Speaker 1: A morning. This episode contains language and depictions of violence
Speaker 1: that may be disturbing to some listeners. You know, something
Speaker 1: I've been thinking about and something maybe I should have
Speaker 1: brought up a long time ago. But how do you
Speaker 1: feel about me being a white woman telling your story? Um,
Speaker 1: it's something, you know, the race thing. I was on
Speaker 1: the verge of becoming a racist when I was sent
Speaker 1: to Lucasfield. The guards they called your nigger to your faith.
Speaker 1: That's why I stopped using that word, in fact, because
Speaker 1: when you ever hear racists call you that, you know exactly,
Speaker 1: it moved, it vibrates to your whole body. And then
Speaker 1: I was put on trial, and that was further that
Speaker 1: you know, I need to hate white people. But you know,
Speaker 1: all the guys are testified on me as who lied
Speaker 1: on me, you know, to save themselves or for dominantly blind.
Speaker 1: And you know, so that caused me some kind of
Speaker 1: you know, cognative designance. I was confused about that whole thing.
Speaker 1: And then you know, I started needing read and read
Speaker 1: from somebody who has spent you know, decades actually educating
Speaker 1: myself about race, educating myself about politics, and you know
Speaker 1: those two things I'm married mostly to benefit those in power.
Speaker 1: You know, that's how they divided us, keep us divided.
Speaker 1: You know, Amy is the point person in my campaign
Speaker 1: White lay. I'm always struck even now, even after all
Speaker 1: the beautiful, loyal, dedicated white people who have come on
Speaker 1: come into my life have helped me in ways that
Speaker 1: without which I would would really be stuck. So experience
Speaker 1: has really been the thing that has informed my attitude
Speaker 1: in terms of people. I'm glad you came onto my place.
Speaker 1: That's a long way to answer your question, but you
Speaker 1: know this is a really loaded question though. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's yeah. So you know, I don't limit myself because
Speaker 1: limit myself only plans in the hands of the people
Speaker 1: who are trying to put the news around my neck.
Speaker 1: I'm Leah Rothman. This is the Real Killer episode eight
Speaker 1: Visions of Versions so long. Well it's kind of have
Speaker 1: a ghost. It's finals, and it's the last day of finals,
Speaker 1: and it's well make for seventh periods. That's Amy gordeyev
Speaker 1: Keith just mentioned her. She's been the point person on
Speaker 1: the Justice for Keith Lamar campaign and one of his
Speaker 1: most fervent advocates for the last ten plus years. She
Speaker 1: also runs a Facebook group called Justice for Keith Lamar.
Speaker 1: I meet with Amy at Cheney High School in Youngstown, Ohio,
Speaker 1: about nine miles from where Keith sits on death Row.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, this is a great room. Yeah, I love it.
Speaker 1: Amy has always worked in education, teaching, then a quick
Speaker 1: detour to higher education marketing, then back to teaching. So
Speaker 1: now that I'm at Cheney, I'm a tsaul, a teacher
Speaker 1: of English to speakers of other languages. We have the
Speaker 1: highest rate of childhood poverty in the country and the
Speaker 1: school system here in Ohio, and so that means our
Speaker 1: kids have a lot of need, a lot of socioeconomic need.
Speaker 1: Everybody gets free, free lunch, and we spend a lot
Speaker 1: of time on just you know, trying to work on equity.
Speaker 1: In twenty and eleven, Amy and her husband Paul, a
Speaker 1: professor of cultural anthropology at Youngstown State University, end up
Speaker 1: meeting Keith through civil and workers' rights advocates Stoughton and
Speaker 1: Alice Lynde, who spent twenty years at Lucasville and the
Speaker 1: cases of the five men who are currently on death row.
Speaker 1: You heard from them briefly in episode seven. My husband
Speaker 1: Paul was doing research at the time on race and
Speaker 1: religion and different aspects that have created the segregated situation
Speaker 1: that exists in Youngstown. And he came across the name
Speaker 1: of Stotton Lynd, who's a historian, and he contacted him
Speaker 1: to interview him. The Lens ended up inviting us to
Speaker 1: drive them to go blueberry picking for Alice's eightieth birthday.
Speaker 1: So we took our minivan with the kids and the
Speaker 1: Lens and on that drive, they started talking about Lucasville,
Speaker 1: about these five guys. And I didn't even know who
Speaker 1: Stouton Lynd was. I didn't know his significant body of
Speaker 1: work in the civil rights movement, you know, none of it.
Speaker 1: I had no idea who they just were elderly folks
Speaker 1: that I thought were sweet. You know. One thing led
Speaker 1: to another, and then next thing you know, we were
Speaker 1: visiting Keith. As Amy researches and learns more about Keith's case,
Speaker 1: she realizes his version of events is far from public knowledge.
Speaker 1: When we would look online for information about him. All
Speaker 1: of it was the narrative that the state put forth,
Speaker 1: and it was like the articles coming from southern Ohio,
Speaker 1: from the Cincinnati area. Everything was really the worst things
Speaker 1: that you could imagine about him. He was just a monster.
Speaker 1: So Amy encourages Keith to write a book and tells
Speaker 1: him she'll help. He would write at night, and then
Speaker 1: in the morning he would call it and he would
Speaker 1: dictate it. Eight months and two hundred and thirty seven
Speaker 1: pages later, Condemned is published in twenty fourteen. It was
Speaker 1: a long process, but in the end, Condemned allowed Keith
Speaker 1: to tell his story from his point of view based
Speaker 1: on how it happened. Did you ever ask him point blank,
Speaker 1: are you innocent? I don't know if I ever asked
Speaker 1: that in that way. He says it all the time.
Speaker 1: I'm innocent, and I have seen with my own eyes,
Speaker 1: like I've read the documents. It just reeks of wrongdoing.
Speaker 1: You know, there's no evidence to me. If Keith were
Speaker 1: guilty of killing five people and the state offered him
Speaker 1: no additional charges, he would have been the dumbest person
Speaker 1: ever to not accept that offer. Right, he wasn't going
Speaker 1: to do it because he didn't do those crimes. Amy
Speaker 1: believes investigators found an easy target in Keith because he
Speaker 1: was already in prison for killing someone. He just happened
Speaker 1: to be in the two places where people were murdered
Speaker 1: at Lucasville L Block and K Block, and that his
Speaker 1: attitude definitely didn't help matters. He didn't want to cooperate,
Speaker 1: and he told other people like, don't help them. This
Speaker 1: is you know, he basically said like fuck, you know,
Speaker 1: look what they did to us. I mean, he was
Speaker 1: young and it was I can't imagine the amount of trauma.
