Speaker 1: I'm Jason Flahm. Through this podcast, I aim to highlight
Speaker 1: how frequently our criminal legal system shatters the lives of
Speaker 1: innocent people. Whether junk science is introduced to trial, police
Speaker 1: or prosecutorial misconduct, or simply a misidentification. Each story is
Speaker 1: devastating on its own, but when we zoom out and
Speaker 1: take in the sheer breadth of the issue, we can
Speaker 1: see a pattern forming across our entire system. Who better
Speaker 1: to take us on that journey than the brilliant journalists
Speaker 1: and writers who regularly cover these stories.
Speaker 2: Kathleen Peterson was found by her husband, Michael Peterson, bleeding
Speaker 2: and struggling to breathe at the bottom of a staircase.
Speaker 2: It was the middle of the night on December ninth,
Speaker 2: two thousand and one. Michael called nine one one and
Speaker 2: held her as she lay downing. When emergency services arrived,
Speaker 2: there was blood all over the walls, the floor, and
Speaker 2: on Michael's clothing, which led Durham Police Detective Art Holland
Speaker 2: to quickly assume this was a murder. Michael became a
Speaker 2: suspect in Kathleen's death, and Durham Police pursued this theory
Speaker 2: to the exclusion of all other evidence. After a highly
Speaker 2: publicized trial, Peterson was convicted and sentenced to life in
Speaker 2: prison without parole. His attorney, David Rudolph, was able to
Speaker 2: overturn the conviction eight years later, and Michael was released.
Speaker 2: After waiting for a new trial for five years and
Speaker 2: after turning seventy years old, Michael was tired of fighting.
Speaker 2: He decided to take an Alford plea, a plea where
Speaker 2: the defendant maintains his innocence but admits that the evidence
Speaker 2: presented could result in a jury finding him guilty. This
Speaker 2: is probably a case you've heard about and might already
Speaker 2: have an opinion on. There is a popular Netflix documentary
Speaker 2: called This Staircase, and this year HBO produced a mini
Speaker 2: series of the same name. But despite all that coverage
Speaker 2: and drama, Michael Peterson has refused to speak to the
Speaker 2: media about the case until recently, and that's why we
Speaker 2: wanted to speak with him today to give him the
Speaker 2: opportunity to tell his side. It's an important story that
Speaker 2: highlights so many of the problems with the American criminal
Speaker 2: justice system. This is wrongful conviction. Good afternoon. I'm Sonja Pfeiffer.
Speaker 2: I'm a criminal defense and civil rights attorney based in Toronto,
Speaker 2: Ontario and Charlotte, North Carolina, and co host of the
Speaker 2: podcast Abuse of Power on Audible.
Speaker 3: And I'm David Rudolph. I'm also the co host of
Speaker 3: Abusive Power with Sonia, who is my wife and law partner.
Speaker 2: Yes, for those who don't know, we are married. And
Speaker 2: we met while I was a television reporter in roleig
Speaker 2: Durham assigned to cover the Peterson case, and you were
Speaker 2: representing Michael, and Michael is here with us today to
Speaker 2: talk about this case that really changed all of our lives.
Speaker 4: Hi, Michael Peterson, I'm in Durham, North Carolina, almost seventy
Speaker 4: nine years old, still a fellon, and still a writer.
Speaker 2: Let's jump right in, Michael, because you mentioned two things
Speaker 2: that I think people know about you already, That you're
Speaker 2: a writer and that, yes, you are a convicted felon.
Speaker 2: But before we talk about how you moved to Durham
Speaker 2: and then met Mary Kathleen, you had a whole other life.
Speaker 2: I don't think a lot of people know about who
Speaker 2: Michael Peterson was before all of this. Can you talk
Speaker 2: a little bit about how you grew up.
Speaker 4: I was born in Tennessee. I think I stayed there
Speaker 4: maybe four weeks. My father is a military officer.
Speaker 3: We moved.
Speaker 4: I don't think I stayed in a particular grade more
Speaker 4: than one year. It was a very what can I say,
Speaker 4: transient childhood, but very fulfilling, and I loved it. I
Speaker 4: wouldn't trade it for anything, because I lived in so
Speaker 4: many different places.
Speaker 2: So you went to Duke for undergrad I mean I
Speaker 2: have to ask tar heels or devils.
Speaker 4: Oh please, you do not want to profanity podcast here.
Speaker 2: So after university you enrolled in the military, and by
Speaker 2: this point you had also married your first wife, Patty,
Speaker 2: and you and Patty also lived overseas. Tell me about
Speaker 2: that part of your life.
Speaker 4: Well, she is military also, and god we lived Germany
Speaker 4: with Japan, traveled everywhere together for many, many many We
Speaker 4: were married twenty five years, and she unfortunately last year
Speaker 4: a massive heart attack, very very very sad day.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I did hear about that,
Speaker 2: and I know David spoke to you. But yeah, you
Speaker 2: and Patty have a special relationship. And then you and
Speaker 2: Patty had two kids together. Tell me about your two.
Speaker 4: Sons, Clayton and Todd. They were both born in Germany.
Speaker 2: So I want to talk about Germany because as we
Speaker 2: continue talking today, that's going to resurface, as you know well,
Speaker 2: when it comes to your trial. But in Germany, you
Speaker 2: and Patty became parents a second time. Explained to our
Speaker 2: listeners who George and Elizabeth Ratliffe are and how it
Speaker 2: came to be that you and Patty were the guardians
Speaker 2: of their daughters.
Speaker 4: When we first met Liz, oh she was a teacher
Speaker 4: and Patty was a teacher, and they became very very
Speaker 4: close friends. And then we met George and he really
Speaker 4: was a wonderful guy. George died in nineteen eighty three,
Speaker 4: was on a mission, the invasion of Granada, and he died.
Speaker 4: And then Liz was left with two very small, very
Speaker 4: small children, and she had a nobody knew at the time,
Speaker 4: a serious medical condition. She was suffering from von Villebrunt's disease.
Speaker 4: And I think that the stress of raising two small children,
Speaker 4: the loss of her husband, it was too much for
Speaker 4: her and she died. And unknown to me, the military
Speaker 4: flew up and said, did you know that George had
Speaker 4: asked you to adopt his children or take care of
Speaker 4: the children if anything had happened to him, And I said, no,
Speaker 4: you talk to me about that. He said, well, it's
Speaker 4: in the will and I said, oh, okay. So then
Speaker 4: and Liz had the same will, and when she died
Speaker 4: inteen on nineteen eighty seven, I became the defective guardians
Speaker 4: of Margaret and Martha.
