Speaker 1: In the early seventies, Rodney Lincoln served two years in
Speaker 1: prison for accidentally killing a man in a bar fight.
Speaker 1: About ten years later, he briefly dated a woman named
Speaker 1: Joanne Tate, and about a year after that, in the
Speaker 1: early morning hours of April twenty seventh, nineteen eighty two,
Speaker 1: Joanne was brutally stabbed to death and sexually assaulted in
Speaker 1: her Saint Louis apartment. Her two young daughters, seven year
Speaker 1: old Melissa and four year old Renee, miraculously survived the attack.
Speaker 1: Joanne's brother thought her ex boyfriend, Rodney Lincoln, resembled a
Speaker 1: composite sketch. Investigators presented the older girl, Melissa, with a
Speaker 1: very suggestive lineup, and it had the desired effect. Without
Speaker 1: DNA testing available, this misidentification, along with Rodney's past conviction,
Speaker 1: sealed his fate. The first trial ended in a hung jury. However,
Speaker 1: in the second, the state leaned heavily on dubious hair
Speaker 1: microscopy evidence and Melissa's testimony. Unfortunately for Rodney, pointing out
Speaker 1: the inconsistencies between Melissa's initial statements and trial testimony could
Speaker 1: not overcome the power of a then nine year old
Speaker 1: girl describing an unspeakable attack. Twenty seven years later, DNA
Speaker 1: testing excluded Rodney, but Melissa's testimony still looked Finally, when
Speaker 1: a serial killer named Tommy Lynn Sells had confessed the
Speaker 1: scores of eerly similar crimes, Melissa immediately recognized him for
Speaker 1: photos as the actual attacker. However, her recantation was still
Speaker 1: somehow not enough to immediately set Rodney free. This is
Speaker 1: wrongful conviction. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction Today's episode. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's truly mind blowing, even for me and I've been
Speaker 1: doing this for a long time. This is a case
Speaker 1: of the wrongful conviction of a man named Rodney Lincoln
Speaker 1: who's here with us today. And first of all, before
Speaker 1: I go any further, Rodney, you know what can I say?
Speaker 1: I'm sorry you're here under these circumstances. You never should
Speaker 1: have to go through any of this in the first place.
Speaker 1: But I'm obviously very happy that you're here to share
Speaker 1: your story. So thanks for being here today.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me dation.
Speaker 1: We also have with us today one of the most
Speaker 1: tenacious and persistent fighters for Rodney's innocence, and that's Rodney's
Speaker 1: own daughter, Kay Lincoln. Kay, thanks so much for being
Speaker 1: with us today, no problem. And Rodney what a guy.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a man who served over thirty
Speaker 1: six years in prison and his case involves junk science,
Speaker 1: a mistaken eyewitness identification. There's a serial killer whose name
Speaker 1: you'll probably recognize because he was responsible for other wrongful
Speaker 1: convictions we've covered on this series. I mean, Rodney's case
Speaker 1: is a case that when you're at one of these
Speaker 1: innocent conferences and you start talking about this or that,
Speaker 1: people go, yeah, but have you heard about Rodney Lincoln?
Speaker 1: It's like whispered because this case is so bad, shit crazy. So,
Speaker 1: without further ado, let's go back in time. So where
Speaker 1: did you grow up?
Speaker 2: I grew up in South Saint Louis, Missouri. I was
Speaker 2: a happy kid. Were poured, but everybody was poured too,
Speaker 2: so we didn't know that we was boy.
Speaker 1: Right. There was no social media back then, so you
Speaker 1: had a happy childhood. And then it goes up to
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy three. You're still a very young man. Right.
Speaker 1: We got into a drunken bar fight and this is
Speaker 1: not the case we're here to talk about. This was
Speaker 1: something that actually happened, right, But do you want to
Speaker 1: talk about that just for a second.
Speaker 2: In nineteen tell me three, I was convicted of a
Speaker 2: second degree murtor. I was in a boy drinking one
Speaker 2: day and bring the mind from across the street came
Speaker 2: over and told me, Hey, some guy just told something
Speaker 2: out you were trucking. Well, I had enough drink to
Speaker 2: mean that I would ready to go after him. Unfortunate
Speaker 2: way I did. We got into confiscation and he threw
Speaker 2: a rock at me, and miss I threw a rack
Speaker 2: at him, and didn't I wound you up? Convicted a
Speaker 2: second degree MODI.
Speaker 1: Well, you served your time in prison for that crime,
Speaker 1: but little would you know at the time that was
Speaker 1: just the tip of the iceberg for your experience with
Speaker 1: the criminal legal system in this country. Right, and in
Speaker 1: this case you were actually guilty. And did you plead
Speaker 1: guilty in that case?
Speaker 2: Yes, I did. I compressed to the crime. I was
Speaker 2: rightfully convicted.
Speaker 1: All right. So now it's the late seventies getting into
Speaker 1: the early eighties and you're out of prison. What were
Speaker 1: you doing for work? And how did you first meet
Speaker 1: joe Anne Tate? Mighter says you dated at some point, right.
Speaker 2: Yes, we dated a few times. I was Kendy boy
Speaker 2: at a place called the Cottage Inn, and this couple
Speaker 2: comes in the boar and I find out that this
Speaker 2: is Joanne Tape and her brother. While there, I got
Speaker 2: talking to Joanne. When they got ready to leave, Joanne
Speaker 2: gave me a piece of paper with her phone number
Speaker 2: on it asked me to call it that night when
Speaker 2: I got off work. I called, she answered, And that
Speaker 2: was the first time we met outside of the boy
Speaker 2: And when I say we dated, it wasn't like a
Speaker 2: mad love affair. Our relationship was purely sexual, okay.