Speaker 1: I mean I work with traumatized teenagers and they react
Speaker 1: more harshly than that all the time. You don't trust anybody,
Speaker 1: and I think he just didn't trust that any He
Speaker 1: would be safer for saying anything that wasn't how you
Speaker 1: do your time. You keep your head down and you
Speaker 1: mind your own business. But many don't follow that same philosophy,
Speaker 1: like the men who testified against Keith Amy says their
Speaker 1: testimony doesn't hold any water. The prison informants were paid.
Speaker 1: When I say paid prison informants, I'm talking about incentivized,
Speaker 1: rewarded somehow drop charges or no added charges or earlier paroles,
Speaker 1: or you get to be moved to a different prison
Speaker 1: away from Yeah, what do you know about Oakwood? What
Speaker 1: I know about Oakwood is that the men who agreed
Speaker 1: to become informants in the various trials were taken to
Speaker 1: Oakwood Correctional Facility. It was said afterwards that they were
Speaker 1: given access to commissary food, cigarettes, kind of an open
Speaker 1: door policy, lots more movement, and even at Thanksgiving were
Speaker 1: given a fabulous Thanksgiving dinner that the state folks who
Speaker 1: were present kind of referred to them as a family. Supposedly,
Speaker 1: some prisoners nicknamed Oakwood Snitch Academy. It seems like at
Speaker 1: Oakwood that's where that script was created. They worked out
Speaker 1: how they would say it, and then they would go
Speaker 1: around to trials after that and sing the song that
Speaker 1: they were taught to sing. Or maybe the state's witnesses
Speaker 1: were transferred to Oakwood for their own safety. I mean,
Speaker 1: they couldn't really be expected to coexist with the people
Speaker 1: they'd be testifying against. Right Regardless, Amy has other issues
Speaker 1: with how the state handled the investigation Keith's case. You know,
Speaker 1: I guess I also pushed back even on the name
Speaker 1: death Squad, because that's a state word, that's a state
Speaker 1: name that they gave to kind of like spookify what
Speaker 1: they were, you know, I mean, the death squad. That's
Speaker 1: a premeditated kind of group or something. You know, it's
Speaker 1: just a no, we weren't there. Nobody really knows what happened.
Speaker 1: But here's the other thing. Did they actually trample and
Speaker 1: ruin all the evidence or did they request to not
Speaker 1: have any of it be admissible, because then they would
Speaker 1: It's hard to believe that twenty two thousand pieces of
Speaker 1: evidence are actually inadmissible. People have asked over the years,
Speaker 1: what if he isn't innocent, or what if he's guilty
Speaker 1: and all of that, and so I know that question
Speaker 1: is out there, but for men, I mean, even if
Speaker 1: he were guilty, which I absolutely don't believe he is,
Speaker 1: But even if he were, it still doesn't change the
Speaker 1: fact that the system is lynching black and brown men,
Speaker 1: that in the case of Lucasville, the way and the
Speaker 1: methods that were used were unconstitutional and wrong, that they cheated.
Speaker 1: According to the Death Penalty Information Center, in the United States,
Speaker 1: fifty five percent of the death row population is made
Speaker 1: up of black and brown people and forty two percent
Speaker 1: is white. Three percent are referred to as other. More specifically,
Speaker 1: in Ohio, there are seventy seven black and brown people
Speaker 1: on death row versus fifty six who are white. Amy
Speaker 1: has spent the last ten years on Keith's case, I've
Speaker 1: only been on it for ten months. I often think
Speaker 1: back to when I first started. How more than a
Speaker 1: few people told me that the story was too big
Speaker 1: and I was getting in way over my head. At
Speaker 1: the time, I think my pride at the better of me.
Speaker 1: My attitude was, ah, I got this, I'll show them.
Speaker 1: But they were right. There are just so many names,
Speaker 1: so many people directly related to Keith's case, and even
Speaker 1: more on the periphery, And still this many months in,
Speaker 1: I don't have a real sense of what evidence actually exists,
Speaker 1: when Keith received certain pieces of potentially favorable evidence, how
Speaker 1: exactly he got them, or what exactly the courts have heard.
Speaker 1: But all of that aside, Keith consistently goes back to
Speaker 1: a few examples he says can clearly point to his
Speaker 1: innocence and why he didn't get a fair trial. Like
Speaker 1: Aaron Jefferson we talked about him in the last episode,
Speaker 1: Keith says, Aaron Jefferson straight up confessed to murdering Darryldpina,
Speaker 1: one of the so called snitches killed in Else six
Speaker 1: and one of the murderers Keith was sent to death
Speaker 1: Row four. Keith claims his nineteen ninety five trial, defense
Speaker 1: attorneys were never given Aaron Jefferson's full confession. If they had,
Speaker 1: it could have made a difference in the outcome of
Speaker 1: the trial, but the state strongly disagrees and says it
Speaker 1: wouldn't have changed a thing because Aaron Jefferson's confession is
Speaker 1: not credible. I wonder why hello my name, I am
Speaker 1: a good looking fifty one year old man. I'm completely
Speaker 1: I'm going right to the source to find out. Hello, Hi,
Speaker 1: how are you on? Sarable? Little late Aaron Jeffers Sin
Speaker 1: calls me from Grafton Correctional Institution, about thirty miles southwest
Speaker 1: of Cleveland. He says he first arrived at Lucasville a
Speaker 1: couple of years before the uprising. Back then, were you
Speaker 1: remember were you part of any group? Uh? Yeah, I was.
Speaker 1: I was a member of the Gangs of Disciples. Was
Speaker 1: both have been the three groups that's both of hair
Speaker 1: Control ran and it was it was a relevant parent
Speaker 1: when it all kicked off. Where were you I regard
Speaker 1: at I was back back I'll row by way man,
Speaker 1: because I had to come in and go to work
Speaker 1: training and Bible was like man, He ain't going here
Speaker 1: right now, and I'm like, okay, but I sad going
Speaker 1: in trick on my property. Man. That was probably worth
Speaker 1: the atonal me that day. According to that index of
Speaker 1: interviews the Ohio State Highway Patrol conducted, Aaron is interviewed
Speaker 1: once a month after the uprising. A year later, he
Speaker 1: asks to speak with them and he has a lot
Speaker 1: to say. So it seems like you requested to talk
Speaker 1: with investigators, and in that interview you said that you
Speaker 1: killed David Summers and you killed Darryl Dpina. I didn't
Speaker 1: do nothing, Darrel. I don't even know. I couldn't even
Speaker 1: play with darl Dpina looked like, so don't know it.
Speaker 1: You said, I have to get this off my chest
Speaker 1: because other people are being charged with things and they
Speaker 1: didn't do it. Did anyone ask you to admit to
Speaker 1: killing Darryl Deepina? Now I don't even remember that part.
