Speaker 1: At two a m. On June eighteenth, two thousand fourteen,
Speaker 1: Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holscloth finished up his shift.
Speaker 1: On his way home and his police cruiser, he pulled
Speaker 1: over fifty seven year old Jennie Ligands for a traffic
Speaker 1: violation at a busy intersection where surveillance footage shows a
Speaker 1: normal traffic stop. Around three hours later, Miss Ligand filed
Speaker 1: a complaint claiming that an officer forced her into oral sodomy.
Speaker 1: Her mouth swap came up empty for Daniel's DNA, as
Speaker 1: did his uniform for hers, but this allegation inexplicably launched
Speaker 1: an investigation focused on at risk African American women that
Speaker 1: Daniel had made contact with, bringing forth twenty one alleged victims,
Speaker 1: including one man. Daniel became a rallying cry for everyone
Speaker 1: who doesn't want to see any cop of using their
Speaker 1: power or sexually assaulting women. It all seemed to fit
Speaker 1: a grim and growing narrative and a media circus that sued.
Speaker 1: At first, and I'm embarrassed to admit this, I jump
Speaker 1: right on board, thinking good, they got him, But upon
Speaker 1: the persistent urging of his sister Jennifer, and admittedly through
Speaker 1: my own reluctant closer. Look, we now have a case
Speaker 1: that turns that abusive cob narrative right on its head.
Speaker 1: In this amazing and alarming episode, we will speak with
Speaker 1: daniels sister, Jennifer holst claud biologist Erica Fusch, and will
Speaker 1: also take a phone call from an undisclosed correctional facility
Speaker 1: from former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holsclaw, who is
Speaker 1: currently serving a two hundred and sixty three year prison
Speaker 1: sentence in a maximum security prison under assumed name for
Speaker 1: crimes he did not commit. This is wrongful conviction. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to wrongful Conviction. Today's episode is going to mess
Speaker 1: up your perceptions of everything, just as it did to me.
Speaker 1: It's a tragic miscarriage of justice, but it's also an
Speaker 1: insane journey to a very different lens than we've ever
Speaker 1: covered before. And today we're gonna be talking about the
Speaker 1: case of Daniel Holsclaw, wrongfully convicted, a former police officer
Speaker 1: from Oklahoma City, and he's on the phone. So Daniel,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry you're here, but I'm glad you're on the
Speaker 1: phone on and my loved one, and letn't be able
Speaker 1: to have the opportunity and definitely stick once and well,
Speaker 1: we hope to be part of the solution. And with
Speaker 1: us in the studio, we have two extraordinary women. One
Speaker 1: is a biologist, Erika Fusch, welcome to the show. Thanks,
Speaker 1: And with her is one of the most persistent and
Speaker 1: brave women I've come across, the sister of Daniel. Jennifer
Speaker 1: is here and without you, I can honestly say this
Speaker 1: wouldn't be happening. Thank you for giving us the time. No,
Speaker 1: your your courage is inspiring. And Daniel, same for you. Um.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about this crazy case. And this was
Speaker 1: a national news story, international, I guess right. And at
Speaker 1: the time, and I'm really sorry to say this day,
Speaker 1: but at the time that I saw it come across
Speaker 1: my screen, I was like, oh, well, I mean, okay,
Speaker 1: they got this guy, you know, like because the narrative
Speaker 1: was always the same and and me, of all people
Speaker 1: should not have bought into it. But it was an
Speaker 1: inexorable barrage of information that was all one sided. Um,
Speaker 1: and Daniel, your sister, your amazing sister, you know, wouldn't
Speaker 1: leave me alone. And at first I was like, can
Speaker 1: you leave me alone? And she was like, no, I can't.
Speaker 1: And I was like, but I want you to. And
Speaker 1: then once I got into it and I started talking
Speaker 1: to Eric, and I started talking to others, and I
Speaker 1: was like, oh my god, he's as innocent as could be.
Speaker 1: This is terrible. That's why we're here. You're on the
Speaker 1: forest for three years. And this whole thing happened in
Speaker 1: what years two thousand fourteen, which was a very fraught time.
Speaker 1: So we say a lot of controversy around Ferguson and
Speaker 1: other um, which you know contin used to this day.
Speaker 1: Of course, there's a lot of stuff that still has
Speaker 1: to be worked out as it relates to the relationships
Speaker 1: between various police departments and the people they serve and protect.
Speaker 1: It was rough, you know, they're at what you centered
Speaker 1: far as the atmosphere in the environment at that time
Speaker 1: with the Ferguson deal. I mean, cops down days are
Speaker 1: perceived as racist, corrupt, um, something wrong with them. It's
Speaker 1: not like back in the old days where God Cossar honored,
Speaker 1: you know, as a partiful job. You know, this this
Speaker 1: this guy is a good guy. That's some more long
Speaker 1: lines of being skeptical, you know, and so um. Again,
Speaker 1: the Ferguson deal, what happened then the Baltimore deal was
Speaker 1: going on there, So it was literally I as a
Speaker 1: storm in that situation. I mean, I grew up, you know,
Speaker 1: obviously respecting anyone in a uniform, especially police officers, and
Speaker 1: you know, there are some bad apples. So of course
Speaker 1: when that stuff goes gets out on video, the public
Speaker 1: is going to react because it's it's a betrayal of
Speaker 1: a very serious level of trust. Which is not to
Speaker 1: say that the overwhelming majority of police officers aren't out
Speaker 1: there doing the good job, risking their lives and performing
Speaker 1: a service that we all need. Um, you're ultimately convicted
Speaker 1: of false charges related to eight different cases, So they
Speaker 1: got it wrong eight times, and actually more than that
Speaker 1: when you think about it, because there were numerous charges
Speaker 1: on most of those cases anywhere or all of them.