Speaker 1: And then how long after that does this horrible crime happen?
Speaker 2: It was just about a year. I think, maybe a
Speaker 2: little over it because I had been dating my girlfriend
Speaker 2: at the time for about eight months.
Speaker 1: Now we fast forward to the early morning hours of
Speaker 1: April two, twenty seventh, ninety eighty two. This is going
Speaker 1: to be hard to hear. I'm just going to warn
Speaker 1: the audience. This crime is so grotesque that it's hard
Speaker 1: for me to even say it or read it, because
Speaker 1: this was the mark of a serial killer who was
Speaker 1: reaching the depths of his depraved crime spree. So in
Speaker 1: the early morning hours of April twenty seventh, ninety eighty two,
Speaker 1: joe Ane Tate was thirty five years old. She was
Speaker 1: stabbed in the chest and sexually assaulted with a broomstick
Speaker 1: in her apartment at Saint Louis, Missouri. Now her seven
Speaker 1: year old daughter, Melissa, also was stabbed several times at
Speaker 1: her four year old daughter, Renee, had her throat cut.
Speaker 1: The girls survived the attack, but their mother tragically did not.
Speaker 1: Her body was discovered at ten am when her brother
Speaker 1: and boyfriend at the apartment and found her lying face
Speaker 1: down in a pool of blood, and her daughter's lying
Speaker 1: there as well, covered in blood with multiple stab wounds.
Speaker 1: The uptack neighbor had heard a loud noise from missus
Speaker 1: Tate's apartment at approximately four am that morning, and then
Speaker 1: when police arrived at the scene, they noticed the two
Speaker 1: girls were still alive, but they saw that there were
Speaker 1: and again brace yourself, bristles of a broom were protruding
Speaker 1: from the anus of missiou Ane Tate now Renee. The
Speaker 1: four year old never offered any identification of the attacker,
Speaker 1: but Melissa, the seven year old, gave the police various
Speaker 1: different statements. Now for a while, she stuck to a
Speaker 1: story that a man named Bill was the attacker, right,
Speaker 1: not Rodnie Bill, and she gave the police some details
Speaker 1: about his car at his house. I believe they also
Speaker 1: made a sketch. But do you know how your name
Speaker 1: first came up to the police.
Speaker 2: The way my name came up is they found my
Speaker 2: name in Joanne's diary and Buddy said that the guy,
Speaker 2: thank you of that, that's the guy just gets looks.
Speaker 1: And police eventually showed a picture of you, a photo
Speaker 1: of you, Roddy to the young girl Melissa, and they
Speaker 1: had the fact that you had a murder conviction on
Speaker 1: your record from the drunken fight ten years earlier, completely
Speaker 1: unrelated by the way, which was a very different situation obviously.
Speaker 1: But after the show Melissa your photo, this poor little
Speaker 1: girl was shown a four person live lineup with you
Speaker 1: in it. And here's the thing. You had short hair
Speaker 1: and a slight build, but the other three men didn't
Speaker 1: resemble you at all.
Speaker 2: Right, one was about six inches taller than I was,
Speaker 2: and all of them had stremeway long hair and were
Speaker 2: built a lot bigger than I was. I've always been
Speaker 2: a small person. I was smaller than that lineup. Not
Speaker 2: to mention that they were all younger than I.
Speaker 1: Was Yeah, So this is suggestive. Isn't even a strong
Speaker 1: enough word. And this is why I believe that these
Speaker 1: things should all be recorded. I wouldness identification, not just
Speaker 1: interrogations of suspects, because I mean, how much more traumatized
Speaker 1: could a child be. She's witnessed her own mother's brutal
Speaker 1: murder and also was stabbed several times by this monster.
Speaker 1: And now imagine her, this little child, with these police officers,
Speaker 1: you know, steering her. Maybe they were doing it consciously, subconsciously,
Speaker 1: I don't know, towards the one guy in the lineup
Speaker 1: who looked anything like what she had said she remembered
Speaker 1: from this attack. Also, during the investigation, there was hair
Speaker 1: found and Puba CA hair that apparently did not belong
Speaker 1: to Joe an tape. So the state brings in a
Speaker 1: few quote unquote experts and we'll get to that insanity
Speaker 1: in just a bit. Okay, So you're arrested, Rodney on
Speaker 1: May twenty third of nineteen eighty two, So this is
Speaker 1: just a few weeks after the attack. You're arrested and
Speaker 1: charged based on this let me say this sort of
Speaker 1: just the identification procedure, this junk science of the hair
Speaker 1: and the basic idea that they had tunnel vision because
Speaker 1: they said, well, here's a guy who had been convicted
Speaker 1: of murder, nothing like this one, nothing in common at all,
Speaker 1: and who dated her just briefly, so it must be him.
Speaker 1: So you're in jail awaiting trial from May nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: two until August of nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 2: I would be in jail for five hundred and thirty
Speaker 2: five days.
Speaker 1: Five hundred and thirty five days, that's about a year
Speaker 1: and a half awaiting the trial. But now you had kids.
Speaker 1: You had with four kids by this.
Speaker 2: Point, ah, yes, two downs and two daughters.
Speaker 1: And your daughter Cave's here with us now. So kay,
Speaker 1: what was all of this like for you? What do
Speaker 1: you remember feeling at that time?
Speaker 3: Confusion, why was this happening? Just was so lost as
Speaker 3: to why how could this even be a thought that
Speaker 3: he could do something like this. And I remember the
Speaker 3: first time we went to visit him when he was
Speaker 3: being held at the city jail, shortly after he was arrested,
Speaker 3: and he just looked us in the eyes and said,
Speaker 3: I need you to know I didn't do this. I
Speaker 3: had nothing to do with this, And that was really
Speaker 3: all I needed to hear and I really believed that. Okay,
Speaker 3: so he didn't do it. These guys are trying to
Speaker 3: just do their job. They'll figure out that it wasn't
Speaker 3: him and he'll come home. And of course that didn't happen.
