Speaker 1: I came from a beautiful neighborhood. I had a beautiful life.
Speaker 2: I went to sleep because September seventh was the first
Speaker 2: day of my high school year.
Speaker 1: I was going to be a senior at twenty two,
Speaker 1: I was set to start college. I woke up and
Speaker 1: my life was never the same again. Cops came out
Speaker 1: with guns drawn, and I never saw freedom ever since
Speaker 1: after that. It's like roach Mota. Once you get in,
Speaker 1: you and I can'tnam.
Speaker 2: This is wrongful conviction with Jason Plummer, a true rock
Speaker 2: star of the Innocence movement, Keith Allen Harward along with
Speaker 2: one of his attorneys, Salzman, of the Great Firm of Scatting. Keith,
Speaker 2: you were just a pretty much a regular guy from
Speaker 2: from the Carolinas serving in the Navy. Uh in Virginia
Speaker 2: at the time, Is that right?
Speaker 1: Yes, I was stationed in Newport News at the time.
Speaker 1: I was on aircraft care being built at the shipyard.
Speaker 1: Is there? And Uh, that's where it all all kind
Speaker 1: of took place fell apart.
Speaker 2: So Keith was in the navy, had been serving for
Speaker 2: three years on the ship and uh, it's sort of
Speaker 2: interesting how you got to that point in the first place.
Speaker 1: You know, at that time, it was six drugs and
Speaker 1: rock and roll, and I was kind of involved all
Speaker 1: of them, and who wasn't. Yeah, and I got tired
Speaker 1: of that lifestyle. It was just it just caught up
Speaker 1: with me and I needed a change. So I sided.
Speaker 1: One day I will joined the military. So I went
Speaker 1: to the old Post officer in Greensboro and I sided.
Speaker 1: The first door i'd come into recruiting office was going
Speaker 1: to be the door I was going to walk into.
Speaker 1: And that's the first door was in the door. So
Speaker 1: I walked in there and signed up and went pretty quick.
Speaker 1: You know. They wanted you know, well, we delay you
Speaker 1: for sixty days. I said, no, I want to go.
Speaker 1: So the next day I was in Charlotte day Fees
Speaker 1: taking the test, and the next day I was sitting
Speaker 1: in Chicago, Illinois at boot camp. So it was a
Speaker 1: matter of three days I was in it.
Speaker 2: That's some radical fixing going on there. I mean, some
Speaker 2: people like me would have just walked into AA and
Speaker 2: been like, hey, you know, change of life, but you
Speaker 2: decided to take it to the extreme.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, to be able to get away from everything,
Speaker 1: you've got to get away from everything, and you know,
Speaker 1: friends or friends and come on, man, let's go. You know,
Speaker 1: if I'm away from that, then I can't be influenced.
Speaker 1: So that was my thinking. I got out of town
Speaker 1: and started unnew. Well maybe things would work out.
Speaker 2: So there you are, serving in the navy and a
Speaker 2: horrible crime takes place pretty close to the shipyard.
Speaker 3: Is that right?
Speaker 1: Right? It was just on a few blocks away from
Speaker 1: the gate to the shipyards.
Speaker 2: And it was it was sort of like what we
Speaker 2: would call now a home invasion, right, somebody broke into
Speaker 2: a home.
Speaker 1: The husband was killed, and after he was they were
Speaker 1: in bed together and he came in and beat the
Speaker 1: husband with crowbar and just you know, it just tore
Speaker 1: him up. And when he was done doing that, then
Speaker 1: he took hold of the wife and sexual assault for
Speaker 1: several hours.
Speaker 3: Truly horrible situation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it had to be.
Speaker 2: So they didn't have any information other than that she
Speaker 2: had said that the perpetrator was wearing a sailor's uniform.
Speaker 3: Is that right?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: Right? So that's what clewed them into the the shipyards,
Speaker 1: you know, because the Newport News shipyards is away from Norfolk,
Speaker 1: which is normally where you would find sailors and uh,
Speaker 1: That's what clue the men was the fact that he
Speaker 1: was wearing a uniform, So apparently he had to be
Speaker 1: on one of the ships or submarines that were there
Speaker 1: being repaired or built at the shipyard.