Speaker 1: So yeah, they got it wrong eight times, whatever number.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's really that's scary, Jennifer, you want to
Speaker 1: jump in. Yeah, Yeah, it was definitely shocking to hear
Speaker 1: these allegations, especially the first one. And the reason why
Speaker 1: I'm so passionate about it is because when this first happened,
Speaker 1: I wanted to know everything. I wanted to read all
Speaker 1: the transcripts. I wanted to watch anything that I can
Speaker 1: get my hand on to see could my brother have
Speaker 1: really have done this? And everything that I've looked into,
Speaker 1: everything that I've read and knowing Daniel, and not just
Speaker 1: because he's my brother, but just because the facts of
Speaker 1: everything that I put my hands on or that I
Speaker 1: could touch, nothing pointed to Daniel's guilt. And that's what
Speaker 1: really got me. And I say this to this day.
Speaker 1: If there was anything that proved or showed anything, I
Speaker 1: would have back out and said, Daniel, you deserve every
Speaker 1: second being in prison forever doing this to a woman.
Speaker 1: And I haven't found one single thing that pointed me
Speaker 1: to say that Dane did any of the crimes that
Speaker 1: he has been convicted of. And so that's why I
Speaker 1: am very passionate about this and I will fight till
Speaker 1: the day I die to get my brother out. So
Speaker 1: just started when Jenny Liggans she was a woman that
Speaker 1: Daniel pulled over. Right, And Jenny, you've obviously been so
Speaker 1: deep in this ever since it happened. You wanted to
Speaker 1: walk us through this because it's really weird. Right. The
Speaker 1: video evidence doesn't match the descriptions don't match like what happened.
Speaker 1: So Danielle got off of work about two AM. That
Speaker 1: was his normal shift. And it was proven in trial
Speaker 1: that when Dane would get off of work they looked
Speaker 1: through his system. He would normally just turn off his
Speaker 1: laptop and head home. It was nothing that farest that
Speaker 1: he did that night that he pulled Jennie Liggins over
Speaker 1: on his way home not too far from the police department.
Speaker 1: He saw a car swerving tennant windows Limo at two
Speaker 1: a m. You can't see through those tennant windows, so
Speaker 1: it's not like Daniel targeted a woman driving. So he
Speaker 1: pulled over, questioned her. He asked her if he could
Speaker 1: search her car. He brought her to his police vehicle
Speaker 1: and then he searched the car. He did say that
Speaker 1: he saw hydro code on bottles and then he did
Speaker 1: the whole search. Is there anything underneath your bra the
Speaker 1: class and shake and she did that looking for drugs,
Speaker 1: looking for drugs and any weapons. And everything that Daniel
Speaker 1: claimed had happened matched up to what Jennie Lincoln said.
Speaker 1: Besides the sexual assault, Jennie Ligganns claimed that when she
Speaker 1: was in the back of Daniel's vehicle that Dale made
Speaker 1: her perform oral sex right where he had pulled her over.
Speaker 1: There's a security building that there's a grainy video on
Speaker 1: YouTube right now that you can see the traffic stop,
Speaker 1: and you can't see everything. You can see a police
Speaker 1: officer pulling her over. He had his lights on, he
Speaker 1: never turned his lights off. And it was right on
Speaker 1: a busy intersection off of fifty in Lincoln in Oklahoma City.
Speaker 1: And um, there was actually an off duty cop that
Speaker 1: does like a side job that is a security for
Speaker 1: that security building. So it's not like Daniel pulled this
Speaker 1: person over on on a side street. It was a
Speaker 1: busy intersection and Daniel let her go. And the following
Speaker 1: morning is when she made the claims about the sexual assault.
Speaker 1: A little later that morning, actually, I think ye hours,
Speaker 1: which is a significant point, right because we have with
Speaker 1: us in the room, as I introduced you before, a
Speaker 1: respected biologist whose works in this field. Well, looking at
Speaker 1: this from the biologist, what was important for me to
Speaker 1: see is that Jennie Liggins made claims that were not
Speaker 1: supported by the forensic evidence. She had a same kit
Speaker 1: done that morning and was interviewed by a female sex
Speaker 1: crimes detective and the same kit ultimately came back negative.
Speaker 1: There was no DNA from Daniel found around Janie's mouth
Speaker 1: and the swabs there, and during the trial the forensic
Speaker 1: analysts actually said unfortunately there was no DNA from Daniel,
Speaker 1: which showed her bias. Janie Higgins had said that Daniel
Speaker 1: had placed his hands on the car and she had
Speaker 1: placed her hands in the patrol car, but fingerprint analysis
Speaker 1: and DNA was not found matching either of them on
Speaker 1: the car, so her descriptions did not match what was
Speaker 1: found with the forensic evidence. There was no forensic evidence
Speaker 1: supporting what she said happened, and later it was discovered
Speaker 1: after the stop that Daniel did. When Janie talked with
Speaker 1: the sex crimes detective Detective Davis, Janie disclosed that she
Speaker 1: had been smoking pot earlier that day, and she described
Speaker 1: the police officers having blonde hair and being shorter. It
Speaker 1: just didn't match Daniel. I mean, she must have been
Speaker 1: high as a kite, because if Daniel's blonde, then you know,
Speaker 1: I'm the Prime Minister of Egypt, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: Likes dark hair obviously and short. He's six too, So
Speaker 1: none of this stuff makes any sense. How could you
Speaker 1: get that wrong? You get a lot of things right.
Speaker 1: You can't get blond to black hair wrong. And ultimately
Speaker 1: the detectives used Daniel's own police records specifically looking for
Speaker 1: African American women he had stopped who had criminal histories,
Speaker 1: and the detectives went and questioned over forty women fitting
Speaker 1: this profile and then got allegations from them to add
Speaker 1: to this initial allegation they had, So then they went fishing. Hello,
Speaker 1: this is Detective Nave. I have received the tips on
Speaker 1: the phone when we talked quite clear, but like I
Speaker 1: said that the only time that I had that happened
Speaker 1: to be leave both VISTI to me it was the
Speaker 1: Black Office working with Extreme and I've been working in
Speaker 1: some cases and I received a tip that you may
Speaker 1: have been sexually assaulted by police officer. Because I've had
Speaker 1: to go to a lot of one they didn't come four,
Speaker 1: I've had to go find and only one race. That's
Speaker 1: what infuriates me. Why did they only question one race?
Speaker 1: If they were really wanting to figure out if he's
Speaker 1: a serial rapist, why didn't the other races matter? You know?