Speaker 3: And it was a year and a half before he
Speaker 3: went to trial, and we thought, well, okay, he's going
Speaker 3: to trial, they'll figure it out, the judge'll sent him home.
Speaker 1: And in the first trial that almost panned out. And
Speaker 1: who represented you, Rodney.
Speaker 2: I'll eject the ganet by an attorney by the name
Speaker 2: of Robert Hampey.
Speaker 1: And how long did the trial take?
Speaker 2: The big trout took fifteen days.
Speaker 1: And it ended in the seven to five split verdict
Speaker 1: which hung the jerry. Of course, so now back to
Speaker 1: jail to await another trial, which took place in October
Speaker 1: of nineteen eighty three. And was it the same attorney
Speaker 1: that represented you in the second trial?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: So at the second trial, the state presented two criminalists
Speaker 1: who were employed by the City of Saint Louis Police department,
Speaker 1: Joseph Crowe and Harold Mesler, who testified about hair that
Speaker 1: was found at the crime scene. Now, Crow said that
Speaker 1: he examined a blanket found in the bedroom, found hair,
Speaker 1: and found one sample of a pubic hair that did
Speaker 1: not belong to the victim. On cross examination, mister Crowe
Speaker 1: stated that the information that can be gathered from a
Speaker 1: hair is limited and that he didn't think it was
Speaker 1: possible to determine the age of the person. That one
Speaker 1: could not identify the ethnicity of a hair from a
Speaker 1: Caucasian quote with a great deal of certainty. This doesn't
Speaker 1: sound like very strong testimony. So the hair evidence was
Speaker 1: then passed to Mesler, the other guy, to examine, and
Speaker 1: he testified that compared to a sample from you dy,
Speaker 1: along with samp from thirty seven other Caucasians, the thirty
Speaker 1: seven others were not comparable to the hair found at
Speaker 1: the scene. Okay, so I'm no scientists, but so these
Speaker 1: thirty seven other samples, thirty seven other people, that's what
Speaker 1: passed for the exclusion of anyone else on the planet. Right,
Speaker 1: It's unbelievable that this is allowed to go on in
Speaker 1: a court of law. But okay, Later, the same guy,
Speaker 1: Mesa testify that when examining the thirty seven other individuals's
Speaker 1: hair along with Tate's hair and Lincoln's hair, only yours
Speaker 1: Rodney matched, and that in two hundred cases that he
Speaker 1: had handled, he had never found one where hair recovered
Speaker 1: from the crime scene matched to more than one person. Again,
Speaker 1: what does that even mean or prove? I mean, if
Speaker 1: the process is getting thirty seven samples, who cares? If
Speaker 1: you did the same shoddy testing two hundred times or
Speaker 1: two million times, does that disproved that your suspect's hair
Speaker 1: is just similar to the actual killers hair? How do
Speaker 1: you know that from this method? Well, the answer is
Speaker 1: you don't. Hair microscopy possesses little to no forensic value.
Speaker 1: You know. I'm reading this fantastic book now, and fact
Speaker 1: I just finished it last night by m. Chris Fabricant,
Speaker 1: and it's called Junk Science and the American Criminal Justice System.
Speaker 1: One of the things it highlights is how the National
Speaker 1: Category of Sciences did a study not that long ago
Speaker 1: where the FBI was forced to admit that they had
Speaker 1: been lying in case after case for decades about this evidence.
Speaker 1: A sampling of the first five hundred transcripts revealed that
Speaker 1: special agents had given bogus testimony in about ninety six
Speaker 1: percent of the cases, thirty five had been death penalty convictions,
Speaker 1: and all but two of those had been marred by
Speaker 1: false testimony. Now nine men had already been put to death,
Speaker 1: and five more had died of other causes while waiting
Speaker 1: to be executed on death row due to this junk science.
Speaker 1: It's nothing short of a forensic testimony disaster. So you've
Speaker 1: got this junk science presented at your trial, Rodney, but
Speaker 1: it's really there to support Melissa, whose testimony, despite the inconsistencies,
Speaker 1: was still very powerful. We're talking about what was she
Speaker 1: by the time of the trial, just nine years old?
Speaker 2: I believe Jella, yes.
Speaker 1: So she described with the little nine year old Melissa
Speaker 1: describe waking up to screams and seeing her mother laying
Speaker 1: down on her stomach in a little blood. Near the
Speaker 1: door to her bedroom. She said, she saw a naked
Speaker 1: man and again I'm sorry you have to hear this,
Speaker 1: who came over to her bed, picked her up and
Speaker 1: carried her up to tape the bedroom, put her on
Speaker 1: the bed, and removed her clothes. She said he tried
Speaker 1: to get her to quote do a few things. He
Speaker 1: stand her repeatedly, and she attempted to play dead until
Speaker 1: he stopped again. This is her testimony, she said. The
Speaker 1: attacker then washed off the knife and she hid under
Speaker 1: her sister's bed, and she then heard the attacker hurt
Speaker 1: her sister. Oh man, this is just kidding worse and worse.
Speaker 1: When she was in her mother's bedroom, she said she
Speaker 1: got a good look at the killer. She said she
Speaker 1: did not remember his name at the time, but she
Speaker 1: remembered seeing him before that night, a long time ago,
Speaker 1: when she Renee and her mom spent the night at
Speaker 1: your house, Rodney. And she said the house was across
Speaker 1: from a park with a playground, and that your mother
Speaker 1: and some pets lived there, and she identified the playground
Speaker 1: at the park from photos. She then identified a photo
Speaker 1: of Hugh Rodney as her attacker, as attacker of the
Speaker 1: whole family, and she identified you in the courtroom as well.
