker 4: to the analysis here because mister Karraschio is eligible for parole.
Speaker 1: In other words, perhaps six hundred years sounds like a
Speaker 1: long time, but he's eligible for parole. So what's the problem.
Speaker 1: And the judge basically agrees. What does this mean for Ronnie? Well,
Speaker 1: it means that he now has to place all of
Speaker 1: his hopes on getting parole. There's just one problem when
Speaker 1: it comes to the parole board. It's it seems that
Speaker 1: he can't escape the notoriety of his own story. Ronnie's
Speaker 1: been in prison for nearly half a century, and he's
Speaker 1: stuck in a convoluted legal system, a system that perhaps
Speaker 1: could be gained by an operator like Bob Cooley, but
Speaker 1: which was terrifying to a guy like Ronnie who was
Speaker 1: trapped inside with no fixer to call. And I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you, at times, Ronnie's story felt a bit like
Speaker 1: a Franz Kafka novel. There's a guy and he's stuck
Speaker 1: trying to find his way out of one darkened labyrinth
Speaker 1: after another, and every time it looks like there might
Speaker 1: be an exit, the lights flicker out. I'm Jake Halpern,
Speaker 1: and this is deep cover mob Land.
Speaker 4: Thank you for using Securius you may start the conversation now.
Speaker 5: This morning, Hey Ronnie, how are you?
Speaker 4: WHOA Hey, we're all again.
Speaker 1: Ronnie's been incarcerated since October of nineteen seventy six. Back then,
Speaker 1: Ronnie was a teenager and a gang member. One night
Speaker 1: he got involved in a fight. He says he shot
Speaker 1: off the gun to break things up and accidentally killed
Speaker 1: an off duty policeman, a man named Terence Loftus. Ronnie
Speaker 1: was sentenced to two hundred to six hundred years in prison,
Speaker 1: and afterwards he was sort of stunned. He says it
Speaker 1: took him years to realize what the sentence would really
Speaker 1: mean for him.
Speaker 4: That's tak off and realize. Man.
Speaker 1: He filed some early appeals that went well nowhere.
Speaker 4: That's my father. Don't buy no more appeals, don't buy
Speaker 4: no more lawyers. I go to the parole book. I'm
Speaker 4: gonna see it and I shot this type of far
Speaker 4: away there's no attention in it, and I'll make parole.
Speaker 1: Parole. That was Ronnie's big hope. Yeah. Sure, maybe he'd
Speaker 1: gotten slammed on his sentencing, but with good behavior, he
Speaker 1: hoped he'd get out on parole. So he gradually turned
Speaker 1: his life around in prison, he renounced his gang membership,
Speaker 1: He learned a number of trades, got his ged, found religion,
Speaker 1: became a mentor, he says, in so many ways, he
Speaker 1: became a different person. And he figured the parole board
Speaker 1: would see this, that they'd review the facts of his
Speaker 1: case and release him.
Speaker 5: How many times have you been before a parole board?
Speaker 4: I think thirty five times. At least thirty five times.
Speaker 1: Over thirty times Ronnie's gone before the parole board. That's
Speaker 1: almost once a year. It's kind of like going to
Speaker 1: the Super Bowl annually and losing every single time. Ronnie
Speaker 1: just keeps getting told Nope, you're not getting out. Even
Speaker 1: so each year or so, when Ronnie comes up for parole,
Speaker 1: he keeps trying, keeps providing evidence of his rehabilitation, and
Speaker 1: talks about how far he's come.
Speaker 4: My life has transformed so much from what I came
Speaker 4: as a youth. I was a poor student. I was
Speaker 4: not a bright educational book wise, not that I got
Speaker 4: my GZI started going to college. I have six seven
Speaker 4: different trades.
Speaker 1: While behind bars, He's worked as an electrician, a welder,
Speaker 1: a locksmith, a pipe bender, and a washer dryer repair man.
Speaker 1: He's also trained to become a typist and a paralegal.
Speaker 1: He's mentored fellow inmates, giving them legal advice. He's coached
Speaker 1: the prisons baseball team and organized soccer tournaments for his jailmates.
