Speaker 1: Hey, it's Connor Hall, senior producer for Wrongful Conviction with
Speaker 1: some more case updates and behind the scenes insights. And
Speaker 1: there's a case that began back in twenty fourteen. This
Speaker 1: is the summer after Trayvon Martin's killer was acquitted. And
Speaker 1: then you had Michael Brown and Ferguson Missouri, and simultaneously
Speaker 1: you had revelations about powerful men using their positions of
Speaker 1: power for sex. And in the midst of that June eighteenth,
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen, Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzklaw pulled over
Speaker 1: a swerving automobile and found some empty pill bottles. Now
Speaker 1: following that interaction came accusations of sexual assault, importantly that
Speaker 1: were not corroborated by a rape kit. Additionally, the accuser
Speaker 1: described a different officer, and rather than reviewing the surveillance
Speaker 1: footage of the stop that occurred not in a quiet
Speaker 1: cul de sac but rather at a busy intersection, investigators
Speaker 1: took this opportunity to go fishing for other allegations against
Speaker 1: Daniel Holt's claw from specifically African American women with pending
Speaker 1: criminal charges, and they found twenty one others with similar
Speaker 1: complaints but were they about Daniel. One thing was for certain.
Speaker 1: This slew of stories looked like evidence of a serial
Speaker 1: rapist in blue. But right off the bat, eight of
Speaker 1: those stories were disregarded. Then thirteen went to trial and
Speaker 1: only eight led to convictions. Perhaps this was an instance
Speaker 1: where so much smoke must have meant fire, because even
Speaker 1: in these cases we see victims describing officers who were
Speaker 1: definitely not Daniel, as well as scenarios where Daniel could
Speaker 1: not have been present or there was some other dubious detail.
Speaker 1: Now we believe many of these allegations are credible, but
Speaker 1: that Daniel Holt's Claw just became a patsy for a
Speaker 1: jurisdiction that appears to be plagued by sexual violence at
Speaker 1: the hands of police, while the accusers received leniency in
Speaker 1: their pending charges for going along with the narrative. Since
Speaker 1: our coverage in twenty nineteen, all thirteen of those that
Speaker 1: went to trial brought a civil suit against the city,
Speaker 1: the detectives, and Daniel, which all came to interesting conclusions,
Speaker 1: including depositions that exonerated Daniel, as well as a paltry
Speaker 1: settlement from the city for the accusers. While the suit
Speaker 1: against Daniel got dropped, and perhaps after you hear this
Speaker 1: new edit, as well as some of that deposition audio,
Speaker 1: it might become more clear as to why.
Speaker 2: At two am on June eighteenth, twenty fourteen, Oklahoma City
Speaker 2: police officer Daniel Holsclaw finished up his shift. On his
Speaker 2: way home in his police cruiser, he pulled over fifty
Speaker 2: seven year old Jannyliggins for a traffic violation at a
Speaker 2: busy intersection where surveillance footage shows a normal traffic stop.
Speaker 2: Around three hours later, Mims Liggans filed the complaint, claiming
Speaker 2: that an officer forced her into oralsodomy. Her mouth swab
Speaker 2: came up empty for Daniel's DNA, as did his uniform
Speaker 2: for hers, but this allegation inexplicably launched an investigation focused
Speaker 2: on at risk African American women that Daniel had made
Speaker 2: contact with, bringing forth twenty one alleged victims, including one man.
Speaker 2: Daniel became a rallying cry for everyone who doesn't want
Speaker 2: to see any cop abusing their power or sexually assaulting women.
Speaker 2: It all seemed to fit a grim and growing narrative,
Speaker 2: and a media circus ensued. In this amazing and alarming episode,
Speaker 2: we will speak with Daniel's sister, Jennifer Holsklaw, biologist Erika Feusch,
Speaker 2: and will also take a phone call from an undisclosed
Speaker 2: correctional facility from former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holsklaw,
Speaker 2: who is currently serving a two hundred and sixty three
Speaker 2: year prison sentence in a maximum security prison under assumed
Speaker 2: name for crimes he did not commit. This is wrongful conviction.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to wrongful Conviction. Today we're going to be
Speaker 2: talking about the case of Daniel Holsklaw, a former police
Speaker 2: officer from Oklahoma City, wrongfully convicted. He's on the phone.
Speaker 2: So Daniel, I'm sorry you're here, but I'm glad you're
Speaker 2: on the phone.
Speaker 3: I appreciate having.
Speaker 4: Me on and my loved one. Letn't be able to
Speaker 4: have the opportunity and definitely big one about.
Speaker 2: It, express my indet Well, we hope to be part
Speaker 2: of the solution. And with us in the studio, we
Speaker 2: have two extraordinary women. One is a biologist, Erica Fusch.
Speaker 2: Welcome to the show, Thank you, Jason, and with her
Speaker 2: is one of the most persistent and brave women I've
Speaker 2: come across, the sister of Daniel. Jennifer's here and without you,
Speaker 2: I can honestly say this wouldn't be happening.
Speaker 5: Thank you for giving us the time.
Speaker 2: And this whole thing happened in twenty fourteen, which was
Speaker 2: a very fraught time, shall we say, a lot of
Speaker 2: traversy around Ferguson and other which you know continues to
Speaker 2: this day. Of course, the person to.
Speaker 4: What happened then, the Baltimore deal was going on there,
Speaker 4: so it was literally eye of the storm.
Speaker 2: It was rough, and this was a national news story, international,
Speaker 2: I guess right. And at the time, and I'm really
Speaker 2: sorry to say this, Daniel, but at the time that
Speaker 2: I saw had come across my screen, I was like, oh, well,
Speaker 2: I mean, okay, they got this guy, you know, like
Speaker 2: because the narrative was always the same and me, of
Speaker 2: all people should not have bought into it. But it
Speaker 2: was an inexorable barrage of information that was all one sided.
Speaker 2: And Daniel, your sister, your amazing sister, you know, wouldn't
Speaker 2: leave me alone. And at first I was like, can
Speaker 2: you leave me alone? And she was like, no, I can't.
Speaker 5: The reason why I'm so passionate about it is because
Speaker 5: when this first happened, it was definitely shocking to hear
Speaker 5: these allegations, especially the first one, and I wanted to
Speaker 5: know everything. I wanted to read all the transcript anything
Speaker 5: that I can get my hand on to see my
Speaker 5: brother have really done this, And everything that I've looked into,
Speaker 5: everything that I've read, not just because he's my brother,
Speaker 5: but just because the facts of everything that I put
Speaker 5: my hands on, nothing pointed to Daniel's guilt. If there
Speaker 5: was anything that proved or showed anything, I would back
Speaker 5: out and see, Daniel, you deserve every second being in
Speaker 5: prison forever doing this to a woman. And I haven't
Speaker 5: found one single thing that pointed me to say that
Speaker 5: Dale did any of the crimes that he has been
Speaker 5: convicted of.
