Speaker 1: We originally released our interview with Lamont McIntyre on September
Speaker 1: twenty five, two thousand seventeen, but with all that has
Speaker 1: changed in this case and the world around us, we
Speaker 1: thought it a good time to release an updated version
Speaker 1: of this episode. On the afternoon of April fifteenth, nine,
Speaker 1: Danielle Quinn and Donald Ewing said in a powder blue
Speaker 1: Cadillac when a man dressed in black pumped four shotgun
Speaker 1: rounds into the car, killing the two men. Within six
Speaker 1: hours of the crime, Kansas City, Kansas Police detective Roger
Speaker 1: Golupski began the process of framing Lamont McIntyre, who was
Speaker 1: seventeen at the time, for two counts of first degree murder.
Speaker 1: Why did he do this because Lamont's mother had refused
Speaker 1: Golupski's repeated sexual advances. But without any physical evidence whatsoever
Speaker 1: to link Lamont to the crime, Kolubski in the state
Speaker 1: would rely on mistaken eyewitness identification to seal them Aunt's fate.
Speaker 1: And to make matters even worse, Lamont was represented at
Speaker 1: trial by a public defender who would later be disbarred
Speaker 1: for failing to diligently handle three other cases. All of
Speaker 1: this resulted in his wrongful conviction and being sentenced to
Speaker 1: two consecutive life prison terms. On this episode, I'll speak
Speaker 1: with Kansas City attorney Cheryl Pilot, who worked to exonerate
Speaker 1: Lamont McIntyre and was successful shortly after this story was released.
Speaker 1: She's joined by former FBI agent al jenner Rich, who
Speaker 1: spent much of his career investigating police corruption all over
Speaker 1: the country. And finally we spoke with Lamont while he
Speaker 1: was still behind bars, a victim of the systemic racism
Speaker 1: and police corruption that plagues our criminal legal system. This
Speaker 1: his wrongful conviction with Jason Flapper. Welcome back to ronfl
Speaker 1: Conviction with Jason flam Today's episode will make your blood
Speaker 1: boil and it will blow your mind. So settle in
Speaker 1: because this is going to be a crazy ride. Guilty
Speaker 1: one word ceiling Lamont McIntyre's fate. Lamont McIntyre, aged seventeen
Speaker 1: in has so far been imprisoned for twenty two years.
Speaker 1: Twenty two years ago, two young men, twenty one year
Speaker 1: old Danielle Quinn and his thirty four year old cousin,
Speaker 1: Donald Ewing, were gunned down in a horrible double homicide
Speaker 1: six hours after the murders. Police arrested McIntyre, but never
Speaker 1: searched his house for evidence. Moreover, it was a trial
Speaker 1: which prosecutors offered no physical evidence tying McIntyre to the crime,
Speaker 1: no motive, no connection between him and the victims, no weapon,
Speaker 1: no fingerprints, nor did Kansas City Campus believe even request
Speaker 1: search warrants to find any of that material. A retired
Speaker 1: officer who reviewed the calls the investigation grossly deficient. Most
Speaker 1: notable is that the family of the victims for twenty
Speaker 1: two years have steadfastly insisted that he is innocent. Other
Speaker 1: witnesses also relatives of the victim insisted as soon as
Speaker 1: they saw McIntyre sitting at the defense table they knew
Speaker 1: he was not the shooter. They told the prosecutor, but
Speaker 1: were ignored. One family member has signed an affidavid claiming
Speaker 1: that under pressure from police and the prosecutor, she lied
Speaker 1: at McIntyre's trial. We're the first time a jury is
Speaker 1: speaking publicly about the case. Greg Lover says that he
Speaker 1: now believes that yan Dot County jury was wrong. They
Speaker 1: didn't care about anything. They just had their man, and
Speaker 1: it was enough for the twelve person jury. In deliberations
Speaker 1: Loudber says he and another juror were holdouts, but it
Speaker 1: was late in the day and there was mounting pressure
Speaker 1: from others who wanted a verdict. Maybe I had an
Speaker 1: opportunity to, you know, do something good on that jury,
Speaker 1: but I sure didn't do it. I took a coward's
Speaker 1: way out. It is the speedy investigation and prosecution of
Speaker 1: that crime in this place that a team of exonerators
Speaker 1: now insist was also the focus of a terrible injustice.
Speaker 1: Lamont McIntyre aged seventeen and has so far been imprisoned
Speaker 1: for twenty two years, convicted and given two consecutive life
Speaker 1: sentences for a crime they say you never committed. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say I'm really happy that today joining
Speaker 1: us to discuss the insane case of Lamont McIntyre, we
Speaker 1: have with us Lamont's attorney, Cheryl Pilot, as well as
Speaker 1: retired FBI special agent Al Generich. Cheryl and Al, thank
Speaker 1: you for being here. Thank you so much. We're glad
Speaker 1: to be here, happy to be here, and we will
Speaker 1: be hearing later on in the episode from Lamont, who
Speaker 1: will be calling in from president in Kansas, where he
Speaker 1: has been incarcerated for approximately twenty four years now, since
Speaker 1: he was a teenager for a crime that he did
Speaker 1: not commit. Now, let's go back to the beginning. On
Speaker 1: April fifte there are two men sitting in a Cadillac
Speaker 1: in Kansas City, Kansas, when they were approached by a
Speaker 1: man with a shotgun. These facts are not in dispute
Speaker 1: right correct, And what we know is that four shots
Speaker 1: were fired into the car, killing the passenger Don yelle
Speaker 1: Quinn instantly and the driver, Donald Ewing, who died later
Speaker 1: in the hospital. And amazingly, within six hours, they managed
Speaker 1: to find a guy who had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: the crime, Lamont McIntyre, who was seventeen at the time,
Speaker 1: and he was arrested and charged with two counts of
Speaker 1: first degree murder in spite of a total lack of
Speaker 1: any physical evidence connecting him to the crime. How did
Speaker 1: this happen? Cheryl, and I'll jump in whenever you want.
Speaker 1: Lamont was arrested and prosecuted after police obtained three interviews
Speaker 1: from eyewitnesses, one of them never testified, but the taped
Speaker 1: interviews of these eyewitnesses. In a very serious crime, obviously,
Speaker 1: where someone can go to prison for the rest of
Speaker 1: their life, amounted to a total of twenty taped minutes,
Speaker 1: and one of the eyewitnesses was only interviewed for four minutes.
Speaker 1: Is that an investigation? What is that so Ill? You've
Speaker 1: done a lot of research and you were in the
Speaker 1: FBI for quite a while, Is that right? I was
Speaker 1: in the FBI for twenty five years. I was a
Speaker 1: special agent. I specialized in investigating police corruption. I worked
Speaker 1: in Chicago very successfully, and then in Kansas City, Kansas.
