#085 Jason Flom, John Grisham and Chip Harding with Jens Soering

Jens Soering is serving two consecutive life terms for a case of double homicide, the murders of Derek and Nancy Haysom in 1985–a crime he did not commit. On June 8, 1986, Jens Soering, the son of a former German diplomat, falsely confessed to killing the Haysoms. Jens "took the rap" for his girlfriend, Elizabeth Haysom, to save her from the death penalty for killing her parents. At Jens’ trial, prosecutor Jim Updike told the jury that Soering's confession was corroborated by several drops of type O blood at the crime scene. Jens had type O, none of the other people involved in the crime did, so the blood had to be his. Updike repeated this claim 26 times. A comparison of lab reports showed that in fact DNA tests had eliminated Jens Soering as a possible source of the type O blood at the scene. The same blood that in 1990 suggested his guilt now proved his innocence. In 2017 two independent DNA scientists confirmed these findings, and they also found DNA evidence showing the presence of a second unknown man with type AB blood. The crime remains unsolved and Jens Soering has remained behind bars for over 32 years. In this gripping interview with Jens Soering, Jason Flom is joined by novelist John Grisham and Sheriff J.E. "Chip” Harding of Albemarle County, VA, both of whom have advocated on Soering’s behalf.

https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/with-jason-flom

Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava For Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
This call is from a correction facility and its subject
to monitoring and recording. Exactly easy. A hundred years I said,

(00:23):
I'm a kid and I didn't do anything, you know,
and uh, you know that was that was real painful, Mary, No,
because my life was discarded as if you know, like
I was a piece of trash or something, you know,
a hundred years that had dreams and I wanted to
do things. I wasn't committing crimes. You know. I was
a very good young man. That is what happened in

(00:45):
so many cases. The cops have a hunch, because they're
so smart at the scene, they have a hunch, and
once they act on that hunch, they sort of developed
tunnel vision and they take off marching in the wrong direction.
And it happens in some any of these wrongful convictions.
They opening the cell door, and I walked downstairs. And

(01:06):
I actually walked downstairs to be outside. It felt very
strange to be, like I said, to be walking without
shackles on my feet. I thought it was a dream.
But then again, it wasn't a dream. This is wrongful conviction.

(01:35):
So are we all? We all hooked up here? We're here,
We're here, test one to three sure of Chip Harding,
Albamarle County, Virginia. This call is from a correction facility
and is subject to monitoring and recording. Welcome back to
Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flam It's me. I'm your host,
and today we have an episode that is uh going

(01:57):
to rock your world. Um. We have three guests today. UM,
I'm gonna save the best for last, but we have
John Grisham in the studio with us. John, Welcome, delighted
to be here, and Sheriff Chip Harding of Albemarle County. Yes, Sir,
are going to be here Virginia. And on the phone
is YenS, Sirring one of the most remarkable people I

(02:18):
know and one of the most extraordinary cases of injustice
that we've ever covered on this show. So, Yen's I
always say, I'm I'm happy you're here, but I'm sorry
you're here. Thank you for having me. I really appreciate
the station and John as well. So this is a
case that takes us back to the eighties, believe it

(02:41):
or not, UM, a case that has all the makings
of a John Grisham novel. Actually, UM, because this goes
back to yen's when you were first Uh, an exchange
student from Germany, a brilliant young scholar. From everything I'm
told this is a Jefferson scholar, a freshman at the
Universe to you Virginia. Um and yeah, and do you

(03:03):
want to do you want to take us back there
and tell us how this started? Sure? Um, this was
a four in the file. M. I arrived at the
University of Virginia at a freshman, became prisoner students there,
and I met a young woman there who was two

(03:25):
and a half years older than I was elizabeths. And
we were both in the same dormitory. She had entered
the university lady because she had had an adventurous unison. Um.
She had gone to an English boarding school and run
away with her girlfriends to Europe, things like that. And

(03:45):
so he came to u V A m private deposed
and the rest of us in that dormitory. And I was, um,
not an American citizen. My father was a German diplomat.
That's why I was living in you know what, the States,
and her family came from South Africa and from Canada.