Speaker 2: You and Patty were still together at the time, Is
Speaker 2: that right?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 4: Yes? Yes?
Speaker 2: What was it like bringing those two young girls into
Speaker 2: your family?
Speaker 4: I think it was more of a strain on Patty,
Speaker 4: and that's I think, really essentially what broke up our
Speaker 4: marriage is that Patty, and I don't mean this in
Speaker 4: any negative way whatsoever, she felt it would be better
Speaker 4: if others raised Margaret and Martha one of their relatives,
Speaker 4: and so I said, no, I'll keep the children, and
Speaker 4: so I raised them, and then I'd met Kathleen and
Speaker 4: that became another journey.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about Kathleen. How did you two.
Speaker 4: Meet Kathleen was when we came back from Germany with
Speaker 4: the two girls. They were four and five at the time,
Speaker 4: I think, and Kathleen and her husband Fred were living
Speaker 4: down the block in another house, and we met at
Speaker 4: Margaret's fifth birthday party because Caitlin was the same age,
Speaker 4: and we just became very close after that, more and
Speaker 4: more close.
Speaker 2: And you mentioned Caitlyn. Caitlyn is Kathleen's daughter from her
Speaker 2: first marriage, right, correct, And that's Caitlyn Atwater. And how
Speaker 2: did your relationship with Kathleen develop?
Speaker 4: Uh, Well, it's one of these neighborhood stories. And we
Speaker 4: just saw more of each other and realized that we
Speaker 4: were very much suited for one another.
Speaker 2: And over time your relationship really became something quite special.
Speaker 2: I mean, something that I think other people would say
Speaker 2: they envied in a relationship. Would you agree with that?
Speaker 4: Oh? I think so. I mean we had a great relationship.
Speaker 4: She was Oh god, she was well sexual and funny
Speaker 4: and smart. She was used to say that, for God's sake,
Speaker 4: don't tell anybody your college board scores. I don't want
Speaker 4: anybody to know I'm living for someone so stupid. And
Speaker 4: it was just fun. Every day with her was fun.
Speaker 2: So, David, I want switch and talk with you now
Speaker 2: and move to Kathleen's death. So it was called a crime,
Speaker 2: but let's start with the death on December ninth, two
Speaker 2: thousand and one, when Kathleen was found by Michael and Michael,
Speaker 2: I'll ask you about that in a little bit. But
Speaker 2: December ninth, two thousand and one, Kathleen is found inside
Speaker 2: the home she shared with Michael and Forest Hills. Can
Speaker 2: you talk about what was known at that time and
Speaker 2: initially how the discovery of Kathleen's body was treated.
Speaker 3: I think initially, at least in the press, it was
Speaker 3: just treated as a prominent author's wife was found dead
Speaker 3: in their home. And I don't think initially, at least
Speaker 3: for the public, there was any connection to it being
Speaker 3: a crime that changed relatively quickly.
Speaker 2: And David, I'm going to ask you to describe the
Speaker 2: scene a little bit, because, as we'll talk about later,
Speaker 2: what the scene looked like became a fact that really
Speaker 2: influenced investigators. So could you describe that.
Speaker 3: Sure, because it was a horrendous looking scene. You know
Speaker 3: when you walked in and I did early on to
Speaker 3: meet with Michael. We did not meet in a diner
Speaker 3: eating a Pistromi sandwich, as the HBO series indicated. But
Speaker 3: when I came in, you know, Michael showed me the
Speaker 3: scene and there was blood all over the walls and
Speaker 3: all over the floor, you know, dry blood, and you know,
Speaker 3: the immediate reaction when you saw that was Wow, something
Speaker 3: really terrible happened here. But you know what I didn't
Speaker 3: realize when I first saw that, and obviously what the
Speaker 3: police didn't realize when they first saw it, was that
Speaker 3: the scalp bleeds incredibly. It is the most vascuarized part
Speaker 3: of a human body. And so when somebody is bleeding
Speaker 3: out from deep wounds in their scalp, there is a
Speaker 3: massive amount of blood. And the massive amount of blood
Speaker 3: was not indicative of what caused the wounds. It was
Speaker 3: just indicative of the fact that the wounds bled a lot,
Speaker 3: that she was conscious for some period of time, and
Speaker 3: therefore there was blood all over. But when you first
Speaker 3: looked at it, it looked like a crime scene. I
Speaker 3: mean it did.
Speaker 2: And Michael, you were the first one to see that scene.
Speaker 2: What do you remember about walking upon that scene, that
Speaker 2: the blood seen? Kathleen there? What do you remember about that?
Speaker 4: When I came into the we'd been at the pool
Speaker 4: and then I came into the house. Uh, she had
Speaker 4: a teleconference the next morning, So I stayed outside with
Speaker 4: the dogs for a while and then came in and then
Speaker 4: I went to go in the back staircase and there
Speaker 4: she was lying there at the bottom of the stairs,
Speaker 4: and I you know, I saw the blood, but I
Speaker 4: was not it didn't I didn't focus so much on
Speaker 4: the blood as I focused on Kathleen lying on the ground.
Speaker 4: And that's when I called nine one one and infamous
Speaker 4: and nine one one call, and you know, I said,
Speaker 4: she fell down the stairs. And people asked me afterwards, well,
Speaker 4: why do you think she fell down the stairs as well?
Speaker 4: If you find somebody at the bottom of the stairs,
Speaker 4: or obvious thought is that she must have fallen. And
Speaker 4: that's what I did think.
Speaker 2: Was it surreal though, I mean to come upon that
Speaker 2: after you had had this evening together by the pool,
Speaker 2: I mean describe that.
Speaker 4: It was one of those what you know, what you know,
Speaker 4: what's going on? What happened? Uh, there's she was talking
Speaker 4: and alive, and then suddenly I walk in and she's
Speaker 4: she was dying. She was still breathing faintly, faintly, and
Speaker 4: you know, I'd seen enough death in Vietnam to know
Speaker 4: that she was dying, and so I, you know, I
Speaker 4: put her down brand of the call nine one one,
Speaker 4: ran to open the door for them and then was
Speaker 4: holding her when empt came in. And surreal, well, just shocking,
Speaker 4: I think is the better word.
Speaker 2: And so you just described you coming to Kathleen and
Speaker 2: holding Kathleen and calling out on one so you yourself, of
Speaker 2: course you're now covered in blood.
Speaker 4: Right, yeah, I suppose. I mean again, the blood was
Speaker 4: not a significant thing, you know, to me, that was it.
Speaker 4: I mean, what significant was that Kathleen was dying.