Speaker 1: Why did they only question one? So that's very frustrating
Speaker 1: for me. Yeah, it's disturbing because the lieutenant who was
Speaker 1: in charge of the investigation, and it says this during
Speaker 1: the trial, the lieutenant specifically looked back through six months
Speaker 1: of Daniel's police records and created a list of the
Speaker 1: African American women, specifically African American women quote who had
Speaker 1: a drug history, prostitution history, or a significant criminal history
Speaker 1: whom Daniel had stopped. So people presumed Daniel was guilty
Speaker 1: of racism, when in fact, it was the detectives who
Speaker 1: we're targeting African American women at risk, African American women,
Speaker 1: encouraging them to make allegations against Daniel as they were
Speaker 1: railroading Daniel, right, and they would. They brought these women
Speaker 1: in and the videos are as troubling as the audience
Speaker 1: who was listening now probably thinks they are right. There's
Speaker 1: one who's stuck in my head. I've forgotten her name,
Speaker 1: but who came in and said the seven times she
Speaker 1: was asked, did anything happen, and seven times she said no,
Speaker 1: And then eventually they got her to change her story.
Speaker 1: She then said that the only officer who had been
Speaker 1: inappropriate was a black police officer several years ago who
Speaker 1: exposed himself to her and then the detective kept on questioning,
Speaker 1: and ultimately this woman then claimed that Daniel had wanted
Speaker 1: her to lift up her bra. He didn't say anything,
Speaker 1: but she just did it, and that was the whole allegation.
Speaker 1: He didn't even tell her. She just thought that she
Speaker 1: was supposed to. So that was glossed over by the detectives.
Speaker 1: I don't think that the detective reported that she actually
Speaker 1: accused a black police officer, just jumped instead right ahead
Speaker 1: to saying that Daniel had done something right. And the
Speaker 1: number were just summarily dismissed because they were so ridiculous
Speaker 1: that they couldn't even take him to trial. There were
Speaker 1: eight people who made allegations against Daniel, and those allegations
Speaker 1: were weeded out right away, and so these were eight
Speaker 1: allegations made that never went to trial. And then the
Speaker 1: trial there were thirteen allegations. Five of them led to acquittals,
Speaker 1: and the eight that ended up causing convictions had numerous
Speaker 1: problems in them. Like Jenny mentioned one of the women
Speaker 1: saying that it was a shorter police officer who was black,
Speaker 1: a shade darker than her own skin color, and you
Speaker 1: got the most number of few years for her allegations. Right,
Speaker 1: so you were mistaken for a short black guy. Um,
Speaker 1: and anyone who hasn't already seen pictures of Daniel take
Speaker 1: a look. I mean he was a linebacker and he's
Speaker 1: the six two, very bulky guy who's Asian. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is not confusing, right, this is this is nuts,
Speaker 1: This is absolutely nuts. But with the sheer number of
Speaker 1: allegations seeming so overwhelming, it's kind of understandable how that
Speaker 1: could have continued to cast out on Daniel's innocence. After all,
Speaker 1: just because one allegation is doubtful does not disprove another,
Speaker 1: which is why we need to take a look at
Speaker 1: each allegation individually. I also want to be clear that
Speaker 1: we're not here to point at the alleged victims life
Speaker 1: choices as evidence of credibility or lack thereof. Now, initially
Speaker 1: twenty one accusers came forward, but eight were eliminated immediately
Speaker 1: as false allegations against Daniel. For example, one of them
Speaker 1: alleged that Daniel had used his position as a police
Speaker 1: officers sexually assaulter after he had been put unadministrative leave.
Speaker 1: Others later admitted to lying, including Chinisee Barksdale. So he
Speaker 1: never touched you as this spell bad f and I
Speaker 1: just wanted to know like she wasn't only or anything.
Speaker 1: You feel bad for him, I don't know, and you
Speaker 1: found out about her from one. Five of the remaining
Speaker 1: thirteen accusations resulted acquittal. For privacy protection, we will refer
Speaker 1: to each of these accusers as acquittal and a corresponding number.
Speaker 1: Acquittal one told investigators about an alleged assault made by
Speaker 1: an officer in an area that Daniel had never patrolled.
Speaker 1: When investigators fed her details and a timeline to match
Speaker 1: Daniel's beat, she denied that story until getting arrested for
Speaker 1: unrelated drug charges, at which time she decided to agree
Speaker 1: to change her story to match the different location. Acquittal
Speaker 1: too claimed to have flashed Officer holst Law her reast,
Speaker 1: thinking that was what he wanted, even though he had
Speaker 1: not requested it. She denied any inappropriate contact. Then she
Speaker 1: told investigators about an alleged indecent exposure by a black
Speaker 1: police officer. Acquittal three claimed that Daniel had raped her
Speaker 1: for twenty to thirty minutes and orally sodomized her through
Speaker 1: the unzipped fly of his pants. This alleged incident would
Speaker 1: have happened just hours before the Jenny Liggand's traffic stop. However,
Speaker 1: there was no match to her DNA either, as well
Speaker 1: as no evidence of body fluid on Daniel's lie. She
Speaker 1: also said that her attacker had ticketed her one year prior.
Speaker 1: Daniel had never ticketed this woman. Acquittal four claimed that
Speaker 1: Daniel groped her breasts, but described the alleged groper as
Speaker 1: quote part Hispanic and having quote slightly gray hair. She
Speaker 1: also testified a court that lying and giving false social
Speaker 1: security numbers to the police is appropriate behavior. Lastly, Daniel
Speaker 1: friended and message with Acquittal five on Facebook after an
Speaker 1: incident involving an overdose on PCP in which Acquittal five
Speaker 1: disposed of the substance by eating a glass vial full
Speaker 1: of it. In fact, Daniel escorted her life saving ambulance
Speaker 1: ride to the hospital. In her police interview, she claimed
Speaker 1: that while she was recovering from that incident, Daniel allegedly
Speaker 1: forced her into oral sodomy while she was handcuffed to
Speaker 1: her bed in a busy hospital. This is what she
Speaker 1: said on her way out of that interview. So this
Speaker 1: is good evidence, Well, you tell me, I think so,
Speaker 1: because I mean, even if he didn't like even right now,
Speaker 1: a body lesson he yet right. So all five of
Speaker 1: these allegations ended an acquittal of the original twenty one accusers.