Speaker 6: Daniel's case is a tragedy because our society's noblest desires
Speaker 6: to end racism and sexism and police brutality ended up
Speaker 6: convicting an innocent man and send into prison.
Speaker 5: And I will fight till the day I die to
Speaker 5: get my brother out.
Speaker 2: Nor Your courage is inspiring, and Daniel's saying for you.
Speaker 2: So this started when Janny Liggins. She was a woman
Speaker 2: that Daniel pulled over right, and Jenny, you've obviously been
Speaker 2: so deep in this ever since it happened. You want
Speaker 2: to walk us through this because it's really weird. Right.
Speaker 2: The video evidence doesn't matter. The descriptions don't match like
Speaker 2: what happened.
Speaker 5: So Danielle got off of work about two am, that
Speaker 5: was his normal shift. On his way home, not too
Speaker 5: far from the police department, he saw a car swerving,
Speaker 5: tenant windows limoed tint at two am. You can't see
Speaker 5: through those tenant windows. So it's not like Daniel targeted
Speaker 5: a woman driving. So he pulled over, questioned her. He
Speaker 5: had asked her if he could search her car. He
Speaker 5: brought her to his police vehicle and then he searched
Speaker 5: the car. He did say that he saw hydro codon
Speaker 5: bottles and then he did a whole search. Is there
Speaker 5: anything underneath your bra the class and shake and she
Speaker 5: did that looking for drugs, looking for drugs and any weapons.
Speaker 5: And everything that Daniel claimed had happened matched up to
Speaker 5: what Jannie Liggan said. Besides the sexual assault, Jennie Liggans
Speaker 5: claimed that when she was in the back of Daniel's
Speaker 5: vehicle that Dale made her perform oral sex right where
Speaker 5: he had pulled her over, and it was right on
Speaker 5: a busy intersection off of fiftieth in Lincoln in Oklahoma City.
Speaker 5: So it's not like Daniel pulled this person over on
Speaker 5: a side street. It was a busy intersection. There's a
Speaker 5: security video on YouTube right now that you can see
Speaker 5: the traffic stop, and you can't see everything. You can
Speaker 5: to see a police officer pulling her over. He had
Speaker 5: his lights on, he never turned his lights off. And
Speaker 5: Daniel let her go. And the following morning is when
Speaker 5: she made the claims about the sexual assault.
Speaker 6: A little later that morning, actually, I think, yeah, few hours,
Speaker 6: which is.
Speaker 2: A significant point, right because we have with us in
Speaker 2: the room, as I introduced you before, a respected biologist
Speaker 2: whose works in this field.
Speaker 6: What was important for me to see is that Jannie
Speaker 6: Liggins made claims that were not supported by the forensic evidence.
Speaker 6: She had a same kit done that morning and was
Speaker 6: interviewed by a female sex crimes detective and the same
Speaker 6: kit ultimately came back negative. There was no DNA from
Speaker 6: Daniel found around Janie's mouth and the swabs there. During
Speaker 6: the trial, the forensic analyst actually said unfortunately there was
Speaker 6: no DNA from Daniel, which showed her bias. Janie Wiggins
Speaker 6: had said that Daniel had placed his hands on the
Speaker 6: car and she had placed her hands on the patrol car,
Speaker 6: but fingerprint analysis and DNA was not found matching either
Speaker 6: of them on the car, so her descriptions did not
Speaker 6: match what was found with the forensic evidence. There was
Speaker 6: no forensic evidence supporting what she said happened. And later
Speaker 6: it was discovered after this stop that Daniel did. When
Speaker 6: Janie talked with the sex crimes detective Detective Davis, Janney
Speaker 6: disclosed that she had been smoking pot earlier that day,
Speaker 6: and she described the police officer as having blonde hair
Speaker 6: and being shorter. It just didn't match.
Speaker 2: Right, so Daniel, I mean, she must have been high
Speaker 2: as a kite, because if Daniel's blonde, then you know,
Speaker 2: I'm the Prime Minister of Egypt, you know what I mean? Like,
Speaker 2: he has dark hair obviously, and Shorty's six to two.
Speaker 2: So none of this stuff makes any sense. How could
Speaker 2: you get that wrong? You get a lot of things wrong,
Speaker 2: you can't get blonde to black hair wrong.
Speaker 6: And ultimately the detectives used Daniel's own police records, specifically
Speaker 6: looking for African American women he had stopped. He had
Speaker 6: criminal histories, and the detectives went and questioned over forty
Speaker 6: women fitting this profile and then got allegations from them
Speaker 6: to add to this initial allegation they had.
Speaker 2: So then they went fishing.
Speaker 7: Hello, this is detective days.
Speaker 3: I work in sex frunts and I've been working in
Speaker 3: some cases and I received a tip that you may
Speaker 3: have been sexually assaulted by a police officer.
Speaker 2: I just didn't think I've been clear on the phone.
Speaker 8: When we talked.
Speaker 9: Yea quite clear, But like I said, that's the only
Speaker 9: time that I had that happened to me. He exposed
Speaker 9: his stuff to me.
Speaker 5: That was a black officer.
Speaker 1: I've had to go to a.
Speaker 8: Lot of women.
Speaker 6: They didn't come forward.
Speaker 2: I've had to go find them.
Speaker 6: And Yeah, it's disturbing because the lieutenant who was in
Speaker 6: charge of the investigation specifically looked back through six months
Speaker 6: of Daniel's police records and created a list of the
Speaker 6: specifically African American women quote who had a drug history,
Speaker 6: prostitution history, or a significant criminal history whom Daniel had stopped.
Speaker 5: Why did they only question one race if they were
Speaker 5: really wanting to figure out if he's a serial rapist,
Speaker 5: why didn't the other races matter?
Speaker 6: So people presumed Daniel was guilty of racism, when in fact,
Speaker 6: it was the detectives who were targeting African American women
Speaker 6: at risk African American women, encouraging them to make allegations
Speaker 6: against Daniel as they were railroading Daniel right, and.