Speaker 1: I mean to say that part what I said, I
Speaker 1: don't know. You gave a pretty detailed description of what
Speaker 1: happened to him, and then the investigator tells me would
Speaker 1: that I was lying about that too. Well, two things
Speaker 1: to unpack here. First, I have the transcript of Aaron's
Speaker 1: full confession. In it, he describes in great detail how
Speaker 1: he killed Darryl Depina, where Dapina worked in the prison,
Speaker 1: and what he looked like, including his wild looking beard.
Speaker 1: So that seems to contradict what he just said to me,
Speaker 1: that he didn't know him or even know what he
Speaker 1: looked like. The second thing is that Aaron also just
Speaker 1: said the investigator told him he was lying when he
Speaker 1: confessed to killing Darryl Dpina, But that's not what happened.
Speaker 1: When Aaron confesses to killing Darryl Deepina, the investigator says
Speaker 1: nothing to challenge it. When Aaron Jefferson confesses to killing
Speaker 1: David's Summers, that's when the investigator tells him he's lying
Speaker 1: because what he says he did to David Summers doesn't
Speaker 1: match how David Summers was actually killed. So were Aaron's
Speaker 1: confessions the truth or were they made up? They didn't
Speaker 1: charge Aaron Darryl de Pino's murder. Remember, the state says
Speaker 1: his confession wasn't credible. But Aaron was convicted of aggravated
Speaker 1: murder and sentenced twenty to life for killing David Summers.
Speaker 1: Did you see the death squad go through? No? Do
Speaker 1: you know Keith Lamar, did you see him inside L six?
Speaker 1: And I didn't know. I didn't say. I didn't say,
Speaker 1: but you know, I was out there with a long
Speaker 1: time before I went in, so I would square I
Speaker 1: was a stack of Bible with that hee there. I
Speaker 1: couldn't do that. I don't know. I didn't see it
Speaker 1: while I was in there. So I'm you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm looking at his case and and and just trying
Speaker 1: to get a sense of like the investigation and what
Speaker 1: led to people being charged and then convicted of some
Speaker 1: of these crimes where I think being would probably have
Speaker 1: this bart with you know, trying to get this much
Speaker 1: information as you and from the bottom up to see
Speaker 1: really what it an investigation or what it just easier
Speaker 1: for them to get guys to tuddle another god and
Speaker 1: be God with? Did investigators ask you to slip on people?
Speaker 1: Matter fact? At one point U d Cubicas who came
Speaker 1: to see me and he wanted me to test about
Speaker 1: against Hassan. So yeah, no, that's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: Not what if you put somebody on death road? Remember Hassan,
Speaker 1: also known as Carlos Sanders, was the Sunni Muslim prayer
Speaker 1: leader at Lucasville whose objections to the forced TB testing
Speaker 1: basically jump started the uprising. What did they want you
Speaker 1: to say, Hassan did well? They did what it is.
Speaker 1: They wanted to get a store and the stories now
Speaker 1: believable again. They wanted you to complete that story because
Speaker 1: I remember talking to the box to Okay, next question,
Speaker 1: what if I couldn't tell you can come at me
Speaker 1: and teschbucket somebody and I get on the court and
Speaker 1: I don't understand. I say, I don't know. We talked
Speaker 1: talking about I didn't see anything, doesn't and he bas
Speaker 1: was telling me, no, you would tell them this, this
Speaker 1: is what happened. This is what you will repeat. And
Speaker 1: I said, what I would like be like perjury. That
Speaker 1: would be lying, wouldn't it? He said, who knows you lying?
Speaker 1: Or he basically told me like, hey, you don't want
Speaker 1: to help yourself, then we don't want to help me.
Speaker 1: This is a prepaid debit call from an innimate of
Speaker 1: the Ohio State Innitentiary. I want to tell Keith about
Speaker 1: my conversation with Aaron. I got in touch with Aaron Jefferson. Okay, okay,
Speaker 1: say so he was interesting. We talked about his confession,
Speaker 1: and I asked him, did you kill Darryl Dpina? And
Speaker 1: he would, you know? I mean, I wasn't surprised, but
Speaker 1: he said no, why would if they know? Though? Now
Speaker 1: at this point he's probably getting ready to go home,
Speaker 1: So he said he didn't kill Daryl Deepina. Now I
Speaker 1: don't know what his status is right now. But why
Speaker 1: do you think that they got him on David Summers
Speaker 1: but not on Darryl Deepina? He confessed. But he confessed
Speaker 1: Darryl Dpina, right, yeah, No, But I'm saying, you know,
Speaker 1: you asked me to explain something that really can be explained. No,
Speaker 1: I'm just using the twisted logic. You know, there was
Speaker 1: no rhyme or reason. If you look into like, you know,
Speaker 1: pursued this logically, then you you're going to be frustrated
Speaker 1: more often than not, you know, because a lot of
Speaker 1: it don't make sense. They didn't charge him with, you know,
Speaker 1: the depainent thing because they already had me. In an
Speaker 1: attempt to try and make sense of it all, I
Speaker 1: tracked down Darryl Deepina's autopsy report to see if it
Speaker 1: matches what Aaron Jefferson said he did to him. The
Speaker 1: report says that Daryl Dipina died of quote, massive acute
Speaker 1: trauma to the head leading to skull fractures, sub arachnoid hemorrhage,
Speaker 1: and cerebral contusion. There were also some abrasions on his
Speaker 1: body and lacerations to his right elbow and lower right leg.
Speaker 1: This is not what Aaron Jefferson said in his confession.
Speaker 1: He said he hit Topina on his left shoulder with
Speaker 1: an aluminum bat then he stabbed him fifteen times in
Speaker 1: the torso. So it seems like Aaron Jefferson's confession doesn't
Speaker 1: match with the autopsy report. What do you say about
Speaker 1: that actual autopsy? I guess I don't think I've ready. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I saw the autopsy report. Now it's not for me
Speaker 1: to read the autopsy and say Aaron Jefferson didn't do this.
Speaker 1: Oh damn Jefferson did do this. That's the Space Space
Speaker 1: job to do that. My job is to clear Minny,
Speaker 1: you know. But the fact of the matter that Amaron
Speaker 1: Jepson confessed to kill somebody from whom I sensor to death,
Speaker 1: and not only that his confession was correaborated by another prisoner,
Speaker 1: all of which was hailed from me from from from
Speaker 1: my request for discovery. Somebody um not me, confessed to
Speaker 1: a murder that I was on trial for. That's a
Speaker 1: sculpatory everything. When I started this process, Amy Keith's advocate
Speaker 1: sent me some affidavits she wanted me to have. I'm
Speaker 1: going to share a few of them with you. Now.