Speaker 1: Agent Genera was not involved with this murder case at
Speaker 1: all when it happened. I knew Mr jenner Rich through
Speaker 1: other cases and after he retired a number of years
Speaker 1: after he retired, actually and I was working on trying
Speaker 1: to achieve Lamont's exoneration, I approached him to talk to
Speaker 1: him about the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department and things
Speaker 1: that I had an covered in my investigation. And it
Speaker 1: was at that point that Al and I started talking
Speaker 1: about some of the things he had learned while working
Speaker 1: for the FBI, and they, you know, matched up with
Speaker 1: some of the things I had uncovered in my investigation.
Speaker 1: And it was because of that that he became a
Speaker 1: witness in this case that I hope to use at
Speaker 1: our hearing, So prior to Lamont's arrest, can we talk
Speaker 1: about what was happening with this particular cop, whose name
Speaker 1: was Roger Globski. Sometime around or so, I was able
Speaker 1: to open an investigation into police corruption in Kansas City, Kansas.
Speaker 1: And as the investigation went on over time, over many years,
Speaker 1: we developed maybe somewhere between twelve and fifteen police officers
Speaker 1: who were titled subjects of the investigation. Some of it
Speaker 1: involved civil rights like beating people up, stealing their shoes
Speaker 1: when they were walking down the street because the officer
Speaker 1: liked the shoes, or in the case of Glupski, you know,
Speaker 1: sexual extortion. But most of it involved corruption involving drugs,
Speaker 1: mostly cocaine. And in the course of this investigation, just
Speaker 1: by talking to people, which is when I'm pretty good
Speaker 1: at over time, you know a number of people told
Speaker 1: us about Glupski extorting sex from black women and he
Speaker 1: liked black women. We never developed enough evidence on Glupski
Speaker 1: to prosecute him. That's the extent of my knowledge about Glupski.
Speaker 1: I always believe that that police were good, and the
Speaker 1: police were on our side and they're there to protect
Speaker 1: us all and so I always find these stories, even
Speaker 1: as long as I've been working on this issue, and
Speaker 1: I've got twenty five years now of experience, but I
Speaker 1: always find these stories so just depressing and shocking, and
Speaker 1: it flips everything upside down. Well, like you, I was
Speaker 1: very eve until I went to Chicago and then I
Speaker 1: saw police corruption on the massive scale. But then when
Speaker 1: I got back to Kansas City in six and probably
Speaker 1: got involved in Kansas City, Kansas, you know, I saw
Speaker 1: the same activity. There wasn't on the grand scale. You
Speaker 1: know that it's that it's conducted in Chicago. It's basically
Speaker 1: police officers, most of whom are white, picking on minories,
Speaker 1: most of whom are black, some of them are Hispanic.
Speaker 1: Because when you're a drug dealer, you know, you can't
Speaker 1: go to the police the FBI and say, hey, these
Speaker 1: cops are stealing my drugs, these cops are stealing my
Speaker 1: drug money. You basically have to you have to suck
Speaker 1: it up. So that's what they do in Chicago, That's
Speaker 1: what they do everywhere. So Lamont his troubles really began
Speaker 1: when his mom was in a car with I guess
Speaker 1: was her boyfriend at the time, Cheryl Right Glubski approached
Speaker 1: the car and told her to get out and threatened
Speaker 1: her with arrest or arrest of her boyfriend unless she
Speaker 1: agreed to come down to the police station. And then
Speaker 1: the problems really began when she refused to become one
Speaker 1: of his girls, so to speak, right, I mean, obviously,
Speaker 1: she was in a terrible situation where she's very vulnerable,
Speaker 1: not able to defend herself from a cop who's willing
Speaker 1: to go to almost any lanes to fulfill his desires.
Speaker 1: She had a tremendous problem, and she decided that she
Speaker 1: wanted to maintain her dignity, really, right, And so what
Speaker 1: seems like happen is that as a consequence, Globski decided
Speaker 1: that he would target and frame her son. And something
Speaker 1: that is so evil that, you know, makes me want
Speaker 1: to quit the human race. There was an encounter that
Speaker 1: Lamont's mother had with the detective some years earlier. I
Speaker 1: mean it was years actually before the double homicide happened.
Speaker 1: And at the time of the double homicide, my client
Speaker 1: was inexplicably dragged into the case. One of the eyewitnesses
Speaker 1: told the police she thought the shooter looked like a
Speaker 1: lament dating her niece police never bothered to find out
Speaker 1: what Lamont that was. They don't go ask the niece
Speaker 1: what Lamont that was. They simply put another lament and
Speaker 1: it's undisputed, an entirely different Lamont, my client into the case,
Speaker 1: and somehow obtain this identification. What's interesting about the lineup,
Speaker 1: and I've never seen anything like this before, is three
Speaker 1: of the five photos were of young male members of
Speaker 1: the mc entire family. You don't have to be a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist to say, well, that doesn't make a lot
Speaker 1: of sense. What it's one perpetrator. It is not like
Speaker 1: that somebody said there were three brothers that were involved.
Speaker 1: It's one perpetrator, you know. And then the justice system,
Speaker 1: we know, has a tendency to chew people up and
Speaker 1: spit them out when they are poor, particularly if they're
Speaker 1: minorities and underrepresented. It's really it's not a fair fight,
Speaker 1: is it. Well, I mean this, this whole thing um
Speaker 1: was an impossible battle for Lamont to begin with. I mean,
Speaker 1: first of all, the investigation itself, I don't think really
Speaker 1: qualified is is a true investigation because so little was done.
Speaker 1: No evidence of motive was ever uncovered. There was no
Speaker 1: physical evidence that tied Lamont to the crime. There was
Speaker 1: not even any evidence that he knew the two victims,
Speaker 1: their backgrounds of the two victims, and who might have
Speaker 1: a motive to harm them. That was never investigated. There
Speaker 1: was an eyewitness directly across the street who was never interviewed,
Speaker 1: whose whose mother said, you know, she she knows who
Speaker 1: the suspect is. I mean, the failures and lapses and
Speaker 1: ir regularities in this case just go on and on.
Speaker 1: I mean, other than the twenty minutes of taped interviews
Speaker 1: from the eyewitnesses, there was very little else and the
Speaker 1: only evidence at trial against Lamont were two eyewitnesses. One
Speaker 1: of them has admitted that she lied, that she was coerced.
Speaker 1: The other eyewitness seems frankly, very perplexed by her testimony,
Speaker 1: and it's it's very clear that it's an eye witness
Speaker 1: misidentification based on manipulation. And we know also that had
Speaker 1: this trial taken place twenty years later, So with everything
Speaker 1: that's known now about the unreliability of eyewitness identification, there's
Speaker 1: a very good chance that that would have been discredited
Speaker 1: because there was no other evidence connecting to the crime.