Speaker 2: David. Let's let's talk now about the investigation. Right, So
Speaker 2: we sort of set that scene. Michael calls nine to
Speaker 2: one one. Eight minutes later, paramedics show up. And then what.
Speaker 3: Well, after the paramedics showed up, First of all, there
Speaker 3: was no protecting the scene. People were walking in and out.
Speaker 3: The police showed up, and Art Holland has said that
Speaker 3: he walked into the scene and immediately came to the
Speaker 3: conclusion that this was a crime. You know, he reacted
Speaker 3: to the amount of blood at the scene, and so
Speaker 3: we have a classic case of confirmation bias and tunnel vision.
Speaker 3: He immediately forms his conclusion that there's a murder here,
Speaker 3: that there's a crime here. Who's the only person in
Speaker 3: the house. Well, it's Michael Peterson. You know. The the
Speaker 3: assumption in these situations is that the spouse must be
Speaker 3: the perpetrator. And that's where they went. It was supposed
Speaker 3: to be an investigation of what happened here, and instead
Speaker 3: there was an assumption about what happened, and then the
Speaker 3: focus became Michael is the perpetrator because there was no
Speaker 3: one else to blame.
Speaker 2: And I want to break down for listeners what you
Speaker 2: said about tunnel vision and confirmation bias, because those are
Speaker 2: two different things, but they really work hand in hand. Right,
Speaker 2: So tunnel vision, that's what you're talking about. Art Holland
Speaker 2: comes in, he sees blood. In his mind, he thinks
Speaker 2: this is a homicide, so now he is focused only
Speaker 2: on that homicide. Everything else is blacked out, Like when
Speaker 2: you enter a tunnel confirmation bias is then processing all
Speaker 2: of that information that you find through that lens, through
Speaker 2: that tunnel vision lens. And that is the way the
Speaker 2: investigation continued, not just with Art Holland, right, But then
Speaker 2: they have a so called blood spout expert I hate
Speaker 2: to even use that word, in Dwayne Deever who also
Speaker 2: shows up on the scene.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: Well, he shows up that very night, a little bit
Speaker 3: later on, and he's infected by Art Holland's tunnel vision
Speaker 3: and Art Holland's confirmation bias. So he's there not to
Speaker 3: really explore what the blood spatter means, assuming that one
Speaker 3: can even get any sort of information from that that's worthwhile.
Speaker 3: He's there to again assist Art Holland in proving that
Speaker 3: this was a murder and that Michael Peterson did it,
Speaker 3: and so he engages in what he calls pulling strings.
Speaker 2: David, let me ask you to explain that pulling strings
Speaker 2: and point of origin. I know it's very familiar to you,
Speaker 2: but explain for our listeners what that means, what it
Speaker 2: is that Dwayne Deever was trying to eve.
Speaker 3: When you have a massive blood spatter and you're trying
Speaker 3: to determine from where that spatter originated, you can take
Speaker 3: a look at the angles of the spatter on the
Speaker 3: walls and work backwards from there with various spatter selections
Speaker 3: and try to find what is called an area of origin.
Speaker 3: And that's the best that you can do. The science
Speaker 3: is absolutely clear that yes, you can do that to
Speaker 3: find an area of origin, but you can't do that
Speaker 3: to find a specific point of origin. The area of
Speaker 3: origin is going to be like twelve by eighteen inches.
Speaker 3: And the problem was if he had done that properly,
Speaker 3: the area of origin would have been the walls and
Speaker 3: the steps. Well, that wouldn't have helped our Holland's case
Speaker 3: at all. So instead what he had to do is
Speaker 3: find what he called points of origin, and that was
Speaker 3: the first step in essence framing Michael Peterson for this murder.
Speaker 2: And when we talk about origin, a point of origin
Speaker 2: or an area of origin, what you're talking about is impact.
Speaker 2: If it were a fall, at what point on the
Speaker 2: stair did her head hit at what place on the wall.
Speaker 2: That's what you're talking about.
Speaker 3: Right Exactly where did the blood start to flow.
Speaker 2: And you mentioned Art Holland coming back with a search warrant,
Speaker 2: that's another thing falling right into his tunnel vision. And
Speaker 2: this is where he went out, and he got a
Speaker 2: search warrant right away that evening, that very evening, right.
Speaker 3: Oh, within an hour, within less than an hour, that's
Speaker 3: where he was headed.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about the injuries, David, because of course
Speaker 2: there was an autopsy, and the autopsy found that this
Speaker 2: was blunt force trauma.
Speaker 3: Actually not the autopsy. Initially, what Deba Ratish found initially
Speaker 3: was that the cause of death was a loss of
Speaker 3: blood exanguination, and then we found out later from going
Speaker 3: through the file, the chief medical examiner came in and
Speaker 3: essentially told her, no, you need to put on the
Speaker 3: autopsy that the cause of death was blunt force trauma.
Speaker 3: That was not the cause of death. We all agree
Speaker 3: that what caused Kathleen's death was the loss of blood.
Speaker 3: So why all of a sudden do we have blunt
Speaker 3: force trauma as the cause of death. That is a
Speaker 3: question that I don't think has ever been satisfactorily answered.
Speaker 2: Well, and you know, you talk about tunnel vision, you
Speaker 2: talk about it infecting other people. This is yet another example.
Speaker 2: So initially Debora Ratic says cause of death is blood loss.
Speaker 2: Then she later changes it to blunt force trauma. But
Speaker 2: there were problems with that being the cause of death,
Speaker 2: right because blunt force trauma usually has some well known
Speaker 2: associated conditions, right like subdural hematoma, edema. None of that
Speaker 2: existed here.
Speaker 3: Kathleen didn't have any of the injuries that are normally
Speaker 3: associated with blunt force trauma. She had no injuries to
Speaker 3: her brain, There was no subdual there were no contusions
Speaker 3: to the brain, there were no fractures on her arms.
Speaker 3: There was nothing that was consistent with blunt force trauma.
Speaker 3: So when you look at that, you say to yourself, Okay,
Speaker 3: how is that possible? How is it possible that none
Speaker 3: of the things that I know as a lawyer are
Speaker 3: normally associated with blunt force trauma are there? And so
Speaker 3: I say, okay, well, let's take a look at all
Speaker 3: the autopsies going back ten years and see if we
Speaker 3: can find even one other, even one other which had
Speaker 3: none of those injuries. And so that's what we did,
Speaker 3: and in fact, there was not a single other blunt
Speaker 3: force trauma death that didn't have at least one and
Speaker 3: often several of those kinds of injuries. Kathleen Peterson was
Speaker 3: the only case in the previous ten years where they
Speaker 3: claimed blunt force trauma was the cause of death, but
Speaker 3: there were none of those associated injuries.