(04:06):
So we were drawn to each other as being um foreigners.
UM not you know, not Americans and the post about
fall semester. We fell in love, and you know, it
was quite surprised to everybody else in the dormitory because

(04:28):
she was very experienced and very mature and I was,
I guess a nerd uh an uber nerd um um
and virgin to boot it. So she was my very
first girlfriend. You were a German uber version nerd. It's
quite a combination against And she was a beautiful young woman,

(04:49):
striking woman, UM who you know, anyone in your situation
would have probably fallen head over heels for considering the circumstances. Um.
But but the you know, it was of course a
faithful uh star across love affair. Yes, and yeah, it
was a very short lived love affair as well. Um.

(05:10):
Three months after we started dating, or maybe four months
after we started dating, UM, we went to Washington, DC
to spend a weekend together, and in the course of
that weekend, she um told me that she was still
using drugs, which he had previously told me he had

(05:31):
stopped doing, and that she needed to use our rental
car to run some drugs from Washington, DC to her dealer,
who was also the university student back in Charlottesville, and
I wanted to come along, but she wouldn't let me
because she said that I was such a nerd, nobody

(05:51):
would know drug dealer would want to do business around me. UM.
So she drove off in the car by herself and
came back eight hours later. UM until she had killed
her parents, and she said that, UM, you know, the
drugs had made to do it, and they had deserved
it anyway, and if I didn't help her, she would

(06:16):
be executed. She would be back then they used elected
to She said that they would fry her. Um. She
said that I should be her alibi until the police.
She was with me in Washington, and I told her
that that would never ever work, because the police never
believe boyfriends or husbands or wives and people like that.

(06:39):
So I came up with this brilliant idea um based
on Charles Dickens a Tale of Two Cities of all things. UM,
I would take the blame for her. I would take
the rap for her and save her life. Um At

(07:00):
was based on a character in this Charles Dickens novel,
um Sydney Carton, who did that in this novel. The
difference was that in the novel that particular character actually
did get executed. Whereas my father was a German diplomat,
I thought I had diplomatic community. I thought that I

(07:22):
could take the blame for her crime. And all that
would happen with me was about the sent back to
Germany and put in prison there in proven Our prison
for about ten years. And I thought that giving ten
years of my life was worth saving draw life from

(07:44):
the electric ture. Um. Yeah, it's sort of a twisted nobility. Um,
it's you know, it's sort of very hard to imagine.
But at the same time, will do crazy things for
love all the time. And you know, as you and
I have spoken on the phone at length the ends

(08:05):
about this, and in fact his wars have been started
over love affairs. So you know, you're not the only
person by far that's ever done something so crazy, but
this is certainly an extreme example. Um. And then yeah,
well go ahead, and sorry, it's not gonna say. It's
a bit like at the end of the movie Titanic,

(08:26):
right when Leonardo Ditapriol lifts Kate Windlet onto that door
to save her life and then he sort of sinks
away and gives his life for her. Um, you know,
except I didn't lift take windlet up on that door.
I looked at Sharon Stone from basic instinct upon that door,
and then, you know, sacrifice myself for her. Yes, we

(08:48):
we were talking about this earlier ends and I said
that it's it's such a strange fate that you happen
to have only been with one woman and she turned
out to be the devil. Um, it's it's really something
is unimaginable. Um, you know, it's calling her the devil
is a little oversimplified. She was later diagnosed with a

(09:11):
very severe personality disorder, so you know, she actually had
serious mental health issues. And and of course that she
claimed that her mother had sexually abused her with the
knowledge and cooperation of her father. And you know, there's
there's some indications that that may have actually been true. Ums,

