Speaker 1: At two a m.
Speaker 2: On June eighteenth, twenty fourteen, Oklahoma City police officer Daniel
Speaker 2: Holsclaw finished up his shift. On his way home in
Speaker 2: his police cruiser, he pulled over fifty seven year old
Speaker 2: Janny Liggins for a traffic violation at a busy intersection
Speaker 2: where surveillance footage shows a normal traffic stop. Around three
Speaker 2: hours later, Miss Wiggins filed a complaint claiming that an
Speaker 2: officer forced her into oral sodomy. Her mouth swap came
Speaker 2: up empty for Daniel's DNA, as did his uniform for hers,
Speaker 2: but this allegation inexplicably launched an investigation focused on at
Speaker 2: risk African American women that Daniel had made contact with,
Speaker 2: bringing forth twenty one alleged victims, including one man. Daniel
Speaker 2: became a rallying cry for everyone who doesn't want to
Speaker 2: see any cop abusing their power or sexually assaulting women.
Speaker 2: It all seemed to fit a grim and growing narrative, and.
Speaker 1: A media circus ensued.
Speaker 2: At first, and I'm embarrassed to admit this, I jumped
Speaker 2: right on board, thinking good, they got him, But upon
Speaker 2: the persistent urging of his sister Jennifer, and admittedly through
Speaker 2: my own reluctant closer. Look, we now have a case
Speaker 2: that turns that abusive cop narrative right on its head.
Speaker 2: In this amazing and alarming episode, we will speak with
Speaker 2: Daniel's sister, Jennifer Holsklaw biologist Erika Feusch, and will also
Speaker 2: take a phone call from an undisclosed correctional facility from
Speaker 2: former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holsklaw, who is currently
Speaker 2: serving a two hundred and sixty three year prison sentence
Speaker 2: in a maximum security prison under assumed name for crimes
Speaker 2: he did not commit. This is wrongful conviction. Welcome back
Speaker 2: to wrongful Conviction. Today's episode is going to mess up
Speaker 2: your perceptions of everything, just as it did to me.
Speaker 2: It's a tragic miscarriage of justice, but it's also an
Speaker 2: insane journey through through a very different lens than.
Speaker 1: We've ever covered before.
Speaker 2: And today we're going to be talking about the case
Speaker 2: of Daniel Holsklaw, wrongfully convicted, a former police officer from
Speaker 2: Oklahoma City, and he's on the phone. So Daniel, I'm
Speaker 2: sorry you're here, but I'm glad you're on the phone.
Speaker 3: I appreciate you guys having me on and my loved
Speaker 3: one and be able to have out the opportunity and
Speaker 3: definitely think and express.
Speaker 2: My NiTi well, we hope to be part of the solution.
Speaker 2: And with us in the studio, we have two extraordinary women.
Speaker 2: One is a biologist, Erica Fusch, welcome.
Speaker 4: To the show, Thank you, Jason.
Speaker 2: And with her is one of the most persistent and
Speaker 2: brave women I've come across, the sister of Daniel. Jennifer's
Speaker 2: here and without you, I can honestly say this wouldn't
Speaker 2: be happening.
Speaker 4: Thank you for giving us the time.
Speaker 2: Nor your courage is inspiring. And Daniel's same for you.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about this crazy case. And this was
Speaker 2: a national news story, international, I guess right. And at
Speaker 2: the time, and I'm really sorry to say this day,
Speaker 2: but at the time that I saw it had come
Speaker 2: across my screen, I was like, oh, well, I mean, okay,
Speaker 2: they got this guy, you know, like, because the narrative
Speaker 2: was always the same and me, of all people should
Speaker 2: not have bought into it. But it was an inexorable
Speaker 2: barrage of information that was all one sided. And Daniel,
Speaker 2: your sister, your amazing sister, you know, wouldn't leave me alone.
Speaker 2: And at first I was like, can you leave me alone?
Speaker 2: And she was like, no, I can't. And I was like,
Speaker 2: but I want you to. And then once I got
Speaker 2: into it and I started talking to Eric and I
Speaker 2: started talking to others, and I was like, oh my god,
Speaker 2: he's as innocent as could be.
Speaker 1: This is terrible. That's why we're here.
Speaker 2: You're on the force for three years. And this whole
Speaker 2: thing happened in what year, twenty fourteen, which was a
Speaker 2: very fraught time. So we say a lot of controversy
Speaker 2: around Ferguson and other which you know used to this day.
Speaker 2: Of course, there's a lot of stuff that still has
Speaker 2: to be worked out as it relates to the relationships
Speaker 2: between various police departments and the people they serve and protect.
Speaker 5: It was rough, you know, they're at the what you
Speaker 5: centered far as the atmosphere and the environment at that
Speaker 5: time with the Ferguson deal, I mean, cops down days
Speaker 5: are perceived as racist, corrupt, something's wrong with them. It's
Speaker 5: not like back in the old days where God costs
Speaker 5: were honored, you know, as a priceful job. You know this,
Speaker 5: this this guy is a good guy. That's some more
Speaker 5: along the lines of being skeptical. You know, and so
Speaker 5: again the Ferguson deal, what happened then the Baltimore deal
Speaker 5: was going on there, so it was literally by as
Speaker 5: a storm and that situation.
Speaker 2: I mean, I grew up, you know, obviously respecting anyone
Speaker 2: in a uniform, but especially police officers. And you know,
Speaker 2: there are some bad apples. So of course when that
Speaker 2: stuff goes gets out on video, the public is going
Speaker 2: to react because it's it's a betrayal of a very
Speaker 2: serious level of trust. But is not to say that
Speaker 2: the overwhelming majority of police officers aren't out there doing
Speaker 2: the good job, risking their lives and performing a service
Speaker 2: that we all need. You were ultimately convicted of false
Speaker 2: charges related to eight different cases, So they got it
Speaker 2: wrong eight times, and actually more than that when you
Speaker 2: think about it, because there were numerous charges on most
Speaker 2: of those cases anyway, or all of them. So yeah,
Speaker 2: they got it wrong eight times, whatever number. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's really that's scary, Jennifer, you want to jump in.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, it was definitely shocking to hear these allegations,
Speaker 6: especially the first one. And the reason why I am
Speaker 6: so passionate about is because when this first happened, I
Speaker 6: wanted to know everything.
Speaker 4: I wanted to read, all the transcripts.