Speaker 1: He's a pastor, and he's even written a Bible study
Speaker 1: workbook called Covenant with Abraham. Ronnie is not allowed to
Speaker 1: attend parole hearings in person, but his supporters are and
Speaker 1: they do. They show up and vouch.
Speaker 4: For him all different times, black, white, Latin, whatever, racist, different,
Speaker 4: ex gang members, different, and all of them write letters
Speaker 4: that I impacted their life. And I've been coaching them in
Speaker 4: Christianity for long and saying, oh, you live your life well, healthy, motherical, health,
Speaker 4: your family, and this is all I do for my
Speaker 4: whole forty six years.
Speaker 1: Over the years, Ronnie has won over a number of supporters,
Speaker 1: including religious leaders, an Alderman, a US congressman, even one
Speaker 1: of the prosecutors who originally brought the case against him.
Speaker 1: That prosecutor, Thomas Breen, noted that Ronnie's years of menuring
Speaker 1: showed him to be a model for other inmates. Breen
Speaker 1: went so far as to compare Ronnie to the police
Speaker 1: officer he killed He said that Ronnie had quote many
Speaker 1: of the generous characteristics of a caring person, not unlike
Speaker 1: Terry Loftus. Members of the media have also written about
Speaker 1: Ronnie's story, tracking his bid for freedom. All of this
Speaker 1: seems like it might tip the scales in Ronnie's favor, right,
Speaker 1: the only problem being the parole board itself. It's known
Speaker 1: in Illinois as the Prisoner Review Board. Now in theory,
Speaker 1: it's a neutral body that can reach its own independent verdict.
Speaker 1: Its members are appointed by the governor. Its ranks include
Speaker 1: former parole officers, prosecutors, social workers, cops, and politicians. The
Speaker 1: board operates with virtually no oversight, and its decisions are
Speaker 1: not reviewable in court. Jorge Montes sat on that parole
Speaker 1: board for sixteen years.
Speaker 3: I was a law and order and conservative Republican, and
Speaker 3: I was going to do what all conservative people should do,
Speaker 3: is keep them all in and not let anybody out.
Speaker 3: That's what I set out to do.
Speaker 1: Jorge was a former prosecutor, and he was tough. He
Speaker 1: wasn't inclined to let many guys out. And then one
Speaker 1: day this one inmate comes up for parole. Jorge says,
Speaker 1: this inmate had a very strong case for being released,
Speaker 1: but Porge still voted no. He said he did it
Speaker 1: almost automatically, like that's just what he was supposed to do.
Speaker 1: And then something kind of odd happened.
Speaker 3: The very conservative Republican chairman told me, mister Montez, is
Speaker 3: there something we're missing here? I said, well, why would
Speaker 3: that be. You're voting to deny parole for what appears
Speaker 3: to be a pretty perfect candidate for a parole. I said,
Speaker 3: in that case, I withdraw my emotion and I would
Speaker 3: move that we parole, I mean we did.
Speaker 1: It was almost like on some level, Jorge was looking
Speaker 1: for permission to show leniency, to say, you know what, Yeah,
Speaker 1: this guy does deserve a second chance. Let him out.
Speaker 3: And that started my journey on these issues. So increasingly
Speaker 3: I began to scrutinize cases, to really consider where there's
Speaker 3: somebody had changed their lives and that warranted a second look,
Speaker 3: a second chance. And increasingly I began to find that
Speaker 3: a lot of these people were really redeemable, and my
Speaker 3: votes started to reflect that.
Speaker 1: All of that being said, when Jorge first heard Ronnie's
Speaker 1: case for parole, he says he wasn't persuaded, not at
Speaker 1: first anyhow, especially given the fact that Ronnie had killed
Speaker 1: a police officer. Jorge says that he voted against Ronnie
Speaker 1: a few times. At these hearings, the inmates are not
Speaker 1: allowed to show up and speak for themselves. Instead, one
Speaker 1: member of the parole board speaks with the inmate and
Speaker 1: then presents their case, almost like a lawyer, but not
Speaker 1: really because the presenters they may have their own agenda
Speaker 1: and they might not advocate for that inmate at all.