Speaker 3: How many sailors are on the ship.
Speaker 1: Well, the crew of the of aircraft carrier were after
Speaker 1: air wing somewhere aback three to five, but it was
Speaker 1: being built, so it's probably two to three thousand guys.
Speaker 2: A lot of guys for the cops that tried to
Speaker 2: figure this one out, right, it's a tough one. So
Speaker 2: months had gone by, right, and there's a lot of pressure, right,
Speaker 2: nobody wants people take it very personally when someone's home
Speaker 2: is invaded.
Speaker 3: I know I do.
Speaker 2: When I read a story about that in the paper.
Speaker 2: Everyone can relate because everyone has a home. There's pressure
Speaker 2: on the cops. There's pressure. They got to solve this,
Speaker 2: They got to get it there. And there was even
Speaker 2: some politicians involved. And let's turn to you don for
Speaker 2: a second. How did they land on Keith? Of these
Speaker 2: thousands of guys.
Speaker 4: The rape victim had told the police that during the rape,
Speaker 4: the rapist had bitten her on the leg a few times,
Speaker 4: and the police took photographs of these bite marks that
Speaker 4: appeared on her leg, which were essentially bruises from the
Speaker 4: rapist teeth. And so, because the police suspected that one
Speaker 4: of the sailors on this ship, the USS Carl Vincent,
Speaker 4: was the rapist, they started looking at the dental records
Speaker 4: of hundreds and maybe thousands of these sailors, and they
Speaker 4: were trying to narrow down this big group of people
Speaker 4: to a smaller group, and one of the people who's
Speaker 4: you know, records they looked at was Keith's. But when
Speaker 4: they looked at his records the first time they even
Speaker 4: took an impression of his mouth, the dentist excluded Keith.
Speaker 4: They said he was among the people who didn't match.
Speaker 4: And so they kept looking for, you know, other suspects,
Speaker 4: and that went on for a while.
Speaker 2: But then something happened that led to Keith being to
Speaker 2: them taking a renewed interest in looking at Keith, even
Speaker 2: though they had had a professional, someone who was supposedly
Speaker 2: certified and would have been qualified to give this opinion
Speaker 2: to say that it wasn't him.
Speaker 1: I had a girlfriend and we had gotten into a
Speaker 1: fight and I bit her own the shoulder, and the
Speaker 1: police took her to the hospital to check her out,
Speaker 1: and that's apparently when the light bulb went off that
Speaker 1: you know, hey, we gotta bite or here. You know,
Speaker 1: they were looking for somebody for a long time, and
Speaker 1: then when the police found out and work got to
Speaker 1: the detectives or whoever, that's when the light came home
Speaker 1: for them and went on me. They pushed it so
Speaker 1: I would show up at court for two reasons. One
Speaker 1: the victim was in the audience, whatever you call it,
Speaker 1: and also they wanted to get more impressions of my teeth.
Speaker 1: I didn't know either one of these.
Speaker 2: After having brought in on the charge in the first place,
Speaker 2: you couldn't go back home where you were living with
Speaker 2: her because you had just had this altercation and she
Speaker 2: was an alcoholic and the whole situation was crazy.
Speaker 3: So where'd you so tell the story about where'd you
Speaker 3: go to sleep?
Speaker 1: That I had no place to go, So I slept
Speaker 1: in a dumpster.
Speaker 3: But it was a particular dumpster, yeah it was.
Speaker 4: It was a high end dumpster.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. There was a hat manufacturer and made baseball caps,
Speaker 1: and they had a dumpster was filling nothing but material.
Speaker 1: It was no food or anything in it. It was
Speaker 1: all styur foam and foam, rubber and cloth and that
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. So it was, you know, right outside
Speaker 1: the shipyard gate. I would walk by and I would
Speaker 1: notice all this material laying on the ground, and I'd
Speaker 1: stopped one time because on cheap hats, it got the
Speaker 1: little plastic things that you popped the size with and
Speaker 1: I saw them on the ground and mine had broke
Speaker 1: on my hat, so I went over and picked one up.