Speaker 6: I wanted to watch anything that can get my hand
Speaker 6: on to see could my brother have really have done this?
Speaker 6: And everything that I've looked into, everything that I've read
Speaker 6: and knowing Daniel, and not just because he's my brother,
Speaker 6: but just because the facts of everything that I put
Speaker 6: my hands on or I could touch, nothing pointed to
Speaker 6: Daniel's guilt.
Speaker 4: And that's what really got me.
Speaker 6: And I say this to this day, if there was
Speaker 6: anything that proved or showed anything, I would back out
Speaker 6: and see, Dane, you deserve every second being in prison
Speaker 6: forever doing this to a woman. And I haven't found
Speaker 6: one single thing that pointed me to say that Dale
Speaker 6: did any of the crimes that he has been convicted of.
Speaker 6: And so that's why I am very passionate about this
Speaker 6: and I will fight till the day I die to
Speaker 6: get my brother out.
Speaker 2: So this started when Janny Liggins. She was a woman
Speaker 2: that Daniel pulled over. Right, And Jenny, you've obviously been
Speaker 2: so deep in this ever since it happened. You want
Speaker 2: to walk us through this because it's really weird, right.
Speaker 2: The video evidence doesn't match, the descriptions, don't match like
Speaker 2: what happened.
Speaker 4: So Danielle got off of work about two am. That
Speaker 4: was his normal shift.
Speaker 6: And it was proven and trial that when Dale would
Speaker 6: get off of work they looked through his system. He
Speaker 6: would normally just turn off his laptop and head home.
Speaker 6: It was nothing that farius that he did that night
Speaker 6: that he pulled Jannie Liggins over on his way home
Speaker 6: not too far from the police department. He saw a
Speaker 6: car swerving. Tenant windows limo tint at two am, you
Speaker 6: can't see through those tenant windows, So it's not like
Speaker 6: Daniel targeted a woman driving, so he pulled over, questioned her.
Speaker 6: He had asked her if he could search her car.
Speaker 6: He brought her to his police vehicle and then he
Speaker 6: searched the car. He did say that he saw hydro
Speaker 6: codon bottles and then he did a whole search. Is
Speaker 6: there anything underneath your bra The class been shake and
Speaker 6: she did that looking for drugs, looking for drugs and
Speaker 6: any weapons. And everything that Daniel claimed had happened matched
Speaker 6: up to what Jannie Leggan said. Besides the sexual assault,
Speaker 6: Jennie Liggins claimed that when she was in the back
Speaker 6: of Daniel's vehicle that Dale made her perform oral sex
Speaker 6: right where he had pulled her over. There's a security
Speaker 6: building that there's a grainy video on YouTube right now
Speaker 6: that you can see the traffic stop and you can't
Speaker 6: see everything. You can to see a police officer pulling
Speaker 6: her over. He had his lights on, he never turned
Speaker 6: his lights off. And it was right on a busy
Speaker 6: intersection off of fiftieth in Lincoln in Oklahoma City. And
Speaker 6: there was actually an off duty cop that does like
Speaker 6: a side shop that is a security for that security building.
Speaker 6: So it's not like Daniel pulled this person over on
Speaker 6: a side street. It was a busy intersection and Daniel
Speaker 6: let her go. And the following morning is when she
Speaker 6: made the claims about the sexual assault.
Speaker 7: A little later that morning, actually, I think, yeah, free hours, which.
Speaker 2: Is a significant point, right because we have with us
Speaker 2: in the room, as I introduced you before, a respected
Speaker 2: biologist whose works in this field.
Speaker 7: Well, looking at this from the biologist, what was important
Speaker 7: for me to see is that Jannie Liggans made claims
Speaker 7: that were not supported by the forensic evidence. She had
Speaker 7: a same kit done that morning and was interviewed by
Speaker 7: a female sex crimes detective and the same kit ultimately
Speaker 7: came back negative. There was no DNA from Daniel found
Speaker 7: around Janie's mouth and the swabs there, and during the
Speaker 7: trial the forensic analyst actually said unfortunately there was no
Speaker 7: DNA from Daniel, which showed her bias. Janie Niggins had
Speaker 7: said that Daniel had placed his hands on the car
Speaker 7: and she had placed her hands in the patrol car,
Speaker 7: but fingerprint analysis and DNA was not found matching either
Speaker 7: of them on the car, so her descriptions did not
Speaker 7: match what was found with the forensic evidence. There was
Speaker 7: no forensic evidence supporting what she said happened, and later
Speaker 7: it was discovered after this stop that Daniel did. When
Speaker 7: Jannie talked with the sex crimes detective Detective Davis, Jannie
Speaker 7: disclosed that she had been smoking pot earlier that day,
Speaker 7: and she described the police officer as having blonde hair
Speaker 7: and being shorter.
Speaker 4: It just didn't match right Daniel.
Speaker 2: I mean, she must have been high as a kite,
Speaker 2: because if Daniel's blonde, then you know, I'm the Prime
Speaker 2: Minister of Egypt, you know what I mean. Like, he
Speaker 2: has dark hair obviously, and Shorty's six to two, So
Speaker 2: none of this stuff makes any sense. How could you
Speaker 2: get that wrong. You get a lot of things wrong.
Speaker 2: You can't get blonde to black hair wrong.
Speaker 7: And ultimately the detectives used Daniel's own police records specifically
Speaker 7: looking for African American women he had stopped who had
Speaker 7: criminal histories, and the detectives went and questioned over forty
Speaker 7: women fitting this profile and then got allegations from them
Speaker 7: to add to this initial allegation they had.
Speaker 1: So then they went fishing.
Speaker 8: Hello, this is detective days.
Speaker 6: I have received a tiptive being clear on the thumb
Speaker 6: when we talked.
Speaker 5: Oyah, quite clear.
Speaker 7: But like I said, that's the only time that.
Speaker 2: I had that happened to me.
Speaker 8: Both they said to me that was.
Speaker 5: A black office.
Speaker 8: I work in sext fronts and I've been working in
Speaker 8: some cases and I received a tip that you may
Speaker 8: have been sexually assaulted by a police officer.
Speaker 7: Because I've had to go to a lot of women
Speaker 7: they didn't come forward, I've had.
Speaker 6: To go find and only one race. That's what infuriates me.
Speaker 6: Why did they only question one race? If they were
Speaker 6: really wanting to figure out if he's a serial rapist,
Speaker 6: why didn't the other races matter?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 4: Why did they only question one?