Speaker 2: They brought these women in and the videos are as
Speaker 2: troubling as the audience who's listening now probably thinks they
Speaker 2: are right. There's one who came in and said the
Speaker 2: seven times she was asked, did anything happen, and seven
Speaker 2: times she said no, And then eventually they got her
Speaker 2: to change her story.
Speaker 6: She then said that the only officer who'd been inappropriate
Speaker 6: was a black police officer several years ago who exposed
Speaker 6: himself to her, And then the detective kept on questioning,
Speaker 6: and ultimately this woman then claimed that Daniel had wanted
Speaker 6: her to lift up her bra. He didn't say anything,
Speaker 6: but she just did it, and that was the whole allegation.
Speaker 6: So I don't think that the detective reported that she
Speaker 6: actually accused a black police officer just jumped instead right
Speaker 6: ahead to saying that Daniel had done something right.
Speaker 2: And the number were just summarily dismissed because they were
Speaker 2: so ridiculous that they couldn't even take him to trial.
Speaker 6: Yeah, there were eight people who made allegations against Daniel,
Speaker 6: and those allegations were weeded out right away that never
Speaker 6: went to trial. And then the trial, there were thirteen allegations.
Speaker 6: Five of them led to acquittals, and the eight that
Speaker 6: ended up causing convictions had numerous problems in them, like
Speaker 6: one of the women saying that it was a shorter
Speaker 6: police officer who was black, a shade darker than her
Speaker 6: own skin color, and thee got the most number, yes,
Speaker 6: two years for her allegations.
Speaker 2: Right, so you were mistaken for a short black guy.
Speaker 2: And anyone who hasn't already seen pictures of Daniel take
Speaker 2: a look. I mean he as a linebacker and he's
Speaker 2: the six to two, very bulky guy who's Asian. I mean,
Speaker 2: this is not confusing, right, this is nuts. This is
Speaker 2: absolutely nuts. But with the sheer number of allegations seeming
Speaker 2: so overwhelming, it's kind of understandable how that could have
Speaker 2: continued to cast doubt on Daniel's innocence. After all, just
Speaker 2: because one allegation is doubtful does not disprove another, which
Speaker 2: is why we need to take a look at each
Speaker 2: allegation individually. I also want to be clear that we're
Speaker 2: not here to point at the alleged victim's life choices
Speaker 2: as evidence of credibility or lack thereof. Now, Initially twenty
Speaker 2: one accusers came forward, but eight were eliminated immediately as
Speaker 2: false allegations against Daniel. For example, one of them alleged
Speaker 2: that Daniel had used his position as a police officer
Speaker 2: to sexually assault her after he had been put on
Speaker 2: administrative leave. Others later admitted to lying, including Shenise Barksdale.
Speaker 6: He never touched you.
Speaker 9: Why as just felt bad for her and I just
Speaker 9: wanted to know right she wasn't.
Speaker 8: Only you feel bad for who?
Speaker 3: And you found out about her from one the Facebook.
Speaker 2: Five of the remaining thirteen accusations resulted in acquittal. For
Speaker 2: privacy protection, we will refer to each of these accusers
Speaker 2: as quote acquittal and a corresponding number acquittal. One told
Speaker 2: investigators about an alleged assault made by an officer in
Speaker 2: an area that Daniel had never patrolled. When investigators fed
Speaker 2: her details and a timeline to match Daniel's beat, she
Speaker 2: denied that story until getting arrested for unrelated drug charges,
Speaker 2: at which time she decided to agree to change her
Speaker 2: story to match the different location. Acquittal two claimed to
Speaker 2: have flashed officer holes law her breasts, thinking that was
Speaker 2: what he wanted, even though he had not requested it.
Speaker 2: She denied any inappropriate contact. Then she told investigators about
Speaker 2: an alleged in decent exposure by a black police officer.
Speaker 2: Acquittal three claimed that Daniel had raped her for twenty
Speaker 2: to thirty minutes and orally sodomized her through the unzipped
Speaker 2: fly of his pants. This alleged incident would have happened
Speaker 2: just hours before the Jennie Liggans traffic stop. However, there
Speaker 2: was no match to her DNA either, as well as
Speaker 2: no evidence of body fluid on Daniel's fly. She also
Speaker 2: said that her attacker had ticketed her one year prior.
Speaker 2: Daniel had never ticketed this woman. Acquittal four claimed that
Speaker 2: Daniel groped her breast, but described the alleged groper as
Speaker 2: quote part Hispanic and having quote slightly gray hair. She
Speaker 2: also testified in court that lying and giving false social
Speaker 2: security numbers to the police is appropriate behavior. Lastly, Daniel
Speaker 2: friended a message with Acquittal five on Facebook after an
Speaker 2: incident involving an overdose on PCP in which acquittal five
Speaker 2: disposed of the substance by eating a glass vial full
Speaker 2: of it. In fact, Daniel escorted her life saving ambulance
Speaker 2: ride to the hospital. In her police interview, she claimed
Speaker 2: that while she was recovering from that incident, Daniel allegedly
Speaker 2: forced her into oralsodomy while she was handcuffed to her
Speaker 2: bed in a busy hospital. This is what she said
Speaker 2: on her way out of that interview. So this is
Speaker 2: good evidence, Well you tell me, I.
Speaker 9: Think so, because I mean, even if he didn't like
Speaker 9: even right now about it, Letton, he filled in.
Speaker 2: And so all five of these allegations ended in acquittal
Speaker 2: of the original twenty one accusers. Eight allegations resulted in convictions,
Speaker 2: and we are going to now one by one examine
Speaker 2: the facts of each case. Again, for protection of privacy,
Speaker 2: we refer to all as conviction and a corresponding number.
Speaker 2: You're already aware of. Conviction one. Jenny Leggins, whom we
Speaker 2: covered earlier. Conviction two, alleged that Daniel had orally sodomized
Speaker 2: her near a public park, then transported her inside the
Speaker 2: public park by a closed school, and proceeded to rape
Speaker 2: her for five to ten minutes. This is how she
Speaker 2: described her attacker.
Speaker 4: Tell me your description him black man, muscular, muscular, So
Speaker 4: you think he's shorter than you.
Speaker 6: Yeah, okay, I'll tell you five eleven.
Speaker 4: What kind of car did he have?
Speaker 5: A black and white, black and white Corps, Oklahoma City
Speaker 5: Police Corps.
Speaker 2: Daniel also had made contact with her at some point
Speaker 2: near that old school in the public park, but when
Speaker 2: he did, his automatic vehicle locator or AVL, a GPS
Speaker 2: device attracts the movements of police cars, says that his
Speaker 2: car stopped for less than four minutes, not five to ten.