Speaker 1: So maybe you're starting to get what I'm talking about
Speaker 1: when I say this whole process at times feels like
Speaker 1: something that Franz Kafka cooked up. Anyway, one day, Ronnie
Speaker 1: is up for parole yet again. Jorge is still not
Speaker 1: convinced that Ronnie should be set free, and on this occasion,
Speaker 1: Ronnie's presenter is well, I'll just let Jorge explain.
Speaker 3: There was a gentleman on the board named Dick Doria,
Speaker 3: and Dick Doria was a sheriff from Tupeach County. Formerly
Speaker 3: the sheriff a hard conserve, ultra conservative.
Speaker 1: So bad news for Ronnie, right, But wait, because Dick Doria,
Speaker 1: the conservative former sheriff, when he made his presentation, he
Speaker 1: said something that really surprised.
Speaker 3: Orge, and Dick said that it was impossible, in his
Speaker 3: professional opinion, that Ronnie would have killed this officer purposely intentionally.
Speaker 3: Impossible the kind of weapon he used, and Monster Doria
Speaker 3: I knew all about ballistics and weapons and calibers, and
Speaker 3: he made a wonderful presentation. He said, I'm not well.
Speaker 3: I'm voting to release this man because I think he
Speaker 3: did not intentionally kill the police officer.
Speaker 1: According to Jorge, Dick Doria said that he looked at
Speaker 1: the evidence, the distances, the ballistics and the like, and
Speaker 1: determined it didn't add up. It didn't make sense that
Speaker 1: Ronnie had killed this cop intentionally, and this really got
Speaker 1: Jorge thinking critically about Ronnie's whole case, about Ronnie's intentions,
Speaker 1: his efforts to redeem himself, and even about the original
Speaker 1: sentence back in the nineteen seventies from Judge Wilson, and
Speaker 1: whether it had been fair. In fact, Jorge says he
Speaker 1: came to feel that Ronnie's sentence of up to six
Speaker 1: hundred years did seem a bit fishy coming on the
Speaker 1: heels of the Harry at Lamand trial, and that this
Speaker 1: might be an instance of camouflage bias.
Speaker 3: Well It makes sense to me that that a judge
Speaker 3: would behave this way and take it out on poor
Speaker 3: cas because he had just given this sniper who was
Speaker 3: well known in the community for being a mafioso. He
Speaker 3: gives them an out, he gives them, he gives them
Speaker 3: a past, and then of course he's got to cover
Speaker 3: his tracks by then, uh overreacting on the man. I
Speaker 3: thought that was an excellent arguments, and I believe.
Speaker 1: That we'll be right back throughout this process. Ronnie has
Speaker 1: also faced another big challenge. The Chicago Police Department and
Speaker 1: the union representing its officers do not want him to
Speaker 1: get parole, so much so that they have physically showed
Speaker 1: up at his parole hearings. Jorge remembers this. He says,
Speaker 1: they made quite an impression.
Speaker 3: The conference room was very tight, and Chicago would send
Speaker 3: busloads of police officers and they would all crowd in
Speaker 3: to the conference room that just fit the conference table,
Speaker 3: and there were all there are thirty cops standing around us,
Speaker 3: and they were looking over our shoulder and literally and
Speaker 3: as we're casting votes. It was very intimidating and very difficult.
Speaker 1: I've seen a picture of this scene and I got
Speaker 1: to describe it to you. You can see the Parole
Speaker 1: board members sitting at a table, and then like a
Speaker 1: foot behind them is a whole crowd of uniformed officers
Speaker 1: literally hovering over them. With time, Jorge came to realize
Speaker 1: that Ronnie might not ever receive enough votes for parole.