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 4: Right, that's very frustrating for me.
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's disturbing because the lieutenant who was in charge
Speaker 7: of the investigation, and it says this during the trial,
Speaker 7: the lieutenant specifically looked back through six months of Daniel's
Speaker 7: police records and created a list of the African American women,
Speaker 7: specifically African American women quote who had a drug history,
Speaker 7: prostitution history, or a significant criminal history whom Daniel had stopped.
Speaker 7: So people presumed Daniel was guilty of racism, when in fact,
Speaker 7: it was the detectives who were targeting African American women
Speaker 7: at risk African American women, encouraging them to make allegations
Speaker 7: against Daniel as they were railroading Daniel, right.
Speaker 2: And they brought these women in and the videos are
Speaker 2: as troubling as the audience who's listening now probably thinks
Speaker 2: they are right. There's one who's stuck in my head.
Speaker 2: I've forgotten her name, but who came in and said
Speaker 2: the seven times she was asked, did anything happen? And
Speaker 2: seven times she said no, And then eventually they got
Speaker 2: her to change her story.
Speaker 7: She then said that the only officer who'd been inappropriate
Speaker 7: was a black police officer several years ago who exposed
Speaker 7: himself to her, and then the detective kept on questioning,
Speaker 7: and ultimately this woman then claimed that Daniel had wanted
Speaker 7: her to lift up her bra. He didn't say anything,
Speaker 7: but she just did it, and that was the whole allegation.
Speaker 7: He didn't even tell her. She just thought that she's
Speaker 7: supposed to. So that was glossed over by the detectives.
Speaker 7: I don't think that the detective reported that she actually
Speaker 7: accused a black police officer, just jumped instead right ahead
Speaker 7: to saying that Daniel had done something right.
Speaker 2: And the number were just summarily dismissed because they were
Speaker 2: so ridiculous that they couldn't even take him to trial.
Speaker 7: There were eight people who made allegations against Daniel, and
Speaker 7: those allegations were weeded out right away, And so these
Speaker 7: were eight allegations made that never went a trial, and
Speaker 7: then the trial there were thirteen allegations. Five of them
Speaker 7: led to acquittals, and the eight that ended up causing
Speaker 7: convictions had numerous problems in them. Like Jenny mentioned one
Speaker 7: of the women saying that it was a shorter police
Speaker 7: officer who was black, a shade darker than her own
Speaker 7: skin color, and leone got the most number of YEW
Speaker 7: years for her allegations.
Speaker 2: Right, so you were mistaken for a short, black guy.
Speaker 2: And anyone who hasn't already seen pictures of Daniel take
Speaker 2: a look. I mean he as a linebacker and he's
Speaker 2: the six to two, very bulky guy who's Asian.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not.
Speaker 2: Confusing, right, this is nuts. This is absolutely nuts. But
Speaker 2: with the sheer number of allegations seeming so overwhelming, it's
Speaker 2: kind of understandable how that could have continued to cast
Speaker 2: out on Daniel's innocence. After all, just because one allegation
Speaker 2: is doubtful does not disprove another, which is why we
Speaker 2: need to take a look at each allegation individually. I
Speaker 2: also want to be clear that we're not here to
Speaker 2: point at the alleged victim's life choices as evidence of.
Speaker 1: Credibility or lack thereof.
Speaker 2: Now, initially twenty one accusers came forward, but eight were
Speaker 2: eliminated immediately as false allegations against Daniel. For example, one
Speaker 2: of them alleged that Daniel had used his position as
Speaker 2: a police officer as sexually assault her after he had
Speaker 2: been put on administrative leave. Others later admitted to lying
Speaker 2: including Shenise Barksdale.
Speaker 5: So he never touched you.
Speaker 2: I've never seen why.
Speaker 9: I just felt bad for her, and I just wanted
Speaker 9: to know like she wasn't the only victim or anything
Speaker 9: you feel bad for whom I.
Speaker 2: Don't know about the fifty cents and you found out
Speaker 2: about her from one Facebook. Five of the remaining thirteen
Speaker 2: accusations resulted in acquittal. For privacy protection, we will refer
Speaker 2: to each of these accusers as quote acquittal and.
Speaker 1: A corresponding number.
Speaker 2: Acquittal one told investigators about an alleged assault made by
Speaker 2: an officer in an area that Daniel had never patrolled.
Speaker 2: When investigators fed her details and a timeline to match
Speaker 2: Daniel's beat, she denied that story until getting arrested for
Speaker 2: unrelated drug charges, at which time she decided to agree
Speaker 2: to change her story to match the different location. Acquittal
Speaker 2: two claimed to have flashed Officer holst Law her breasts,
Speaker 2: thinking that was what he wanted, even though he had
Speaker 2: not requested it. She denied any inappropriate contact. Then she
Speaker 2: told investigators about an alleged indecent exposure by a black
Speaker 2: police officer. Acquittal three claimed that Daniel had raped her
Speaker 2: for twenty to thirty minutes and orally sodomized her through
Speaker 2: the unzipped fly of his pants. This alleged incident would
Speaker 2: have happened just hours before the Janny Liggans traffic stop. However,
Speaker 2: there was no match to her DNA either, as well
Speaker 2: as no evidence of body fluid on Daniel's fly. She
Speaker 2: also said that her attacker had ticketed her one year prior.
Speaker 2: Daniel had never.
Speaker 1: Ticketed this woman.
Speaker 2: Acquittal four claimed that Daniel groped her breast, but described
Speaker 2: the alleged groper as quote part Hispanic and having quote
Speaker 2: slightly gray hair. She also testified in quote that lying
Speaker 2: and giving false social security numbers to the police.
Speaker 1: Is appropriate behavior.
Speaker 2: Lastly, Daniel friended a message with Acquittal five on Facebook
Speaker 2: after an incident involving an overdose on PCP in which
Speaker 2: Acquittal five disposed of the substance by eating a glass
Speaker 2: vial full of it. In fact, Daniel escorted her life
Speaker 2: saving ambulance ride to the hospital.
Speaker 1: In her police.
Speaker 2: Interview, she claimed that while she was recovering from that incident,
Speaker 2: Daniel allegedly forced her into oralsodomy while she was handcuffed
Speaker 2: to her bed in a busy hospital. This is what
Speaker 2: she said on her way out of that interview.
Speaker 1: So this is good evidence.
Speaker 6: Well you tell me, I think so, because I mean,
Speaker 6: even if he didn't like even right, no about.