Speaker 1: You take a person who's traumatized who has just witnessed
Speaker 1: a really horrific event, and they can be pretty easy
Speaker 1: to pressure or manipulate. And in fact, this Nous provided
Speaker 1: in a tape statement my client's last name, a man
Speaker 1: she did not know and had never heard of, which
Speaker 1: raises the very interesting question of who gave her the name.
Speaker 1: It was undisputed at trial that she did not know
Speaker 1: my client, yet the fact that there was an original
Speaker 1: tape statement where she provided his name never came out.
Speaker 1: That was never admitted at trial. She also stated wrongly
Speaker 1: that my client was the Lamont who had dated her niece.
Speaker 1: At trial undisputed that that was not true. It was
Speaker 1: an entirely different Lamont who was in fact identified by
Speaker 1: his name to the jury, an entirely different person. So,
Speaker 1: I mean, the whole thing is is troubling beginning to end,
Speaker 1: really a perfect storm of chaos and horror and misconduct,
Speaker 1: things being done improperly. So you have this cop in
Speaker 1: this department that is so corrupt isn't even the word,
Speaker 1: but that's engaged in so many legal activities, And isn't
Speaker 1: it ironic and tragic that Lamont is in prison, living
Speaker 1: in hell after twenty four years and this this cop
Speaker 1: who was from what I've read, raping people, robbing people,
Speaker 1: dealing drugs, protecting drug dealers. He's out. How how is that?
Speaker 1: I mean, that must not not sit well with you
Speaker 1: with your whole background either. What I'm really hoping for,
Speaker 1: what our entire team is hoping for, and what we
Speaker 1: have sought for a long time, is a very full
Speaker 1: investigation into the activities of this detective. There needs to
Speaker 1: be an investigation by people who have the power to
Speaker 1: follow all the leads, develop information, compel the testimony of witnesses,
Speaker 1: and obtain other evidence. Let me let me turn it
Speaker 1: to you for a second, because we have not had
Speaker 1: somebody with your background and experience on the show before,
Speaker 1: and I would venture to say that you had a
Speaker 1: very very difficult and dangerous job, right, I mean, investigating cops,
Speaker 1: particularly when you're investigating cops, we've got a lot to hide,
Speaker 1: makes you a very unpopular person, I would think. So,
Speaker 1: looking back on it, how did this manage to go
Speaker 1: on for so long without somebody coming along and saying, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, besides you, hey, hey, we're not going to
Speaker 1: tolerate this. They don't give a ship. At the time
Speaker 1: we were doing these investigations. The police chief of Kansas City, Kansas,
Speaker 1: a guy named Tom Daily. He had previously been indicted
Speaker 1: by the Federal Strike Force for extorting money at a
Speaker 1: whorehouses along the kar River in Kansas. He was doing
Speaker 1: that allegedly when it was a captain. He was acquitted
Speaker 1: because it was a real weak case, but after going
Speaker 1: a quit it for extortion, the city wound up eventually
Speaker 1: making him the chief. Is that the actions you know
Speaker 1: of a responsible a city administration or a police department.
Speaker 1: So he had he had the chief over here, Tom Dale.
Speaker 1: He had previously been indicted by the FEDS. He despised
Speaker 1: the federal government, he hated the U. S. Attorney's Office
Speaker 1: and UH and the FBI. And he's the chief. He
Speaker 1: was part of it. So you have this guy Golubski
Speaker 1: who in that scenario is operating basically with impunity, right
Speaker 1: because he knows his chief doesn't give a ship. And
Speaker 1: with the chief having literally what it sounds like, gotten
Speaker 1: away with that particular pattern of activity as well as
Speaker 1: I'm sure other things that he was doing. The people
Speaker 1: underneath them are probably thinking, hey, this is great, no
Speaker 1: one's going to touch us. And they're right, and nobody did.
Speaker 1: So how frustrated was that for you? There? You are
Speaker 1: really fighting an unwinnable war, right You're You're they're trying
Speaker 1: to protect the public from the police force. Were they
Speaker 1: achieve a police who not only doesn't give a fuck,
Speaker 1: but doesn't want that he wants you. He probably wants
Speaker 1: you the funk out of his hair, so he could
Speaker 1: just you know, run the streets how he wants to write.
Speaker 1: When I started working over there, you've had a person,
Speaker 1: you know, some guy I knave, had a lot of
Speaker 1: people in the county jail, and they would say so
Speaker 1: and so confronted me and stole my money, stole my drugs.
Speaker 1: You go, what, what's the CoP's name? I don't know
Speaker 1: his name, you know what's he looked like, Well, you
Speaker 1: know he's some white guy. Well you go to the police.
Speaker 1: The police did not have photographs of their police officers,
Speaker 1: So if a victim came in there alleging that SO
Speaker 1: and so officer robbed from me, extorted me, they didn't
Speaker 1: even have photographs to show people so they could identify
Speaker 1: who the police officer was. So good luck, you know,
Speaker 1: through the U. S. Attorney's Office, through uh Julie Robinson,
Speaker 1: who was a prosecutor at the time. We subpoenaed photographs
Speaker 1: of every sworn officer in the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department,
Speaker 1: and there was hell to pay for that. I was
Speaker 1: almost removed from the investigation because of that. You know,
Speaker 1: I think one of the problems is that other law
Speaker 1: enforcement officers don't want to investigate law enforcement, and as
Speaker 1: a general rule, I think they find it distasteful, something
Speaker 1: they would rather avoid, and there is a tendency to
Speaker 1: minimize misconduct. I found that really pretty shocking, not in
Speaker 1: light of everything else we're talking about, but I could
Speaker 1: see how you would, and it's it really gets easier
Speaker 1: and easier to see how these wrongful convictions are so common.
Speaker 1: I mean, here, we have an interesting situation, right, We're
Speaker 1: talking to Al who's in there with his badge, working
Speaker 1: for the Federal Beer of Investigation and basically being told
Speaker 1: go fund himself. So what chance does a seventeen year
Speaker 1: old black kid from the poorer side of town. What
Speaker 1: shance as he have against this blue wall, this blue
Speaker 1: monster that was out to get him. He had no chance.
Speaker 1: So now fast forward to twenty four years later, Lamont
Speaker 1: sits in a prison studying reading by all accounts, a
Speaker 1: model prisoner, somebody who maintains a positive outlook in spite
Speaker 1: of this. You know what can only be described as
Speaker 1: the worst faith that can be fall an individual to
Speaker 1: be cars forraver, something he didn't do for the rest
Speaker 1: of your life. But now we have hope, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: he has hope thanks to you and the years of
Speaker 1: work that you've done in this case and al and
Speaker 1: other brave people who have devoted their time and in
Speaker 1: some cases probably even risk their own personal safety to
Speaker 1: try to get justice in this case. What does it
Speaker 1: look like now? What happens next? Tell us what's going on.