Speaker 1: Get ready, because you're about to hear some names you
Speaker 1: haven't heard before. But what these guys said may be significant. First,
Speaker 1: there's a two thousand and five affidavit from Sean Davis,
Speaker 1: and it has to do with Dennis Weaver's murder in
Speaker 1: that K Block cell. In it, Sean Davis said that
Speaker 1: he encouraged his friend William Bowling, remember he's the hands
Speaker 1: on killer of Dennis Weaver, to blame Keith for ordering
Speaker 1: Weaver's death, since Keith was already being blamed for the
Speaker 1: snitch killings in L six, Sean Davis said he was
Speaker 1: wrong for doing that when it wasn't true. I reached
Speaker 1: out to Sean Davis, but he never responded. Then there's
Speaker 1: Eric Gurdy. He's currently at Mansfield Correctional Institution. In a
Speaker 1: two thousand and one affidavit, Eric Gurdy wrote that he
Speaker 1: was coerced by State Trooper Sergeant Howard Hudson and Special
Speaker 1: Prosecutor Mark Petemeyer to make some statements about some people
Speaker 1: like Hassan and Keith. Then in a two thousand and
Speaker 1: three affidavit he said more, and I'm quoting. I was
Speaker 1: in the Block L six when the murders took place
Speaker 1: and Keith Lamar was not present. I not Keith Lamar
Speaker 1: and responsible for the death of William Savetti. I was
Speaker 1: approached by the Highway Patrol to say that Keith Lamar
Speaker 1: was the leader of the so called death squad in
Speaker 1: exchange for a reduced sentence and exemption for a capital offense.
Speaker 1: Keith Lamar has not threatened me or promised me anything.
Speaker 1: In fact, I have not spoken to Keith or discussed
Speaker 1: this matter with him in any way. I am doing
Speaker 1: this because a man's life is on the line for
Speaker 1: something I did and for the lies I was persuaded
Speaker 1: to tell for the state. By the way, from what
Speaker 1: I understand, the courts have been made aware of Eric
Speaker 1: Gurdiy's affidavits and have concluded they don't change the thing
Speaker 1: I ask Keith about Eric Gurdy. The interesting thing about Yerigurty,
Speaker 1: he came forward. He has some kind of classes of
Speaker 1: disconscious you know, admitted to you know, participate in various days.
Speaker 1: I mean, you said that in two thousand and three,
Speaker 1: you've already been on death row almost a bit gay.
Speaker 1: I'm thankful that this sit for my has come forward.
Speaker 1: I wish you would have got the vi that those
Speaker 1: wouldn't matter. I reached out to Eric and he responded.
Speaker 1: We emailed for a few months about the possibility of
Speaker 1: me interviewing him. Ultimately he decided against participating. But here
Speaker 1: is some of what he shared with me in his emails. Quote,
Speaker 1: I've been very salty about the way the state used
Speaker 1: and abused me for years. The state got guys on
Speaker 1: death row who had nothing at all in killing the officer.
Speaker 1: They tricked a lot of guys into do or die situations.
Speaker 1: They straight out wrongfully convicted a lot of dudes on
Speaker 1: some bullshit for real. Hopefully word will spread across the
Speaker 1: country to people in power who will see through all
Speaker 1: the evil and vicious stuff the State of Ohio did
Speaker 1: to hurry up and convict and close the door on
Speaker 1: ninety three uprising. Look, Sean Davis and Eric Gurdy's affidavits
Speaker 1: are quite compelling. It's hard to believe that a court
Speaker 1: would read them and say it changes nothing, and it's
Speaker 1: really too bad. Eric Gurdy said no to an interview,
Speaker 1: but there's someone I never imagined who actually said yes.
Speaker 1: This is a free call from Andrey, an inmate at
Speaker 1: the Marian Correctional Institution. This call is from a correction
Speaker 1: facility and his subject to monitoring and recording. Hi. Andre
Speaker 1: Andre Stockton has an unfortunately unique perspective on the uprising.
Speaker 1: He was actually one of the alleged snitches in l
Speaker 1: six who was attacked by the so called death Squad.
Speaker 1: I am in no way prepared for what he's about
Speaker 1: to say. Thank you for calling back. It was so
Speaker 1: loud outside, so I just wanted to make sure that
Speaker 1: we could hear each other, okay. Andre Stockton, who is
Speaker 1: now seventy, arrived at Lucasville in September of nineteen seventy nine.
Speaker 1: Andrea says, like most people who were there back then,
Speaker 1: it was a dangerous and explosive environment. The day of
Speaker 1: the uprising, the air was extra thick with it. Andrea
Speaker 1: describes how it all began. I was in the early afternoon,
Speaker 1: the door was opened, were people were hollowing at you know,
Speaker 1: a little louder than what it normally is. So you know,
Speaker 1: I look out to that out of my door that
Speaker 1: was opened, and I stepped out and stepped into it.
Speaker 1: You know, it stepped into rebellion. And if you don't
Speaker 1: mind sharing what what happened to you? Well, first of all,
Speaker 1: I attempted to leave the block to to to leave
Speaker 1: and go out to the yard, but they had inmates.
Speaker 1: They have prevented that. So I, uh, I went to
Speaker 1: find who the leader is, who's leading this, you know,
Speaker 1: and uh I knew the guy and I would have
Speaker 1: been Carlo's sadness, okay, And I am counting him and
Speaker 1: told him now that I really was trying to leave,
Speaker 1: and he asked me for a favor, and in return
Speaker 1: for the favor, I was going to be able to
Speaker 1: leave and go out. And I supposed to deliver a
Speaker 1: message to someone, right and I'm heading back and the
Speaker 1: group of inmates stopped me. As I recalled. They escorted
Speaker 1: me to say six block SL sixty two and they're
Speaker 1: lot put in their block. I had heard that Carlos
Speaker 1: Sanders puss On wanted to put people that were considered
Speaker 1: quote unquote snitches in cells for safe keeping. That's exact,
Speaker 1: that's exactly the case. That's exactly, that's true. I believe
Speaker 1: to this day that that was his attention. So he
Speaker 1: didn't order right. Had you talked with administration, had you
Speaker 1: helped them? Did they or did the other people there
Speaker 1: that day believe you to be a quote unquote snitch?