Speaker 2: He's also six two and half white, half Japanese, definitely
Speaker 2: not shorter than five to eleven, and definitely not black.
Speaker 2: Conviction three claimed that Daniel allowed her to drive under
Speaker 2: the influence while he followed her to her relative's house,
Speaker 2: at which point she alleged that he drove her to
Speaker 2: the end of the street and raped her. However, his
Speaker 2: AVL tells us that he never drove on that street. Further,
Speaker 2: the duration of the alleged rape changed from quote a
Speaker 2: long time to quote five to ten minutes, and then
Speaker 2: a trial to quote maybe about three minutes or so.
Speaker 2: But when she and Daniel did have an interaction, his
Speaker 2: AVL still would only allow for a window of less
Speaker 2: than three minutes for a possible attack. Conviction four alleged
Speaker 2: that when Daniel raped and orally sodomized her in her
Speaker 2: room in a house, that she wiped phlegm from that
Speaker 2: oral sodomy on a chair. The swab from the chair, however,
Speaker 2: revealed the DNA profile of a male that was not Daniel.
Speaker 2: Conviction five claimed that her alleged attacker drove the older
Speaker 2: model Oklahoma City PD Black and White. However, Daniel drove
Speaker 2: the newer all black Cruiser. Conviction six testified that her
Speaker 2: attacker was a tan color like someone from India, not dark,
Speaker 2: but not pale. She also claimed that he made her
Speaker 2: expose herself. However, a witness claimed that she was handcuffed
Speaker 2: at the start of their encounter. For Conviction seven, there's
Speaker 2: no DNA evans to speak of, but she did change
Speaker 2: her story several times. At first, an officer allegedly fondled
Speaker 2: her breast over her clothing, Then at a preliminary hearing,
Speaker 2: she claimed that the groping was skinned to skin contact.
Speaker 2: It was back to her over the clothing. Allegation Finally,
Speaker 2: the crux of the prosecution's case Conviction eight, a seventeen
Speaker 2: year old girl who claimed that Daniel pat searched her,
Speaker 2: inserted a finger in her vagina, and proceeded to rape
Speaker 2: her through the unzipped fly of his buckled pants on
Speaker 2: her mother's porch. This is what she had told her
Speaker 2: mother about their encounter.
Speaker 4: She said, I met this really hot cop.
Speaker 10: He told me I had a couple of.
Speaker 4: Want but he said, don't worry about it. She really
Speaker 4: nicely affect them.
Speaker 2: No body fluid was detected or observed on the fly
Speaker 2: of his pants. However, a microscopic trace amount of her
Speaker 2: DNA was found on his fly, along with DNA from
Speaker 2: at least two other individuals, including at least one unknown male,
Speaker 2: which goes to support the defense's theory that the presence
Speaker 2: of her DNA on his fly can be explained by
Speaker 2: secondary transfer transfer of DNA to objects or people through
Speaker 2: an intermediary.
Speaker 6: The main evidence in the case was DNA found on
Speaker 6: the fly of Daniel's pants, but the DNA evidence on
Speaker 6: the fly of the pants included no evidence of body fluid,
Speaker 6: and ultimately Daniel was accused of raping one woman through
Speaker 6: the unzipped fly of those buckled pants and there's no stains,
Speaker 6: no deposits on them at all, So that would make
Speaker 6: it very unlikely that there had been any kind of
Speaker 6: sexual assault to be able to give evidence. That's just
Speaker 6: a low quantity of DNA that matches most closely with
Speaker 6: indirect transfer of DNA.
Speaker 2: Is it possible for Daniel to have done these crimes
Speaker 2: and not left any trace of biological evidence anywhere?
Speaker 6: I would say very unlikely.
Speaker 2: This is so troubling because the idea that Daniel or
Speaker 2: anyone could be convicted of eight different crimes with the
Speaker 2: absence of any real biological evidence. And it takes you,
Speaker 2: coming from Iowa, an outsider, to come in and do
Speaker 2: the work that the forensic people should have and could
Speaker 2: have very easily done in the first place. The mistakes,
Speaker 2: there's so many mistakes that we don't have time to
Speaker 2: cover it on this show. I mean, I have a
Speaker 2: list of ninety five of them, right, and there's no
Speaker 2: way we could talk for hours that we wouldn't cover
Speaker 2: all of the mistakes that were made, both deliberate and
Speaker 2: sloppy mistakes. Right, But back to you.
Speaker 6: When I looked at the news about the case, which
Speaker 6: is how I found out about it. It was mentioning
Speaker 6: how the prosecutors were so proud to have gotten convictions
Speaker 6: on eight women's allegations based on a little bit of DNA.
Speaker 6: The more I looked, I saw there's no evidence of
Speaker 6: body fluids. And it turns out the forensic analysts just
Speaker 6: looked at the pants with the bright light and magnifying
Speaker 6: glass and saw there was no evidence of vaginal fluid
Speaker 6: or body fluid, and then went right to testing just
Speaker 6: the fly of the pants. She did not do any
Speaker 6: control tests on other places on Daniel's uniform pants and belts.
Speaker 6: The main problem I think at the Oklahoma City Police
Speaker 6: Department is the detectives and then the prosecutors above them.
Speaker 6: They just did not understand that DNA can transfer innocently.
Speaker 6: So as soon as they found a mixture of DNA
Speaker 6: on the fly of Daniel's pants, the police thought that
Speaker 6: meant he was guilty of sexual conduct and therefore guilty
Speaker 6: of sexual crimes. They wanted to then go out and
Speaker 6: find the female who matched the major contributor to that
Speaker 6: DNA mixture, assuming she was a victim. So they had
Speaker 6: that mindset, that bias that developed into tunnel vision on
Speaker 6: Daniel right from the beginning of the investigation, and then
Speaker 6: went out and solicited allegations from women whom Daniel had stopped.
Speaker 6: And it's no surprise that some of the women did remember, yes,
Speaker 6: they were stopped by Daniel, because they had been contacted,
Speaker 6: because the police knew Daniel stopped them. Daniel's case would
Speaker 6: be like someone meeting with you in your office and
Speaker 6: then later they find a woman's DNA on the fly
Speaker 6: of her pants and the woman said, yes, I was
Speaker 6: at his office, and they conclude that you're guilty just
Speaker 6: because you had an interaction with someone.