Speaker 1: We have a evidentiary hearing coming up in October, and
Speaker 1: we in tend to present somewhere between forty and fifty
Speaker 1: witnesses who provide very powerful testimony on various aspects of
Speaker 1: the case. There was almost nothing really to support the
Speaker 1: conviction to begin with, nothing other than the testimony of
Speaker 1: the two eye witnesses, and I believe that has been
Speaker 1: thoroughly shredded at this point through recantations and admissions and
Speaker 1: the result of other investigation. And we are also focusing
Speaker 1: on the very troubling misconduct in the case. It is
Speaker 1: intimately connected to how the investigation was conducted, and we're
Speaker 1: going to bring all that out and show how we
Speaker 1: believe this went wrong, and we very much hope to
Speaker 1: be successful. What's the date of the hearing October twelfth,
Speaker 1: October twelve, And is this in a federal court? We
Speaker 1: are in Windout County District Court just a state court.
Speaker 1: My client is litigating what's called a successive petition under
Speaker 1: sixty fIF seven, and you have essentially a procedural barrier
Speaker 1: to get over before you can get back into court.
Speaker 1: But we do have this evidentiary hearing schedule that we
Speaker 1: are very very excited about. One of the most compelling
Speaker 1: things about the case we haven't mentioned this yet, is
Speaker 1: that the families of both victims have always known my
Speaker 1: client is innocent and are very much squarely supporting the
Speaker 1: quest to free him. They know that they did not
Speaker 1: get justice, their families did not get justice, and that
Speaker 1: cheryld In your experience, that's not a common thing, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, most of the cases I've seen, even in
Speaker 1: the face of what could be overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
Speaker 1: the victims families sometimes stick with what they've been told
Speaker 1: all along because they just can't. They can't even process
Speaker 1: the idea that they may have been lied to and
Speaker 1: that the wrong person may have been serving time for
Speaker 1: the for the murder of their loved one. So in
Speaker 1: this case, this is a unusual scenario, isn't it It is?
Speaker 1: And one of the eyewitnesses is related to both of
Speaker 1: the victims, and she her family and the family of
Speaker 1: the second victim to whom she's a bit more distantly related,
Speaker 1: have always told me that they have known from the
Speaker 1: beginning that the authorities got the wrong man. They have
Speaker 1: always known this. They've made periodic efforts to correct this,
Speaker 1: to address this, to try and get some justice, all
Speaker 1: without success. And if there wasn't already enough to chew on,
Speaker 1: this is the part that really just sets me off,
Speaker 1: his courter pointed. Attorney Gary Long was on supervised probation
Speaker 1: at the time of the trial for failing to diligently
Speaker 1: handle three prior cases. He was suspended from the bar
Speaker 1: a couple of years later for failure to adequately hinder
Speaker 1: a separate criminal case. And he was this bar. How
Speaker 1: is it even possible that, in a life or death
Speaker 1: situation that you take somebody and you say, you know what,
Speaker 1: we're going to give you a lawyer who's already messed
Speaker 1: up three times when I said nobody gives a ship?
Speaker 1: Do you understand what I mean? Do you know that
Speaker 1: that you know that that Tara Moore had You know
Speaker 1: she's now a federal prosecutor. Yes, So Tara Morehead was
Speaker 1: the prosecutor in this case. Obviously didn't see anything wrong
Speaker 1: with her prosecuting a case in which a young man's
Speaker 1: life was at stake in front of a judge with
Speaker 1: whom she had carried on an affair a few years earlier.
Speaker 1: I think most reasonable people would agree that one or
Speaker 1: the other should have been recused from this particular scenario
Speaker 1: because even if they were saints, and obviously they weren't.
Speaker 1: Because she's also the same woman from what I've read,
Speaker 1: who threatened a witness who tried to come forward with
Speaker 1: the truth with losing custody of her own children. But yes,
Speaker 1: and now she's moved up the ladder. Seems like all
Speaker 1: the bad guys have one here. Al what the fuck? Well?
Speaker 1: I think Sarah Moorehead is currently married to a police officer.
Speaker 1: I think there's some other prosecutors over in the federal U. S.
Speaker 1: Attorney's Office that are married to other police officers. So
Speaker 1: you're not going to expect them to investigate police corruption,
Speaker 1: are you? Wow? I guess that would make it tricky,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it. They're not going to do it, and they don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, there there's so much that could be investigated
Speaker 1: that ought to be investigated, and you know, I I
Speaker 1: should also point out that sexual misconduct among police officers
Speaker 1: is not unusual in some departments. When you have poor
Speaker 1: and vulnerable people encounter folks with ultimate authority over them,
Speaker 1: ultimate authority in that particular moment, you know, those things
Speaker 1: can happen all too easily, and they do and happened frequently.
Speaker 1: You know, when I was an agent, I'm about six
Speaker 1: ft four. I had a gun, a badge and radio
Speaker 1: and everything. At nighttime when I was on my way
Speaker 1: home or on the weekends, I would not drive to
Speaker 1: Kansas City, Kansas, unless I was accompanied by another FBI agent.
Speaker 1: Thought they might have run you off the road or
Speaker 1: something else. They could do anything. They could pull me
Speaker 1: over and not saying they don't know who I was,
Speaker 1: and they could say pulled a gun and they could
Speaker 1: shoot me. So I have all that power and authority.
Speaker 1: What is some little black kid on the street half.
Speaker 1: I hope that in exposing the story of Lamont and
Speaker 1: some of the things that you've shared out that people,
Speaker 1: you know, get their backs up and get get angry
Speaker 1: and get involved. These are just people, They're just regular people,
Speaker 1: and they're they're being so terribly abused and victimized by
Speaker 1: people who are supposed to protect them. I I don't
Speaker 1: it makes me sick. I just say that the fear
Speaker 1: and the terror that some of the citizens experience cannot
Speaker 1: be overstated. I mean, you have someone with a badge
Speaker 1: with ultimate and really, as I said in that moment,
Speaker 1: unchecked authority, there's enormous fear of the police and enormous,
Speaker 1: sometimes unmovable resistance to getting involved in anything that has
Speaker 1: to do with the criminal justice system. I've spent some years, honestly,
Speaker 1: just earning the trust of some people in the community
Speaker 1: so that they will sit down and speak with me
Speaker 1: so that we can investigate the case. Nobody wants anything
Speaker 1: to do with a case you say, courthouse, people walk
Speaker 1: the other way. They don't want anything to do with that.
Speaker 1: And ultimately we have been successful in securing some very
Speaker 1: good witnesses because they did want to help someone they've
Speaker 1: viewed as innocent. And you know, I should point out
Speaker 1: here that all of the street talk we have ever
Speaker 1: heard in the community is that Lamont is innocent, the
Speaker 1: guy who got wrongfully convicted. It's like everyone knows. The
Speaker 1: whole community knows. The victims families know, everyone knows Lamont
Speaker 1: did not do this. Everyone knows. You have a prepaid
Speaker 1: call from an innate at Kansas Department of Corrections Lansing
Speaker 1: Correctional Facility. To accept this call, press or say five
Speaker 1: to refute. This call will be recorded and subject to monitoring.