Speaker 1: Here here here, Harry calls right here, Okay, there was
Speaker 1: one guy that there was a Muslim guy. Him and
Speaker 1: I had had problems. All right, we've had to be okay,
Speaker 1: and he threw an accusation out there. That was my
Speaker 1: burden to prove. Yeah, I didn't. Next to your question, no,
Speaker 1: but I wasn't as fished for the administration or anything
Speaker 1: like that. What happens next being a group of guys
Speaker 1: came by with disguise as own They answered my sale
Speaker 1: And I don't remember one moment the one thing ever
Speaker 1: since at nightmares about it, I've had dave visions about it.
Speaker 1: But all of that, none of that is is reality.
Speaker 1: You follow up saying the point that you should know
Speaker 1: that maybe you don't know, is that I don't know.
Speaker 1: M Do you remember at all being hit by more
Speaker 1: than one person? Yes, I remember it was at least
Speaker 1: six people every no basis, don't don't know wrong, listen
Speaker 1: to these guys, but I could see through some of
Speaker 1: the disguises, you know what I mean. I was I
Speaker 1: would beat till they thought I was dead, and I
Speaker 1: was taking outside in a cart and discarded as trash
Speaker 1: as did. They recovered me probably best estimations, about three
Speaker 1: o'clock that night, and discovered that I was alive. And
Speaker 1: I don't know any of this stuff. All this is
Speaker 1: just reports and what happened. I don't have no recollection
Speaker 1: nu of this. And next thing I know is that
Speaker 1: it was almost two weeks later that I awoke. I'm
Speaker 1: so sorry. I'm so sorry. I mean, I'm just so
Speaker 1: sorry that happened to you. Oh I appreciate that, but
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, listen, Uh, God is good. I'm
Speaker 1: alive today. I wanted to say something. Do you know
Speaker 1: that after all of these years, that that that that
Speaker 1: stigma still is attached to me as far as you know,
Speaker 1: like being like an that foreman all stitch, that that
Speaker 1: label has followed you. Yes, it's the truth, It really is,
Speaker 1: because you know, you know, how can you be expand
Speaker 1: the undefendable who was charged with the attack on you?
Speaker 1: We all? I think that one person that I know
Speaker 1: all was convicted. How about something I running? I don't
Speaker 1: know that guy named or Faith, For the life of me,
Speaker 1: right to this day, I think Keith might have been
Speaker 1: He was definitely accused of associated with I think he
Speaker 1: got out of it because the severity of the other
Speaker 1: charges outweighed the the sespee of using minor charges. Ask
Speaker 1: him about it. I know that. So did you ever
Speaker 1: see Keith as part of that group who attacked you?
Speaker 1: How do you mean, oh, yes, oh yeah, he was there? Yes,
Speaker 1: because you said you didn't really know who was there,
Speaker 1: but you know that you saw Keith. I recognize how
Speaker 1: few of the guys that were there him the group?
Speaker 1: He was quarnerable. He was labeled as the leader of
Speaker 1: the death squad. Do you remember anything about him giving
Speaker 1: orders or no? Do you remember him hitting you? So
Speaker 1: had you known Keith before? Okay? And so far as
Speaker 1: Keith I knew him when I see him, I did
Speaker 1: not personally know him. I believe in my heart to
Speaker 1: this day that he had purchased a pair of shoes
Speaker 1: that were stolen from me A few weeks prior to
Speaker 1: the Loutispiel riot. That's what I was going through prior
Speaker 1: to the riot, Like I had my mind home some
Speaker 1: other things, retrocucy and and prior to the riot. Right,
Speaker 1: so you're focused on Lake who stole my shoes? Yo? Yes,
Speaker 1: and a little more. You know, somebody had paid somebody
Speaker 1: to jump me. I had my older world that I was,
Speaker 1: you know, that I was involved in and you know
Speaker 1: I was seriously ready to take somebody's life over over
Speaker 1: the matter. That's that's where my mind was at the time.
Speaker 1: And you're saying that Keith Keith was involved in the
Speaker 1: shoes situation, and not only only to the extent that
Speaker 1: he might have purchased shoes. I see, he didn't have
Speaker 1: anything to do with the jumping. The pain someone to
Speaker 1: jump you to take the shoes. No, No, what's that shoe?
Speaker 1: Did you wear? Or do you wear? And I don't
Speaker 1: know what size Keith wearas I only know what I've
Speaker 1: been told that he wears a thirteen. And let me
Speaker 1: say this, and let me say this. Okay, here there
Speaker 1: is a situation that might that might well be true,
Speaker 1: but he is the circle stance here. The shoe was
Speaker 1: a particular shoe. It was a Rachi and Nike Harachi
Speaker 1: blue and white high top shoe, very very very very
Speaker 1: popular and distinctive in prison. And they would only pair
Speaker 1: that I had seen call of me. So Andrea believes
Speaker 1: Keith bought his stolen shoes. I wonder Andre says he
Speaker 1: was ready to take somebody's life over these stolen shoes.
Speaker 1: Might he be pointing the finger at Keith now as
Speaker 1: retribution for allegedly purchasing these stolen shoes? Do you remember
Speaker 1: talking to investigators? Do you? So? This would have been
Speaker 1: some time later after I was brought back to Lucasville.
Speaker 1: I guess just described for me a little bit of that,
Speaker 1: Like did you have multiple meetings with them? Let me
Speaker 1: say this in all fairness, those those those interviews were
Speaker 1: very cloudy because, like I wasn't myself, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: that you know, they took with the grain of salt
Speaker 1: anything that I would have seen. I'll tell you what
Speaker 1: they did to though that what they did to they
Speaker 1: kind of took advantage to me. Okay. They tried to
Speaker 1: tell me a story, and a part of it I
Speaker 1: knew was true, and a part of it I knew
Speaker 1: wasn't true. They tried to give me a story. Do
Speaker 1: you remember what that was? You know, I haven't focused
Speaker 1: on this in years, but I could think back at
Speaker 1: the time. It was so urgently important for me to
Speaker 1: know what had happened. I could not came out to
Speaker 1: this day out of impossibles me that such an important
Speaker 1: thing that happened to me, what happened, and not knowing
Speaker 1: what actually happened in that sale. I do recall though,
Speaker 1: when they told me back to Lucasfield and put me
Speaker 1: upstairs in the infirmary, which is where they kept some
Speaker 1: potential witnesses. And remember their interviews and the tapes. They
Speaker 1: were in a view and they had different numbers, right, yes,
Speaker 1: and there was an interview number that I had associated
Speaker 1: with the Laddin told me that. I remember. I asked
Speaker 1: to give me a copy of that interview. You know
Speaker 1: that sure idea that we gave it to. If you
Speaker 1: have the interviews, If you have the interviews, the information
Speaker 1: is there. I don't have the interviews. I have a
Speaker 1: list of the interviews, okay. I submitted a Foyer request
Speaker 1: to the Ohio Attorney General's Office for Andrea's interviews as
Speaker 1: well as the interviews of several others, but they never
Speaker 1: sent them. So I pull out the index of interviews.