Speaker 7: Eleven, he fit yea.
Speaker 2: So all five of these allegations ended in acquittal of
Speaker 2: the original twenty one accusers. Eight allegations resulted in convictions,
Speaker 2: and we are going to now one by one examine
Speaker 2: the facts of each case. Again, for protection of privacy,
Speaker 2: we refer to all as conviction and a corresponding number.
Speaker 2: You're already aware of Conviction one. Jenny Leggins, whom we
Speaker 2: covered earlier. Conviction two, alleged that Daniel had orally sodomized
Speaker 2: her near a public park, then transported her inside the
Speaker 2: public park by a closed school, and proceeded to rape
Speaker 2: her for five to ten minutes. This is how she
Speaker 2: described her attacker.
Speaker 9: Tell me your description of him.
Speaker 6: He's black man, muscular, muscular, So you think he's shorter
Speaker 6: than you?
Speaker 8: Yeah, okay, I'll tell you.
Speaker 5: Even what kind of car did he have?
Speaker 6: A black and white black and white cor Oklahoma City
Speaker 6: Police Corps.
Speaker 2: Daniel also had made contact with her at some point
Speaker 2: near that old school in the public park, but when
Speaker 2: he did. His Automatic Vehicle locator or AVL, a GPS
Speaker 2: device attracts the movements of police cars, says that his
Speaker 2: car stopped for less than four minutes, not five to ten.
Speaker 2: He's also six two and half white, half Japanese, definitely
Speaker 2: not shorter than five eleven, and definitely not black. Conviction
Speaker 2: three claimed that Daniel allowed her to drive under the
Speaker 2: influence while he followed her to her relative's house, at
Speaker 2: which point she alleged that he drove her to the
Speaker 2: end of the street.
Speaker 1: And raped her. However, his AVL tells us that he
Speaker 1: never drove on that street. Further, the duration of the
Speaker 1: alleged rape.
Speaker 2: Changed from quote a long time to quote five to
Speaker 2: ten minutes, and then a trial to quote maybe about
Speaker 2: three minutes or so. But when she and Daniel did
Speaker 2: have an interaction, his AVL still would only allow for
Speaker 2: a window of less than three minutes for a possible attack.
Speaker 2: Conviction four alleged that when Daniel raped and orally sodomized
Speaker 2: her in her room in a house, that she wiped
Speaker 2: phlegm from that oralsodomy on a chair. The swab from
Speaker 2: the chair, however, revealed the DNA profile of a mail
Speaker 2: that was not Daniel. Conviction five claimed that her alleged
Speaker 2: attacker drove the older model Oklahoma City PD black and white. However,
Speaker 2: Daniel drove the newer all black Cruiser. Conviction six testified
Speaker 2: that her attacker was a tan color like someone from India,
Speaker 2: not dark, but not pale. She also claimed that he
Speaker 2: made her expose herself. However, a witness claimed that she
Speaker 2: was handcuffed at the start of their encounter. For Conviction seven,
Speaker 2: there's no Dan Evans to speak of, but she did
Speaker 2: change her story several times. At first, an officer allegedly
Speaker 2: fondled her breast over her clothing. Then at a preliminary hearing,
Speaker 2: she claimed that the groping was skinned to skin contact.
Speaker 2: At trial, it was back to her over the clothing allegation. Finally,
Speaker 2: the crux of the prosecution's case Conviction eight, a seventeen
Speaker 2: year old girl who claimed that Daniel pat searched her,
Speaker 2: inserted a finger in her vagina, and proceeded to rape
Speaker 2: her through the unzipped fly of his buckled pants on
Speaker 2: her mother's porch. This is what she had told her
Speaker 2: mother about their encounter.
Speaker 9: She said, it's really hot.
Speaker 5: Cop he told me I had a couple of one,
Speaker 5: but said, don't worry about it. She's really nicely affecting.
Speaker 2: No body fluid was detected or observed on the fly
Speaker 2: of his pants. However, a microscopic trace amount of her
Speaker 2: DNA was found on his fly, along with DNA from
Speaker 2: at least two other individuals, including at least one unknown male,
Speaker 2: which goes to support the defensive theory that the presence
Speaker 2: of her DNA on his fly can be explained by
Speaker 2: secondary transfer transfer of DNA to objects or people through
Speaker 2: an intermediary.
Speaker 7: The main evidence in the case was DNA found on
Speaker 7: the fly of Daniel's pants, but the DNA evidence on
Speaker 7: the fly of the pants included no evidence of body fluid,
Speaker 7: and ultimately, Daniel was accused of raping one woman through
Speaker 7: the unzipped fly of those buckled pants, and there's no stains,
Speaker 7: no deposits on them at all. That would make it
Speaker 7: very unlikely that there had been any kind of sexual
Speaker 7: assault to be able to give evidence. That's just a
Speaker 7: low quantity of DNA that matches most closely with indirect
Speaker 7: transfer of DNA.
Speaker 2: Is it possible for Daniel to have done these crimes
Speaker 2: and not left any trace of biological evidence.
Speaker 7: Anywhere, I would say very unlikely.
Speaker 2: This is so troubling because the idea that Daniel or
Speaker 2: anyone could be convicted of eight different crimes with the
Speaker 2: absence of any real biological evidence. And it takes you,
Speaker 2: coming from Iowa, an outsider, to come in and do
Speaker 2: the work that the forensic people should have and could
Speaker 2: have very easily done in the first place. The mistakes,
Speaker 2: there's so many mistakes that we don't have time to
Speaker 2: cover it on this show. I mean, I have a
Speaker 2: list of ninety five of them, right, and there's no
Speaker 2: way we could talk for hours that we wouldn't cover
Speaker 2: all of the mistakes that were made, both deliberate and
Speaker 2: sloppy mistakes.
Speaker 1: Right. So, but back to you.
Speaker 7: When I looked at the news about the case, which
Speaker 7: is how I found out about it, it was mentioning
Speaker 7: how the prosecutors were so proud to have gotten convictions
Speaker 7: on eight women's allegations based on a little bit of DNA.
Speaker 7: The more I looked, I saw there's no evidence of
Speaker 7: body fluids. And it turns out the forensic analysts just
Speaker 7: looked at the pants with the bright light and magnifying
Speaker 7: glass and saw there was no evidence of vaginal fluid
Speaker 7: or body fluid, and then went right to testing just
Speaker 7: the fly of the pants. She did not do any
Speaker 7: control tests on other places on Daniel's uniform pants and belts.