Speaker 1: I just opened the dumpstrup look and said, man, this
Speaker 1: place is nice. I wonder why there's nobody else living here,
Speaker 1: you know kind of thing. So that night I thought, well,
Speaker 1: you know, that was a close place to go. It
Speaker 1: was close to the shipyard. It was pueening the house
Speaker 1: where I was living, that apartment in the shipyard. So
Speaker 1: that's where I stayed.
Speaker 4: Even though Keith now became a suspect because of this,
Speaker 4: you know, this fight with his girlfriend. During a fight,
Speaker 4: he really didn't match the the descript description of the
Speaker 4: that the victim gave because she said that the rapist
Speaker 4: was nineteen years old, nineteen twenty years old, clean shaven,
Speaker 4: baby faced. Keith was twenty six years old, had a mustache,
Speaker 4: and he had a not a beard like but he
Speaker 4: had a heavy, you know, five o'clock shadow type, you know.
Speaker 1: And hair she said his hair was radish. The mom
Speaker 1: was brown.
Speaker 4: So Keith didn't he didn't match the description. But in
Speaker 4: a lot of these cases, once the police and law enforcement,
Speaker 4: you know, focus on somebody, they they don't pay attention
Speaker 4: to the things that suggests that they got the wrong person.
Speaker 4: And Keith, he did not meet the description of the rapist.
Speaker 2: In this case, They've decided they want Keith locked up.
Speaker 2: They're going to solve this case. We had this bad science, right,
Speaker 2: We had bitemark evidence, which we now know has been
Speaker 2: completely discredited. There was a recent study of dentists, forensic
Speaker 2: dentist and odeontologists in which they found that the error
Speaker 2: raid was ninety one percent junk science. Really, we had
Speaker 2: also another element, which was which involved hypnosis, which sounds
Speaker 2: I'm sure to the audience are going, no.
Speaker 3: We can't, that's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: You can't have hypnosis in a capital murder case, because
Speaker 2: yours was a capital murder case. Is that right? So
Speaker 2: let's talk a little bit about that and the element
Speaker 2: that this hypnotism played.
Speaker 4: This crime got a lot of publicity and actually, you know,
Speaker 4: the news media published, you know, it was on TV
Speaker 4: and radio, and this this shipyard security guard heard the
Speaker 4: story about a murder and a rape that had happened
Speaker 4: just a couple of blocks away from the shipyard. And
Speaker 4: he actually was eating dinner at his home that night
Speaker 4: and heard it on the radio and he said to
Speaker 4: his wife, I think I saw someone suspicious. So he
Speaker 4: went down to the police and they interviewed him, and
Speaker 4: he told the police that he saw a guy who
Speaker 4: looked like he was drunk, came to the gate to
Speaker 4: pass through, you know, had to show a badge, but
Speaker 4: the guy didn't. The guard didn't remember, you know, the name,
Speaker 4: or didn't look at the name.
Speaker 3: But that the guy.
Speaker 4: He remembered the guy because he had blood splat would
Speaker 4: look like blood splattered all over his uniform. Later on
Speaker 4: six months, during the next couple months, they hypnotized this
Speaker 4: guy to try to get more information. And it was
Speaker 4: not uncommon back in the day for the police to
Speaker 4: hypnotize witnesses to see if they could remember more. The
Speaker 4: problem is that that can really ruin someone's memory. It
Speaker 4: can change someone's memory the hypnotism. It can have them
Speaker 4: fill in gaps say things that they didn't actually remember,
Speaker 4: and so it's really unreliable and it can corrupt the
Speaker 4: whole process. So the shipyard security guard had given a
Speaker 4: description that was vague, but he was shown a composite
Speaker 4: drawing that the victim, the rape victim, had done with
Speaker 4: a police you know, artist, and she had said that
Speaker 4: that person looked ninety she was ninety five percent sure
Speaker 4: that that's what the rapists looked like, or some very
Speaker 4: high percentage. And they showed it to the shipyard security
Speaker 4: guard and he said, yeah, that looks like seventy five
Speaker 4: percent like the guy I saw walking into the shipyard.