Speaker 2: So if you shook hands this morning with somebody who
Speaker 2: you met on the street, and then you went into
Speaker 2: a friend whatever, and then they went and went to
Speaker 2: the bathroom afterwards, a little bit of your DNA, a
Speaker 2: touch DNA would be on somewhere on the wherever they
Speaker 2: unzipped or on buttons, it would be there.
Speaker 6: It could very well be there, right because.
Speaker 2: We're always transferring to DNA, always shedding. It's like we'd
Speaker 2: leave it on every day, We leave it on the
Speaker 2: coffee cup, we leave it everywhere we go. When you
Speaker 2: were first taken in for questioning, did you request a lawyer.
Speaker 4: I didn't request a.
Speaker 8: Lawyer at the time. I just wanted to a professional.
Speaker 8: I wanted to clear my name. Any in an any.
Speaker 4: Department in law enforcement, your repiga where you.
Speaker 8: Go on with and you want to go to their promotion.
Speaker 8: You want to go to any in special unit. You're
Speaker 8: remigi when's on the line and when people hear about you.
Speaker 8: And so I'm talking about my name. I don't know
Speaker 8: what you going to allegate you guys before me. I'm
Speaker 8: talking to my name.
Speaker 4: I trug co operate and get out of there.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 2: But we see so many times when we see young
Speaker 2: kids picked up by a police for questioning and they
Speaker 2: don't even know they're supposed to ask for a lawyer.
Speaker 2: Right they're in high school, or they're from they're from
Speaker 2: a background where they had no knowledge of how these
Speaker 2: things work. You were in law enforcement, right, college graduate,
Speaker 2: You've got a degree in criminal justice. I mean that's
Speaker 2: where I go. Well, wait a minute, if there was
Speaker 2: anything on your mind, the first thing you would have
Speaker 2: said is okay, I want to lawyer. I'm not stocking
Speaker 2: you guys now. And actually you went in the complete
Speaker 2: opposite direction from what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong.
Speaker 2: You turned over your passwords, you turned over the keys
Speaker 2: to your apartment.
Speaker 4: I basically cooperated the pools. Anything asked, I answered Again.
Speaker 4: I wanted to be professional. I didn't rage. Now I
Speaker 4: didn't phrase my police they asked, I answered. And that's
Speaker 4: kind of how in the sense that you were training
Speaker 4: the academy, you know, you're broken down and then you're
Speaker 4: raised up, and so if you're asked the question you're addressed,
Speaker 4: you're going to reply anything that they asked. Yeah, go ahead,
Speaker 4: please please do that. Go ahead and go with DNA test,
Speaker 4: and go ahead and go to my apartment, whatever you
Speaker 4: need to do to clear my name so I could
Speaker 4: get back and continue my job. I thought I did
Speaker 4: really good at please.
Speaker 2: Do after this had become this insane media circus that
Speaker 2: reached people all over the world. Now you go to trial,
Speaker 2: and I'm sure it was a crazy scene there.
Speaker 4: Trial was a long period of time that this has
Speaker 4: happened during the Thanksgiving break. So the biggest thing I
Speaker 4: want to try to address to the audience is help media
Speaker 4: affects people's perception in their opinions. So when they used
Speaker 4: that national media into the aid of the d eighth Office.
Speaker 4: I'm already presumed guilty before I stepped in that courtroom.
Speaker 4: So when Judge Henderson, after the jury members are everyone
Speaker 4: in the courtroom, praise your right hand if you have
Speaker 4: seen this man or ever heard of the name day.
Speaker 4: I looked at the whole courtroom raised their hand.
Speaker 2: My friend Josh Dubin conducted a study with a help
Speaker 2: from a lot of other people that showed that jury
Speaker 2: members have a presumption of guilt that teeters on eighty
Speaker 2: percent just because they see somebody in the defendant's box.
Speaker 2: In your case, it was probably one hundred percent of
Speaker 2: them assumed you must be guilty of something. Because it
Speaker 2: was impossible to find a jury that hadn't heard about
Speaker 2: the case. You couldn't have found one anywhere in America
Speaker 2: at that point in time, but least of all in Oklahoma.
Speaker 4: Again, media has such as a fact on the outcome
Speaker 4: of the cases. Because all I showed is highlights. They
Speaker 4: don't show the fact. They could edit and they could
Speaker 4: crop whatever they want to say what they want, and
Speaker 4: the mature of the cases is the Roman narrative. It's
Speaker 4: all not the right fact.
Speaker 2: You know, when the jury is sitting there. You know,
Speaker 2: they're not dumb people. So they're sitting the to going well,
Speaker 2: this doesn't make sense, and that wasn't true, and this
Speaker 2: doesn't up. And he's not a black guy, and he's
Speaker 2: not short, and he's not blonde. And but on the
Speaker 2: other hand, I saw this thing on TV.
Speaker 4: It was a huge burden overcome. So it's you guilty,
Speaker 4: then you got to prove yourself innocent. And then, like
Speaker 4: I said, going back to the Thanksgiving break, you have
Speaker 4: Jess Henderson's quarterors is don't talk to your significant others
Speaker 4: when you go back home. Will come on listen. In reality,
Speaker 4: that's not going to happen. You know, honey, what do
Speaker 4: you do today? Well, I was at the whole small trial,
Speaker 4: the biggest thing going on in Oklahoma. Of course you're
Speaker 4: going to talk about it. So the people that are
Speaker 4: not in even the court room that the husband and
Speaker 4: wife is reinforcing the presumption of guilt. And then only
Speaker 4: that you have before my lawyers. You know, we hire
Speaker 4: a DNA expert, and yet you're going to.
Speaker 6: Fail me on that the forensic analyst misrepresented the DNA
Speaker 6: evidence on the fly of Daniel's pants. There was a
Speaker 6: mixture of DNA from at least three people. There are
Speaker 6: four different stretches of fabrics, two on the outside and
Speaker 6: two on the inside of the fly that were swabbed,
Speaker 6: and it turns out all of them had male DNA.
Speaker 6: And the reason this is significant is the prosecution ended
Speaker 6: up arguing that they claimed Daniel's DNA was not there,
Speaker 6: and so if he had just innocently transferred DNA matching
Speaker 6: the teenager accuser, you would supposedly expect to find Daniel's
Speaker 6: DNA there. The forensic analysts ended up telling the jury
Speaker 6: there was no male DNA on the inside of the fly,
Speaker 6: and the prosecutor again and again would have her say
Speaker 6: that there's no DNA, so Daniels DNA is not there,
Speaker 6: and then argued to the jury that this meant it
Speaker 6: was very unlikely that you could have DNA transferring innocently,
Speaker 6: So the jury was misled into believing there was no
Speaker 6: male DNA.