Speaker 2: And we'll talk about the trial in a little bit,
Speaker 2: but back to the investigation. Michael, do you remember talking
Speaker 2: to investigators that night on December ninth, two thousand and one, Oh, yes, I'd.
Speaker 4: Be right away. You know. They came in and my
Speaker 4: son Todd arrived with his girlfriend Nigman at a party
Speaker 4: rated everybody, and it was Todd who instantly simply because
Speaker 4: of that and also the way that they were just acting.
Speaker 4: He picked up right away. He said, Dad, they're trying
Speaker 4: to get you. And that didn't make any sense to me.
Speaker 4: Number One, I was in shock and tu but why?
Speaker 4: So he called my brother who was an attorney in
Speaker 4: Reno and for which later was like, oh, we lawyered up.
Speaker 4: But my brother Bill talked to Holland and said, do
Speaker 4: not question Michael Peterson. I would have been happy to
Speaker 4: answer anything. I had to cooperate it. That's the only
Speaker 4: reason why not. And Holland kept trying to do that,
Speaker 4: put his arm around me, and Todd said no, Dad, no, no,
Speaker 4: don't talk. Not just snap me out of it. And
Speaker 4: I realized, oh yeah, they really are definitely out to
Speaker 4: get me.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about your arrest now. Because it wasn't immediate.
Speaker 2: I mean, this was December ninth, two thousand and one,
Speaker 2: but sounds like you were well aware that eyes were
Speaker 2: on you. Tell me about when you got arrested, what happened.
Speaker 4: David wanted me to go to Charlotte or at least
Speaker 4: get out of Durham because he knew the arrest was coming.
Speaker 4: But all I could think was the ray Caruth case
Speaker 4: in which she had fled. As a matter of fact,
Speaker 4: I said, no, if they're going to arrest me, they're
Speaker 4: going to arrest me, I'll surrender if this is what
Speaker 4: they want. So I made the decision that I would
Speaker 4: go to the courthouse and surrender for that, and I
Speaker 4: was put in jail for two weeks.
Speaker 2: David, what do you remember about that, because by now
Speaker 2: you were hired, right, I was.
Speaker 3: Hired relatively early on, before the case even went to
Speaker 3: a grand jury. What I was originally talking to Michael
Speaker 3: about was the fact that I was afraid that the
Speaker 3: police are going to just swoop in before we had
Speaker 3: a chance to arrange a surrender. Because surrenders get arranged.
Speaker 3: I was able to reach the district attorney's office. We
Speaker 3: were able to arrange a time for Michael to show
Speaker 3: up and surrender himself. And part the reason to do
Speaker 3: that is because it helps to set up the bail situation,
Speaker 3: and eventually we were able to get a judge to
Speaker 3: set a bond for Michael that Michael could make, which
Speaker 3: is an enormously helpful thing. If your client is in
Speaker 3: it makes the case much more difficult to defend.
Speaker 2: So December twentieth two thousand and one is when Michael
Speaker 2: was charged with first degree murder and then released in January.
Speaker 2: So now's January two thousand and two. The trial is
Speaker 2: a little more than a year in two thousand and three, David,
Speaker 2: can you talk about the two theories at trial? What
Speaker 2: was the state's case? What was your case?
Speaker 3: Our case was sort of set from the very beginning
Speaker 3: when Michael said she's fallen down the stairs, because that
Speaker 3: was the logical conclusion. Everything that Michael told me from
Speaker 3: the first day that I met him always checked out.
Speaker 3: And so yeah, I would go and talk with Michael
Speaker 3: and he says, well, you know, we were watching a movie,
Speaker 3: America's Sweethearts, and we get the receipt from Blockbuster which
Speaker 3: shows that he rented that movie that day. He says, well,
Speaker 3: Todd and his friend the Doctor, stopped by the house
Speaker 3: around ten o'clock on their way to a party. So
Speaker 3: I called the doctor and she confirms everything was exactly normal.
Speaker 3: They were watching a movie. Everything was absolutely normal. Michael
Speaker 3: was normal, Kathleen was normal. There was no tension, you know.
Speaker 3: Michael tells me that he had a wonderful relationship with Kathleen.
Speaker 3: We interview all of their friends. Every single one of
Speaker 3: them confirms that. So literally every fact that Michael told
Speaker 3: me I was able to confirm. So for me, that
Speaker 3: was the end of the matter. It was okay, she
Speaker 3: fell down the stairs. And for me it was then
Speaker 3: a question of how do we explain all the blood
Speaker 3: to a jury, because that was the big problem. The police,
Speaker 3: of course, had their own theory, and that was that
Speaker 3: Michael somehow beat her to death, although they didn't have
Speaker 3: a murder weapon for probably a year, so their theory
Speaker 3: had had its problems. Of course, our problem was the
Speaker 3: amount of blood and the spread of the blood over
Speaker 3: the walls.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about the States case. Let's first start
Speaker 2: with Dwayne Defe because I think it's fair to say
Speaker 2: that Deaver was the lynchpin for the state. Would you
Speaker 2: agree with that.
Speaker 3: No doubt about it. I mean, Dever was the person
Speaker 3: who he was the only person who could put a
Speaker 3: weapon in Michael's hand as explaining the injuries and the blood.
Speaker 3: That's what he was there for. And indeed he was
Speaker 3: the person who established that it was first degree because
Speaker 3: his opinion was that there was some period of time
Speaker 3: between the first blows and what he described as the
Speaker 3: second blows, so that's where the state argued the premeditation occurred.
Speaker 3: So Diver was responsible for the overall theory and for
Speaker 3: the specific theory regarding first degree. He was their case
Speaker 3: to create what he called experiments, which weren't experiments at all.
Speaker 3: They were attempts to recreate certain facts that he saw
Speaker 3: in the scene in a way that would implicate Michael.
Speaker 3: They were almost cartoonish when you first looked at them,
Speaker 3: but they videotape these, and the police obviously relied on them.
Speaker 3: The DA relied on them, and the DA showed them
Speaker 3: a trial, which was sort of a surprise to me
Speaker 3: because I found them to be almost laughable. But apparently
Speaker 3: the jury didn't well.
Speaker 2: And when you say laughable, I mean, look, I know
Speaker 2: this is not a laughing matter. But seriously, he had
Speaker 2: like a foam skull, and he put a sponge on
Speaker 2: top of the skull and climbed up a ladder and
Speaker 2: put like the skull up top and then dropped it
Speaker 2: after putting some red stuff on the sponge to see
Speaker 2: what would happen.