Speaker 4: That composite drawing had no mustache, because the victim has
Speaker 4: said that the rapist was babyfaced. But after this guy
Speaker 4: was hypnotized, he changed his story. He changed the time
Speaker 4: that he said that he saw the guy. Now it
Speaker 4: was closer to five o'clock, which matched, you know, with
Speaker 4: the time that the rapists might have been coming back
Speaker 4: on the ship's convenient And then he later was shown
Speaker 4: a photograph or maybe a series of photos, including Keith's photo,
Speaker 4: after the police focused on Keith, and he picked Keith's
Speaker 4: photograph out and said that was the guy that I saw.
Speaker 1: They didn't have anything to go with. There was really
Speaker 1: no evidence in this trial. You know, there was no
Speaker 1: finger branch, there were you know, there was there was
Speaker 1: hardly nothing to go other than this bike mark stuff.
Speaker 1: That's what they you know, that's what they were relying on,
Speaker 1: and you know, like you said, it was unreliable.
Speaker 4: Keith actually had sort of an alibi because the victim
Speaker 4: had told the police that earlier in the day. You know,
Speaker 4: she was tacked at two o'clock in the morning, but
Speaker 4: the day before she had taken her kids to the
Speaker 4: swimming pool because this was in September, and there was
Speaker 4: a guy that she saw when she was getting in
Speaker 4: the car with her kids who was hitch hiking, and
Speaker 4: he was a sailor and he was angry that she
Speaker 4: didn't pick him up hitch hiking, so he swore at
Speaker 4: her and flipped her off. And she then said when
Speaker 4: she got home from swimming with her kids later, she
Speaker 4: saw what she thought was the same guy looking over
Speaker 4: her fence in her backyard. And when she told the
Speaker 4: police the next day, when you know, when they were
Speaker 4: interviewing her after the rape, she said she was pretty
Speaker 4: sure that the sailor she had seen the day before
Speaker 4: was her rapist and at the time that she saw
Speaker 4: the guy the second time looking over her back fence
Speaker 4: was at six pm. That's what she told the police.
Speaker 4: And at six pm Keith had an alibi. He was
Speaker 4: at an alcohol at education course he had signed in.
Speaker 4: The person who ran the course remembered Keith and verified
Speaker 4: that he was there in Norfolk, not in Newport News
Speaker 4: in Norfolk at the time that she saw the guy
Speaker 4: who looked like her rapist. Researchers who look at wrongful
Speaker 4: conviction cases they identify the same problems that happen in
Speaker 4: these cases over and over and over again, and there's
Speaker 4: about six of them that commonly occur, and one of
Speaker 4: them is poor representation by defense lawyers. In Keith's case,
Speaker 4: he actually hit the trifecta in a bad way because
Speaker 4: he had three of the common problems that arise in
Speaker 4: these wrongful conviction cases happened in his case junk science, misidentification,
Speaker 4: and the third one is prosecutorial and police misconduct that
Speaker 4: happens in a lot of cases, and in keith case,
Speaker 4: we haven't talked about that yet except for the hypnosis,
Speaker 4: but there was misconduct by law enforcement in his case, right.
Speaker 2: So he did certainly hit the wrong kind of try
Speaker 2: fact that you can't hit it any worse, and ended
Speaker 2: up serving thirty three years in prison. And let's let's
Speaker 2: talk about that, Keith. Every day's got to be held.
Speaker 2: But I mean, I don't want to put words in
Speaker 2: your mouth because you share it.