Speaker 4: We have to wait till Eric to comes along to
Speaker 4: find that that's not right.
Speaker 6: Anytime you have DNA misrepresented in a trial, it's bad
Speaker 6: because DNA weighs so heavily in the minds of jurors.
Speaker 6: Daniel's attorney never even challenged these claims by the States
Speaker 6: forensic analysts that there was no male DNA or that
Speaker 6: Daniels DNA wasn't there.
Speaker 4: Hearts were in the trial. I felt like, you know,
Speaker 4: my work could have set up an objecte or said something.
Speaker 6: What's really important is how the DNA evidence contributed heavily
Speaker 6: to Daniel's conviction, because the prosecutor actually said in his
Speaker 6: closing argument quote, the most important thing about the teenager
Speaker 6: whose DNA profile was found on the fly of Daniels
Speaker 6: pants is the fact, said the prosecutor, that DNA from
Speaker 6: the walls of her vagina was transferred to vaginal fluids
Speaker 6: on the outside and the inside, not of his pockets,
Speaker 6: not of his cuff, not where he sits, but at
Speaker 6: the exact location she says his penis came in contact.
Speaker 6: So the prosecutor lied to the jury telling them there
Speaker 6: was vaginal fluid that was there was not. And we
Speaker 6: know from a juror's interview after the trial that the jury,
Speaker 6: at least this one juror thought there was vaginal fluid
Speaker 6: because he was interviewed on Crimewatch Daily and he said, well,
Speaker 6: I mean, I'm not a DNA expert. They told us
Speaker 6: the DNA was from the vaginal fluid of a seventeen
Speaker 6: year old.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I'm not a d NA expert.
Speaker 9: I told us it was the DNA from the vaginal
Speaker 9: fluid from a seventeen year old.
Speaker 6: So we know at least Wonder was misled by the
Speaker 6: prosecutor to believe there's vaginal fluid, and so of course
Speaker 6: they're going to end up convicting, not just for the
Speaker 6: teenager's allegations. That jurors explained afterwards that this impacted their
Speaker 6: deliberations for all these allegations.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this was during closing arguments. Could you later
Speaker 2: have objected in the closing argument? He still can. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and he should have. In fact, it should be a mistrial.
Speaker 5: And he didn't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they didn't object to that. That's crazy to a
Speaker 2: gross misstatement.
Speaker 4: There was times when I was that and I remember
Speaker 4: one time I'm just like Scott, what do you injecting?
Speaker 4: Like what are you doing? And we kind of got
Speaker 4: into bigger many like calm down and calm down. Well,
Speaker 4: it's hard for me to calm down when you see
Speaker 4: the quote unquote victims that go on the stands and
Speaker 4: not even addressing the questions, and in addition to that,
Speaker 4: you have lead detective Davis and Greg Ray that are
Speaker 4: coaching them along and nodding everything they want to say. Okay, yuh,
Speaker 4: that's where I continue on and they're looking at datements
Speaker 4: and I'm looking at the jury members. Are you serious?
Speaker 4: Are you not seeing this?
Speaker 2: So this is actually the perfect storm for a wrongful conviction. Right,
Speaker 2: you have the media frenzy reporting inaccuracies left and right,
Speaker 2: making up a narrative that sells advertising time or newspapers.
Speaker 2: You have a jury pool that then is hopelessly tainted.
Speaker 2: You have bumbling and competent and biased investigators throughout this process.
Speaker 2: You have a defense attorney who is I don't want
Speaker 2: to say incompetent, but was not up to the task.
Speaker 2: Because this is as serious as a case could be.
Speaker 2: We're talking about life in prison. I mean, I just
Speaker 2: did the math Daniel's sentence. If you were to serve
Speaker 2: a sentence, he'd be in prison until the year twenty
Speaker 2: two hundred and seventy seven. Then you have a prosecutor
Speaker 2: who lied, forensic people who lied or were misstated or inaccurate,
Speaker 2: whatever the word you want to choose. Right, with all
Speaker 2: of that the outcome was preordained. Did you have any
Speaker 2: hope that you would still be vindicated?
Speaker 4: Well, I always leading the judicial system, That's why with
Speaker 4: the cop and so it was really frustrating. Obviously I
Speaker 4: was in toul shock when the murdy came down.
Speaker 3: I remember vividly there was a DURM member that she
Speaker 3: was a female that I would look and you know,
Speaker 3: acknowledge every time they came in the courtroom, I left
Speaker 3: the courtroom, she would look at me, she would smile.
Speaker 3: And when the verdict.
Speaker 1: Was coming in and.
Speaker 4: They walked into the courtroom, I saw even males, the.
Speaker 7: Male GERM members, and cheery eyed. And then I saw
Speaker 7: her crying hysterically. And this is when I'm really freaking
Speaker 7: out and I'm shaking.
Speaker 3: Up there, you know, what's going on? And on adord to.
Speaker 4: My lawyers and I'm like, well, what's going on? You know,
Speaker 4: and she's crying hysterically, everyone's crying, the GERM members. That
Speaker 4: does make sense because if he thought it was a
Speaker 4: guilty villain white crying, you know.
Speaker 7: And then when they ran dogs American you know, y me.
Speaker 7: I mean, I was an old No, I don't even
Speaker 7: remember what I and I even remember I think I
Speaker 7: just drop.
Speaker 4: My head and you know, like God, why it was
Speaker 4: something about it every.
Speaker 8: Thought possible would happen.
Speaker 2: We're here because we want to educate the public as
Speaker 2: to how these things could happen, and how it could
Speaker 2: happen to someone you love, and to educate people who
Speaker 2: are going to be serving on juries at some point
Speaker 2: in their life that you know, whoever's listening, it could
Speaker 2: have been you in that jury box, and how would
Speaker 2: you have done? And I'm sure people are saying, well,
Speaker 2: I would never have convicted him, but twelve people did.
Speaker 2: And how could they get it so wrong? How could
Speaker 2: they look at at at things that are so clearly
Speaker 2: black and white and go, yeah, I know it's false,
Speaker 2: but you know, and they had a complicated task. They're
Speaker 2: looking at things that they know are false, right, They're
Speaker 2: looking at testimony that they know is false from a
Speaker 2: number of different people. At the same time, they're being
Speaker 2: presented with quote unquote evidence by people who they respect,
Speaker 2: prosecutors and forensic people, and so they're stuck in a conflict.