Speaker 3: Right exactly exactly. And of course that experiment didn't go
Speaker 3: well for him because it didn't prove what he wanted
Speaker 3: it to prove. His big success. His huge success was
Speaker 3: quote proving that the blood spatter on the inside of
Speaker 3: Michael's shorts came from a blow to the head, and
Speaker 3: he spent hours trying to create that situation, and when
Speaker 3: he was finally able to after multiple attempts, you see
Speaker 3: his assistant in the background doing a little victory dance,
Speaker 3: like she scored a touchdown in a football game. And
Speaker 3: that was the tip off to me that this was
Speaker 3: all about proving a certain thing, not about finding out
Speaker 3: what happened.
Speaker 2: So we can call that junk science, no doubt.
Speaker 3: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: There was also Deborah Ratish. We talked about what she
Speaker 2: found in the autopsy, and you present entered her at
Speaker 2: trial with volume upon volume upon volume of the autopsies
Speaker 2: from blunt force trauma deaths over the previous ten years,
Speaker 2: none of which looked anything like Kathleen. So I think
Speaker 2: those are sort of that let's call them the heavyweights,
Speaker 2: the state expert types. But there were other critical pieces
Speaker 2: of evidence that came into the trial that were entirely unfair,
Speaker 2: as later acknowledged by the judge. And let's start with Germany.
Speaker 2: So Michael earlier, we talked about Elizabeth Ratliffe and George Ratliffe,
Speaker 2: and you mentioned that Elizabeth passed away. One thing I
Speaker 2: have come to just get my hairs up about is
Speaker 2: every time someone says Elizabeth Ratliffe was found at the
Speaker 2: bottom of the staircase, the fact of the matter is
Speaker 2: that's not quite true. I was a reporter. I went
Speaker 2: to Germany. I saw that condo or that little home.
Speaker 2: You walk in the door, there's a little step up,
Speaker 2: and then there's a staircase. And she was found like
Speaker 2: on that little step up. So she could have been
Speaker 2: walking in the door and fall down. I mean, there
Speaker 2: was there was no evidence that she fell down the stairs.
Speaker 2: But yet you did have this death in Germany, a
Speaker 2: woman that you knew, whose children you were now raising,
Speaker 2: and she was someone who I believe you were one
Speaker 2: of the first people to see upon her death. Is
Speaker 2: that right?
Speaker 4: Her nanny was the first one. She had been going
Speaker 4: for the weekend and came back to the house and
Speaker 4: opened the door and found Liz there, and she immediately
Speaker 4: ran over to our house. We lived one hundred and
Speaker 4: two hundred yards away. I was a slave. Patty was
Speaker 4: getting up because Patty and Liz were going to go
Speaker 4: to school together and drive together. So Patty was you know,
Speaker 4: woke me up and said something happened to Liz. So
Speaker 4: Patty ran over first, and then and I was maybe
Speaker 4: three or four minutes later I came on the scene.
Speaker 2: And let's talk about the scene. The fact that there
Speaker 2: was no blood, the fact that there was no evidence
Speaker 2: of an intruder. This was not a scene at all
Speaker 2: like the scene where Kathleen was found.
Speaker 4: Fair oh, fair, right. And what had happened right away
Speaker 4: was that Barbara, who was the nanny, called German nine
Speaker 4: to one one and the German police immediately came along
Speaker 4: with a medical doctor, and the German doctor did a
Speaker 4: spinal tap and the German doctor said this woman had
Speaker 4: a stroke, and then the body was brought to Frankfurt
Speaker 4: General Medical the Center and thoughts apsy was done on Liz,
Speaker 4: and the pathologist there said that she had had a stroke.
Speaker 4: So at the time, and because Liz had been complaining
Speaker 4: for days and even called her mother and said this,
Speaker 4: I'm having the worst headaches I've had in my life.
Speaker 4: So when it was said that she had a stroke,
Speaker 4: everyone accepted, well, of course she had a stroke, and
Speaker 4: that's what I and everybody believed at the time.
Speaker 2: And the prosecution finds out about this. Now, first of all, David,
Speaker 2: you were aware of this when you started representing Michael.
Speaker 2: This didn't get thrown on you by either the media
Speaker 2: or the prosecution. You were well aware of this when
Speaker 2: before Michael's trout right.
Speaker 3: You know it was it was always stroke. But Ron Jurrett,
Speaker 3: who was a former police officer, as soon as he
Speaker 3: learned that her body had been found where it was,
Speaker 3: he said, the police are going to try to use this,
Speaker 3: The DA is going to try to use this, and
Speaker 3: so literally, within the first few months of us being involved,
Speaker 3: Ron and I flew to Germany and we investigated it.
Speaker 3: We spoke with the prosecutor, we spoke with the doctor,
Speaker 3: we spoke with the Army CID agent, we got his report,
Speaker 3: we looked through the German files. Everyone agreed.
Speaker 2: So the first issue is that, yes, the state learned
Speaker 2: about this. Yes, the state tried to get in, and
Speaker 2: they did get it in at trial, and you were
Speaker 2: therefore forced to Rebut all of this evidence, let's talk
Speaker 2: about those witnesses that the state brought forth. First of all,
Speaker 2: who were they and how were they treated by the
Speaker 2: prosecution when they showed up in Durham, David Well.
Speaker 3: They consisted, I believe, of three women, one of whom
Speaker 3: Barbara Magnino was the nanny who never ever raised anything
Speaker 3: about Liz's death being suspicious, but now, of course, in retrospect,
Speaker 3: given Kathleen's death, convinced that there must have been something
Speaker 3: going on, and she now remembers all this blood all over.
Speaker 3: And then there was another witness, Mary Beth Burner I
Speaker 3: think was her name, and she came in. She'd initially
Speaker 3: given a statement to Art Holland which didn't even mention
Speaker 3: Michael when she talked about the death of Liz, didn't
Speaker 3: even mention him. Now she comes in and she's had
Speaker 3: what she calls it flashbacks where she sees blood all
Speaker 3: over and Michael's acting suspicious, and Michael calls it a
Speaker 3: stroke before the doctor gets there, and all of this nonsense.
Speaker 4: Interrupt for just one thing. On the witnesses those were
Speaker 4: friends of mine and Patty's, and to this day I
Speaker 4: do not understand why they did that. I mean, they
Speaker 4: just totally made up that blood stuff. And it was
Speaker 4: one of the more heartbreaking things to Patty that her
Speaker 4: friends had said that out of nowhere, and this was
Speaker 4: twenty years later, and it was all false.