Speaker 1: In fact, at one point he even wrote an affid
Speaker 1: David on Ronnie's behalf. In that Affidavid, he said that
Speaker 1: despite Ronnie's quote excellent prison record and his strong family
Speaker 1: and community support, that he was repeatedly denied parole because quote,
Speaker 1: the victim was a Chicago police officer. Montez concluded that
Speaker 1: quote there are several members of the board then and
Speaker 1: now who will never vote for parole when the victim
Speaker 1: is a police officer. For Ronnie, none of this is encouraging.
Speaker 4: You know, the constitution says, we have votes and we
Speaker 4: don't care how most you GOTU there. We don't care
Speaker 4: about none of it. You kill the police officers and
Speaker 4: they blaintly say, I'm not gonna vote for a police killers.
Speaker 4: So you know, how can I have them for mercy
Speaker 4: when they're telling me before the hearing's even done. So
Speaker 4: I mean, if I bring anybody in there to testify,
Speaker 4: I'll hope or anything like that. We don't want to
Speaker 4: hear that.
Speaker 1: And this creates a real logistical challenge for Ronnie. Can
Speaker 1: he get the votes he needs to be released. Each
Speaker 1: time Ronnie is up for parole, the board is different.
Speaker 1: Old members cycle out, new members cycle in, and he's
Speaker 1: come close a few times. Each one of these moments
Speaker 1: is seered into his memory, moments when it seemed like
Speaker 1: maybe the door was about to swing open for him.
Speaker 1: In Justice Watch, a Chicago based nonprofit newsroom, has done
Speaker 1: some excellent reporting on Ronnie's bid for parole. They found
Speaker 1: that in the years between two thousand and five and
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, Ronnie had a series of parole
Speaker 1: hearings and each year he came within one vote of
Speaker 1: winning his freedom. Jorge can still remember these votes, how
Speaker 1: excitement would build as the board members cast their votes
Speaker 1: one at a time.
Speaker 3: For those of us that were favorable to his release,
Speaker 3: it builds up a lot of momentum and expectation. And
Speaker 3: there's one, there's two, there's three. Oh, we're getting closed.
Speaker 3: I think this is it. He's gonna go home. And
Speaker 3: then we get to know. So that's it's very tense.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and eight, Ronnie actually won a majority
Speaker 1: of votes from the board, six yeses and five no's.
Speaker 1: That's a win, right, Nope, The Illinois Prisoner Review Board
Speaker 1: requires that he get a majority of all members, not
Speaker 1: just those in attendance, and that day there were two
Speaker 1: no shows and only thirteen members on the board at
Speaker 1: the time, so his six vote majority it didn't count.
Speaker 1: Jorge was the chairman of the parole Board at this point,
Speaker 1: and he says, to come this close and to fall short,
Speaker 1: it was really hard for him personally.
Speaker 3: You feel deflated and you feel demoralized because if you
Speaker 3: really believe in this and you work his work and
Speaker 3: you try to keep work away from home, but if
Speaker 3: you believe that it's the right thing to do, and
Speaker 3: that we're keeping somebody locked up, a human being locked up,
Speaker 3: that in the you're you're sympathizing with the family and
Speaker 3: you see all the tears and you see people leaving devastated. Yeah, itated,
Speaker 3: it impacts you.
Speaker 1: Ronnie wasn't there, but he soon got the news.
Speaker 4: According to my law, I was supposed to be granted parole.
Speaker 4: I made the majority of the vote for me.
Speaker 5: Like, what's that my going before the parole board thirty
Speaker 5: five times and getting rejected every time.
Speaker 4: I never go in front of the whole committee. I
Speaker 4: see one person. One person comes and they call him
Speaker 4: my hearing officer. After that, talk to nobody but this
Speaker 4: one person. I'm up against an invisible body that I
Speaker 4: never see.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty, Ronnie was up for parole once again,
Speaker 1: and the event attracted attention from the local press.
Speaker 3: WDN investigates comp killers going free.
Speaker 4: Now another officer's murderer is appealing to the Illinois Prisoner
Speaker 4: Review Board for freedom.
Speaker 1: This is a news report from WGN in Chicago that
Speaker 1: aired in September of twenty twenty, a few weeks before
Speaker 1: Ronnie was set to appear before the parole board.