Speaker 1: She then explained that she initially said because you remember
Speaker 1: she had said Bill, did it right? Because she was
Speaker 1: sick and hurt and everyone kept bothering her for a name,
Speaker 1: she just said Bill. She stated several times that Bill
Speaker 1: and Lincoln were the same person, and at the time
Speaker 1: of the attacks, she did not really know your name.
Speaker 2: And I sit there in a second trial, I'm beginning
Speaker 2: to see I am, and some bisure your trouble.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about your defense. Your attorney, Ridy Robert Hampy,
Speaker 1: who had been with you now for quite some time
Speaker 1: through the first trial and the second trial. Yes, he
Speaker 1: had an almost impossible task because how do you cross
Speaker 1: examine a traumatized, terrified little girl who's lost her mother
Speaker 1: and almost lost her own life as well as seeing
Speaker 1: her sister savagely attacked. I don't know how you go
Speaker 1: about doing that, but how did he attempt to because
Speaker 1: she was really the whole case, right.
Speaker 2: Right, I think as I look back on it now,
Speaker 2: his whole line of attack. He hought mostly on the
Speaker 2: inconsistencies of his statements, trying to get it to repeat
Speaker 2: the different things that she had said in the past
Speaker 2: that was not exactly it's supposed to be. Now, as
Speaker 2: I look back on it now, I almost feel like
Speaker 2: he founding her.
Speaker 1: Well, that could backfire as well, because I mean, he
Speaker 1: had to walk a tightrope, and it sounds like he
Speaker 1: didn't do it very well. But he literally was in
Speaker 1: between a rock and a hard place, because the jury's
Speaker 1: not going to want to see him being anything other
Speaker 1: than gentle so to speak to this child. But he
Speaker 1: had your life on the line, and the only way
Speaker 1: to get you out of this at this point was
Speaker 1: to undermine her testimony, which, as of course, turns out
Speaker 1: all those years later to have been false. Okay, So
Speaker 1: then we get to the closing argument, and in the
Speaker 1: state's closing argument, they didn't really focus on the hair sample. Rather,
Speaker 1: they kept harping on little Melissa's testimony, noting that Renee
Speaker 1: was too young to testify and stating that Melissa quote
Speaker 1: bore the responsibility for the three of them to tell
Speaker 1: you what happened that night. Whoa. And then they recapped
Speaker 1: Melissa's identification of you, Rodney, And I'd say at that
Speaker 1: point your fate was probably more or less sealed. I mean,
Speaker 1: these are people on the jury, these are normal people, well,
Speaker 1: who are listening to this testimony, this child, and who
Speaker 1: want to get justice for her and her mom and
Speaker 1: her sister and the family. And so I think that
Speaker 1: that's going to cloud their judgment. And while they may
Speaker 1: have had real doubts as to your guilt, at this point,
Speaker 1: the human instinct is depended on somebody, right. So how
Speaker 1: long did they deliberate for the second trial?
Speaker 2: They was out I think about two a half hours well.
Speaker 1: It's not very long at all. And when they came
Speaker 1: back in, did you still hold out hope or did you,
Speaker 1: as you said before, you knew you were in serious
Speaker 1: trouble and you basically resigned yourself to the idea that
Speaker 1: these people were going to come back and render a
Speaker 1: Guilly verdict.
Speaker 2: No, no, I fell felt that they're going to get
Speaker 2: it right. They come back and say, look, we can't
Speaker 2: find enough everything.
Speaker 1: Convict this guy, and you would go home and try
Speaker 1: to piece your life back together again. But unfortunately that
Speaker 1: was not to be so Rodney. When the jury came
Speaker 1: back in, what was that moment like when they convicted
Speaker 1: you and sentenced you to life in prison plus fifteen
Speaker 1: years for a crime you had nothing to do with.
Speaker 2: I find it very hard to describe that feeling. It
Speaker 2: was just like everything inside of me was yanked out.
Speaker 2: Nothing there but the shell. At that time. I was
Speaker 2: taken to the Madrid State Penitentiary in Jefferson City. When
Speaker 2: I arrived, I was taken to a large room with
Speaker 2: a bunch of other people. We were stripped down, got
Speaker 2: into a shire where we were strayed like cattle. I
Speaker 2: was designed to two house at the Jafferton City Penitentiary.
Speaker 2: Once I got there, it was a living nightmare. I
Speaker 2: was always looking over my shoulder do anything or going anywhere,
Speaker 2: and remained that way for just about for ten years.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile, you're enduring these archaic and barbaric prison conditions
Speaker 1: while being handed one devastating disappointment after another from the courts.
Speaker 1: And by that I mean that in nineteen eighty six,
Speaker 1: your wrongful conviction was upheld on direct appeal, and then
Speaker 1: the motion for post conviction relief was denied two years
Speaker 1: later in nineteen eighty eight. But a crucial breakthrough came
Speaker 1: in two thousand and three when the Saint Louis, Missouri
Speaker 1: Circuit Attorney's Office or a Justice Project to review old
Speaker 1: convictions and chose your case to review out of fourteen
Speaker 1: hundred old cases. And here I'd like to turn back
Speaker 1: to your daughter, k because she plays an absolutely crucial
Speaker 1: role in what happens next. It's okay, can you take
Speaker 1: us through this.