Speaker 1: Eight allegations resulted in convictions, and we're going to now
Speaker 1: one by one examine the facts of each case. Again,
Speaker 1: for protection of privacy, we refer to all as conviction
Speaker 1: and a corresponding number. You're already aware of. Conviction one.
Speaker 1: Jenny Leggan's whom we covered earlier, conviction to alleged that
Speaker 1: Daniel had orally sodomized her near a public park, then
Speaker 1: transported her inside the public park by a closed school,
Speaker 1: and proceeded to rape her for five to ten minutes.
Speaker 1: This is how she described her attacker. Tell me your
Speaker 1: description of him, what mail commuscular? Muscular? So you think
Speaker 1: he's shorter than you? Okay, so I'll tell you follow it.
Speaker 1: What kind of car did he have? From electing on
Speaker 1: what core Oklahoma City police car? Daniel also had made
Speaker 1: contact with her at some point near that old school
Speaker 1: in the public park, but when he did, his automatic
Speaker 1: vehicle locator or a v L a GPS device atracts
Speaker 1: the movements of police cars. Says that his car stopped
Speaker 1: for less than four minutes, not five to ten. He's
Speaker 1: also six two and half white, half Japanese, definitely not
Speaker 1: shorter than five eleven, and definitely not black. Conviction three
Speaker 1: claimed that Daniel allowed her to drive under the influence
Speaker 1: while he followed her to her relative's house, at which
Speaker 1: point she alleged that he drove her to the end
Speaker 1: of the street and raped her. However, his a v
Speaker 1: L tells us that he never drove on that street. Further,
Speaker 1: the duration of the alleged rape changed from quote a
Speaker 1: long time to quote five to ten minutes, and then
Speaker 1: a trial to quote maybe about three minutes or so.
Speaker 1: But when she and Daniel did have an interaction, his
Speaker 1: a v L still would only allow for a window
Speaker 1: of less than three minutes for a possible attack. Conviction
Speaker 1: four alleged that when Daniel raped and orally sodomized her
Speaker 1: in her room in a house, that she wiped flegm
Speaker 1: from that oral sodomy on a chair. The swab from
Speaker 1: the chair, however, revealed the DNA profile of a mail
Speaker 1: that was not Daniel. Conviction five claimed that her alleged
Speaker 1: attacker drove the older model Oklahoma City p D black
Speaker 1: and white. However, Daniel drove the newer all black Cruiser.
Speaker 1: Conviction six. Testified that her attacker was a tan color
Speaker 1: like someone from India, not dark, but not pale. She
Speaker 1: also claimed that he made her expose herself. However, a
Speaker 1: witness claimed that she was handcuffed at the start of
Speaker 1: their encounter. For Conviction seven, there's no DNA evans to
Speaker 1: speak of, but she did change her story several times.
Speaker 1: At first, an officer allegedly fondled her breast over her clothing.
Speaker 1: Then at a preliminary hearing, she claimed that the groping
Speaker 1: was skin to skin contact. At trial, it was back
Speaker 1: to her over the clothing allegation. Finally, the crux of
Speaker 1: the prosecution's case, Conviction eight, a seventeen year old girl
Speaker 1: who claimed that Daniel pat searched her, inserted a finger
Speaker 1: in her vagina, and proceeded to rape her through the
Speaker 1: unzipped fly of his buckled pants on her mother's porch.
Speaker 1: This is what she had told her mother about their encounter.
Speaker 1: I left the really hot cop. He told me I
Speaker 1: had a couple of one, but he said, don't worry
Speaker 1: about it. Should really not me affect nobody fluid was
Speaker 1: detected or observed on the fly of his pants. However,
Speaker 1: a microscopic trace amount of her DNA was found in
Speaker 1: his fly, along with DNA from at least two other individuals,
Speaker 1: including at least one unknown male, which goes to support
Speaker 1: the defenses theory that the presence of her DNA on
Speaker 1: his fly can be explained by secondary transfer transfer of
Speaker 1: DNA to objects or people through an intermediate The main
Speaker 1: evidence in the case was DNA found on the fly
Speaker 1: of Daniel's pants, but the DNA evidence on the fly
Speaker 1: of the pants included no evidence of body fluid, and ultimately,
Speaker 1: Daniel was accused of raping one woman through the unzipped
Speaker 1: fly of those buckled pants, and there's no stains, no
Speaker 1: deposits on them at all, So that would make it
Speaker 1: very unlikely that there had been any kind of sexual
Speaker 1: assault to be able to give evidence. That's just a
Speaker 1: low quantity of DNA that matches most closely with indirect
Speaker 1: transfer of DNA. Is it possible for Daniel to have
Speaker 1: done these crimes and not left any trace of biological
Speaker 1: evidence anywhere? I would say very unlikely. This is so
Speaker 1: troubling because the idea that Daniel or anyone could be
Speaker 1: convicted of eight different crimes with the absence of any
Speaker 1: real biological evidence. And it takes you, coming from Iowa,
Speaker 1: an outsider, to come in and do the work that
Speaker 1: the forensic people should have and could have very easily
Speaker 1: done in the first place. The mistakes, there's so many
Speaker 1: mistakes that we don't have time to cover it on
Speaker 1: this show. I mean, I have a list of of them, right,
Speaker 1: And there's no way we could talk for hours that
Speaker 1: we wouldn't cover all of the mistakes that were made,
Speaker 1: both deliberate and sloppy mistakes, right, um so, But but
Speaker 1: back to you. When I looked at the news about
Speaker 1: the case, which is how I found out about it,
Speaker 1: it was mentioning how the prosecutors were so proud to
Speaker 1: have gotten convictions on eight women's allegations based on a
Speaker 1: little bit of DNA. The more I looked, I saw
Speaker 1: there's no evidence of body fluids. And it turns out
Speaker 1: the forensic analysts just looked at the pants with the
Speaker 1: bright light and magnifying glass and saw there was no
Speaker 1: evidence of vaginal fluid or body fluid, and then went
Speaker 1: right to testing just the fly of the pants. She
Speaker 1: did not do any control tests on other places on
Speaker 1: Daniel's uniform pants and belts. The main problem I think
Speaker 1: at the Oklahoma City Police Department is the detectives and
Speaker 1: then the prosecutors above them. They just did not understand
Speaker 1: that DNA can transfer innocently, and so as soon as
Speaker 1: they found a mixture of DNA on the fly of
Speaker 1: Daniel's pants, the police thought that meant he was guilty
Speaker 1: of sexual conduct and therefore guilty of sexual crimes. They
Speaker 1: wanted to then go out and find the female who
Speaker 1: matched the major contributor to that DNA mixture, assuming she
Speaker 1: was a victim. So they had that mindset, that bias
Speaker 1: that developed into tunnel vision on Daniel right from the
Speaker 1: beginning of the investigation, and then went out and solicited
Speaker 1: allegations from women whom Daniel had stopped. And it's no
Speaker 1: surprise that some of the women did remember, yes, they
Speaker 1: were stopped by Daniel, because they had been contacted because
Speaker 1: the police knew Daniel stopped them. Daniel's case would be
Speaker 1: like someone meeting with you in your office and then
Speaker 1: later they find a woman's DNA on the fly of
Speaker 1: your pants and the woman said, yes, I was at
Speaker 1: his office and they conclude that you're guilty just because
Speaker 1: you had an interaction with someone. So if you shook
Speaker 1: hands this morning with somebody who you met on the street,
Speaker 1: and then you went into a friend whatever, and then
Speaker 1: they went and went to the bathroom afterwards, a little
Speaker 1: bit of your DNA touch DNA would be on somewhere
Speaker 1: on the wherever they apt on button, it would be there.