Speaker 6: You might think that killing a cop would lead to
Speaker 6: an automatic life sentence, but under old sentencing rules, inmates
Speaker 6: are fighting themselves eligible for release, and as we found,
Speaker 6: it often lands in the lapse of deceased officers' families
Speaker 6: to fight to keep them locked up.
Speaker 1: The family members of the victim often come to these hearings.
Speaker 1: It's a tortured process. They talk about how hard it's
Speaker 1: been for them and how they hope that the killer
Speaker 1: will not be allowed to just walk away. In the
Speaker 1: WGN news story about Ronnie, a cousin spoke for the
Speaker 1: Loftis family. We are aging and we need to speak
Speaker 1: for him.
Speaker 5: We need to speak for his parents and for his brother,
Speaker 5: and they are all gone.
Speaker 1: I did read an interview with Loftus's brother before he
Speaker 1: passed away. He told the Chicago Sun Times that the
Speaker 1: shooting devastated the family, saying, quote, our mother was never
Speaker 1: the same. After that, the Fraternal Order of Police declined
Speaker 1: my requests for an interview, and the Chicago Police Department
Speaker 1: didn't respond to my requests for comment. But I did
Speaker 1: manage to find a web page commemorating Terence Loftus. A
Speaker 1: number of his friends and fellow police officers had posted
Speaker 1: messages here. One read, I remember the night he was killed.
Speaker 1: He was showing me his new green leather jacket in
Speaker 1: the tactical office. A few hours later he was shot.
Speaker 1: I remember seeing him later at the hospital with a
Speaker 1: breathing tube in his mouth and the sounds of the
Speaker 1: air machine pumping in a steady rhythm. That vision to
Speaker 1: this day has haunted me and will until the day
Speaker 1: I die. Unlike the reprobate that killed him. Terry was
Speaker 1: an honorable and exceptional person. Some of the posts were
Speaker 1: written directly to Terry, like letters sent to him in
Speaker 1: the beyond. One of those read quote, once again, parole
Speaker 1: has been denied for the individual that took your life
Speaker 1: and cause so much pain to those that love you.
Speaker 1: This time, the parole board said, he has to wait
Speaker 1: three years to be heard again. When that time comes,
Speaker 1: your brother, officers will be there again like they have
Speaker 1: been in the past, to stop this individual from getting
Speaker 1: out of prison. You have not been forgotten. Reading these posts,
Speaker 1: it was heartbreaking, and I could see how, even all
Speaker 1: these years later, his friends and family would still be
Speaker 1: simmering with anguish and rage at the tragedy of it all.
Speaker 1: It also seemed almost cruel that year after year Loftus's
Speaker 1: friends and family members would be expected to attend these
Speaker 1: parole hearings and share these kinds of sentiments that they'd
Speaker 1: have to relive their trauma again and again. I also
Speaker 1: have to wonder what Terence Loftus himself would say about
Speaker 1: all of this. I wonder how he would want to
Speaker 1: be remembered, what he would want his legacy to be,
Speaker 1: because after all. This was a man whose defining act
Speaker 1: was one of courage and decency. His biggest mistake, the
Speaker 1: thing that got him killed, was his inclination to help
Speaker 1: to step into the fray when he absolutely didn't have to.
Speaker 1: For Ronnie, the whole situation is confounding. He accepts his
Speaker 1: responsibility for the death of Officer Loftus, he knows he's
Speaker 1: the one who pulled the trigger, and he says that
Speaker 1: he's done everything in his power to redeem himself. But
Speaker 1: as far as the justice system is concerned, there appears
Speaker 1: to be no real path forward.
Speaker 4: I'm not supposed to mature and be able to have
Speaker 4: the constitutional right of being restored to useful citizenship. Judge
Speaker 4: didn't leave me no room for it. He just wasted me.
Speaker 5: I'm wondering how in the face of being rejected for
Speaker 5: parole for thirty five times and being in is in
Speaker 5: for almost half a century, Like, how do you keep
Speaker 5: that faith in that hope lives well?