Speaker 7: The main problem I think at the Oklahoma City Police
Speaker 7: Department is the detectives and then the prosecutors above them.
Speaker 7: They just did not understand that DNA can transfer innocently.
Speaker 7: So as soon as they found a mixture of DNA
Speaker 7: on the fly of Daniel's pants, the police thought that
Speaker 7: meant he was guilty of sexual conduct and therefore guilty
Speaker 7: of sexual crimes. They wanted to then go out and
Speaker 7: find the female who matched the major contributor to that
Speaker 7: DNA mixture, assuming she was a victim. So they had
Speaker 7: that mindset, that bias that developed into tunnel vision on
Speaker 7: Daniel right from the beginning of the investigation, and then
Speaker 7: went out and solicited allegations from women whom Daniel had stopped.
Speaker 7: And it's no surprise that some of the women did remember, yes,
Speaker 7: they were stopped by Daniel, because they had been contacted
Speaker 7: because the police knew Daniel stopped them. Daniel's case would
Speaker 7: be like someone meeting with you in your office, and
Speaker 7: then later they find a woman's DNA on the fly
Speaker 7: or pants, and the woman said, yes, I was at
Speaker 7: his office. And they conclude that you're guilty just because
Speaker 7: you had an interaction with someone.
Speaker 2: So if you shook hands this morning with somebody who
Speaker 2: you met on the street and then you went into
Speaker 2: a friend whatever, and then they went and went to
Speaker 2: the bathroom afterwards, a little bit of your DNA, a
Speaker 2: touch DNA would be on somewhere on the wherever they
Speaker 2: und after on button, it would be there.
Speaker 7: It could very well be there, right because.
Speaker 2: We're always transferring together, always shedding like we always It's
Speaker 2: like we leave it on every day, we leave it
Speaker 2: on the coffee cup, we leave it everywhere we go.
Speaker 2: When you were first taking in for questioning, did you
Speaker 2: request a lawyer.
Speaker 9: I didn't request a lawyer at the time. I just
Speaker 9: wanted to do a professional I wanted.
Speaker 5: To clear my name on you in an any department
Speaker 5: in law.
Speaker 9: Or your replications before you go off of and you
Speaker 9: want to go to a promotion, you want to go
Speaker 9: to any special unit. Your replication is what's online and
Speaker 9: when people here about you. And so I'm talking clear
Speaker 9: my name. I don't know what you got kind of
Speaker 9: allegation you as before me, I'm talking clear my name.
Speaker 9: I'll try to cooperate and get.
Speaker 1: Out of there, right.
Speaker 2: But we see so many times when we see young
Speaker 2: kids picked up by police for questioning and they don't
Speaker 2: even know they're supposed to ask for a lawyer right
Speaker 2: there in high school, or they're from they're from a
Speaker 2: background where they had no knowledge of how these things work.
Speaker 2: You were in law enforcement, right, so it seems to
Speaker 2: me logical that if you were concerned, the first thing
Speaker 2: you would have done. You're a college graduate, your whole family's,
Speaker 2: your whole life has been law enforcement. You've got a
Speaker 2: degree in criminal justice. I mean that's where I go. Well,
Speaker 2: wait a minute, if there was anything on your mind,
Speaker 2: the first thing you would have said is okay, I
Speaker 2: want to lawyer. I'm not stocking you guys now. And
Speaker 2: actually you went in the complete opposite direction from what
Speaker 2: I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong. You turned over
Speaker 2: your passwords, you turned over the keys to your apartment.
Speaker 2: I mean, can you just elaborate on that? And why
Speaker 2: did you do those things?
Speaker 5: I basically cooperated as fools anything, As I answered again,
Speaker 5: I wanted to be professional. I didn't raiseel I didn't.
Speaker 5: They asked. I answered, And that's kind of how in
Speaker 5: the sense that you were training academy. You know, you're
Speaker 5: broken down and then you're rated up, and so if
Speaker 5: you're asked the question, you're dressed, you're going to reply
Speaker 5: anything that they asked. Yeah, go ahead, please please do that.
Speaker 5: Go ahead and go with the DNA test, and go
Speaker 5: ahead and go to my apartment. Whatever you need to
Speaker 5: do to clear my name so I could get back
Speaker 5: and continue my job. But I thought I'd really good
Speaker 5: at it.
Speaker 2: Please do after this had become this insane media circus
Speaker 2: that reached people all over the world, and now you
Speaker 2: go to trial, and I'm sure it was a crazy
Speaker 2: scene there. Just give us your perspective on how the
Speaker 2: trial went, how your defense team handled it, and what
Speaker 2: your expectations were.
Speaker 5: Trial was a long period time and this has happened
Speaker 5: during the Thanksgiving break. So the biggest thing I want
Speaker 5: to try to address to the audience is how big
Speaker 5: of an attack media affects people's perception in their opinions.
Speaker 5: So when they use that national media into the aid
Speaker 5: of the office, I'm already presumed guilty before I step
Speaker 5: in that courtroom. So when Judge Henderson asked the jury members,
Speaker 5: are everyone in the court room, brings your right handed
Speaker 5: to you have seen this man or ever heard of
Speaker 5: the name Daniel. I looked up the whole courtroom raise
Speaker 5: your hand. So imagine yourself being there finding for your life,
Speaker 5: and the whole court room already knows who you are
Speaker 5: based off the opinions of the media. And again media
Speaker 5: has such as a fact on the outcome of cases
Speaker 5: because all it shows is highlights. They don't show the facts.
Speaker 5: They could edit and they could crop whatever they want
Speaker 5: to say what they want. And the majorty of the
Speaker 5: cases is the wrong narrative. It's false, it's not the
Speaker 5: right facts. So with that said, it was a huge
Speaker 5: burden overcome. So it's you guilty. Then you got to
Speaker 5: prove yourself innocent. And on top of that you have
Speaker 5: a whole duram members of that perception in their mind
Speaker 5: is already oh, he's already presumed guilty. And then, like
Speaker 5: I said, going back to the bank giving break, it's
Speaker 5: a long trial. So you have Jess Henderson's quarterners is
Speaker 5: don't talk to your sipnificant others when you go back home.
Speaker 5: Come on, let's in reality, that's not going to happen.