Speaker 3: It was June fifth, two thousand and three. I got
Speaker 3: off work that evening and I stopped by my mom's
Speaker 3: house and I walked in the door and she was
Speaker 3: just finishing watching the news, and she said, your dad
Speaker 3: maybe out in a couple weeks. And I said, you're crazy,
Speaker 3: what are you talking about. She said, they just showed
Speaker 3: his picture on the news and they said they're reviewing
Speaker 3: his case. So the next morning I called down to
Speaker 3: the Circuit Attorney's office and I asked them is this true?
Speaker 3: Is he one of the cases? And they verified that yes,
Speaker 3: this was one of the cases that they were looking at.
Speaker 3: And so I started a communication with the man who
Speaker 3: was in charge of doing this review, and through the
Speaker 3: course of our communication, they said, well, we can't find
Speaker 3: the transcripts. We can't get a hold of the trains.
Speaker 3: So I tracked them down. I went to the Court
Speaker 3: of Appeals and I purchased the transcripts from them. It
Speaker 3: was like twelve hundred dollars to get these transcripts. I
Speaker 3: made copies and took them down to the Circuit Attorney's
Speaker 3: office and said here you go, get busy, you know.
Speaker 3: So as they're doing their review, I'm rereading these transcripts myself,
Speaker 3: and I'm just getting blown away by the things that
Speaker 3: I'm seeing. Because my aunt had an original copy of
Speaker 3: Melissa's deposition from back in nineteen eighty two, so I'm
Speaker 3: comparing Melissa's deposition to things that were said in trial,
Speaker 3: and I'm like, well, this isn't even jiving. It's not
Speaker 3: making sense. So then I thought, well, I need to
Speaker 3: see these police reports. So I requested the police reports,
Speaker 3: and it took forever to get them. The police department
Speaker 3: did not want to give them to me. Now I'm
Speaker 3: reading them and I'm freaking out because there's so much
Speaker 3: information here. The more I read, the more I need
Speaker 3: to find more, you know. So I'm like, I need
Speaker 3: this lineup photo. And I had to fight and fight
Speaker 3: to get the lineup photo. I finally got that and
Speaker 3: I was just blown away. I don't know if you've
Speaker 3: seen it, but it's incredible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, it really is. I mean, the suggested nature,
Speaker 1: the whole thing. You know, there's these huge dudes with
Speaker 1: long hair and your dad's got short hair and a
Speaker 1: lighter build.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's almost like a joke. So I got the
Speaker 3: lineup photo. I'm reading trial transcripts and police reports and
Speaker 3: I'm like, oh, well, there's more depositions somewhere. So I
Speaker 3: go back down to the courts and I request all
Speaker 3: the depositions and I'm reading through them and one really
Speaker 3: got my attention. There was a criminologist I guess by
Speaker 3: the name of John Salmone, and in his deposition he
Speaker 3: states that he identified a fingerprint on the knife as
Speaker 3: my dad's and I'm like, wait a minute, that never
Speaker 3: came up in I guess. It was my dad's attorney
Speaker 3: who was doing the deposition, and he said, are you
Speaker 3: aware of a man named George bone Break? And Detective
Speaker 3: Salmone said yes, he was a fingerprint analysis expert at
Speaker 3: the FBI, And so the attorney asks him, are you
Speaker 3: aware that this print was sent to George bone Break
Speaker 3: for evaluation. They go off the record, come back on
Speaker 3: the record, and he states that he is no longer
Speaker 3: willing to testify that that is Rodney Lincoln's fingerprint unless
Speaker 3: George bone Break testifies that it's Rodney Lincoln's fingerprint. Well,
Speaker 3: what happened was the police department had sent that print
Speaker 3: to bone Break to try to get confirmation of it
Speaker 3: being his. Bone Break gave them back a report saying no,
Speaker 3: it's not his fingerprint, and he actually offered to testify
Speaker 3: for the defense, but wanted like one thousand dollars or
Speaker 3: something that they didn't have to pay him. So you
Speaker 3: had a detective who says this is his fingerprint and
Speaker 3: absolutely knows it's not, and that was never brought up
Speaker 3: at trial. Dad's attorney and the prosecutor agreed to a
Speaker 3: stipulation that neither one of them would bring that print
Speaker 3: up at trial. And I was like, why in the
Speaker 3: hell would his attorney not bring that up.
Speaker 1: So this investigation into your dad's conviction by this circuit attorney, well,
Speaker 1: in April two thousand and four, they decided to close
Speaker 1: it down right. They said they couldn't locate the fingernail
Speaker 1: scrapings from Joanne from the attacker and couldn't provide any
Speaker 1: conclusive proof with the hair, so they wouldn't be doing
Speaker 1: any further investigation or testing. I mean, I can't imagine
Speaker 1: how that would have felt. What did you do? What
Speaker 1: were you thinking? Then?
Speaker 3: I'm like, wait a minute, I've got way too much
Speaker 3: information now in the past ten months, somebody's going to
Speaker 3: do something. You might be finished, but I'm not, and.
Speaker 1: You weren't, and we're about to get into that. I mean, Rodney,
Speaker 1: you have to be so proud of cam Damn. I'm
Speaker 1: proud of k and without her we probably wouldn't even
Speaker 1: be having this conversation right now.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, it would be a hold up. Was straight than
Speaker 2: what I am today, It's not. For she gathered all
Speaker 2: the information and did all the legwork and did a
Speaker 2: lot of the investigation. Contacted a guy by the name
Speaker 2: of Steve Weinberg who was a journalist at the Columbia
Speaker 2: School of Journalists. He was also the founder of the
Speaker 2: Midwest Entrance. CAE made contact with him and he used
Speaker 2: my case with his journalists students and allowed them to
Speaker 2: investigate my case and they came up with a lot
Speaker 2: of the information that we have today.