Speaker 1: It could very well to be there, right, because we're
Speaker 1: always transferring to end, always shedding like we always It's
Speaker 1: like we leave it on every day, we leave it
Speaker 1: on the coffee cup, we leave it everywhere we go.
Speaker 1: When you were first taken in for questioning, did you
Speaker 1: request a lawyer. I didn't request the lawyer at the time.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to do, uh, be professional. I wanted
Speaker 1: to hear my name in any department in law more
Speaker 1: than you where you go off and you want to
Speaker 1: go to the promotion, you want to go to any
Speaker 1: in special unit. Your is what's online and when people
Speaker 1: were about so I'm talking to my name. I don't
Speaker 1: know what you got kind of allegated you got. I'm
Speaker 1: not my name. We'll track co operating, get out of there, right,
Speaker 1: but we see so many times when we see young
Speaker 1: kids picked up I please for questioning, and they don't
Speaker 1: even know they're supposed to ask for a lawyer right
Speaker 1: there in high school, or they're from there, from a
Speaker 1: background where they had no, you know, knowledge of how
Speaker 1: these things work. You were in law enforcement, right, so
Speaker 1: it seems to me logical that if you were concerned,
Speaker 1: the first thing you would have done. Your college graduate,
Speaker 1: your whole families, your whole life has been law enforcement.
Speaker 1: You've got a degree in criminal justice. I mean that's
Speaker 1: where I go. Well, wait a minute, if if there
Speaker 1: was anything on your mind, the first thing you would
Speaker 1: have said is okay, I want to learn. I'm not
Speaker 1: talking to you guys now. And actually you went in
Speaker 1: the complete opposite direction from what I understand. Correct me
Speaker 1: if I'm wrong. You turned over your passwords, you turned
Speaker 1: over the keys to your apartment. I mean, can you
Speaker 1: just elaborate on that, and why did you do those things?
Speaker 1: I'm basically properated the fullest anything that I answered, again,
Speaker 1: I wanted to be professional. Then uh ra and um,
Speaker 1: they asked, I answered, uh And that's kind of how
Speaker 1: in the sense that you were training academy. You know,
Speaker 1: you you're broken down and then you're raided up. And
Speaker 1: so you if you're asked a question, you're addressed. You're
Speaker 1: gonna reply anything that they asked. Yeah, go ahead, please
Speaker 1: please do that. Go ahead and go with DNA test,
Speaker 1: and go ahead and go to my apartment, whatever you
Speaker 1: need to do to clear my name so I could
Speaker 1: get back and continue my job. But I thought I
Speaker 1: did really good at please do after this had become
Speaker 1: this insane media circus that that reached people all over
Speaker 1: the world. And now you go to trial and I'm
Speaker 1: sure it was a crazy scene there. Just give us
Speaker 1: your perspective on how the trial went, how your defense
Speaker 1: team handled it, and what your expectations were a long
Speaker 1: period time. Then this has happened during the Thanksgiving break.
Speaker 1: So the biggest thing I want to try to address
Speaker 1: the audience is how big of anti media affects people's
Speaker 1: perception in their opinions. So when they used that national
Speaker 1: media into the aid of the office, I'm already pursumed
Speaker 1: guilty for our step in that court room. So when
Speaker 1: Judge Henderson asked the jury members, are every in the
Speaker 1: court room, where's your right handed to you have seen
Speaker 1: this man? Or are ever heard of the name Daniel
Speaker 1: who I looked up the whole court room raise your hands.
Speaker 1: So imagine yourself being there finding for your life, and
Speaker 1: the whole courtroom already knows who you are based off
Speaker 1: the opinions of the media. And again, media has such
Speaker 1: of a fact on the outcome of cases because all
Speaker 1: it shows it's highlights. They don't show the facts. They
Speaker 1: could edit and they can crop whatever they want to
Speaker 1: say what they want. And then the majority of the
Speaker 1: cases is the wrong narrative. It's false, it's not the
Speaker 1: right facts. So with that said, it was a huge
Speaker 1: burden overcome. So it's too guilty. Then you gotta prove
Speaker 1: yourself be interested. And on the top of that, you
Speaker 1: have a whole jury members that perception in their mind
Speaker 1: it's already oh, he's already pursumed guilty. And then, like
Speaker 1: I said, going back to the big giving break, it's
Speaker 1: a long trial. So you have Jeff Henderson's cor uras is,
Speaker 1: don't talk to your significant others when you go back home.