(09:35):
we'll never know for sure now, but you know, she
was a troubled young woman. This I want to fast
forward a little bit because I want to get into
the current circumstance and how we can hopefully make a
difference and get you home where you belong. Um. But
as things developed, you initially were not suspects, and but

(09:57):
then at some point you decided to to make a getaway.
And this is back in the days when and for
people who don't remember, in the eighties you can sort
of travel the world under a different name. And it
wasn't all these different It wasn't you know, so tightly
monitored or regulated. And so you guys went around the
world and ultimately ended up in England. Um, which is

(10:18):
also sort of a crazy adventure to think about these
two lovers, uh, running away from the authorities, traveling the
world with a suitcase, and you know, it's uh, you know,
sort of a it sounds sounds kind of romantic and
adventurous and you know, um, cinematic at the same time. Uh.
And you ended up in England, and that's when things
began began to go wrong, right, because you were ultimately

(10:41):
arrested for passing bad checks, as I understand it. And
then um, and then we get to the point where
the false confessions come in, or your false confession. So
the police Elizabeth and me back from the tail to
the police station and they slee wrote into the police

(11:02):
station lab book that I was to be held in
Canino Cardo. In other ways, I was to be isolated
from the outside world and not give an access to
my lawyer, and that's exactly what they did for four days.
They interrogated me for four days, many many hours, dozens
and dozens and dozens of hours. And then finally on

(11:23):
the fourth day, UM, when I decided to keep my
promise to Elizabeth that I had made uh fifteen months earlier, um,
and I decided to take the blame for what she did.
And that's what I did. I told him the story
that she and I had cooked up. And of course

(11:45):
that fast confession contained many states that the real killer
would not have made. I described the clothing of one
victim incorrectly, and I placed the other in the wrong room.
And they were numerous mistakes like that, um, um, which

(12:06):
you know should have learned the police to the fact
that I might not be telling the truth. Um. In
addition to that, of course, at that time, the police
who were interrogating me were in possession of an FBI
crime scene profile by one by one of the people

(12:29):
invented crime scene profiling, one of the leading special agents,
and that profile said that the crime had been committed
by a woman in a close relationship to the victims.
And of course I was a man, and I didn't
know the victims, like the one time for twenty minutes. Um,

(12:50):
so they should have known that what the story I
was telling them was not true. Um, nevertheless. Um. And then,
of course, the other thing that happened is that just
a couple of hours after I told the police that
I did it, Elizabeth told the police that he did it.
She said, I did it myself. I got off on it.

(13:13):
But by that space, the police had decided that I
was abilty one. So they actually let her withdraw that confession,
which is hilarious in a way because, um, they found
hosting the prince at the crime scene and not mine.
And you know, it's, um yeah, quite incredible that they

(13:36):
let her withdraw that confession. But they did. And so
they ended up charging me with being the killer and
they charged her with being the accomplice. You have one minute.
They charged me with being the killer, and they charged
her with being an accomplice, and they put me on

(13:57):
trial and convicted me of something that I didn't. But
we could back, I could talk about the blood which
they used at the trial and look changeful way. Let
me hang up and call back. We're back. Hey, we're back.
So um, there's there's a lot of things wrong with
this case. There's so many it's it's hard to even

(14:18):
fit them into a uh an episode of the show.
But one of them that I talked about, and as
you know, you know, we've known each other quite some
time and advocating alongside this amazing team of people that
you have. And what I say to anyone that will
listen to me is this is an unusual situation because
normally in false confession cases you have people who are

(14:38):
trying not to implicate themselves and who may be of
limited mental abilities as well. Uh in some cases. In
your case, you were trying to implicate yourself, right, so
there would have been no reason for you not to
tell the truth if in fact you knew what it was.
But the reason that you were wrong about these details
is because you just didn't know. So here you had

(14:59):
a guy who are the smartest guy in the room,
and you were trying the best to save your the
love of what you thought was the love of your life,
and yet you were unable to get almost anything right
because of the fact that you weren't there. So that
makes it hard. And I do want to bring John
and Chip into the conversation to just to talk about this, uh,

(15:21):
this scenario that took place in England and and and
the immediate aftermath of it. Um John, you want to
jump in here, Yeah, well if you, it goes back
to a confession, false confession, because there's no um, there's
no other proof, uh, two convicians of the murder. So
you've got all they have is a false a confession.