Speaker 1: It seems like one, two, three, four or five six
Speaker 1: of your interviews were not recorded. Only one of them
Speaker 1: was recorded and it was Yeah, that kind of sneak it.
Speaker 1: I have doubts about having all those interviews and most
Speaker 1: of them were not recorded. If I don't think that
Speaker 1: might be the case. So when you were interviewed after
Speaker 1: I mean you had been in a coma for a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks, like, yes, yes, So then when you
Speaker 1: woke up, did you like, did you remember Keith right
Speaker 1: out off the bat or did that come in time? When? When? When?
Speaker 1: When I woke up, I had a group of doctors there,
Speaker 1: but they told me that the most comparative thing that
Speaker 1: I must do is to try not to remember about
Speaker 1: the fens that it happened. Okay, and that was a
Speaker 1: hard thing to do, but I would do exercise of
Speaker 1: completely emptying my mind of thought. Unfortunately, visions of persons
Speaker 1: would come to my mind, just like they were pistons.
Speaker 1: But the more I tried not to think about it,
Speaker 1: the more, you know, the versions of it would come
Speaker 1: to our mind. Do you remember who first brought up chief.
Speaker 1: Do you remember if the investigators asked you if he
Speaker 1: was there or about Hold on a second, he just
Speaker 1: I just how in a minute, wintment, you know what
Speaker 1: you did. You just did something. You just you just
Speaker 1: sparked the memory of how they lied. They tried to
Speaker 1: tell me that it was black man. They did this
Speaker 1: to me, and I knew they were lying. That's what
Speaker 1: it was, dear me. Yeah, I do, and I'm that
Speaker 1: it was alive. He wasn't. He wasn't. He wasn't there.
Speaker 1: They tried to give me a version where they put him.
Speaker 1: Asked the guy, I said, do you remember who first
Speaker 1: brought up kids name? No? No, I don't, but I
Speaker 1: tell you this thought. Let me say this team So
Speaker 1: when I remember him is because I named him alphabet.
Speaker 1: I named him alphabet so that I wouldn't forget his name.
Speaker 1: I had to put the name with the face I knew,
Speaker 1: the face I had, I had. I had to find
Speaker 1: out his name. And the reason why I caught him
Speaker 1: alphabet is because of the letter another alphabet J K
Speaker 1: L K l okay, okay, nice guy, But he was there,
Speaker 1: he was he was at that door, because that's l
Speaker 1: I never said that he did put his hands on there,
Speaker 1: and I think so nels you don't know. No, I
Speaker 1: don't want to see nobody, Oh no, defro dying. Since
Speaker 1: my conversation with Andrea, I learned that in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: an investigator for Keith's federal defenders met with him. At
Speaker 1: that time, Andre allegedly told this investigator he didn't know
Speaker 1: if Keith was the one who attacked him during the riot.
Speaker 1: This investigator noted that Andrea had previously pointed the finger
Speaker 1: at Keith based on the fact that he said he
Speaker 1: saw Keith wearing his stolen shoes and the person wearing
Speaker 1: the stolen shoes was the same person who attacked him
Speaker 1: along with the death squad. But in twenty nineteen, when
Speaker 1: the investigator told Andrea that Keith wears a size thirteen,
Speaker 1: not his size a size ten and a half, Andre
Speaker 1: changed his story. Fast forward to twenty twenty two, the
Speaker 1: investigator met with Andrea again. This time Andre went back
Speaker 1: to implicating Keith. So to recap, Andre said Keith was
Speaker 1: one of his attackers. Then he said he didn't know
Speaker 1: if he was, Then he said he wasn't, Then he
Speaker 1: said he was. So what is the truth. Does Andre
Speaker 1: remember Keith now as clearly as he says he does,
Speaker 1: or are his memories based on what he's read in
Speaker 1: the reports and or maybe possibly heard from investigators? Or again,
Speaker 1: is this some kind of payback for Keith allegedly buying
Speaker 1: his beloved stolen shoes? But if Andre is right that
Speaker 1: he saw Keith there as part of that so called
Speaker 1: death squad, why wasn't Keith charged with his attempted murder?
Speaker 1: I mean, an attempted murder charge is not a minor charge,
Speaker 1: So why would the authorities give Keith a pass on
Speaker 1: a charge like that when they believe he took part
Speaker 1: in multiple murders just moments later? Wouldn't adding Andrew's attack
Speaker 1: for their bolster their case. I'm not sure what Keith
Speaker 1: is going to say about any of this. So I
Speaker 1: spoke with Andre Stockton. OK. Yeah, he says he doesn't
Speaker 1: remember a lot and that a lot of what he
Speaker 1: knows is from what he read in the reports. He
Speaker 1: told me that he had these shoes, that they were
Speaker 1: stolen from him, and he believed that you had bought
Speaker 1: these stolen shoes. He said, I was ready to take
Speaker 1: someone's life over it. He asked him what he remembers
Speaker 1: from that day, and he remembers being locked up. He
Speaker 1: remembers some guys to his cell, around six guys, And
Speaker 1: I asked him if he saw you, and he said yes,
Speaker 1: he said, he remembers you coming to the cell. So
Speaker 1: what do you have to say about that? It doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense based on what you just told me. It's
Speaker 1: you know, he had memory loss. You know, that's what
Speaker 1: I was told. He was in a comma. This whole
Speaker 1: story about shoes is you know, really kind of you know,
Speaker 1: left field fight thing. But it seems like what he
Speaker 1: was saying that he thought I stole his shoes or
Speaker 1: had something to do with his shoes coming up missing,
Speaker 1: and he was outful retribution. That's what I heard you say.
Speaker 1: That makes sense. You just came out of a comma
Speaker 1: to have memory loss in all of this. The only way,
Speaker 1: based on his explanation to you, the only way he
Speaker 1: could be specific. He has to have been given some
Speaker 1: information about the details of the situation. You know, the
Speaker 1: state has probably since had a conversation with him, saying that.
Speaker 1: You can't say Keith Lamar wasn't there. I said, did
Speaker 1: he hurt you or hit you? And he said no.
Speaker 1: And I said, did he direct anyone to do anything?
Speaker 1: And he said no. And so you know, he said, Leo,
Speaker 1: he saw me inside. Oh excuse me, Leo. If he
Speaker 1: saying he sawed me inside at L six, I'm admitting
Speaker 1: to being in L six. I was signed to L six.
Speaker 1: I came to L six. I didn't have the mask on.