Speaker 1: Come on, listen, reality, that's not gonna happen. You know, honey,
Speaker 1: what did you do today? Well, I was at the
Speaker 1: whole small trial, the biggest thing going on in Oklahoma.
Speaker 1: You know all national news Oklahoma. Of course you're gonna
Speaker 1: talk about it. So it reinforces the people that are
Speaker 1: not even like court room that the husband and wife,
Speaker 1: Oh well, he's guilty, he's guilty. This he's just planted
Speaker 1: into the jury member's mind and they're hearing that. So
Speaker 1: it's reinforcing the presumption of guilt. So that's something I
Speaker 1: want to reinforce the people in my adi is to
Speaker 1: understand being in my position, how hard it is device
Speaker 1: for that, you know, And so we come back from
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving break and then only that you have the board
Speaker 1: my lawyers. You know, we hired a DNA expert, and
Speaker 1: yet you know they end up finding you know, this
Speaker 1: DNA we have to wait till Erica comes along to
Speaker 1: find that that's that's not right. You know, I'll find
Speaker 1: it for my life. We hired, we spend hard working
Speaker 1: money for the DNA expert, and yet you're gonna stay
Speaker 1: oled me on that. Um. There's a lot of parts
Speaker 1: were in the trial. I felt like, you know, my
Speaker 1: Lord could have stepped up and objected or said something,
Speaker 1: And there was times of where I was mad. You
Speaker 1: know what I'm getting I'm getting flustering. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: keep my composure because the jurors members are looking at me,
Speaker 1: but you know, I'm getting mad. And I remember one
Speaker 1: time I'm just like Scott, what are you injected? Like
Speaker 1: what are you doing? And we kind of got into
Speaker 1: bigger minies like calm down and calm down. Well, it's
Speaker 1: hard for me to calm down when you see these
Speaker 1: quote unquote victims that go on the stands, they're not
Speaker 1: even addressing the questions. In the addition to that, you
Speaker 1: have Fleet Detective Davis and Gregory that are coaching them
Speaker 1: along had not in everything they want to say. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's where I continue on and they're looking at Davis
Speaker 1: and I'm looking at the geror members. Are you serious
Speaker 1: or you're not? Are you're not saying this? And so
Speaker 1: it was really frustrating, um the whole process. Uh, obviously,
Speaker 1: I was in total shock when the rider came down
Speaker 1: and it was just released that time, you know, not
Speaker 1: possible would happen. My friend Josh Dubin conducted a study
Speaker 1: with help from a lot of other people that showed
Speaker 1: that jury members have a presumption of guilt that theaters
Speaker 1: on just because they see somebody in the defendant's box.
Speaker 1: In your case, it was probably a hundred percent of
Speaker 1: them assumed you must be guilty of something because it
Speaker 1: was impossible to find a jury that hadn't heard about
Speaker 1: the case. You couldn't have found one anywhere in America
Speaker 1: at that point in time, but at least of all
Speaker 1: in Oklahoma. Um, so in your case, they you know,
Speaker 1: and and then being the amateur psychologist that I am,
Speaker 1: you know, when the jury is they're sitting there and
Speaker 1: then they're being presented with evidence that they're you know,
Speaker 1: they're they're not dumb people. So they're sitting there going
Speaker 1: this doesn't make sense, and that wasn't true, and this
Speaker 1: doesn't add up. And he's not a black guy, and
Speaker 1: he's not short, and he's not blond. And but on
Speaker 1: the other hand, I saw this thing on TV and yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's it's a lot, a lot. I
Speaker 1: can jump here too, because what's really important is how
Speaker 1: the DNA evidence contributed heavily to Daniel's conviction. Because the
Speaker 1: prosecutor actually said in his closing argument quote, the most
Speaker 1: important thing about the teenager whose DNA profile was found
Speaker 1: on the fly of Daniels pants is the fact, said
Speaker 1: the prosecutor, that DNA from the walls of her vagina
Speaker 1: was transferred in vaginal fluids on the outside and the inside,
Speaker 1: not of his pockets, not of his cuff, not where
Speaker 1: he sits, but at the exact location she says his
Speaker 1: penis came in contact. The prosecutor lied to the jury
Speaker 1: telling them there was vaginal fluid. There was not, And
Speaker 1: we know from a juror's interview after the trial that
Speaker 1: the jury, at least this one juror thought there was
Speaker 1: vaginal fluid because he was interviewed on Crime Watch Daily
Speaker 1: and he said, well, I mean, I'm not a DNA expert.
Speaker 1: They told us that DNA was from the vaginal fluid
Speaker 1: of a seventeen year old. The DNA people are pretty boring,
Speaker 1: to be honest with you. End quote. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not the DNA expert. They told us it was
Speaker 1: a d N A from the vaginal fluid from a
Speaker 1: seventeen year old. DNA people are pretty boring to be
Speaker 1: honest with you. So we know at least one juror
Speaker 1: was misled by the prosecutor to believe there's vaginal fluid,
Speaker 1: and so of course they're going to end up convicting,
Speaker 1: not just for the teenagers allegations, but the jurors explained
Speaker 1: afterwards that this impacted their deliberations for all these allegations. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and this is during closing arguments. Could you lawter have
Speaker 1: objected in the closing argument he still can, Yeah, and
Speaker 1: he should have. In fact, it should be a mistrial,
Speaker 1: and he didn't. They didn't infect that. That's crazy to
Speaker 1: a gross misstatement. Another problem in the trial is that
Speaker 1: the forensic analysts misrepresented the DNA evidence on the fly
Speaker 1: of Daniels pants. There was a mixture of DNA from
Speaker 1: at least three people. There are four different stretches of
Speaker 1: fabrics too on the outside and too on the inside
Speaker 1: of the fly that were swabbed, and it turns out
Speaker 1: all of them had male DNA. And the reason this
Speaker 1: is significan can't is the prosecution ended up arguing that
Speaker 1: they claimed Daniel's DNA was not there, and so if
Speaker 1: he had just innocently transferred DNA matching the teenager accuser,
Speaker 1: you would supposedly expect to find Daniel's DNA there. The
Speaker 1: forensic analysts ended up telling the jury there was no
Speaker 1: male DNA on the inside of the fly, and the
Speaker 1: prosecutor again and again would have her say that there's
Speaker 1: no DNA, so daniels danna is not there, and then
Speaker 1: argued to the jury that this meant it was very
Speaker 1: unlikely that you could have DNA transferring innocently, so the
Speaker 1: jury was misled into believing there was no male DNA.