Speaker 1: So it's now twenty ten, so this ordeal has now
Speaker 1: been going on for more than a quarter century. In ten,
Speaker 1: DNA testing that the Midwest intern Project had fought for
Speaker 1: was approved and samples from the crime scene were tested,
Speaker 1: and of course the results did not match you, Rodney.
Speaker 1: And then MIP filed to have you released, but the
Speaker 1: motion was supposed and Circuit Court Judge Robin Vanoy ruled
Speaker 1: that the DNA results were not enough to exonerate you, Rodney.
Speaker 1: I mean, how did it feel to you when you
Speaker 1: were aware that the DNA had exculpated you?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: And yet the courts are saying, and we're not buying
Speaker 1: that DNA stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, what we were told that DNA on the hair
Speaker 2: was not enough to release me because they still had
Speaker 2: the eye witnestemony.
Speaker 1: Right. So in twenty fourteen, we come to a crucial
Speaker 1: turning point in this case, and that brings us to
Speaker 1: this awful character in this story today. And we've heard
Speaker 1: his name on the show before. I'm talking about serial
Speaker 1: killer Tommy lynz Sells, And so I reached out out
Speaker 1: to a fascinating person whose investigative work into just how
Speaker 1: many innocent people were in prison for murders that were
Speaker 1: actually committed by Tommy Lindzels led him to start several
Speaker 1: organizations in different states, including the Illinois Innosons Project. By
Speaker 1: the way, just to give you an idea of how
Speaker 1: many murders and wrawful convictions for which cells is responsible.
Speaker 1: Julie Ray, who's been on the show herb whitlock you Rodney,
Speaker 1: of course, And we're not even scratching the surface. So
Speaker 1: in speaking with this investigator, he gives us a look
Speaker 1: inside his journey into the murderous career of Tommy lin Sells,
Speaker 1: starting with the wrawful conviction of Randy's Steidle and how
Speaker 1: that unfolds into Rodney's case.
Speaker 4: My name is Bill Clutter. I'm a private investigator. Twenty
Speaker 4: years ago, I started the Illinois Innocence Project in Springfield, Illinois.
Speaker 4: I was involved in the case of Rady' Stidel, who
Speaker 4: spent most of his seventeen years on death row. You know,
Speaker 4: in twenty fourteen, although Stidl Whitlock were free, they still
Speaker 4: hadn't had their names cleared, and so I filed a
Speaker 4: affidavit detailing all the crimes of Tommy lyn Cells. So
Speaker 4: part of those details included his modus apperende were in
Speaker 4: many of his cases. He would strike at four am,
Speaker 4: take knives from the kitchen where he would stab his
Speaker 4: victims to death. But it was the details of the
Speaker 4: Dardine case that was in my affidavit that caught the
Speaker 4: attention of an attorney in Rhode Island, Jen Fitzgerald. She
Speaker 4: reached out to me and asked if I was aware
Speaker 4: of the Rodney Lincoln case. When she started telling me
Speaker 4: the details, that the murder happened at four am, a
Speaker 4: knife from the kitchen was used, that it happened in
Speaker 4: Saint Louis, where I knew that Tommy Lynzell's family moved
Speaker 4: around February of nineteen eighty two. That was significant because
Speaker 4: it gives Cell's opportunity to have committed the murder of
Speaker 4: Joanne Tate. And here he was only seventeen at the time,
Speaker 4: and this would have been one of his very early
Speaker 4: murders that he committed, and all of the factors of
Speaker 4: that case are identical to many of his other cases.
Speaker 4: Four Am Knife from the Kitchen, And it so happened
Speaker 4: that crime watched daily it was a new syndicated crime show,
Speaker 4: reached out and was interested in doing a story about
Speaker 4: my investigation linking Cells to the murder of Joanne Tate.
Speaker 4: It was that show when it aired in November of
Speaker 4: twenty fifteen that triggered the recantation of Melissa Debore. When
Speaker 4: she saw the images of Tommy Lynn Cells, she had
Speaker 4: a flashback and this visceral reaction and she reached out
Speaker 4: to Kay Lincoln on social media that your dad is innocent,
Speaker 4: Tommy lynz Cells killed my mother.
Speaker 1: Well, it sure checks out because when you look at
Speaker 1: the grotesque details of Missus Ruby Dardine's murder, and again,
Speaker 1: brace yourself because this is grotesque, but Missus Dardean's body
Speaker 1: was found next to her three year old son and
Speaker 1: newborn baby. Now, Tommy lind Sells was a hitman for
Speaker 1: hire as well as just seemed like he just enjoyed violence,
Speaker 1: like it was his sort of weird kick, and this
Speaker 1: case appears to be one of the hired variety because
Speaker 1: it's believed that the mafia actually hired him to brutalize
Speaker 1: the Dardines. The husband, Keith, in particular, was made to
Speaker 1: watch his family be physically destroyed. Tommy lind Sells had
Speaker 1: waited for Ruby's husband Keith to come home, and during
Speaker 1: this time, Ruby gave birth to her baby. Oh my god,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna cry. And Keith was found a while away,
Speaker 1: shot execution style with his penis severed and stuffed into
Speaker 1: his mouth. I mean, and his wife Ruby was found
Speaker 1: And this is important. Again, cover your ears if you're squeamish,
Speaker 1: But this is important because it relates back to the
Speaker 1: circumstances surrounding the tape murder. Missus Dardine was found with
Speaker 1: a baseball bat protruding from her vagina, so this was
Speaker 1: this sick bastard's mo After Melissa reached out to Kay
Speaker 1: on Facebook, and Midwest Insis Project shifted their attention to
Speaker 1: Tommy but in cells. At some point, Melissa learned that you, Rodney,
Speaker 1: were left handed, unlike the man who killed her mom
Speaker 1: and attacked her. So on November twenty eight, twenty fifteen, Melissa,
Speaker 1: now a grown woman, well into her I guess forties
Speaker 1: now from that nine year old girl who testified a
Speaker 1: seven year old girl that had been attacked. She recanted
Speaker 1: her testimony against Rodney Lincoln. She said, and this is
Speaker 1: a direct quote, Rodney Lincoln did not kill my mom.