Speaker 2: But as citizens and as everyone again potential jury remembers,
Speaker 2: your duty is to if there's doubt, to acquit you know,
Speaker 2: it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That's something
Speaker 2: we all learn in high school, right, beyond a reasonable doubt?
Speaker 2: Not maybe it could be. I don't know. It's a conflict.
Speaker 2: I'm not sure, you know. And then there's that quote
Speaker 2: that I can never say enough times better that one
Speaker 2: hundred guilty men should go free than that one instance
Speaker 2: should suffer. And that's sort of been turned on its head.
Speaker 2: But Daniel, here you are. You're stuck in a situation
Speaker 2: that would break I think most people, how do you
Speaker 2: do it? Day by day? How? I mean, how are
Speaker 2: you getting along on the inside.
Speaker 4: I used to hate here and that and think's happened
Speaker 4: for a reason, And I used to hate that, But
Speaker 4: I think there's a greater purpose from God, and I
Speaker 4: think God has a plan for me. You know, be
Speaker 4: down in my heart, I know I'm going to be free.
Speaker 4: But that said, I can be here without any all
Speaker 4: my loved ones and supporters, so everyone that had come
Speaker 4: along the way, it's a blessing. It's just an act
Speaker 4: of God right there, and finding never gave up, never
Speaker 4: had a thought of giving up. And that day when
Speaker 4: I'm free, you better bet your blood and I'm going
Speaker 4: to fight for all the wrongful convicted people out there.
Speaker 2: Well, it's going to be an honor to work with you.
Speaker 2: So what happens next and how can people help?
Speaker 5: I suggest people if they want to learn more, go
Speaker 5: to free d Holds claw dot com, my Facebook, Jenny
Speaker 5: holtzklaw is public. I post all the facts and information
Speaker 5: and give daily updates of what's going on his case.
Speaker 5: Another thing I want to point on too is we
Speaker 5: have a petition going. We have over thirty five thousand
Speaker 5: signatures right now and you can find that on my
Speaker 5: Facebook or freading Holds dot com for the link to
Speaker 5: actually sign the petition.
Speaker 1: We will have Jennifer's Facebook as well as the petition
Speaker 1: linked in the episode description. Now, all thirteen accusers that
Speaker 1: had taken Daniel to trial went on to sue the city,
Speaker 1: the detectives, and Daniel, and then the lead up to
Speaker 1: a potential civil trial against the city. There were depositions
Speaker 1: conviction one that's Jenny Liggins. There was the grainy traffic video.
Speaker 1: She also described a blonde officer in her initial statement
Speaker 1: there was no DNA from Daniel in a rape kit.
Speaker 1: And then this is what happened when asked about Daniel
Speaker 1: in her deposition, do you recall.
Speaker 9: Listening to audio recording interviews of Daniel Holtz call who I'm.
Speaker 2: Sorry, No, I couldn't. I can't remember.
Speaker 1: Doesn't remember the man who allegedly assaulted her and whom
Speaker 1: she sent to prison because she did experience a very
Speaker 1: real assault, but it was never Daniel. That conviction accounts
Speaker 1: for twenty one years of his sentence. Conviction two originally
Speaker 1: described her attacker as shorter than five to eleven and black,
Speaker 1: which obviously is not Daniel, who was six' two and
Speaker 1: ethnically Half, european Half, japanese and she confirmed That daniel
Speaker 1: was not her attacker during her. Deposition how do you
Speaker 1: recognize that person from?
Speaker 7: Court do you recognize that person from any other time
Speaker 7: in your?
Speaker 8: Life?
Speaker 1: NO i have never seen him before.
Speaker 2: Trial that's What i'll bally see who accused of riping?
Speaker 1: Meat that conviction accounts for sixty two years Of daniel.
Speaker 1: Sentence conviction three was the one that was dispelled by
Speaker 1: the squad car's. Geolocator he'd never driven on that block
Speaker 1: where she alleged the attack took. Place that's thirty more
Speaker 1: years For. Daniel conviction four had this to, say about
Speaker 1: the first time she made a statement To Detective. Davis
Speaker 1: she was coming down off crack in.
Speaker 2: Jail she hasn't be, quitness like send to, that get
Speaker 2: stopped or. Whatever at, FIRST i.
Speaker 1: Was kind of. Angry i'm angry like that When i'm
Speaker 1: coming down so and you're in jail somewhere you don't
Speaker 1: want to.
Speaker 9: Be, yeah Then i'm looking for a ticket out SO
Speaker 9: i can get high.
Speaker 1: Again Sel so she traded a story to get high
Speaker 1: again another twenty. Years For daniel conviction, five her story
Speaker 1: changed over, time including what kind of car her attacker.
Speaker 1: Drove it also appears that she decided to cooperate following
Speaker 1: other pending. Charges that conviction meant another forty six. Years
Speaker 1: For Daniel conviction, six described her attacker as ten like
Speaker 1: maybe From, india so once again not Describing, daniel and
Speaker 1: the charges stemmed from an allegation that he had made
Speaker 1: her expose herself and fondled her bare. Breasts during her,
Speaker 1: deposition she confirmed That daniel never touched.
Speaker 2: Her how many times Did Hultz claw touch you? Inappropriately
Speaker 2: she didn't touch. Me he never touched.
Speaker 10: You no next to the or the third of the last,
Speaker 10: line says Hol squaud didn't Ask Plaintiff barnes if there
Speaker 10: was anything under her, breast and Final Planeiff barnes is naked.
Speaker 8: Breast do you see?
Speaker 9: That is?
Speaker 2: Ready, YES i see, it.
Speaker 10: Sir isn't that different than what you testified?
Speaker 2: Today what do you mean is that?
Speaker 10: Different didn't you say Hols claud didn't touch.
Speaker 2: You he didn't touch, Me so this is a. Mistake
Speaker 2: he did not touch, me.
Speaker 10: Okay and if you go back To defend's exhibit number,
Speaker 10: eleven count, one five lines from the bottom of count
Speaker 10: one DIRECTING tb to expose her breast and then touching
Speaker 10: her bare breast with his hand without her, consent that's
Speaker 10: also a.
Speaker 2: Mistake he didn't touch, me.
Speaker 10: Okay and you understand that Mister holsclaud was convicted of
Speaker 10: sexual battery on that count as a result of your.