Speaker 5: You know, honey, what did you do today? Well, I
Speaker 5: was at the Hole small trial, the biggest thing going
Speaker 5: on in Oklahoma. You know, all national news Oklahoma. Of
Speaker 5: course you're going to talk about it. And so it
Speaker 5: reinforces the people that are not even the court room,
Speaker 5: the husband and wife, Oh well, he's guilty. He's guilty
Speaker 5: of this. He's just playing it into the jury member's
Speaker 5: minds and they're hearing that. So it's reinforcing the presumption
Speaker 5: of guilt. So that's something I want to reinforce the
Speaker 5: people in the audience to understand, be in my position,
Speaker 5: how hard it is to fight for that, you know.
Speaker 5: And so we come back from Thanksgiving break and then
Speaker 5: only that you have to board my lawyers. You know,
Speaker 5: we hire a DNA expert, and yet you know they
Speaker 5: didn't finding you on this DNA. We have to wait
Speaker 5: till Eric comes along to find that that stuff's not right.
Speaker 5: You know, I'll find it for my life. We hired,
Speaker 5: we spent hard working money for the DNA expert, and
Speaker 5: yet you're gonna say kill me on that. There's a
Speaker 5: lot of parts were in the trial. I felt like,
Speaker 5: you know, my lawyer could have stepped up and objected
Speaker 5: or said something. And there was times where I was mad.
Speaker 5: You know, I'm getting I'm getting frusterted. I'm trying to
Speaker 5: keep my composure because the jurors members are looking at me,
Speaker 5: but you know, I'm getting mad. And I remember one
Speaker 5: time I'm just like Scott, what are you injecting? Like
Speaker 5: what are you doing? And we kind of got into
Speaker 5: Bigger Mintie's like calm down, I'll calm down. Well, it's
Speaker 5: hard for me to calm down when you see these
Speaker 5: quote unquote victims that go on the stands, we're not
Speaker 5: even addressing the questions. In addition to that, you have
Speaker 5: leet Detective Davis and Gregory that are coaching them along
Speaker 5: head nodding everything they want to say. Okay, yeah, that's
Speaker 5: where I continue on and they're looking at Davis and
Speaker 5: I'm looking at the jurior members are you serious.
Speaker 1: Or you're not?
Speaker 5: Are you not seeing this? And so it was really
Speaker 5: frustrating the whole process. Uh, obviously I was in total
Speaker 5: sock when the murder came down, and it was just,
Speaker 5: you know, something that didn't ever possible would happened.
Speaker 2: My friend Josh Dubin conducted a study with a help
Speaker 2: from a lot of other people that showed that jury
Speaker 2: members have a presumption of guilt that teeters on eighty
Speaker 2: percent just because they see somebody in the defendant's box.
Speaker 2: In your case, it was probably one hundred percent of
Speaker 2: them assumed you must be guilty of something because it
Speaker 2: was impossible to find a jury that hadn't heard about
Speaker 2: the case. You couldn't have found one anywhere in America
Speaker 2: at that point in time, but least of all in Oklahoma.
Speaker 2: So in your case, they you know, and and then
Speaker 2: being the amateur psychologist that I am, you know, when
Speaker 2: the jury is they're sitting there and then they're being
Speaker 2: presented with evidence that they're you know, they're they're not
Speaker 2: dumb people. So they're sitting there going, well, this doesn't
Speaker 2: make sense and that wasn't true, and this doesn't add up.
Speaker 2: And he's not a black guy, and he's not short,
Speaker 2: and he's not blonde. And but on the other hand,
Speaker 2: I saw this thing on TV and yeah, I mean
Speaker 2: it's it's it's a lot a lot.
Speaker 7: I can jump here too, because what's It's really important
Speaker 7: is how the DNA evidence contributed heavily to Daniel's conviction,
Speaker 7: because the prosecutor actually said in his closing the argument quote,
Speaker 7: the most important thing about the teenager whose DNA profile
Speaker 7: was found on the fly of Daniels pants is the fact,
Speaker 7: said the prosecutor, that DNA from the walls of her
Speaker 7: vagina was transferred to vaginal fluids on the outside and
Speaker 7: the inside, not of his pockets, not of his cuff,
Speaker 7: not where he sits, but at the exact location she
Speaker 7: says his penis came in contact. So the prosecutor lied
Speaker 7: to the jury telling them there was vaginal fluid that
Speaker 7: was there was not. And we know from a juror's
Speaker 7: interview after the trial that the jury, at least this
Speaker 7: one juror thought there was vaginal fluid because he was
Speaker 7: interviewed on Crimewatch Daily and he said, well, I mean,
Speaker 7: I'm not a DNA expert. They told us the DNA
Speaker 7: was from the vaginal fluid of a seventeen year old.
Speaker 7: The DNA people are pretty boring, to be honest with you.
Speaker 8: End quote, Well, I mean, I'm not the NA expert.
Speaker 8: They told us it was the DNA from the vaginal
Speaker 8: fluid from a seventeen year old. The DNA people are
Speaker 8: pretty boring, to be honest with you.
Speaker 7: So we know at least one der was misled by
Speaker 7: the prosecutor to believe there's vaginal fluid, and so of
Speaker 7: course they're going to end up convicting, not just for
Speaker 7: the teenager's allegations, but the jurors explained afterwards that this
Speaker 7: impacted their deliberations for all these allegations.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this was during closing arguments. Could you later
Speaker 2: have objected in the closing argument?
Speaker 1: He still can. Yeah, and he should have. But in
Speaker 1: fact it should be a mistrial.
Speaker 8: And he did it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they didn't effect that. Yeah, that's crazy to a
Speaker 1: gross misstatement.
Speaker 7: Another problem in the trial is that the forensic analysts
Speaker 7: misrepresented the DNA evidence on the fly of Daniel's pants.
Speaker 7: There was a mixture of DNA from at least three people.