Speaker 1: At any time. You may begin speaking now, Lamont, Welcome
Speaker 1: to the show. Thank you so, Lamont. I want to
Speaker 1: go back to the beginning, when you grew up and
Speaker 1: how this all started. I've seen photos of you with
Speaker 1: your family. Looked like you had not an easy but
Speaker 1: a happy childhood. Is that fair? Yeah? Can you just
Speaker 1: describe what it was like. I've heard you talk about
Speaker 1: Christmas and stuff. Uh, yeah, was tighten it. You know,
Speaker 1: it was like my mother was just only pair in
Speaker 1: the house and it was close me and my siblings,
Speaker 1: and we did everything together. We stayed in one house.
Speaker 1: You know, we took care of each other. So growing
Speaker 1: off of me was my family was a big game.
Speaker 1: Didn't really bite about a lot of stuff, you know.
Speaker 1: I was me and my three brothers and my sister
Speaker 1: and mother a sister. My mother worked a lot, so
Speaker 1: my sister kind of watched that. There was a little
Speaker 1: bit some other family members liked to go to my
Speaker 1: family member's house, uncles and be around them. Our mother
Speaker 1: was at work. I kind of still stayed around family.
Speaker 1: I sat my home so real family oriented and where
Speaker 1: you grew up. You had no idea at this time
Speaker 1: that the police force was really as corrupt as any
Speaker 1: one could possibly imagine until this terrible incident occurred. And
Speaker 1: I want to go back to that. What happened. You
Speaker 1: were a seventeen year old kid going along with your life,
Speaker 1: trying to make it in a difficult place, and then
Speaker 1: one day out of the blue, you get arrested and
Speaker 1: don't even know what's going on or what happened. Uh,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what happened. And I was it was a
Speaker 1: typical day. It was like a Friday, typical day. I
Speaker 1: was the road in a Downey comverge program where it's
Speaker 1: all time of school whenever, whatever. You get your high
Speaker 1: school to phone and then they gives you in uh college,
Speaker 1: so like a little degree program on the part of
Speaker 1: and um, it was just a Friday. I get a
Speaker 1: call phone call saying the police over my grandmother's house
Speaker 1: looking for me. Called my mother. We go to the
Speaker 1: police station and they started talking about two murders and
Speaker 1: I had no answers for him because I don't know
Speaker 1: if they were saying what they talking about. So from
Speaker 1: that moment, I was arrested, charge and vasously completed of
Speaker 1: two murders and I hadn't about And we know now
Speaker 1: that they were deliberately targeting you because of this particular
Speaker 1: police officer who was up to all kinds of criminal
Speaker 1: activity himself. And that's the irony of this is that
Speaker 1: he belongs in jail. And I'm hoping that by the
Speaker 1: end of this that's exactly what's going to happen. But
Speaker 1: the idea that this system, this so called justice system,
Speaker 1: had made a decision that you were going to be
Speaker 1: their guy. There was this double murder, right, two guys
Speaker 1: sitting in the car. They were involved in drug activity,
Speaker 1: They were dealers. We now know also that one of
Speaker 1: them had been beaten by the guys he was working
Speaker 1: for in the drug business. Right. He was working as
Speaker 1: a doorman in a crack then, and he had feared
Speaker 1: for his life, And in fact he had good reason
Speaker 1: to because I guess he had from what I've learned
Speaker 1: he has been he had been stealing from them, So
Speaker 1: that every reason to know that this was a drug hit.
Speaker 1: And you weren't involved in that game or that business.
Speaker 1: Did you know these guys and then know the witnesses.
Speaker 1: I don't know the victims that would have connected to
Speaker 1: it at all. That's why I so it so hard
Speaker 1: for me to understand how something like that could happen,
Speaker 1: because and I was forward about everything. I don't try
Speaker 1: to hide nothing because I knew that what they were
Speaker 1: talking about that time. I had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 1: I would involved. I don't know what the police officer's
Speaker 1: motive was to plan it on meal. I still don't
Speaker 1: know to this day what happened. Well, it does seem
Speaker 1: like now with everything we've learned that the officer involved,
Speaker 1: the first one who arrived on the scene was an
Speaker 1: officer named Golobski. It's a white guy who had a
Speaker 1: proclivity for women of color, and when he didn't get
Speaker 1: his way, he would exact revenge. And so what it
Speaker 1: seems like is that in this particular case, he targeted
Speaker 1: you because your mom wasn't having any part of that.
Speaker 1: And that's what makes this particularly sinister and sick. You
Speaker 1: end up going to trial. And I find it interesting,
Speaker 1: among all the other things in your case, that they
Speaker 1: offered you a plea bargain right and you didn't take it.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't the rest of the plea bargain. I can't
Speaker 1: understand how I sit in this situation, and I hadn't
Speaker 1: know nothing about them itself, so bargains far from my mom,
Speaker 1: I would And why I find that and why I
Speaker 1: brought that up, Lemont, And I've seen the mugshot picture
Speaker 1: of you, and it really hurt my heart because I
Speaker 1: could see in your face just how confused you were
Speaker 1: and scared of a situation that you couldn't possibly imagine
Speaker 1: what was happening at that time. I also would think
Speaker 1: that if you were guilty and they're offering you a deal,
Speaker 1: and you know your chances of winning in the court
Speaker 1: are going to be low because they have all these
Speaker 1: cops and everybody else is going to testify that you
Speaker 1: would have taken the plea bargain. Anybody with the right
Speaker 1: mind would take a plea bargain. You're not crazy, are
Speaker 1: you right? You don't You don't sound crazy. You don't
Speaker 1: sound crazy at all. So in the situation like this,
Speaker 1: I mean, we have in this country over cases end
Speaker 1: up in plea bargains. So had you been guilty, that
Speaker 1: would have been a very logical thing to do. But
Speaker 1: as an innocent person and probably somebody who's still trusted
Speaker 1: in the system, you went forward with your right to
Speaker 1: a trial, and you were represented by a guy who
Speaker 1: they knew your court appointed lawyer. They knew this guy
Speaker 1: was incompetent because he had already been disciplined for three
Speaker 1: previous cases that he had completely botched. It almost sounds
Speaker 1: like they did it on purpose. They assigned a guy
Speaker 1: who didn't go and interview witnesses, who didn't really didn't
Speaker 1: do anything he was supposed to do. And what was
Speaker 1: that like? Were you aware at that time that this
Speaker 1: guy it wasn't I mean, I don't even know if
Speaker 1: it was really on your side, but I mean, as
Speaker 1: you're watching these proceedings, what were you thinking. He presented
Speaker 1: himself like a lawyer. He presented itself like a person,
Speaker 1: and there on my behald to take care of this business.