Speaker 1: No, no, And people always say that, you know, they can't imagine,
Speaker 1: and it's with a good heart they say that, but
Speaker 1: truly they can't. You know, unless you've been there, you
Speaker 1: just don't. You just don't know. But what got me
Speaker 1: through was the fact that I knew I was innocent
Speaker 1: from day one, and I had hoped that they would
Speaker 1: discover it because, like I told you before, this is
Speaker 1: the United States of America. People don't get convicted for
Speaker 1: crimes they did not do. But they do, and I'm
Speaker 1: one of them. So all through the process of a trial,
Speaker 1: and even until I was in prison for a while,
Speaker 1: I was thinking, well, they're gonna figure this out. You know,
Speaker 1: they made a mistake, They're gonna figure this out. It
Speaker 1: didn't happen. But what got me through was was the
Speaker 1: fact that Okay, they already convicted me. They put me
Speaker 1: in prison, but I wasn't gonna allow those criminals. And
Speaker 1: when I speak of criminals, I'm talking about the the
Speaker 1: police officers and the prosecutors, the actual criminals of this case,
Speaker 1: besides a fellow that did it. I wasn't gonna let
Speaker 1: them exact another second from me. They had me, but
Speaker 1: they weren't gonna get my mind. And if I allowed
Speaker 1: them to make me punish myself even farther or do
Speaker 1: anything disruptive in my life, even though I was in prison,
Speaker 1: I was given them more, and I wasn't gonna give
Speaker 1: no more. I wasn't gonna do it.
Speaker 3: That's like a very spiritual approach.
Speaker 1: Well, it's a lot of staring at walls and wondering, Wow,
Speaker 1: what what just happened? I mean again, you can't you
Speaker 1: can't fathom what it's like. It's like, what was this happened?
Speaker 1: It's like a car wreck, you know, once all the
Speaker 1: movement is stopped and you're sitting there behind the wheel
Speaker 1: with the airbag under your chin, you're thinking wow.
Speaker 4: So Keith wrote to The Innocence Project. I think it
Speaker 4: might have been sometime in like two thousand and eight
Speaker 4: or something like that.
Speaker 1: I didn't know the existed. I was in prison. I
Speaker 1: didn't know these outfits existed. In another inmates said, hey, man,
Speaker 1: your story is so crazy. What'd you give the Insurance
Speaker 1: Project to try and write them a letter? So I
Speaker 1: wrote them a letter and said, hey, you know, there
Speaker 1: was no evidence. They convicted me on blite mark evidence alone.
Speaker 1: I didn't do it, you know, And that basically what
Speaker 1: the letter was, you know, you know, will you think right?
Speaker 4: So his letter got to the Innocence Project in New York.
Speaker 4: But they get letters from inmates all over the country,
Speaker 4: thousands of.
Speaker 3: Letters at least two months.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they have a backlog of several thousand inmates, you know,
Speaker 4: who've written to them, who they haven't yet had a
Speaker 4: chance or at that point hadn't had a chance to
Speaker 4: look at. The Innocence Project was looking at bitemark cases
Speaker 4: because it is junk science, and there have been twenty
Speaker 4: four now with Keith, twenty five people who had been
Speaker 4: indicted based on bitemark evidence and were later exonerated. So
Speaker 4: they were looking for cases that involved bite marks. So
Speaker 4: Keith's file got plucked from the middle or somewhere in
Speaker 4: the stack and put up to the top for someone
Speaker 4: to look at. And one of the law students I
Speaker 4: think or interns discovered that the evidence from Keith's case
Speaker 4: was still in existence, you know, the physical evidence like that.
Speaker 1: Which is the great marriage.
Speaker 2: Yeah, now you've gotten engaged. The Innocence Project has gone
Speaker 2: to scatt and right.
Speaker 4: Yeah, they reached out to me because.
Speaker 3: Which is like bringing in the big guns exactly I mean.
Speaker 4: And we put together this team and we started working
Speaker 4: with the Innocence Project because they'd found the evidence. It
Speaker 4: was this little box called a rape kit that has
Speaker 4: you know, swabs from the victim, you know, and and
Speaker 4: other evidence that the crime scene folks had taken and
Speaker 4: had been taken from the autopsy and the rape exam.
Speaker 4: And they were in the process of arranging to have
Speaker 4: that tested, and to their credit, the prosecutor or, the
Speaker 4: current prosecutor down in Newport News, agreed to have the
Speaker 4: evidence tested.
Speaker 3: That's good to hear.
Speaker 2: When you were first made aware of Keith's case by
Speaker 2: the NISS Project, how long did it take before you
Speaker 2: realized that you had an innocent man on your hands?