Speaker 1: He did not attempt to kill my sister and I
Speaker 1: it was Tommy Lynn Sells. When the veil fell from
Speaker 1: my eyes, I was horrified. I have kept an innocent
Speaker 1: man in prison for thirty four years. I did not
Speaker 1: know I was wrong, but I was and realizing it
Speaker 1: is so painful. When I saw a picture of Tommy
Speaker 1: wind says, I had a horrible, horrible feeling. And when
Speaker 1: I think about that terrible night, I now see how
Speaker 1: I could have gotten mixed up. This is all I
Speaker 1: can really say right now. End quote.
Speaker 2: I learned about that again through my daughter. She came
Speaker 2: up to visit me and when she told me that
Speaker 2: she talked to Melissa and Milita was going to recant
Speaker 2: whose statement, we laughed. Replied, I felt, at last, it's
Speaker 2: finally ending. Then, after Melissa actually went through the prosecutor's office,
Speaker 2: I was told how Melissa was treated like she couldn't
Speaker 2: possibly be right after thirty years, saying that she yet
Speaker 2: they don't have any trouble believing her when she was seving.
Speaker 2: That amazed me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems backwards and upside down and inside out
Speaker 1: and everything right. And it's amazing how they can just
Speaker 1: believe what they want to believe when they want to
Speaker 1: believe it, and then discount it when it doesn't match
Speaker 1: exactly what they want the narrative to be. I can't
Speaker 1: leave out that this poor poor woman, Melissa, is now
Speaker 1: being re traumatized as she learns that she had been
Speaker 1: lied to by the people who were sworn to protect
Speaker 1: and serve her, and who, as a child who had
Speaker 1: just lost her mother, must have been just imagine clinging
Speaker 1: onto anyone, any grown up that you think might be
Speaker 1: able to help you, and to have been betrayed, and
Speaker 1: then to as she said so eloquently in such a
Speaker 1: heartfelt manner to now have to live with this awful
Speaker 1: feeling that she was responsible for putting a man who
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with it in prison for I mean, Jesus,
Speaker 1: you served almost four decades in prison, and now the
Speaker 1: state is refusing to listen to her. But she wasn't
Speaker 1: done yet. December twenty fifteen, Melissa went and met with
Speaker 1: the Saint Louis Prosecuting Attorney's officers declare her recantation. And
Speaker 1: she even came to meet you in prison to ask
Speaker 1: for your forgiveness.
Speaker 2: I mean, I told her that there was nothing to
Speaker 2: forgive her far if she didn't do anything. She was manipulated, collers,
Speaker 2: guided and tricked. I couldn't forgive there was anything to
Speaker 2: forgive her for if she was in it. We did
Speaker 2: the hug, We tried, we laughed. When she first walked
Speaker 2: up to me, she just kept saying I'm sorry, I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, and I kept down there's nothing to be charged, boy,
Speaker 2: you didn't do anything. It was a moment. I can't
Speaker 2: really describe how I felt. It was a moment that
Speaker 2: I would cherish the rest of my life.
Speaker 1: I'm always at a loss for words when I hear
Speaker 1: these stories. What I read is that what you said
Speaker 1: to her when she begged for your forgiveness was I
Speaker 1: have nothing to forgive you for you are completely blame nous.
Speaker 1: I thank you for your courage, but you only have
Speaker 1: my love, not any anger from me. I'm so sorry
Speaker 1: for you and for losing your mom. Well, that's probably
Speaker 1: exactly what she needed to here and probably exactly what
Speaker 1: you need to get off your chest. And then things
Speaker 1: started to roll. Even though there was still one more
Speaker 1: major speed bump ahead right, which is out of twenty seventeen.
Speaker 1: Despite the DNA evidence and the sole eyewitness both on
Speaker 1: your side, your case was still denied a review by
Speaker 1: the Missouri Supreme Court. I mean, like, like what I mean,
Speaker 1: what was your reaction to that?
Speaker 2: Well, by the time I'm being getting to understand they
Speaker 2: are perfect, court system isn't so perfect. The decision of
Speaker 2: the appeals court that innocence isn't enough to free a
Speaker 2: person unless they have the death penalty that flowed me,
Speaker 2: and then the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear the case.
Speaker 2: He separately den I to hear it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it doesn't make any sense, Like what deny it
Speaker 1: on what basis? But you're here today. And that's because
Speaker 1: remarkably Governor Briton's certainly not a criminal justice reformer, stepped
Speaker 1: in and commuted your sentence into the twenty eighteen and
Speaker 1: you were immediately released, not pardon, by the way, and
Speaker 1: so you're still living as a convicted murderer, which is insane.
Speaker 2: You know, I wonder about that today. I didn't find
Speaker 2: out about this until around ten thirty the morning of
Speaker 2: the day that I left. They came and got me
Speaker 2: and told me I had to go up front and
Speaker 2: wait for a call from the governor. The phone rang,
Speaker 2: and I was sitting in the office at time. Manager
Speaker 2: Aim through the phone and he and the phone to me.
Speaker 2: I say, hello, boy, says is this Ridney Lincoln. I said, yes,
Speaker 2: it is. He said, someone here wants to speak to you.
Speaker 2: He is the governor of the state of Missouri. And
Speaker 2: then governor comes on, he says Rodney, I said, yes, sir.