Speaker 4: I studied who I was a day. I stay in
Speaker 4: the scripture that I pray every day. I pray with
Speaker 4: other people. Oh it's heartbreaking, especially when you lose family
Speaker 4: members down the line and they keep your faith so
Speaker 4: there's a scripture in there where it says what is
Speaker 4: Genesis fifty twenty, where what man means means for evil
Speaker 4: that God means for good? And in the Bible, God
Speaker 4: is is it just? God is just all justice.
Speaker 1: This whole exchange oddly reminded me of something that Bob
Speaker 1: Cooley once said to me. He said that in his mind,
Speaker 1: the world of justice was divided into man's law and
Speaker 1: God's law, and then he put little faith in Man's law,
Speaker 1: I think because he saw it as arbitrary and fundamentally corrupt.
Speaker 1: But God's law, on the other hand, was pure and transcendent,
Speaker 1: and according to Bob, it's had a meaning for him.
Speaker 1: And I kind of understood this. In a city like Chicago,
Speaker 1: where corruption and politics and gang violence and lingering class
Speaker 1: resentments all skewed the law of man, he almost had
Speaker 1: to grasp for something higher, hope that true justice might
Speaker 1: exist elsewhere, in some better realm. And it was here
Speaker 1: that Ronnie's faith resided. Though I wondered if he thought
Speaker 1: that this faith alone would actually get him past that
Speaker 1: parole board.
Speaker 5: What do you think your chances of being released are.
Speaker 4: I'm going to release I have faith in God, I
Speaker 4: pray every day. Did he put on the hearts of
Speaker 4: the just people, you know, to see the scenario, and
Speaker 4: they don't address the politics of it and give the
Speaker 4: judgment by law. I'm not gonna surrender myself all wanna
Speaker 4: die here, I'm not gonna. I'm not gonna go for it.
Speaker 4: I'm not. I'm not living that way.
Speaker 5: If you were released tomorrow, what's the first thing you
Speaker 5: would do?
Speaker 4: I was sit in the backyard basically looking up to
Speaker 4: see the sky. I see the stars at night, and
Speaker 4: the threat is over. So I came from a gang life.
Speaker 4: That threat never goes away. So the first thing I
Speaker 4: want to do is just go and just like, oh man,
Speaker 4: you know it's over, and then go live the life
Speaker 4: from there. I got so much time left to live. Basically,
Speaker 4: go be a help the humanity's supposed to do in
Speaker 4: the first place, be a giver. I was a taker
Speaker 4: as a kid. I can't take back my criminal activity
Speaker 4: is akin. I can't take back, can't put the bullets back,
Speaker 4: and I can't do any of that. Not going to
Speaker 4: go forward.
Speaker 1: This summer, Ronnie was moved to a new facility, a
Speaker 1: re entry center. Ronnie's attorney petitioned to have him move there.
Speaker 1: He's there to learn some basic life skills like how
Speaker 1: to write a resume and how to manage finances, skills
Speaker 1: that he would need if he ever makes parole. Ronnie
Speaker 1: is now sick four years old. He'll be up for
Speaker 1: parole again in November of twenty twenty two. This episode
Speaker 1: of deep Cover was produced by Amy Gaines and edited
Speaker 1: by Karen Chakerji. Our managing producers Jacob Smith. Original music
Speaker 1: and our theme was composed by Luis Gara, mastering by
Speaker 1: Jake Gorski. Mia Label is our executive producer. Additional thanks
Speaker 1: to Jesse de Bartolomeo and Emily Horner, formerly of Injustice
Speaker 1: Watch and now at the Chicago Tribune for her reporting
Speaker 1: on Ronnie's case. I'm Jake Halpern. Deep Cover is a
Speaker 1: production of Pushkin Industries. For ad free listening and early
Speaker 1: access to upcoming seasons of deep Cover, consider becoming a
Speaker 1: Pushkin Plus subscriber. You can find Pushkin Plus on the
Speaker 1: deep Cover show page on Apple Podcasts, or at pushkin
Speaker 1: dot Fm.