Speaker 1: If he said he saw me before he was beaten
Speaker 1: or sorry, that's possible, but I don't see. I can't
Speaker 1: even remember that you know this guy, you know with
Speaker 1: this lost memory or whatever. But think you do remember
Speaker 1: is the tennis shoes. Look, I wasn't there, so I
Speaker 1: don't know what happened. But Andrea's story has seemed to
Speaker 1: change over the years. What exactly motivated those changes, I
Speaker 1: don't know. I'm at a bit of a loss. So
Speaker 1: I just had to reach out to someone for some
Speaker 1: much needed advice to hopefully help me make sense of
Speaker 1: the conflicting information I've been gathering. I call Steve Weinberg,
Speaker 1: who was a part of our last season. Remember Steve
Speaker 1: and his University of Missouri journalism students spent a semester
Speaker 1: investigating and writing about Rodney Lincoln's case. Steve warns me
Speaker 1: about how much work is involved in winning trust and
Speaker 1: getting candid answers from those who are incarcerated. It's not
Speaker 1: that it's impossible, it's just incredibly challenging. I tell Steve
Speaker 1: that I'm not feeling very much like a journalist these days.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to stay objective, but to be painfully honest.
Speaker 1: I really like Keith, and I care about what happens
Speaker 1: to him. Steve understands my unenviable position, then reminds me
Speaker 1: of someone I should call who will definitely be able
Speaker 1: to help. O Holy, Yeah, how are you. I'm well, Sean,
Speaker 1: how are you? I'm good? Thanks? How's your podcast? Covin?
Speaker 1: That's Sean O'Brien. He was one of Rodney Lincoln's attorneys
Speaker 1: who was also a part of our last season. You
Speaker 1: know how I felt about Rodney and his case, and
Speaker 1: it was a five plus year journey for me. This
Speaker 1: case is Sean. I can't think of much else these days.
Speaker 1: Sean is the perfect person to talk with. His remarkable
Speaker 1: career says it all. He is currently a professor at
Speaker 1: UMKC Law School, but really he is an innocence lawyer
Speaker 1: specializing in representing people sentenced to death. Three of his
Speaker 1: first four exonerations were prison homicides, and he is most
Speaker 1: known for the landmark Supreme Court case on innocence Schloop
Speaker 1: versus Dilo, which was also a prison homicide case. You know,
Speaker 1: people used to think that being in prison and being
Speaker 1: convicted of murder was best reason or argument that we
Speaker 1: should have the death penalty. But in my experience, these
Speaker 1: are the least reliable convictions just because of the environment
Speaker 1: in which they happen. That's one of the reasons I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk with you. You think things are supposed
Speaker 1: to go a certain way, That's the way they go
Speaker 1: on the quote unquote outside. What I'm learning is that
Speaker 1: it's a very very different environment there, right. It is
Speaker 1: such a different culture. I've had to consult experts in
Speaker 1: prison culture and in prison security just so that I
Speaker 1: can understand how things work in a prison. Relationships are different,
Speaker 1: The degree of control that one person has over another
Speaker 1: is completely different. Loyalties within the prison are different. Law enforcement,
Speaker 1: you know, we think of guards as law enforcement, and
Speaker 1: they're really not. I think it's historical accident. Who ends
Speaker 1: up on which side of the bars inside of a prison.
Speaker 1: There are good people on both sides of the bars.
Speaker 1: Don't get me wrong, but it really takes a special
Speaker 1: approach because I came to the point after investigating the
Speaker 1: Sloop case, the Joan Ryan CASEI Eric Clemen's case, the
Speaker 1: Reggie Griffin case. Those are all people exonerated from prison
Speaker 1: murders because guards lied and inmates lied. Sean says, prison
Speaker 1: culture at its core distorts the truth finding process because
Speaker 1: prison is all about survival the way this fellow explained
Speaker 1: it to him, and he says, you come into a
Speaker 1: prison and you've got a choice. If you got twenty
Speaker 1: years to do, you can do it on your feet
Speaker 1: or you can do it on your stomach. The first
Speaker 1: thing you have to learn there is no shame in
Speaker 1: getting an ass weapon, but there is shame in backing down.
Speaker 1: Before our call, I sent Seawan some court documents so
Speaker 1: he could familiarize himself a little with Keith's case. I
Speaker 1: jumped right in with questions about how it seems the
Speaker 1: investigation was handled. In the trial transcripts, the defense read
Speaker 1: from some of the interviews of you know with the
Speaker 1: Ohio State Highway Patrol who ran the investigation, and these
Speaker 1: investigators were like, help me, help you. I need your help.
Speaker 1: Let's help each other, right, I mean, if you know
Speaker 1: you have something valuable and doesn't have to be true,
Speaker 1: it just has to be valuable, then that is a
Speaker 1: significant coin in the prison economy. What you've described about
Speaker 1: the investigators techniques, you know, help me, help you. I
Speaker 1: need your help with this. It's a page out of
Speaker 1: the read interrogation method, which is not a method conducive
Speaker 1: to producing truthful statements. The read interrogation technique was developed
Speaker 1: in the nineteen forties. Some say it can be useful
Speaker 1: in getting information from uncooperative suspects. Others say it results
Speaker 1: in a high rate of false confessions because of its
Speaker 1: use of deceit. So the investigation, quite often in a
Speaker 1: case like this, is confirming a pre existing theory about
Speaker 1: what happened. They're not truly investigating. They're looking for custom
Speaker 1: made puzzle pieces to fit their story. And that's commonly
Speaker 1: what happens in a prison setting. And so I would
Speaker 1: want to know who is present during these interviews. I
Speaker 1: would want to know where were these inmates being housed
Speaker 1: and with whom, what was the proximity to the people
Speaker 1: we think might be the real killer. Even though everyone
Speaker 1: who is testifying for the prosecution, there are inconsistencies in
Speaker 1: their testimony. They tell some story, right, part of me
Speaker 1: can understand why the jury, even though it was an
Speaker 1: all way jury and that was absolutely unfair. I could
Speaker 1: see why a jury just at face value, if you
Speaker 1: hear so many people telling a similar story and all
Speaker 1: pointing the finger at Keith, why they ended up with
Speaker 1: the verdict that they did. You know, the consistency isn't
Speaker 1: something that would bother me that much. Question is the
Speaker 1: exact consistency and the closer it gets that actually adds
Speaker 1: an element of suspiciousness. Fit just seems to fit together
Speaker 1: a little too well. Then you've got problems. When you're
Speaker 1: locked up in prison, you are extremely vulnerable to the
Speaker 1: pressure to give the prosecution the story that it wants.
Speaker 1: So I'm suspicious of inmate testimony for a lot of reasons.