Speaker 1: And he's seeing real professional at first. So I didn't
Speaker 1: know what to expect because I've never been in that
Speaker 1: situation before anyway, So his first impression was for me,
Speaker 1: it was a good impression because I didn't know what
Speaker 1: a lawyer was supposed to do, or I was so
Speaker 1: ignorant to the law on how things work. I just
Speaker 1: believed in the justice system at that time, I really did.
Speaker 1: I thought there was no possible way, being an innocent
Speaker 1: person or a person that has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: that crime, that I would be found guilty. So I
Speaker 1: don't really pay too much attention to the credibility of
Speaker 1: this lawyer. It didn't die on me that I would
Speaker 1: be found guilty of the crime that I had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with it. So I didn't really think about
Speaker 1: it in those terms. I was just thinking, you can
Speaker 1: give me any lawyer, anybody from anywhere, and it'd be okay,
Speaker 1: because once they realized that they had the wrong person
Speaker 1: and ironed out and trial, That's what I was thinking.
Speaker 1: But I didn't plan on all how to think that
Speaker 1: people would get on the stand and line it was
Speaker 1: gonna fabricade, And I didn't think that was gonna happen.
Speaker 1: I had no idea that they had already made up
Speaker 1: in their mind and I was going to escape God
Speaker 1: for this particular crime. So definitely being needed at the
Speaker 1: law and how things work in the justice system. I
Speaker 1: believe in the justice system at that time. I really did.
Speaker 1: I think all of us do when we're kids, especially
Speaker 1: brought up in a good home like you were. You
Speaker 1: brought up to believe that people are good and that
Speaker 1: the system is is going to work for you. And
Speaker 1: then you had a lawyer who, had he been competent,
Speaker 1: I still think would have one year case in spite
Speaker 1: of all this, because of the simple fact that it
Speaker 1: was an easy case. The witnesses were not credible at all.
Speaker 1: We now know that they also withheld exculpatory evidence, So
Speaker 1: you really didn't have a fair chance, especially not with
Speaker 1: a lawyer who was incompetent. And ultimately, let's not forget
Speaker 1: that this particular lawyer was disbarred not too long after
Speaker 1: your trial. And again for the listeners out there, think
Speaker 1: about that this is a guy who had been disciplined
Speaker 1: in numerous cases prior to laments, and then ultimately gets
Speaker 1: disbarred when the extent of his gross incompetence is brought
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court of Kansas, the attention to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and then he voluntarily gave up his license
Speaker 1: to practice law. And that wasn't the end of the nightmare.
Speaker 1: We now know too that your appellate lawyer was disbarred.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't even make this stuff up. So
Speaker 1: what happened? Like now you're in the courtroom, the jury
Speaker 1: goes out, the arguments have been made. You saw these
Speaker 1: witnesses get up and lie. You saw these police officers
Speaker 1: get up and lie. Your defense made whatever arguments they made.
Speaker 1: Did you believe that they would come back and declare
Speaker 1: you innocent? I did. I did a five of my
Speaker 1: being I did. I just didn't know that this is
Speaker 1: how the system worked. They found me guilty based on
Speaker 1: false evidence or the kind of evidence that was presented
Speaker 1: by a certain district attorney. They heard stuff about me.
Speaker 1: It wasn't even about Lemar Macknetide, and she just kind
Speaker 1: of made self up. They told his story and the
Speaker 1: jury believed. But at the time before they came back
Speaker 1: with guilty, Birdie, I still didn't think I'll me found
Speaker 1: guilty because the whole time I'm sitting there, in the
Speaker 1: whole time I'm going through the process of getting to trial,
Speaker 1: I still had no knowledge of the actual crime. So
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, with my young mind being naive, that there's
Speaker 1: no way becau jury can find me guilty when I'm
Speaker 1: really not guilty, when I had nothing to do with it.
Speaker 1: I'm not tied to it at all. The witnesses, the victims,
Speaker 1: I'm not tied to it. I was in the area
Speaker 1: when it happened. When they came in, I noticed that
Speaker 1: no juries. No one looked me in my face, no
Speaker 1: one looked looked up. Everyone came in looking down at
Speaker 1: the floor. So I kind of had an eerie feeling,
Speaker 1: but I still had hope that it will work out
Speaker 1: in the right way. So when they read the verdict
Speaker 1: and they said guilty, it's like I've seen my whole
Speaker 1: life flash before me and I u and for that moment,
Speaker 1: I fosed and and I was sitting there, and I
Speaker 1: stood up, and I remember saying something. I was screaming something,
Speaker 1: you know, to the effects of I'm not guilty and
Speaker 1: you got the wrong person or whatever. And I stepped
Speaker 1: someone holding me or grabbing me from behind, and I
Speaker 1: was in shot, so I didn't really I was like
Speaker 1: a lost moment. But I turned around and I see
Speaker 1: my mother hold me, screaming, crying like don't take my
Speaker 1: baby away from me, don't take my baby. And I'm
Speaker 1: looking at her and I realized that this is a
Speaker 1: serious situation now, but it still didn't feel real. It
Speaker 1: was my life in my situation, but it didn't feel
Speaker 1: like my life on my situation. I felt like I
Speaker 1: was outside of myself looking at this event happened. I
Speaker 1: couldn't stop it. So I was in shot and that
Speaker 1: shot lasted for a few years after that. I was
Speaker 1: in shot. So now now you're convicted of a double
Speaker 1: murder and sense to life in prison. Where did they
Speaker 1: take you to the processes? Like from this time you
Speaker 1: get convicted in the county for about too much, then
Speaker 1: you go to citizen Now how cinis in Wanna County.
Speaker 1: They gave me to life sentences to ron consecutive and
Speaker 1: after that they sent me to a process of center
Speaker 1: which we call rd you where they see you to
Speaker 1: determine what classification, you would be what custody would be
Speaker 1: in a subsidered max custody. So from there they sent
Speaker 1: me to prison. I was in hus That's that's a
Speaker 1: prison in Kansas. They called Glady in the school, one
Speaker 1: of those tough prisons. You know what, people, you know,
Speaker 1: it's a prison. It's like the work not did you
Speaker 1: have a prison? Is that more? It's this dark is
Speaker 1: negative pension feel, it's hopelessness. It's a world that its long.
Speaker 1: I just seventeen year old. Did you have plans? Did
Speaker 1: you have a career in mind? What was the outlook
Speaker 1: for the future. We're still just trying to figure it out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was thing I wanted to do, and it was
Speaker 1: just I was I was misguide in the line, and
Speaker 1: I was just in a place where everybody around me
Speaker 1: was either die or going to jail or I was
Speaker 1: just in the kind of environment. It didn't produce a
Speaker 1: lot of hope. I didn't have. I didn't have a
Speaker 1: lot of people to look up to or emulation, nothing
Speaker 1: like that. But I did enjoy taking care of my family.