Speaker 4: You know, I've done a lot of this kind of work.
Speaker 4: And when we started looking into his case and we
Speaker 4: read the transcripts and we realized how weak a case
Speaker 4: of you know, the evidence was. The only evidence that
Speaker 4: the prosecutors used against Keith was this bitemark expert testimony,
Speaker 4: which at the time was thought to be an actual
Speaker 4: science that had validity, that was reliable, and you know
Speaker 4: a bunch of experts. There were two experts who testified
Speaker 4: in court and said.
Speaker 3: That there are four others. I think about that, right.
Speaker 2: If you're in a jury and you're sitting there and
Speaker 2: you go, wow, this guy's a forensic diss and he's
Speaker 2: got that. But we know now that it's it's really
Speaker 2: an unregulated, uh sort of practice. It's not certified by
Speaker 2: any particular You can be a forensic.
Speaker 3: Od on tolologist, but basically you get certified by your
Speaker 3: friends pretty much.
Speaker 1: Show up at the Shart and Old Friday, you know,
Speaker 1: Sunday to give you a diploma.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's it's really well, here's the thing, you know,
Speaker 3: it's terrible.
Speaker 4: This science was actually developed not for use in court,
Speaker 4: like in a case for Keith, but when there's like
Speaker 4: a mass disaster and they find the remains of victims
Speaker 4: and included in the remains or you know, the teeth
Speaker 4: and the jaw, and then they want to try to
Speaker 4: identify that person. So they think they know who the
Speaker 4: victims are, but they're not sure who's who. Then they
Speaker 4: can look at dental records, but that's looking at, you know,
Speaker 4: someone's full set of teeth, like thirty two teeth in
Speaker 4: a john comparing that to X rays or other dental records.
Speaker 4: It's very different doing that, which is noble work. You
Speaker 4: know people who do that. But it's very different when
Speaker 4: you try to say, based on a blurry photograph of
Speaker 4: a woman's shin, to look at that where you know,
Speaker 4: if someone bites another person, maybe only four teeth make
Speaker 4: the bite mark six or two or whatever. Then to
Speaker 4: say with almost certainty that the person who bit that
Speaker 4: victim's leg was Keith Harwood is a very different matter.
Speaker 2: No, I've seen a case where they the bite bark
Speaker 2: evidence was the primary cause of the conviction, and it
Speaker 2: turned out later on that it wasn't even a human
Speaker 2: it was animal bibars.
Speaker 3: The victim had been thrown.
Speaker 1: In a scar inver a scar. One of the guys
Speaker 1: testified that it was a bite martin to turn out
Speaker 1: to be a scar from But that's what swayed that jury.
Speaker 1: So is when that character. Levine is his name. When
Speaker 1: he started getting up and giving all his props, he
Speaker 1: helped go. He went to Argentina for the mingle at,
Speaker 1: you know, the Nazi criminal guy when they found the
Speaker 1: skull and tried to identify that he was involved with that.
Speaker 1: There was an airplane crash in Hawaii, I think in
Speaker 1: seventy nine. He went to identify remains there. So he's
Speaker 1: up there and his arms are waving around, and the
Speaker 1: smoke starts to come and the lights and stuff, and
Speaker 1: you think, wow, we're not in Kansas anymore. I e.
Speaker 1: The Wizard of Oz. The jury is like, you know,
Speaker 1: they're sopping up the drool. Sure, and he says so
Speaker 1: the state brought him in. Sure. If he say so,
Speaker 1: he's got to be And.
Speaker 4: He said it with almost near certain He said that
Speaker 4: there was a very very very very high probability that
Speaker 4: Keith was the person who caused those bite marks. And
Speaker 4: another expert came in and said, there's nobody else in
Speaker 4: the world, or there's maybe he didn't say the world,
Speaker 4: but there's nobody else who could have caused these bite
Speaker 4: marks rather than other than Keith's dental impressions, which means
Speaker 4: it was Keith. I said before that there was you know,
Speaker 4: misconduct by law enforcement on the rape kit. At the
Speaker 4: time of this trial, and at the time of the crime,
Speaker 4: they had a rologist, someone who specializes in analyzing blood
Speaker 4: and other body fluids, examined the samples from the rape victim,
Speaker 4: including you know, vaginal samples, and they found semen on
Speaker 4: the victim's thoughts and on the vaginal swabs and other
Speaker 4: swabs that were taken, and they tested it for blood
Speaker 4: blood type. Because at the time there was no DNA testing.