Speaker 2: He said, I just wanted to call and tell you
Speaker 2: that I'm commuting your sentence to time served. The only
Speaker 2: thing I could think of at that moment would thank you.
Speaker 2: And then the governor told me, Ridney, I want you
Speaker 2: spend the rest of your time building a better community,
Speaker 2: making this a better country, and God blessed you. And
Speaker 2: you only I could say was God bless you.
Speaker 1: That's a short and sweet conversation if I ever heard one.
Speaker 2: Yes, shut, sweet and at least for me, very powerful.
Speaker 2: I never left the penitentiary until twenty minutes after six
Speaker 2: that evening, and I walked out. My two daughters and
Speaker 2: my grandson and two of my attorneys were there to
Speaker 2: meet me.
Speaker 1: Rodney, I got to ask, what was that like? Like you,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about your first steps out as a free
Speaker 1: man into free air after so many long years in prison.
Speaker 2: You know today everything's virtual, and it's kind of way
Speaker 2: I felt there. I didn't you know, happened virtually. This
Speaker 2: isn't real.
Speaker 1: So you felt like it was a dream.
Speaker 2: Absolutely very good, one better dream.
Speaker 1: And then what did you do? So a lot of
Speaker 1: hugs and tears, I'm sure, and laughing.
Speaker 2: We uh tried laugh. I have a very emotional family.
Speaker 2: One of the things that I remember so vividly is
Speaker 2: I remember telling my daughter how much better the sunshine
Speaker 2: felt outside of the prison from the way it did
Speaker 2: on the inside.
Speaker 1: What a day man. And meanwhile, that was back in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen and it's now twenty twenty two, so this
Speaker 1: is a little more than three and a half years ago,
Speaker 1: and I understand that you have been traveling the country
Speaker 1: speaking about your experience courageously and advocating to try to
Speaker 1: help prevent others from going through the same nightmare that
Speaker 1: you went through. There's a wonderful quote that I read
Speaker 1: from you that said, just the fact that I could
Speaker 1: possibly help someone that was the same position that I
Speaker 1: was in, if I could do something today that makes
Speaker 1: me a better person or help someone else, It's been
Speaker 1: a good day. That's awesome. You're awesome, man. That's all
Speaker 1: I can say about that. So how's life been these
Speaker 1: three and a half years of freedom?
Speaker 2: Fantastically amazing would almost cover it. Since I've been out,
Speaker 2: I've been on several vacations, did some deep sea fati,
Speaker 2: did some pair of gliding, rode the pirate ship. I
Speaker 2: jumped out of a perfectly good airplane twice.
Speaker 1: Amazing.
Speaker 2: I'm using this time to learn more about myself as
Speaker 2: well as the people around me. I was away and
Speaker 2: a lot of things you just lose touch of, and
Speaker 2: I'm trying to regain that tightness and family bonds. I
Speaker 2: try and keep in touch with many of the guys
Speaker 2: back at the prisoners I can by email. Since it
Speaker 2: COVID hit, I've been able to do much speaking advocating.
Speaker 2: Tend to continue with that, Well.
Speaker 1: We need you out there, and we need you on here.
Speaker 1: And the good news. You know, one hundred thousand plus
Speaker 1: people will hear this podcast and hear your thoughts that
Speaker 1: you've shared with us so generously. It's been an honor
Speaker 1: for me to have the chance to interview you here today.
Speaker 1: You are an inspiration and for people who want to
Speaker 1: help Rodney as he hopefully lives another twenty thirty years
Speaker 1: and as he continues to do his good work. There's
Speaker 1: a GoFundMe. Just go to the link in our bio.
Speaker 1: We'll have it posted right there for you. One click,
Speaker 1: donate five dollars, five hundred thousand dollars, whatever you want,
Speaker 1: anything you can spare to help Rodney. You can also
Speaker 1: learn even more about this case on a podcast called
Speaker 1: The Real Killer. It's a twelve episode series and this
Speaker 1: case certainly has a lot of layers to it. And
Speaker 1: then Rodney, we now turn to the closing the show,
Speaker 1: which we call closing Arguments. It works like this I'm
Speaker 1: going to turn off my microphone, kick back in my chair,
Speaker 1: turn the volume up, and leave my headphones on, and
Speaker 1: just listen to any thoughts you want to share that
Speaker 1: we haven't already covered.
Speaker 2: As far as my case, I think recovered that the
Speaker 2: lay and I certainly appreciate you giving me this opportunity.
Speaker 2: One thing that I would like to share is Melissa
Speaker 2: is trying to get re established here in Saint Louis,
Speaker 2: and there's a go fund me for her to help
Speaker 2: her raise money for housing. If you would go to that,
Speaker 2: go from me and help Melussa out. She's having a
Speaker 2: pretty rough time right now if you need some help,
Speaker 2: and by helping her that would help me.
Speaker 1: That's beautiful. We'll also have the go fund me for Melissa,
Speaker 1: who you've heard so much about in this episode. We'll
Speaker 1: have it posted in our bio as well, So go there,
Speaker 1: click on that. Rodney. What a generous and wonderful spirit
Speaker 1: you are. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with us.
Speaker 2: Thank you again for having me.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to
Speaker 1: thank our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Cliburn,
Speaker 1: and Kevin Wartis with research by Lyla Robinson. The music
Speaker 1: in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated
Speaker 1: composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram
Speaker 1: at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and
Speaker 1: on Twitter at wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava
Speaker 1: for Good. On all three platforms, you can also follow
Speaker 1: me on both TikTok and Instagram at it's Jason Flam.
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction is the production of Lava for Good podcas
Speaker 1: as an association with Signal Company Number one