Speaker 1: I mean, prosecutors are also suspicious of inmate testimony, except
Speaker 1: when inmates are testifying for them. I wanted to talk
Speaker 1: to you so Special Prosecutor Mark Pismeyer, when asked about Brady,
Speaker 1: how he applied Brady to the case, he said that
Speaker 1: he applied a narrow Brady standard. And first of all,
Speaker 1: have you ever heard that before? You know, a lot
Speaker 1: of prosecutors don't understand what Brady versus Maryland means. It
Speaker 1: means that the prosecutor has to turn over any evidence
Speaker 1: favorable to the defendant, whether it be on the issue
Speaker 1: of guilt or innocence or punishment. Where they play games
Speaker 1: with typically is on whether or not it's material. And
Speaker 1: the definition of material is if the jury hears it,
Speaker 1: is there a reasonable likelihood of a different result. And
Speaker 1: so I hear a lot of prosecutors say, well, it's
Speaker 1: not Brady evidence because it's not exonerating. That's not the
Speaker 1: Brady standard. Well, and it's interesting because in Keith's case,
Speaker 1: Stacy Gordon, as part of his plea agreement, they interviewed
Speaker 1: Stacy Gordon again and in it they asked do you
Speaker 1: know Keith Lamar And he said no. And they said
Speaker 1: did you see Keith Lamar and L six and he
Speaker 1: said no. So that was never turned over, although on
Speaker 1: the stand he was one of the star witnesses who
Speaker 1: said that he watched Keith as a death squad leader
Speaker 1: go sell to cell calling for the killings of these snitches.
Speaker 1: When you have a witness who says I saw the
Speaker 1: defendant you commit the crime, and then on another occasion
Speaker 1: says I didn't see him at the scene of the
Speaker 1: crime at all. That's Brady material, That's exactly it. That's
Speaker 1: the kind of thing you'd want the jury to know
Speaker 1: before deciding whether or not to believe that witness. By
Speaker 1: the way of the fifty trials, and I think there
Speaker 1: are forty seven convictions, five are on death row, there
Speaker 1: was no physical evidence tying anyone to any of the crimes.
Speaker 1: And that can't imagine there's not blood spatters or fingerprints
Speaker 1: or some other physical evidence even and on certainly Lamar's clothing,
Speaker 1: his clothing would be splattered with blood if he were
Speaker 1: present in any of these Well, what allegedly happened was
Speaker 1: three hundred men were out there, They're all brought into
Speaker 1: the gymnasium and they're all stripped naked, all their clothes
Speaker 1: are thrown into a big heap, and what I was
Speaker 1: told was they were all eventually burned. So that seems
Speaker 1: to me to be what I would call the foliation
Speaker 1: of evidence. That means that you've destroyed evidence in the
Speaker 1: case that's a crime, right, And so I would one
Speaker 1: of the things I would do in my investigation and
Speaker 1: the discovery is that I would focus like a laser
Speaker 1: beam on who made that decision, what did they know
Speaker 1: at the time they made it, and what was their
Speaker 1: involvement in the subsequent prosecute. To me, is a really
Speaker 1: important part of the story. I mean, how can you
Speaker 1: say somebody's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when you destroyed
Speaker 1: the evidence that could have exonerated That's atrocious and you
Speaker 1: know likely, I think there's an argument here that they
Speaker 1: had a scenario that they wanted to prove and they
Speaker 1: didn't want physical evidence to get in the way of
Speaker 1: that story. I've reached out to prosecutors Mark Petemeyer, Seth Teeger,
Speaker 1: and Bill Anderson with a list of questions, including this
Speaker 1: one where keats and the other prisoner's clothes burned or destroyed.
Speaker 1: I'm still waiting to hear back the prosecutor's theory of
Speaker 1: the case that produces the original conviction and death sentence
Speaker 1: is kind of the official story that the court signs
Speaker 1: off on. And so one of the things I do
Speaker 1: when I'm training post conviction lawyers is that you've got
Speaker 1: to come up with a different, better, more truthful story.
Speaker 1: And that's a big challenge. Is there any physical evidence
Speaker 1: linking Lamar to the crime. In most exonerations, there is
Speaker 1: no physical evidence linking the defendant of the crime. Were
Speaker 1: there other ways in which the trial was unfair? Is
Speaker 1: it tainted by race discrimination? If that's the case, that's
Speaker 1: a red flag. It Did the prosecution depend heavily on
Speaker 1: the use of inmate testimony? That's a huge red flag
Speaker 1: in that red flag gets bigger if any of that
Speaker 1: testimony was incentivized. And then I look at whether or
Speaker 1: not there is evidence implicating another person that was omitted
Speaker 1: from Keith's trial. That would be a huge red flag.
Speaker 1: I can see from just the little you've shown me,
Speaker 1: and putting that together with what I already know about
Speaker 1: prison culture, prison investigation, I think that a narrative could
Speaker 1: be assembled for Keith that would demonstrate the unreliability of
Speaker 1: this conviction. The challenge is what is the new story?
Speaker 1: You put these pieces together and you assemble that new story. Yeah,
Speaker 1: oh my god, Sean, thank you so much, Absolutely glad.
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened, you know, I don't know,
Speaker 1: but knowing that he may be executed, it's just it's
Speaker 1: just a very upsetting Yeah, you know a man is
Speaker 1: about to die. Who my beings? Next time? I'm the
Speaker 1: Real Killer. But what was intended to be a pieceful
Speaker 1: protest end up turned into a full scale rebellion, A
Speaker 1: revealing conversation with the man who many say started it all,
Speaker 1: the former Immam at Louville. So when you got to
Speaker 1: L six and you saw the people that you wanted
Speaker 1: put away for safekeeping had been murdered, what did you think?
Speaker 1: I want to know, how did they get in here?
Speaker 1: Who let them in? A lot of people came out
Speaker 1: and said Keith was the leader of the Dusk squad.
Speaker 1: Did you see him inside L six or the L
Speaker 1: Block in those early minutes and hours of the uprising?
Speaker 1: The Real Killer is a production of AYR Media and iHeartRadio,
Speaker 1: hosted by me Leah Rothman, Executive producers Leah Rothman and
Speaker 1: Eliza Rosen for AYR Media. Written by Leah Rothman, Executive
Speaker 1: producer Paulina Williams, See Your Associate producer Jill Pesheznik, Coordinator
Speaker 1: George Fom. Editing and sound design by Cameron Taggy. Mixed
Speaker 1: and mastered by Cameron Taggy Audio Engineering by Matt Jacobsen.
Speaker 1: Studio engineering by Anna Moolshan legal counsel for A y
Speaker 1: R Media, Gianni Douglas, executive producer for iHeartRadio, Maya Howard