Speaker 4: This was nineteen eighty three, his first trial, and then
Speaker 4: nineteen eighty six, his second trial, there was no DNA
Speaker 4: evidence report. So the roologist examined the evidence and issued
Speaker 4: a report, and the report said that on the swabs
Speaker 4: from the rape kit that it was inconclusive that they
Speaker 4: couldn't identify on the critical swabs the blood type and
Speaker 4: therefore it could have been Keith or it might not
Speaker 4: have been Keith. And that's what he testified to at trial. Well,
Speaker 4: when the Innocence Project in Scadden got involved in the case,
Speaker 4: we asked for records and among the records that we
Speaker 4: asked for, and again to the credit of the prosecutor.
Speaker 4: He was agreed to turn over information that had never
Speaker 4: been turned over before. We got the lab notes from
Speaker 4: the analyst. So he had issued a like a three
Speaker 4: page official report that essentially said no blood typing could
Speaker 4: be done on those critical swabs. But in his notes,
Speaker 4: in his lab notes, it showed that he did get
Speaker 4: a blood type that.
Speaker 1: Was not Keith's.
Speaker 4: It was Type old blood and Keith is Type A blood.
Speaker 1: So he I just got the chills if that would
Speaker 1: have been brought up at court, but it wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been a court, wouldn't been a trial.
Speaker 2: So now you've got your you've got your evidence, you've
Speaker 2: done you've done the digging, right, you and your team,
Speaker 2: the Innocence Project and their team. You've met with Keith
Speaker 2: play now right, and anybody that would meet him knows
Speaker 2: that he might be capable of telling a bad joke,
Speaker 2: but that's probably the worst crime that he's going to commit,
Speaker 2: you know. So, So now take us to that moment of.
Speaker 3: Justice finally being served.
Speaker 4: Sure, so, we had DNA testing done on the evidence
Speaker 4: that the Innocence Project had found, and the DNA results
Speaker 4: came back. First, they showed that the the rape sample
Speaker 4: evidence didn't match Keith, that there was an unknown male
Speaker 4: profile that didn't match Keith. Then we needed to do
Speaker 4: more testing because the victim was married and her husband
Speaker 4: was murdered, and we needed to make sure that the
Speaker 4: semen samples that were DNA tested didn't belong to him.
Speaker 4: And there was more DNA testing done, so we knew
Speaker 4: we had an innocent guy all along. Now we had
Speaker 4: DNA evidence, which I think you know, pretty much conclusively
Speaker 4: proved that, but we needed to make sure it wasn't
Speaker 4: matching the husband. And we got the test results back
Speaker 4: right as we had just filed the petition saying we had,
Speaker 4: you know, preliminary results, and the new testing not only
Speaker 4: showed that it wasn't Keith's DNA, it wasn't the victim's
Speaker 4: husband's DNA, but it showed whose DNA it was. The
Speaker 4: police originally suspected that a sailor on the USS Carl
Speaker 4: Vincent committed this crime. They were right about that because
Speaker 4: the DNA matched a guy who was a sailor on
Speaker 4: the USS Carl Vincent. His name is Jerry Kroty, and
Speaker 4: after he left the Navy, he went on with his life.
Speaker 4: Keith was in prison and He ended up Jerry Krotty
Speaker 4: committing other crimes, and he was in prison in Ohio
Speaker 4: for an abduction, which is another word for a kidnapping.
Speaker 4: He also had convictions for breaking into houses and he
Speaker 4: died in prison in two thousand and six, ten years before.