Speaker 2: So in addition to the evidence the state brought in
Speaker 2: about Elizabeth Ratliffe, including much of the false evidence, they
Speaker 2: brought in another piece of the state's case that I
Speaker 2: think was really prejudicial and has been acknowledged as such
Speaker 2: was your bisexuality, Michael and these emails that were found.
Speaker 2: They said it countered your argument that he had a
Speaker 2: perfect relationship with Kathleen, right, like that was the legal
Speaker 2: basis for getting it in.
Speaker 3: That was the legal basis for getting it in, according
Speaker 3: to the judge. But by the time FREDA. Black got
Speaker 3: up in her closing argument, it was nothing about that.
Speaker 3: It was all about how you know, what Michael was
Speaker 3: doing was pure te filth, and how he was a pervert,
Speaker 3: and that was the argument. And that's really why they
Speaker 3: put it in.
Speaker 2: Right, And that's what you do right when your other
Speaker 2: evidence is weak. So let's talk about your case though,
Speaker 2: because you also put on a case. Just quickly run
Speaker 2: through for me who you put on and why what
Speaker 2: your goal was put it on a defense case?
Speaker 3: Sure, well, our defense was to counter the expert evidence,
Speaker 3: and so had we had two blood spatter crime seen
Speaker 3: people Henry Lee and his associate who contradicted Dwayne Devers' testimony.
Speaker 3: And we had a biomechanical expert who was an expert
Speaker 3: in head injuries, and he testified about how this could
Speaker 3: have happened. And indeed, we had an animation to show
Speaker 3: how this could have happened, because it was difficult to
Speaker 3: picture how the falls took place without having seen it,
Speaker 3: and so that's what we did, and I thought it
Speaker 3: was a very persuasive animation to explain the injuries on
Speaker 3: Kathleen's head.
Speaker 2: So again those injuries that was problematic for the state,
Speaker 2: as well as the fact that they didn't have a
Speaker 2: murder weapon until, as you put it, maybe a year later,
Speaker 2: which they determined to be a blowpoke, which by the way,
Speaker 2: they didn't even have to show the jury at the
Speaker 2: beginning of the trial, right.
Speaker 3: Right, they came in with the Candace's blowpoke and said, see,
Speaker 3: this is what Michael had in his house. It's mysteriously
Speaker 3: missing and it was always there before, according to Candace,
Speaker 3: and now it's missing, and this must be the murder
Speaker 3: weapon because it's light and it's stiff, and it wouldn't
Speaker 3: crack her skull or cause brain injuries, but it would
Speaker 3: cause the kind of injuries to the scalp that she had.
Speaker 3: That was Deborah Radish's testimony, which was completely false, as
Speaker 3: we proved later on when we were able to actually
Speaker 3: find the blowpoke in a corner where the police had
Speaker 3: put it, not recognizing that it was even relevant.
Speaker 2: At the time you mentioned Candace and Michael, you had
Speaker 2: mentioned Candace as well. Candace Zamparini was Kathleen's sister. She
Speaker 2: became a very important person in this case in terms
Speaker 2: of I would say a player for the prosecution. Would
Speaker 2: that be a good way to characterize her? Yes, What
Speaker 2: was your relationship with Candace before Michael?
Speaker 4: There was a lot of jealousy between the sisters, and
Speaker 4: many times they came to visit us, and we grew
Speaker 4: up to visit. I can remember a couple of times
Speaker 4: they would be fighting and her husband and I would
Speaker 4: has sort of rolled her eyes saying, oh my god.
Speaker 4: But it was a good relationship. And when Kathleen died,
Speaker 4: she was right there. She took over everything, arranged funeral, cemetery,
Speaker 4: plot everything, and then it became very bad because the
Speaker 4: police convinced her that I had killed Kathleen, and I
Speaker 4: understood that. Why then her sentiments changed and she really
Speaker 4: hated me in the same sense if somebody had come
Speaker 4: to me and said the police had said, oh, this
Speaker 4: person kills your brother, well I would have hated that person,
Speaker 4: no question about that.
Speaker 2: Michael, you said, the police convinced Candace that you killed Kathleen,
Speaker 2: But it was actually the prosecutors and not just Candace
Speaker 2: but also Caitlin, Kathleen's daughter. What the prosecutors did was
Speaker 2: flat out wrong. It was improper. I mean, the prosecution
Speaker 2: essentially formed Team State of North Carolina using Kathleen's own kin.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So initially Candae was very supportive of Michael, as
Speaker 3: was Caitlyn. Both of them said to me, there's no
Speaker 3: way that Michael would have done this, no way. Indeed,
Speaker 3: Caitlyn was the family spokesperson when Michael was first let
Speaker 3: out of jail, and she said that to the media.
Speaker 3: So what change. What change was the police and prosecutors
Speaker 3: brought them in, showed them the photographs, and had Deborah
Speaker 3: Ratish explained to them that these were clearly the result
Speaker 3: of an attack, a homicidal attack, and that changed everything.
Speaker 2: So let's go back to the trial, the state puts
Speaker 2: on their case, you put on your case, they rebt
Speaker 2: you rebut right, and then the jury goes out and
Speaker 2: they deliberate for a week. So Michael, I want to
Speaker 2: talk about when the jury returned and what it was
Speaker 2: like for you when you heard the verdict.
Speaker 4: Well, again, it had been days and days that they
Speaker 4: were out and we had to stay in the courtroom.
Speaker 4: So Margaret and Martha and Todd and Clayton, we were
Speaker 4: all there together, and I don't think I'm going to
Speaker 4: be convicted. I just don't think it's going to happen.
Speaker 4: And of course the next day when they came in,
Speaker 4: I stood up and they said guilty. It was shocked,
Speaker 4: it really was. But you know, it's not the first
Speaker 4: shock I've had in my life. And I immediately thought
Speaker 4: of my children, thought, oh, oh, oh god, what this
Speaker 4: does to them after all that they've suffered and lost,
Speaker 4: you know. So I turned to them and I said,
Speaker 4: it's okay. Uh. It wasn't later when I was locked
Speaker 4: up in a cell in the basement, Oh my god,
Speaker 4: what happened.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: I've lost my family, I've lost my everything, everything. And
Speaker 4: then it really hit at the time it was like
Speaker 4: just getting to blow guilty.
Speaker 2: And let's talk about prison. I mean, you went from
Speaker 2: you know, that blow in the courtroom and the shock
Speaker 2: and trying to process with your family to then immediately
Speaker 2: being taken to prison. What was that experience like?