Speaker 1: The forensic analysts also was wrong when she concluded daniels
Speaker 1: DNA did not contribute. That was a major error. The
Speaker 1: DNA evidence did not allow that conclusion. There's such low
Speaker 1: level of DNA you can't tell from whom the DNA came.
Speaker 1: Daniel's DANNA could be there, but at low levels, so
Speaker 1: you don't detect altenetic regions. Anytime you have DANNA mis
Speaker 1: represented in a trial, it's bad because DNA weighs so
Speaker 1: heavily in the minds of jurors. Daniel's attorney never even
Speaker 1: challenged these claims by the States forensic analysts that there
Speaker 1: was no male DANNA or that Daniel's DANNA wasn't there.
Speaker 1: So this is actually the perfect storm for a wrongful conviction. Right,
Speaker 1: you have the media frenzy reporting inaccuracies left and right,
Speaker 1: making up a narrative that sells advertising time or newspapers.
Speaker 1: You have a jury pool that then is hopelessly tainted.
Speaker 1: You have bumbling and competent and biased investigators throughout this process.
Speaker 1: You have a defense attorney who is, I don't want
Speaker 1: to say incompetent, but was not up to the task.
Speaker 1: Because this is as serious as a case could be.
Speaker 1: We're talking about life in prison. I mean, I just
Speaker 1: did the math Daniels sentence. If you were to serve
Speaker 1: as sentence, keep be in prison until the year two thousand,
Speaker 1: two hundred and seventy seven. Then you have a prosecutor
Speaker 1: who lied, forensic people who lied, or were misstated or inaccurate,
Speaker 1: whatever the word you want to choose. With all of that,
Speaker 1: the outcome was preordained. Did you have any hope that
Speaker 1: you would still be vindicated? Will always believing the judicial system.
Speaker 1: That's why I was the cop and so you know,
Speaker 1: I believe justice will deserved. I believe that I'll be aerated. Um.
Speaker 1: I remember vividly there was a jew. Remember that she
Speaker 1: was a female that I would look and you know,
Speaker 1: acknowledge every time they came in the courtroom and left
Speaker 1: the courtroom. She would look at me, she would smile.
Speaker 1: And when the verdict was coming in and they walked
Speaker 1: into the courtroom, I saw males the mail jerm members
Speaker 1: of material and then I saw her crying hysterically. And
Speaker 1: this is what I'm really freaking out and I'm shaking
Speaker 1: under you know what's going on and I'm a door
Speaker 1: to my lawyers and I'm like, well and she's trying,
Speaker 1: and certainly everyone's crying to remember and they that because
Speaker 1: you thought it was a guilty villain, why you cried,
Speaker 1: you know? And then when they read dog and American,
Speaker 1: they said out guilty. I mean, I was just a
Speaker 1: whole shock. I don't even remember when I did or
Speaker 1: what happened. I just remember I think I just dropped
Speaker 1: my head, and you know, it's like, God, why you
Speaker 1: know what's going on? And it would oh, I know
Speaker 1: it wasn't dropped my head and something that I believed
Speaker 1: the judices and judices will kill me. M We're here
Speaker 1: because we want to educate the public as to how
Speaker 1: these things can happen and how it could happen to
Speaker 1: someone you love, and to educate people who are going
Speaker 1: to be serving on juries at some point in their
Speaker 1: life that you know, whoever is listening, it could have
Speaker 1: been you in that jury box, and how would you
Speaker 1: have done? And I'm sure people are saying, well, I
Speaker 1: would never have convicted him, but the twelve people did.
Speaker 1: And how could they get it so wrong? How could
Speaker 1: they look at at at things that are so clearly
Speaker 1: black and white, um, and go, yeah, I know it's false,
Speaker 1: but you know, and they had a complicated task. They're
Speaker 1: looking at things that they know are false, right, They're
Speaker 1: looking at testimony that they know is false from a
Speaker 1: number of different people. At the same time, they're being
Speaker 1: presented with quote unquote evidence by people who they respect,
Speaker 1: prosecutors and forensic people, and so they're they're stuck in
Speaker 1: a conflict. But but as citizens and as everyone again
Speaker 1: potential jury members, your duty is too if there's doubt
Speaker 1: to acquit, you know, it has to be beyond a
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt. That's something we all learn in high school, right,
Speaker 1: beyond a reasonable doubt. Not maybe it could be I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's a conflict. I'm mature, you know. And
Speaker 1: then there's that that that quote that I can never
Speaker 1: say enough times better that a hundred guilty men should
Speaker 1: go freedom, That one and is should suffer and that's
Speaker 1: sort of been turned on its head. But Daniel, here
Speaker 1: you are, You're stuck in a situation that would break
Speaker 1: I think most people. How do you do it? Day
Speaker 1: by day? How? I mean, how are you getting along
Speaker 1: on the inside? Being a Christian? I think there's a
Speaker 1: plan for everything. And I used to hate hearing that
Speaker 1: as a cliche and just I was cornering you what
Speaker 1: things happened for a reason, And I used to hate that.
Speaker 1: But I think there's a greater purpose in God, and
Speaker 1: I think God has a plan for me. And you know,
Speaker 1: beat down in my heart, I know I'm only free.
Speaker 1: I know justice will be served as much as I
Speaker 1: believe in that system. And now I have a little
Speaker 1: bit of hope in there, and I believe it's going
Speaker 1: to happen. And what that said, I can be here
Speaker 1: possible without any all my loved ones and supporters, so
Speaker 1: everyone that has come along the way, it's a blessing.
Speaker 1: It's a just an act of God right there. And
Speaker 1: um body never gave, never had a thought of giving up.