Speaker 4: His DNA was matched in multiple places on the victim
Speaker 4: from the rape kit, on her clothing she put on
Speaker 4: a T shirt after the rape. His DNA was found
Speaker 4: on the T shirt. His DNA was found on a
Speaker 4: towel that she wrapped around her after the rape. When
Speaker 4: the police came, she was wearing a towel and the
Speaker 4: rapist had put karate. Now we know his name is Karate.
Speaker 4: He had put a diaper, one of her children's diapers
Speaker 4: over her face when he was raping her, and his
Speaker 4: DNA was found on that daper. So there's absolutely no
Speaker 4: doubt that he was the rapist.
Speaker 1: Now consider her situation. Now she thinks the rapist is
Speaker 1: in prison me, so she can relax a little bit
Speaker 1: because he's not going to come back. Years later, thirty
Speaker 1: four years later, she finds out no, he was still
Speaker 1: out there running around and could have come back at
Speaker 1: any time, and she's got to relive this because those
Speaker 1: criminals in Newport News wanted a conviction, not the truth.
Speaker 1: So now all these years later, it comes back up,
Speaker 1: it's brought. It's like scrabbing a scab. She's got to
Speaker 1: relive that whole rape thing because it's on the news.
Speaker 1: It's everywhere that I'm being exonerated that I didn't do it.
Speaker 2: Right now, a guy who did this horrible thing to
Speaker 2: her family.
Speaker 1: Right could have still been out there and done more,
Speaker 1: and he did, but he could have come back. And
Speaker 1: for that woman, I feel for her. She was revictimized
Speaker 1: by those criminals in Newport News, by them short cutting
Speaker 1: and taking the easy way out, by not trying to
Speaker 1: find the right person. The guy Karate that did it
Speaker 1: was a wall when all his testing was going on
Speaker 1: about the bike marks and stuff. So what they do, Well,
Speaker 1: he's gone. We ain't got time to look for him.
Speaker 1: We got the guy here he is.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So and that's that's what happens.
Speaker 1: They're dead, all of them, but the sorologists are gone now,
Speaker 1: the prosecutor you know, and it's all about ego with them,
Speaker 1: you know. They get a hold of something. The detective
Speaker 1: in my case, Spinner, after that I was convicted. He
Speaker 1: took one of the moles and went to a foundry
Speaker 1: and had brass a brass mold of my teethmaide to
Speaker 1: make a paperweight wow for his desk. Now, how is
Speaker 1: that knowing what he did that I didn't do it?
Speaker 1: He had to know, Keith.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm a big fan of yours and I
Speaker 2: just I listened to you talk and I'm frankly in awe.
Speaker 2: Is there anything else, any closing thoughts you want to
Speaker 2: share with the audience.
Speaker 1: These organizations exist and the Innocent Projects and people don't
Speaker 1: know about them. I mean, you turn the TV on
Speaker 1: and they want Sally Scruthers want you to give dog
Speaker 1: money for dogs and stuff like that. But these organizations
Speaker 1: are no. I was in prison and didn't know about
Speaker 1: the Innocent Project. I had no clue and I was
Speaker 1: in prison of all places. We should know about these things.
Speaker 1: So the word needs to get out and people need
Speaker 1: to help. Because my heroes they get up every day,
Speaker 1: they washed their face, they brush their teeth and then
Speaker 1: put the caps on and they go out saving people.
Speaker 1: And that's the kind of people that we all should
Speaker 1: be about it.
Speaker 2: Don't forget to give us a fantastic review. Wherever you
Speaker 2: get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: It really helps.
Speaker 2: And I'm a proud donor to the Innocence Project and
Speaker 2: I really hope you'll join me in supporting this very
Speaker 2: important cause and helping to prevent future wrongful convictions. Go
Speaker 2: to Innocenceproject dot org to learn how to donate and
Speaker 2: get involved. I'd like to thank our production team, Connor
Speaker 2: Hall and Kevin Wartis. The music in the show is
Speaker 2: by three time Oscar nominade composer Jay Ralph. Be sure
Speaker 2: to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on
Speaker 2: Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast. Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm
Speaker 2: is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association
Speaker 2: with Signal Company Number one