Speaker 7: There were four different stretches of fabrics, two on the
Speaker 7: outside and two on the inside of the fly that
Speaker 7: were swabbed, and it turns out all of them had
Speaker 7: male DNA. And the reason this is signific is the
Speaker 7: prosecution ended up arguing that they claimed Daniel's DNA was
Speaker 7: not there, and so if he had just innocently transferred
Speaker 7: DNA matching the teenager accuser, you would supposedly expect to
Speaker 7: find Daniel's DNA there. The forensic analysts ended up telling
Speaker 7: the jury there was no male DNA on the inside
Speaker 7: of the fly, and the prosecutor again and again would
Speaker 7: have her say that there's no DNA, so Daniels DNA
Speaker 7: is not there, and then argued to the jury that
Speaker 7: this meant it was very unlikely that you could have
Speaker 7: DNA transferring innocently, so the jury was misled into believing
Speaker 7: there was no male DNA. The forensic analyst also was
Speaker 7: wrong when she concluded Daniel's DNA did not contribute. That
Speaker 7: was a major error. The DNA evidence did not allow
Speaker 7: that conclusion. There's such low level of DNA you can't
Speaker 7: tell from whom the DNA came. DNA could be there,
Speaker 7: but at low levels, so you don't detect au genetic regions.
Speaker 7: So anytime you have DNA misrepresented in a trial, it's
Speaker 7: bad because DNA weighs so heavily in the minds of jurors.
Speaker 7: Daniel's attorney never even challenged these claims by the States
Speaker 7: forensic analysts that there was no male DNA or that
Speaker 7: Daniel's DNA wasn't there.
Speaker 1: So this is actually the perfect storm for a wrongful conviction.
Speaker 2: Right. You have the media frenzy reporting inaccuracies left and right,
Speaker 2: making up a narrative that sells advertising time or newspapers.
Speaker 2: You have a jury pool that then is hopelessly tainted.
Speaker 2: You have bumbling and competent and biased investigators throughout this process.
Speaker 2: You have a defense attorney who is I don't want
Speaker 2: to say incompetent, but was not up to the task.
Speaker 2: Because this is as serious as a case could be.
Speaker 2: We're talking about life in prison. I mean, I just
Speaker 2: did the math Daniel's sentence. If he were to serve
Speaker 2: a sentence, he'd be in prison until the year twenty
Speaker 2: two hundred and seventy seven. Then you have a prosecutor
Speaker 2: who lied, forensic people who lied, or were misstated or inaccurate,
Speaker 2: whatever the word you want to choose. With all of that,
Speaker 2: the outcome was preordained. Did you have any hope that
Speaker 2: you would still be vindicated.
Speaker 5: Well, I always believe in the judicial system. That's why
Speaker 5: I was the cop, and so you know, I believe
Speaker 5: justice will be served. I believe that I'll because honerator.
Speaker 5: I remember vividly there was a dream member that she
Speaker 5: was a female that I was looking, you know, acknowledge.
Speaker 5: Every time they came in the courtroom, I left the courtroom,
Speaker 5: she would look at me, she would smile. And when
Speaker 5: the verdict was coming in and they walked into the courtroom,
Speaker 5: I saw a males, the male cheir members and material
Speaker 5: eye and then I saw her crying hysterically, and I'm
Speaker 5: this is when I'm really.
Speaker 9: Freaking out and I'm shaking under you know what's going on?
Speaker 9: And I'm looking over to my lawyers and I'm like, well,
Speaker 9: more than what's going on, you know, And she's crying hysterically.
Speaker 9: Everyone's crying and remembers that.
Speaker 3: You thought it was a guilty villain.
Speaker 9: Why you cried, you know? And then when they read
Speaker 9: docs and Americans, I'm guilty.
Speaker 3: I mean, I was listening a total shock.
Speaker 9: I don't even remember what I in or what happened.
Speaker 9: I just remember I think I just dropped my head
Speaker 9: and you know, like Jod, why you know what was
Speaker 9: going on? And it would oh, I know it's not
Speaker 9: dropped my head, and uh, something that I believe in
Speaker 9: justice would kill me.
Speaker 5: Mm hm.
Speaker 2: We're here because we want to educate the public as
Speaker 2: to how these things could happen, and how it could
Speaker 2: happen to someone you love, and to educate people who
Speaker 2: are going to be serving on juries at some point
Speaker 2: in their life that you know, whoever's listening, it could
Speaker 2: have been you in that jury box, and how would
Speaker 2: you have done. And I'm sure people are saying, well,
Speaker 2: I would never have convicted him, but twelve people did.
Speaker 2: And how could they get it so wrong? How could
Speaker 2: they look at things that are so clearly black and
Speaker 2: white and go, yeah, I know it's false, but you know,
Speaker 2: and they had a complicated task. They're looking at things
Speaker 2: that they know are false, right, They're looking at testimony
Speaker 2: that they know is false from a number of different people.
Speaker 2: At the same time, they're being presented with quote unquote
Speaker 2: evidence by people who they respect, prosecutors and forensic people,
Speaker 2: and so they're stuck in a conflict. But as citizens
Speaker 2: and as everyone again potential jury remembers, your duty is
Speaker 2: to if there's doubt, to acquit you know, it has
Speaker 2: to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That's something we all
Speaker 2: learn in high school. Right beyond a reasonable doubt. Not
Speaker 2: maybe it could be.
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's a conflict. I'm not sure, you know.
Speaker 2: And then there's that quote that I can never say
Speaker 2: enough times better that one hundred guilty men should go
Speaker 2: free than that one is and should suffer. And that's
Speaker 2: sort of been turned on its head. But Daniel, here
Speaker 2: you are. You're stuck in a situation that would break
Speaker 2: I think most people.
Speaker 1: How do you do it? Day by day? How? I mean,
Speaker 1: how are you getting along on the inside?
Speaker 5: Being a Christian? I think there's a plan for everything.
Speaker 5: And I used to hate hearing that as a cliche
Speaker 5: and just I was cornering what things happened for a reason,
Speaker 5: and I used to hate that. But I think there's
Speaker 5: a greater purpose in God, and I think God has
Speaker 5: a plan for me, And you know, be down in
Speaker 5: my heart, I know I'm on me free. I know
Speaker 5: justice will be served as much as I believe in
Speaker 5: that system, and now I have a little bit of
Speaker 5: hope in there, and I believe it's going to happen.
Speaker 5: And with that said, I can be here, if possible,
Speaker 5: without any of all my loved ones and supporters. So
Speaker 5: everyone that has come along the way. It's a blessing.
Speaker 5: It's just the act of God right there and finding
Speaker 5: never gave up, never had a thought of giving up.
Speaker 5: So I know I'm gonna be free. I'm not gonna
Speaker 5: let this, you know, change you who I am in
Speaker 5: that day when I'm free, you better bet your blood.
Speaker 5: And I'm gonna fight for all the wrongful convicted people
Speaker 5: out there. If I have a platform I'm gonna fight from.