Speaker 1: So I know I'm gonna be free. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: let this, you know, change who I am in that
Speaker 1: day when I'm free, you better bet your blood. And
Speaker 1: I'm I'm going to fight for all the wrongful connected
Speaker 1: people out there. If I have a platform I'm going
Speaker 1: to fight from. I've been on build things that cop
Speaker 1: and now I'm a convict, and so I'm definitely gonna
Speaker 1: do my best to help everyone out there in the
Speaker 1: world that's in my position. Well, it's gonna be an
Speaker 1: honor to work with you. UM, So what happens next
Speaker 1: and how can people help? I suggest people if they
Speaker 1: want to learn more go to free Deil Holds Claude
Speaker 1: dot com, um my Facebook Jenny Holds Clause public so
Speaker 1: UM I post all the facts and information and give
Speaker 1: daily updates of what's going on with his case. Let
Speaker 1: me just repeat that. So it's free Daniel Holds Claude
Speaker 1: dot com, which is free Daniel h O l t
Speaker 1: z c l a W dot com, or to go
Speaker 1: to Jenny Holts claud which is j N and y
Speaker 1: H O L t z c l a W on Facebook. Correct.
Speaker 1: Another thing I want to point on to um as
Speaker 1: we have a petition going. We have over thirty five
Speaker 1: thousand signatures right now and you can find that on
Speaker 1: my Facebook or freed dot com for the link to
Speaker 1: actually sign the petition, and of course I'll be posting
Speaker 1: about it as well on my Instagram at It's Jason
Speaker 1: flom Um Erica, you look like you've got something to add.
Speaker 1: The main point for me was how I feel Daniel's
Speaker 1: case is a tragedy because our society's noblest desires to
Speaker 1: end racism and sexism and police brutality ended up convicting
Speaker 1: an innocent man. So that is a tragedy where a
Speaker 1: good thing about our society wanting to care about victims
Speaker 1: of sexual assault lead people down this path to torture
Speaker 1: an innocent man and send him to prison. At this
Speaker 1: point in the show, this is the point that I think,
Speaker 1: I always say is my favorite part of the show,
Speaker 1: where I get to thank each of you again for
Speaker 1: being here any holes Claws, Sister and freedom fighter and
Speaker 1: Erica Fuch biologists and dedicated activists to righting these wrongs,
Speaker 1: and of course you Daniel, and I'd like to uh
Speaker 1: so again thank you all for being here. And then Daniel,
Speaker 1: I want to turn it over to you for this
Speaker 1: is a part of the show where I turned my
Speaker 1: microphone off and I get to just listen and you
Speaker 1: can just uh, you know, wrap it up in any
Speaker 1: way you want to talk about anything you want and
Speaker 1: make sure we didn't miss anything as well. So thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you again for for sharing and calling in from prison,
Speaker 1: and now turn over to you. All right, I'll just
Speaker 1: trying to be quick versus thank you for having pled time.
Speaker 1: I loved ones and everyone's close to come on board
Speaker 1: and be able to speak my side instance, I appreciate it. Jason.
Speaker 1: Um just to add, you know real fast and case
Speaker 1: is so complex and that I want to really articulate
Speaker 1: this the media. And if someone asked me, well, why
Speaker 1: do you think you're rothly convicted Daniel, I'd probably say
Speaker 1: the honest with you is just the media. I think
Speaker 1: the media plays a huge factor in people's perception. Like
Speaker 1: I said earlier in the show, Um, people watch today,
Speaker 1: you know TV shows where it's Law and Order, n
Speaker 1: C I C, n C I as you know, all
Speaker 1: the types of shows, and they believe, you know, the
Speaker 1: stuff happens in that's TV shows. Those are movies. That's
Speaker 1: not the reality of what happened, and that's the corpos.
Speaker 1: People believe that this defendant, that high profile on national television.
Speaker 1: Oh man, he must be guilty. Oh and then the
Speaker 1: defense layer, oh man, he's grow up, defense laer. He's
Speaker 1: just trying to get paid. He's going to trying to
Speaker 1: get him off on a technicality. Well that's not the case,
Speaker 1: you know, So please just don't believe in to the media.
Speaker 1: Don't believe in that mass medium manipulation where they they're
Speaker 1: feeding you these one minute sections where they can end
Speaker 1: in a crop where they want to do and the
Speaker 1: majority of them are just goes to the net. The
Speaker 1: prosecute sided people believe the prosecutions are the good guys,
Speaker 1: not all the cases. It's not that big care about
Speaker 1: all the care about its confectionary. So I just ask
Speaker 1: that you guys please look into the facts of the cases.
Speaker 1: Don't you know the famous quotas don't judge a book
Speaker 1: funds cover. You know you've seen this mass me if
Speaker 1: you know in this case going on, and you continue
Speaker 1: to see even National two, CNN, you know, Fox News,
Speaker 1: you have sixty second big time media outlets. Just don't
Speaker 1: jump to the assumption that this person guilty. Look in
Speaker 1: the facts of the case and actually, you know, do
Speaker 1: your homework and uh that would you definitely does you
Speaker 1: know Tom out with your own opinion that don't don't
Speaker 1: believe what the media always try to portray. So I
Speaker 1: know it's about to hang up right now. But again,
Speaker 1: thank you everyone, all the loved one, all the fighters
Speaker 1: that came along and spirital that brought at right now
Speaker 1: because thanks to you guys, I love you guys. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for being area. I'm gonna continue to fight,
Speaker 1: uh never get up and on no one will be free.
Speaker 1: So I thank you everyone out there's been listening. Love
Speaker 1: you Daniel. Hi, Daniel, don't forget to give us a
Speaker 1: fantastic review wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps.
Speaker 1: And I'm a proud donor to the Innocence Project and
Speaker 1: I really hope you'll join me in supporting this very
Speaker 1: important cause and helping to prevent future wrongful convictions. Go
Speaker 1: to Innocence Project dot org to learn how to donate
Speaker 1: and get involved. I'd like to thank our production team,
Speaker 1: Connor Hall and Kevin Wardis. The music on the show
Speaker 1: is by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be
Speaker 1: sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and
Speaker 1: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast Wrongful Conviction with Jason
Speaker 1: Flam is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts in
Speaker 1: association with Signal Company Number one one