Speaker 4: Prison was? I think for me a little different in
Speaker 4: the fact that I was really famous. Everybody had watched
Speaker 4: this even in prison, they were watching court TV and
Speaker 4: the news, so everybody knew who I was when I
Speaker 4: got there. And the fact that I was old sixty
Speaker 4: eight or something.
Speaker 3: Oh you were fifty eight. You were fifty eight, fifty.
Speaker 4: Eight fifty eight, where I felt like sixty eight. I
Speaker 4: taught ged for a couple of years, earning a dollar
Speaker 4: a day and got seventy five guys their GEDs. I
Speaker 4: was doing everything I could stay busy and keep my
Speaker 4: mind off the tragedy of losing, you know, my children
Speaker 4: and everything. So again, life, you know, whether it's war
Speaker 4: or anything, it it's pretty much what you make of it.
Speaker 4: And I had decided right away, well, okay, this is it.
Speaker 4: I'll just make the best of it, and so I did.
Speaker 2: And meantime, on the outside, there's the appeal process going on. David,
Speaker 2: can you just briefly walk us through direct appeal post conviction.
Speaker 2: What happened.
Speaker 3: Well, on the direct appeal, we were pretty confident because
Speaker 3: number one, they had introduced evidence pursuing to a search
Speaker 3: warrant which was completely insufficient. FREDA. Black had made arguments
Speaker 3: and closing that were completely improper. So we were optimistic
Speaker 3: that the verdict was going to be reversed. And then
Speaker 3: they decided, well, all of that was just harmless error
Speaker 3: that wouldn't have affected the verdict. And then what happened
Speaker 3: was that Dwayne Diaver was exposed as a fraud, not
Speaker 3: in this case, but in the Greg Taylor case. And
Speaker 3: once that happened, then I saw an avenue for a
Speaker 3: post conviction petition that would succeed because Dwayne Diaver was
Speaker 3: in fact the lynchpin of the case. And so that's
Speaker 3: where we went.
Speaker 2: And so when you say Dwayne Diver was exposed to
Speaker 2: be a fraud, let's put a fine point on that, right.
Speaker 2: It was more than being a fraud. I mean he
Speaker 2: was not passing confirmatory reports on it was preliminary reports.
Speaker 2: He was doing these made up experiments. I mean, explain
Speaker 2: what you mean by that?
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I was being too kind, He was a liar,
Speaker 3: He was someone who was hiding exculpatory evidence. He was,
Speaker 3: in essence, setting up people by his lab results in
Speaker 3: case after case after case, to the extent that the
Speaker 3: State of North Carolina had to hire two former FBI
Speaker 3: agents to come in and audit the lab, and as
Speaker 3: a result of that, they shut down the blood spatter
Speaker 3: division of the lab because it was rife with inaccuracies.
Speaker 3: And so once we had all of that, we were
Speaker 3: able to go back. And you know, Michael had from
Speaker 3: the start was in favor of the documentary being made
Speaker 3: because he felt like it would level the playing field.
Speaker 3: I don't mean to speak for you, Michael, but you
Speaker 3: know I think that was your thought, was that, hey,
Speaker 3: having these award winning Academy Award winning documentarians there would
Speaker 3: keep things a little bit more honest. We were able
Speaker 3: to get all the clips from the French filmmakers of
Speaker 3: divers testimony, and that had a very visceral effect, I
Speaker 3: think on the judge, because it's one thing to read
Speaker 3: it in the transcript, it's quite another thing to watch
Speaker 3: this guy on the witness stand where you're the judge
Speaker 3: and he's lying to you. And to the jury, and
Speaker 3: that was extremely powerful. So I think in fact, Michael's
Speaker 3: instinct of having those filmmakers there is what ultimately enabled
Speaker 3: us to get him.
Speaker 2: At and ultimately what your emotion was. Your motion for
Speaker 2: a new trial was based on the fact that there
Speaker 2: had been false and misleading testimony, a fabricated evidence, and
Speaker 2: Michael deserved a new.
Speaker 3: Trial, exactly, exactly right.
Speaker 2: What's so interesting about that is a lot of times
Speaker 2: in cases of wrongful convictions, we looked to the thing
Speaker 2: that made a difference, right, it was DNA testing. It
Speaker 2: was a tape that turned up and someone saw the
Speaker 2: real perpetrator or someone finally confessed. And here what I
Speaker 2: hear both of you saying is it was the documentary.
Speaker 2: So Hudson's ruling, Mike, what was that like? What was
Speaker 2: it like to hear him say you get a new trial?
Speaker 2: What was that like?
Speaker 4: Oh, Jesus, it's like being resurrected almost. I'm not sure
Speaker 4: how it Lazarus felt, but when you're gone and have
Speaker 4: lost everything and suddenly someone returns your life to you
Speaker 4: and there were my children in court and it was there.
Speaker 4: Oh my god, it was it was just it wasn't
Speaker 4: ventication so much as it was just getting life back.
Speaker 2: And at the time, I mean, everyone was ready to
Speaker 2: dismiss the charges. I think, if I remember right, Judge
Speaker 2: Hudson was ready to do it. Frankly, I think the
Speaker 2: DA was. But then in step Candae Zamporini and her sister.
Speaker 2: What happened then, David.
Speaker 3: Everyone was done with this case, you know, and everybody
Speaker 3: realized that the trial hadn't been fair, that this Germany
Speaker 3: stuff should have never come in, that was a farce,
Speaker 3: that the sexuality stuff should have never come in. They
Speaker 3: now didn't have the blood spatter expert anymore. I mean,
Speaker 3: how are they going to proceed? They had no evidence
Speaker 3: at that point, so I think Judge Hudson fully expected
Speaker 3: the prosecutor say we don't have enough to proceed. I
Speaker 3: think the DA was hoping to say that. But Candace
Speaker 3: and Laurie, the two sisters, were adamant that they objected
Speaker 3: to that. But the DA was not willing to do
Speaker 3: the right thing over the objections of these two women.
Speaker 3: And when you watch Candace's venom at the ultimate Alford
Speaker 3: Plea hearing, I guess you can sort of understand why,
Speaker 3: because she was beyond beyond the pale in how venomous
Speaker 3: she was.
Speaker 2: So after the new trial is granted, of course, the
Speaker 2: state appealed and lost their appeal, and oftentimes what happens
Speaker 2: is then everything's dismissed. That didn't happen here. You mentioned
Speaker 2: the Alford plea. Michael, talk to me a little bit
Speaker 2: about why you were okay with an Alford plea and
Speaker 2: how it was explained to you.