Speaker 1: So my life was just basically about trying to take
Speaker 1: care of my family the best way I know, or
Speaker 1: to look out for my loved ones. You know, I
Speaker 1: had skills and things I could do, Like I was
Speaker 1: a barber, I was cutting hair since I was twelve.
Speaker 1: You know, I was comedian and I had these in
Speaker 1: the back of my mind. I wanted to be a
Speaker 1: comedian and I had things I wanted to do. I
Speaker 1: just didn't know how to get to where I wanted
Speaker 1: to be. But I still I didn't think that my
Speaker 1: life was just of being in prison or going to jail,
Speaker 1: being in this kind of situation. What is a typical
Speaker 1: day like for you on the inside? How do you
Speaker 1: get through it? What's the schedule? Uh, typical day? Typical
Speaker 1: day is re readjusted. It's like from hunt day to
Speaker 1: the nexus. Finding a way to get by for one day,
Speaker 1: line something for my days, and then I just try
Speaker 1: to it just sucks. I gotta repeat it. Like if
Speaker 1: I have a bad day or I'm frustrated for one day,
Speaker 1: I'm going to sleep, wake up to repeat this day again.
Speaker 1: So I try to find the best I can or
Speaker 1: get the best I can out of a day, because
Speaker 1: waking up to repeat it is the anxiety. That's why
Speaker 1: all that the worst stuff is knowing of it. For
Speaker 1: the last twenty three years and two on in some months,
Speaker 1: and they have a on a weeks and eight sothern days.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing. It never changes. So I devote
Speaker 1: my time to read it and studying and right like music,
Speaker 1: write poetry. I try to keep my mind free as possible.
Speaker 1: I try to stay out of prison mentally. I try
Speaker 1: not to. I'm not into prison politics. I'm not in
Speaker 1: prison mentally, but I'm here. I had to be my
Speaker 1: body here, but I try to keep my mind far
Speaker 1: from this place as I can. So it's just a
Speaker 1: bunch of moments of readjusting every day. And I have
Speaker 1: a lot of love people that love me and care
Speaker 1: about me, so I'll focus on that. But it's bad.
Speaker 1: It used to be a lot worse than it is now.
Speaker 1: I'm starting to see I'm coming alive now because I
Speaker 1: can see it light at the end of this tuned
Speaker 1: I've been there for so long, so I'm better now.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it wasn't so good before. It's better now,
Speaker 1: But it was always sad to wake up. I had
Speaker 1: to repeat this same cycle over and over again. That
Speaker 1: stuff is another drib of person crazy. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of moments while I feel like it. What's the point,
Speaker 1: you know, to keep going to wake up every day
Speaker 1: that I had to deal with the exact same nightmare
Speaker 1: you trying to escape from the night before. But I
Speaker 1: had my mother, like she never gave up on me
Speaker 1: from day one. Like when the worst moments of my life,
Speaker 1: you know, I felt like I just couldn't do it
Speaker 1: no more, for that I couldn't take another step, she
Speaker 1: would show up. And when she would grab me and
Speaker 1: hold me and looked at my faith and tell me
Speaker 1: this is not my life. I passed through, this is
Speaker 1: not my destination. And so I had a lot of
Speaker 1: support my family and and I gave my life to
Speaker 1: God and I pray a lot of meditate a lot.
Speaker 1: So initially I was kind of in this dark place
Speaker 1: where I was so hurt and sad and depressed, and
Speaker 1: so I kept people kept coming to my life. There
Speaker 1: was like beacons of light and hope for me and
Speaker 1: I and I and I thank God for all those
Speaker 1: people came into my life and supported me, and they
Speaker 1: short it up. I always had something to look forward to,
Speaker 1: because this is a dark places. It's a dark situation
Speaker 1: where if you don't have enough support for me, it
Speaker 1: was just support. I found it supportant then years later
Speaker 1: Sheryl and to Yeah ministries and innocent projects. So I'm
Speaker 1: coming into my life and they breathe, uh, they breathe
Speaker 1: license to me, it's like a second wind. And I'm
Speaker 1: grateful for those people, everybody who support me and everybody
Speaker 1: who put forth effort, go out every day and do
Speaker 1: something to help me get my life back. I'm, however,
Speaker 1: grateful for those people. If you even allow yourself, if
Speaker 1: you allow your mind to go there, what are you
Speaker 1: dreaming about when you get out? Because I'm convinced you
Speaker 1: are going to come home and I'm gonna be there
Speaker 1: fighting right alongside with everybody else. What's the first thing
Speaker 1: you want to do? And then how do you see
Speaker 1: the future? The first day I'm gonna do eat something.
Speaker 1: That's what I fantasized about. Mostly, I want to eat
Speaker 1: something that from there, I want to have some type
Speaker 1: of impact or effect on young people make important sitsis
Speaker 1: it would eventially uh landing in a situation like this,
Speaker 1: you know, So I want to just raise any kind
Speaker 1: of awareness I can out decision making, because you know,
Speaker 1: had I've been told how to make better decisence myself.
Speaker 1: I think even no I was even to the law,
Speaker 1: and this is something that had nothing to do with me,
Speaker 1: and that I still gonna been making better desistence myself
Speaker 1: before this stuff and mean came about. So I don't
Speaker 1: want to be able to be there for young people
Speaker 1: as much as I can. So I can, I can
Speaker 1: help them understand that even though you don't do something wrong,
Speaker 1: even though you don't commit a crime, you can be
Speaker 1: You still gotta be accountable, and you still gotta be
Speaker 1: a mindful of the fact that you're out there and
Speaker 1: floating around and you can easily be put in a
Speaker 1: situation like that and if you're not being productive and
Speaker 1: doing something just uh productive out there in life. So
Speaker 1: I just want to be able to reach the young
Speaker 1: people as much as I can, and now that there's
Speaker 1: that to be young, just anybody that want to be
Speaker 1: able to share my experience and hopefully it will help
Speaker 1: out in any kind of way. I'm sure that you
Speaker 1: will do that, and then you're gonna have a very
Speaker 1: positive impact on a lot of people because you have
Speaker 1: a very rare combination of intelligence and manner that is
Speaker 1: so positive and strong but still gentle that I believe
Speaker 1: that You'll be able to affect a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of young people, and I'm looking forward to watching
Speaker 1: you do that. There's one other thing I wanted to raise.
Speaker 1: I'm always amazed when I speak to someone in your situation,
Speaker 1: and especially so with you, that you don't seem to
Speaker 1: be bitter after everything that's happened. And I know you
Speaker 1: talked about your faith and family and the strength that
Speaker 1: you get from from them, But how is it possible
Speaker 1: that someone can go through this most unimaginable nightmare still
Speaker 1: be in it, and yet be as positive and strong
Speaker 1: as you are now? Well? I had a moment with
Speaker 1: an angerbook. You all we like taking points and hoping
Speaker 1: someone else died from it. I only want to affect
Speaker 1: about me being angry, no one else seeing the notice
Speaker 1: of Hey, it tasted to me being angry, So how
Speaker 1: is this a learning experience? Like being angry doesn't help me?