Speaker 5: I've been on built days at the cop and now
Speaker 5: I'm Aconvic and so I'm definitely gonna do my best
Speaker 5: to help everyone out there in the world that's in
Speaker 5: my position.
Speaker 2: Well, it's gonna be an honor to work with you.
Speaker 2: So what happens next and how can people help?
Speaker 6: I suggest people, if they want to learn more, go
Speaker 6: to free Daniel holds Claw dot com. My Facebook Jenny
Speaker 6: holds Claw is public, so I post all the facts
Speaker 6: and information and give daily updates of what's going.
Speaker 4: On with his case.
Speaker 1: Let me just reread that.
Speaker 2: So it's free Daniel Holtz Claw dot com, which is
Speaker 2: free Daniel h O l t z c l a
Speaker 2: W dot com, or or go to Jenny Hols Claud
Speaker 2: which is j N N Y h o Ltzclaw on Facebook.
Speaker 4: Correct.
Speaker 6: Another thing I want to point on too is we
Speaker 6: have a petition going. We have over thirty five thousand
Speaker 6: signatures right now, and you can find that on my
Speaker 6: Facebook or freading holds cloud dot com for the link
Speaker 6: to actually sign the petition, and.
Speaker 2: Of course I'll be posting about it as well on
Speaker 2: my Instagram at it's Jason flam Erica. You look like
Speaker 2: you've got something to add.
Speaker 7: The main point for me was how I feel Daniel's
Speaker 7: case is a tragedy because our society's noblest desires to
Speaker 7: end racism and sexism and police brutality ended up convicting
Speaker 7: it innocent man. So that is a tragedy where a
Speaker 7: good thing about our society wanting to care about victims
Speaker 7: of sexual assault led people down this path to torture
Speaker 7: an innocent man and send into prison.
Speaker 2: At this point in the show, this is the point
Speaker 2: that I think, I always say is my favorite part
Speaker 2: of the show, where I get to thank each of
Speaker 2: you again for being here any holes, Claus sister and
Speaker 2: freedom fighter, and Erica Fush biologist and dedicated activists to
Speaker 2: righting these wrongs, and of course you Daniel and I'd
Speaker 2: like to uh so again thank you all for being here.
Speaker 2: And then Daniel, I want to turn it over to
Speaker 2: you for this is the part of the show where
Speaker 2: I turned my microphone off and I get to just
Speaker 2: listen and you can just you know, wrap it up
Speaker 2: in any way you want and talk about anything you
Speaker 2: want and make sure we didn't miss anything as well.
Speaker 2: So thank you, thank you again for sharing and calling
Speaker 2: in from prison, and now turn over to you.
Speaker 5: All right, I'll just try to be quick out versus
Speaker 5: thank you for having us. I'm my loved ones and
Speaker 5: everyone close to come on board and be able to
Speaker 5: speak my side instance, I appreciate it. Jason just to add,
Speaker 5: you know, a real fast and Jase is so complex
Speaker 5: and that I want to really articulate is the media.
Speaker 5: And if someone asked me, well, why do you think
Speaker 5: you're wroughly convicted Daniel, I'd probably say, to be honest
Speaker 5: with you, is just the media. I think the media
Speaker 5: plays a huge factor in people's perception. Like I said
Speaker 5: earlier in the show, people Watch Today. You know TV
Speaker 5: shows where it's Law and Order, n c C and
Speaker 5: c I S. You know all those types of shows,
Speaker 5: and they believe you know the stuff happens in the
Speaker 5: courtor Well, that's TV shows. Those are movies. That's not
Speaker 5: the reality of what happens. And atual courtrooms. People believe
Speaker 5: that this defendant, the high profile on national television, Oh man,
Speaker 5: he must be guilty. Oh and then the defense lawyer,
Speaker 5: oh man, he's grow up. Defense lawyer. He's just trying
Speaker 5: to get paid. Here's just going to try to get
Speaker 5: him off on a technicality. Well that's not the case,
Speaker 5: you know, So please just don't believe into the media.
Speaker 5: Don't believe in that mass medium and manipulation where they
Speaker 5: they're feeding you these one.
Speaker 3: Minute sections where they can edit.
Speaker 5: And crop and wherever they want to do, and the
Speaker 5: majority of them are just loosen.
Speaker 3: The prosecute decided. People believe the prosecutions are the good
Speaker 3: guys about all the cases.
Speaker 5: It's not that they care about. All they care about
Speaker 5: is fectionary.
Speaker 3: So I just asked that you guys please look into
Speaker 3: the facts.
Speaker 1: Of the cases.
Speaker 3: Don't you know the famous quotas don't judge a book
Speaker 3: Bud's cover. You know you've seen this mass media, you know,
Speaker 3: case going on in your communion scene in the national
Speaker 3: news CNN.
Speaker 9: You know Box News have sixty seconds remaining.
Speaker 3: Big time media outlets just don't jump to the assumption
Speaker 3: that this person guilty looking in the facts of the
Speaker 3: case and actually, you know, do your homework and that
Speaker 3: would definitely does you know, come out with your own
Speaker 3: opinion and don't don't believe what the media. I always
Speaker 3: try to protrude.
Speaker 5: So I know it's about to hang up right now.
Speaker 5: But again, thank you everyone and all the.
Speaker 9: Loved ones, with all the fighters that came along.
Speaker 3: It's a spiracle that where I'm at right now.
Speaker 9: It's big to you, guys.
Speaker 3: I love you guys.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much for being there.
Speaker 7: Here we have thirty seconds remaining.
Speaker 3: I'm gonna continue to fight. Uh never give up, and
Speaker 3: no one will be So thank you everyone out there
Speaker 3: and been listening.
Speaker 4: I love love you.
Speaker 2: Daniel.
Speaker 1: Hi, Daniel, don't forget to give us a fantastic review.
Speaker 1: Wherever you get your podcasts, it really helps.
Speaker 2: And I'm a proud donor to the Innocence Project, and
Speaker 2: I really hope you'll join me in supporting this very
Speaker 2: important cause and helping.
Speaker 1: To prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to Innocence Project dot
Speaker 1: org to learn how to donate. And get involved. I'd
Speaker 1: like to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wartis.
Speaker 1: The music in the show is by three time OSCAR
Speaker 1: nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 2: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction
Speaker 2: and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast. Wrongful Conviction with
Speaker 2: Jason Flam is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
Speaker 2: and association with Signal Company Number one