Speaker 4: Well, when I got out of prison, I believe I
Speaker 4: was sixty eight at the time, and I weren't ankle
Speaker 4: brace for god two years. So I lived with this
Speaker 4: for the longest time. I'm getting older and older. So
Speaker 4: when it finally came when David worked out this offered plea,
Speaker 4: and again I wasn't convinced that the jury would find
Speaker 4: me not guilty. Again, I mean, you know burn once
Speaker 4: you're a little leary. The second time I was with
Speaker 4: my children, I had, you know, a life, I was
Speaker 4: writing and everything was good. Did I want to risk that.
Speaker 4: I did not want to go through that for myself
Speaker 4: or especially for my children, and then to bring my
Speaker 4: grandchildren into help, we'd still be fighting this thing. So no,
Speaker 4: just just ended.
Speaker 2: David, just for the listeners, just break down an Alford plea,
Speaker 2: Why it exists, What it means.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Well, what it is is a way of resolving
Speaker 3: a case without the defendant admitting to the essential facts.
Speaker 3: So it's essentially a mechanism where everybody can declare victory
Speaker 3: or defeat equally and the case just ends. And Michael
Speaker 3: was adam in about two things. Number one was that
Speaker 3: he would never say that he had killed Kathleen. Absolutely,
Speaker 3: would never say anything close to that. And number two,
Speaker 3: he would not go back into incarceration even for ten minutes.
Speaker 3: In other words, he had to be released and the
Speaker 3: case had to be over right then and there. He
Speaker 3: wasn't going to go back to the jail to be processed.
Speaker 3: Those are my marching orders. And once the prosecution agreed
Speaker 3: to both of those things, as I said to Michael, Okay,
Speaker 3: so if we go back to trial and you're found
Speaker 3: not guilty, is that going to change anybody's mind who's
Speaker 3: already decided you're guilty. No. If you take an offered play,
Speaker 3: is that going to convince anybody who believes you're innocent
Speaker 3: that you're guilty. No. So there was no practical res
Speaker 3: easy to go back to trial. Nothing would change at
Speaker 3: that point, and as Michael said, he was older, he
Speaker 3: had grandchildren, and it was time to put this to rest.
Speaker 2: And so, Michael, what have you been doing with your
Speaker 2: life since finally putting this to rest?
Speaker 4: I've been writingta God on two four books, five books,
Speaker 4: you know, since then, since I got out, I've traveled
Speaker 4: and plan to do more of it and plan to
Speaker 4: continue writing. I told my children over and over, hey,
Speaker 4: don't hate. That's just the most useless destructive emotion that
Speaker 4: you can have. So just get over it and live
Speaker 4: the life that you can now. I mean, you got today,
Speaker 4: so uh, live today. And that's you know what I've
Speaker 4: been doing.
Speaker 2: What about?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 2: A closing argument for listeners here, What do you want
Speaker 2: to say to folks, Michael about your experience about your case?
Speaker 2: Can they learn learn from it? What would you want
Speaker 2: to leave people with?
Speaker 4: I think what what to me boils down to as
Speaker 4: a matter of having an open mind. You know, back
Speaker 4: in the old days, you know, if the police had
Speaker 4: arrested somebody or shot somebody, well they were right, of course,
Speaker 4: you know. We just believed that then. Uh, and I
Speaker 4: probably did myself, as you know, rich white guy, we
Speaker 4: don't believe that anymore times have changed. What you believe
Speaker 4: isn't necessarily true. What you've been told isn't necessarily true.
Speaker 4: You need to think. And people aren't really comfortable with that.
Speaker 4: They like the oh no, it's got to be this
Speaker 4: way or that way, this Kirkergardian either or well, it
Speaker 4: really isn't that. It's all sort of gray. So think
Speaker 4: and keep an open mind.
Speaker 2: And David, what about you, you know, I mean, on
Speaker 2: abuse of power are podcast, we talk about a lot
Speaker 2: of the issues that were at play in this case,
Speaker 2: all sorts of misconduct, junkt science, tutle vision and confirmation bias,
Speaker 2: all of that in Michael's case, in this experience, what's
Speaker 2: the word? What's the thought? You want to leave with listeners.
Speaker 3: What Michael's case illustrates is how fundamentally flawed the criminal
Speaker 3: justice system is and how someone like Michael, who never
Speaker 3: had done anything criminal in his life could suddenly find
Speaker 3: himself convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life
Speaker 3: in prison based on the testimony of Dwayne Deaver. Is
Speaker 3: a wake up call. And so what I've tried to
Speaker 3: do since then is to broaden my message, you know,
Speaker 3: not just to talk to juries in particular cases, but
Speaker 3: through the podcast, through a book I've just written to
Speaker 3: try to educate people about the flaws in the system.
Speaker 3: And as Michael said, you need to keep an open
Speaker 3: mind because things are not always as they seem, and
Speaker 3: indeed there's lots and lots of gray in the world
Speaker 3: and in the criminal justice system.
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'm your guest host,
Speaker 2: Sonya Pfeiffer. I'd like to thank our executive producers Jason
Speaker 2: Flahm and Kevin Wardis. The senior producer for this episode
Speaker 2: is Jackie Paully, and our producers are Lyla Robinson and
Speaker 2: Jeff Cliburn. Our editor is Roxandra Guidi. The music in
Speaker 2: this production is by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph.
Speaker 2: You can find the podcast I make with David Abuse
Speaker 2: of Power on Audible That's at Audible UK. Follow the
Speaker 2: show on Twitter at Abuse of Power Pod. You can
Speaker 2: follow me on Instagram at Sonya Pfeiffer and on Twitter
Speaker 2: at Feifer Sonia. David is on both platforms as David S. Rudolph.
Speaker 2: Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction
Speaker 2: on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast and on Twitter at
Speaker 2: wrong Conviction, as well as at Lava for Good on
Speaker 2: all three platforms. Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava
Speaker 2: for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number one.
Speaker 1: Next week, on the guest hosted episode of Wrongful Conviction,
Speaker 1: Pulitzer Prise finalist and co host of the podcast, ear
Speaker 1: Hustle Earle on Wood, my friend Earl on Woods is
Speaker 1: going to talk to an Axonery that he met while
Speaker 1: still serving time at San Quentin. Prison Erlon will talk
Speaker 1: with Karamut Conley about the wild twists and turns of
Speaker 1: the California justice system and their shared experience of life
Speaker 1: behind bars. This is a must listen episode. Tune in
Speaker 1: next week. It's going to be Monday. In the Wrongful
Speaker 1: Conviction podcast feed,