Speaker 1: So I just wanted to help myself because I knew,
Speaker 1: I always knew I was gonna be here forever. I
Speaker 1: knew that eventually the truth was surface and I would
Speaker 1: have a life outside of this wall. So I devoted
Speaker 1: a lot of time and energy towards helping myself and
Speaker 1: I hurt myself, so being angry was something that was
Speaker 1: a hinderest to me, not a benefit. So I try
Speaker 1: to say positive because these places you gotta keep up
Speaker 1: with the seven take care of yourself, and anger and
Speaker 1: stress and all those things is just short in your
Speaker 1: life span, and I got to like to live. So
Speaker 1: I just choose. I choose to be positive. I choose
Speaker 1: to not be angry and allow anger to kill me.
Speaker 1: I don't want to die in this place, and I
Speaker 1: don't want to have a short life. So I stick
Speaker 1: firm to what I believe in, and I believe in
Speaker 1: my faith, and I believe in meditation, I believe in exercise.
Speaker 1: I'm believing take care of my mom, body and soul,
Speaker 1: and that's what I vote my time to. Wow. UM,
Speaker 1: all I can do is tell you that you have UM,
Speaker 1: you have all my respect and support. And I was
Speaker 1: saying the man, you know, I've seen too many miracles
Speaker 1: to stop believing in miracles. So I'm excited to watch
Speaker 1: you be the next one or one of the next ones,
Speaker 1: and we'll never stop fighting for you and for other
Speaker 1: people in your situation. I'm looking forward to a positive
Speaker 1: outcome and to getting to know you on the outside
Speaker 1: the mind. I'm just going to turn it over to
Speaker 1: you and say, is your microphone, what do you want
Speaker 1: to share with the audience. Well, these these kind of
Speaker 1: cases having more than they should, you know. So it's
Speaker 1: like I always see on TV or day line see
Speaker 1: anything man so many years in prison and you get
Speaker 1: exonerated and you see this happened time and time again,
Speaker 1: but which would never ever see a heavy here about
Speaker 1: how much that stuff impact the effect of the families
Speaker 1: for those people like I had a post knit family.
Speaker 1: It was close and it was a thing. It's just
Speaker 1: just like me being affected by the event that happened
Speaker 1: in my life. It hurts me to see how much
Speaker 1: how much it affected not only me, with my family.
Speaker 1: And it's difficult because if if a man has to
Speaker 1: go through a certain thing by himself, that's a that's
Speaker 1: his life, that's his his path and life. He got
Speaker 1: to go through that. I had to do what I
Speaker 1: had to do, no matter what. But when you see
Speaker 1: someone you care about being affected about what you have
Speaker 1: to do or what you have to endure, it's it's
Speaker 1: a it's a different kind of feeling. And it's like
Speaker 1: people don't really pay attentions that don't know about that,
Speaker 1: like when uh, this is attorneys of of being dishonest
Speaker 1: when they're trying to get from visions and all that.
Speaker 1: I don't think they take that consideration how many people
Speaker 1: they are affecting, but just not going by the law
Speaker 1: of just not being truthful about certain things, not just me,
Speaker 1: whatever issue personal issue they may add about with me.
Speaker 1: My family is affected by that, my brothers, my brother's
Speaker 1: kids when all this happened, and they feel like they
Speaker 1: lost a mother because my mother devoted so much time
Speaker 1: for trying to give me back out of the system
Speaker 1: that they felt like they were neglected. So they were
Speaker 1: affected by that. My older sister was affected, my brother
Speaker 1: was affected. I mean, everybody was affected. One minute remaining.
Speaker 1: And when you try to hold onto something good, even
Speaker 1: when you try to get something good in this kind
Speaker 1: of situation, there's still nothing good come from it. It's
Speaker 1: just always bad. It's always negative as always a challenge
Speaker 1: is always hurtles, so always something. But for the person
Speaker 1: that's in the middle of it, that's just my experience.
Speaker 1: But on the outside of it, that's something people don't
Speaker 1: never get a chance to see. That's that's that's just
Speaker 1: a harsh or harsh reality for a person to live
Speaker 1: based on someone else being in competition when all this
Speaker 1: stuff basically could have been avoided by someone just doing
Speaker 1: their job. But the job people was uh employed them
Speaker 1: to do, you know. So I think people should understand
Speaker 1: that and know that there's a lot of people to
Speaker 1: be affected by something like that. I think a lot
Speaker 1: of teachers should be brought to this moment and this
Speaker 1: kind of situation, so a lot of people can, uh,
Speaker 1: if you'll find another person that situation, it can be
Speaker 1: more awful events not to help in a different kind
Speaker 1: of way, they could because it's not just about me.
Speaker 1: Somebody everybody who here about me too. On October wayan
Speaker 1: Dott County District Attorney Mark dupri moved to vacate the
Speaker 1: conviction and dismissed all charges against Lamont McIntyre. Hours later,
Speaker 1: Lamont walked free for the first time in over twenty
Speaker 1: three long, miserable years. He called me from the courthouse steps.
Speaker 1: It was it was one of the best calls I've
Speaker 1: ever gotten. And in that call, he said he thanked
Speaker 1: me um and he said that the exposure that his
Speaker 1: case had gotten from being on this podcast had helped,
Speaker 1: and even if it was a tiny bit, it had
Speaker 1: helped to lead to his exoneration. It was a really
Speaker 1: extraordinary feeling, and I'm excited to share that On has
Speaker 1: since one a one and a half million dollar judgment
Speaker 1: for his wrawful conviction, and he and his mother are
Speaker 1: currently suing Roger Klupski for all the damage he did
Speaker 1: to their lives and their family. After a thirty year
Speaker 1: reign of terror in the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department,
Speaker 1: disgraced officer Roger Kolupski went to work in Edwardsville, Kansas
Speaker 1: in two thousand and ten. He has yet to face justice,
Speaker 1: and he retired in two thousand and sixteen. Don't forget
Speaker 1: to give us a fantastic review. Wherever you get your podcasts,
Speaker 1: it really helps. And I'm a proud donor to the
Speaker 1: Innocence Project and I really hope you'll join me in
Speaker 1: supporting this very important cause and helping to prevent future
Speaker 1: wrongful convictions. Go to Innocence Project dot org to learn
Speaker 1: how to donate and get involved. I'd like to thank
Speaker 1: our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wardis. The music
Speaker 1: in the show is by three time OSCAR nominated composer
Speaker 1: Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram at
Speaker 1: Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast. Wrongful
Speaker 1: Conviction with Jason Flam is a production of Lava for
Speaker 1: Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number one