Speaker 1: Testimony, yes eighteen more years For. Daniel conviction seven onces
Speaker 1: again had a differing description of her, attacker who was
Speaker 1: taller Than, daniel not the same, haircut and then there
Speaker 1: were inconsistencies between her story and. Reality another sixteen years For,
Speaker 1: daniel and finally conviction, eight probably the most consequential of
Speaker 1: all the. Convictions the victim WHOSE dna was found On
Speaker 1: daniel's fly with a mix of several other, profiles including
Speaker 1: an unknown male, profile and during her, deposition she recalled
Speaker 1: when the Prosecutor Galen geiger made the same misrepresentation about
Speaker 1: THE dna evidence to her that he eventually made in
Speaker 1: his closing.
Speaker 9: Argument, WELL i was and the witness room or whatever
Speaker 9: that room is, called before they have the witnesses waiting
Speaker 9: to go testifile is there And Galen geiger came to
Speaker 9: me and he told, ME i believe. You out of
Speaker 9: all the other, WOMEN i believe. You AND i said,
Speaker 9: Why and he, said because we were looking for a
Speaker 9: match OF dna that we found inside his police pants
Speaker 9: and it was. You we found your vaginal fluid on
Speaker 9: inside and outside his belief.
Speaker 8: Pants and what did you. SAY i don't THINK i.
Speaker 9: Said anything anything.
Speaker 4: Else he.
Speaker 9: Said he encouraged me to testify because it would help
Speaker 9: the other women IF i, testified BECAUSE i was the
Speaker 9: only one with physical.
Speaker 1: Evidence so not only does this recollection reveal that the
Speaker 1: prosecutor may have really only believed In conviction eight's, allegation
Speaker 1: but that belief may have stemmed from a misunderstanding of
Speaker 1: THE dna, evidence and then the eventual misrepresentation of that
Speaker 1: evidence to the jury granted credence to all the other.
Speaker 1: Accusations despite the inconsistencies and sometimes wholly unbelievable, statements the
Speaker 1: final conviction meant another fifty years For. Daniel, interestingly after these,
Speaker 1: depositions the states settled with the accusers for what we
Speaker 1: understand to be very small sums under like ten grand.
Speaker 1: Piece why would they have accepted so little if they
Speaker 1: had strong, cases strong enough for the state to, settle
Speaker 1: yet weak enough to accept so. Little perhaps both the
Speaker 1: accusers and the state know what this, was and maybe
Speaker 1: the state chose to settle as to not put these
Speaker 1: witnesses back on the. Record if they intended on, winning
Speaker 1: they destroy their own witnesses Against, daniel Giving daniel's team
Speaker 1: more ammo for post. Conviction they'd expose how the sausage was,
Speaker 1: made how these people were, lying maybe not about their,
Speaker 1: experiences but about who was. Guilty. Now soon after this
Speaker 1: settlement was, reached civil proceedings began Against, daniel but soon
Speaker 1: came to a halt When daniel's team shared their briefs
Speaker 1: and the accusers dropped the suit Against. Daniel altogether looks
Speaker 1: like they didn't have a prayer Against. Daniel so now
Speaker 1: post conviction litigation. Continues if anyone has information about this,
Speaker 1: case please reach out to any Holtz. Claw Her facebook
Speaker 1: is linked in the episode description along with the. Petition
Speaker 1: and with that we'll go To daniel's closing thoughts as
Speaker 1: they were originally.
Speaker 3: Recorded all, Right i'll just try to be quick out.
Speaker 4: Versus thank you for having letting us come on board
Speaker 4: and be able to speak my side And manu SENSE
Speaker 4: i appreciate. It jason just to, add you, know real.
Speaker 4: Fast and someone asked, me, well why do you think
Speaker 4: you're roughly Convicted, Daniels i'd probably say the.
Speaker 8: MEDIA i think the media plays.
Speaker 4: A huge factor in people's. Reception LIKE i said earlier
Speaker 4: in the, show people WATCH tv shows where it's law
Speaker 4: and order in THE. Ipss you, know THAT'S tv. Show
Speaker 4: that's not the reality of what, happens and that's support.
Speaker 4: Rooms people believe that this, defendant this high profile on national.
Speaker 4: Television oh, man he must be. Guilty the defense, warrier oh,
Speaker 4: man he's grew up in bed War he's trying to
Speaker 4: get paint. Here he's going to try to get them
Speaker 4: off on a, Technicality well that's not the. Case please
Speaker 4: just don't believe in to the, media don't believe in
Speaker 4: that mass medium and nihilation where they get edit and
Speaker 4: crop and wherever they want to. Do and the majority
Speaker 4: of them are just aiding the prosecutions, side and people
Speaker 4: believe the prosecutions are the good guys with all they
Speaker 4: care about is the. Fictionary SO i just ask that you,
Speaker 4: guys please just don't jump to the assumption that this
Speaker 4: person is. Guilty looking in the facts of the case and,
Speaker 4: actually you, know do your, homework come out with your own,
Speaker 4: opinion and don't don't believe with the, MEDIA i always
Speaker 4: trying to. Portray SO i know it's fun to hang
Speaker 4: up right. Now but, again thank you everyone and all
Speaker 4: the loved with all the floers that came along as a.
Speaker 4: Spiracle that Where i'm at right now is thanks to.
Speaker 4: You i'm a continia to, fight never give, up AND
Speaker 4: i know one want to be. Free so thank you
Speaker 4: everyone out there that's.
Speaker 6: LISTENING i love, Guys thank, you love, You Daniel Hie, daniel.
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening To Wrongful. Conviction you can listen
Speaker 2: to this and all The lava for good podcasts one
Speaker 2: week early and ad free by subscribing To lava For
Speaker 2: good plus On Apple. PODCASTS i want to thank our production,
Speaker 2: Team Connor hall And Kathleen, fink as well as my
Speaker 2: fellow executive Producers Jeff, Kempler Kevin, wartis And Jeff. Cleiber
Speaker 2: the music in this production was supplied by three TIME
Speaker 2: oscar nominated Composer Jay. Rouse be sure to follow us
Speaker 2: across all social media platforms At lava For good and
Speaker 2: At Wrongful. Conviction you can also follow me On instagram
Speaker 2: At It's Jason. Flamm Wrongful conviction is a production Of
Speaker 2: lava For Good podcasts in association With Signal Company Number.
Speaker 1: One we have worked hard to ensure that all facts
Speaker 1: reported in this show are. Accurate the views and opinions
Speaker 1: expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their
Speaker 1: own and do not necessarily reflect those Of lava For
Speaker 1: good