(15:44):
And with any false confession case, what you would hope
that the authorities do is once they managed to extract
the confession and whatever technics they used to do that
is that they will match it up to the physical
events to see if it in fact matches. And false
confessions virtually never match up because there are too many details. There,

(16:06):
too many um uh specifics in the murder, the method
of murder, the place, the blood, the blood splattered, the clothing,
the room, whatever. There's a whole of fingerprints, footprints, and
there's a long list of items that you know. The
police go through any investigation, and with a false confession,

(16:28):
it's usually fairly simple to uh, to realize once you
start matching the confession given by somebody who wasn't there,
it's impossible for them to remember all the details that
the real killer would actually know, where he left the bodies,
how he killed him, while you know who who did what,
what was on the kitchen table, what was knocked over,

(16:49):
what was spuilt? These are all you know, it's fairly
common consense. And and then in Yen's case, you know
there were so many discrepancies between his confession and actual
physical crime scene. You just want to scream and say,
why didn't somebody put these together? Match them up? And

(17:10):
and somebody, whether the cops and the local boys are
you know, not always that reliable, especially in a rural
county like uh, Bedford, Virginia, where you know, they don't
they don't see a lot of murders, and the cops
are not that well trained and sophisticated. Um, you you
just you you, You want to say, why can't you

(17:31):
guys look at what's obvious. What frustrates me is when
you get to trial and you have what you think
should be a competent defense lawyer who cannot walk through
the confessions step by step by step and show the
discrepanties between the confession and the actual crime scene. I'm
not sure if this was done or attempted in Yend's case,

(17:53):
but it certainly was not effective. And so that's that's
what we always start in a false confession case is
let's match it up with the proof, and it never
matches him. It never does. And this was a crazy
case because on top of all the other you know,
factors that led to his wrangful conviction. UM. I think

(18:14):
there was an inherent bias. I can't prove this because
of the fact that it was Bedford County, which ironically
was as the county that lost more soldiers in World
War Two to the Germans per capita than anywhere else
in the United States. It's why the World War Two
Memorial memorial is there. And so I think that there's
at least an argument that there could have been a
the oddswood stacked against the ends from the beginning. UM.

(18:34):
I want to bring Sheriff Harding into the into the conversation. UM,
Sheriff Harding is a four You've been in law enforcement
for several decades, four decades, right, and have been recognized
by uh it's I mean, his resume is is nuts.
When you look at the number of accreditations he has,

(18:55):
in the number of awards he's won and he's UM,
one of the most accomplished people in law enforcement the
United States. And you've been you've dived into this case,
uh with I mean with all with all guns blazing,
so to speak. And and is it possible, Sheriff, You've

(19:15):
examined this evidence eighteen ways till Sunday. Is it theoretically
possible that Jains committed this crime? Is it possible? I
mean he could have been dropped down with us from
a spaceship and done it. But is it logical he
he was there when these murders occurred. Extremely unlikely he
was there. There's nothing that puts him there other than
this false confession. And as John was saying earlier, Um,

(19:38):
the confession didn't match the crime scene when you look
at it, I mean, there was some huge discrepancies that
weren't followed up. You had a young investigator, his first
homicide case you'd ever investigated, and I'm I'm reading the
transcript going, You've gotta be kid me. You didn't do
any follow up. Plus they didn't take the confession. So
when he gets the court, very skillfully, the prosecutor only

(20:00):
asked questions that were consistent with the cram scene in
the event and admitted the inconsistencies. And as John was
pouring out, he had a very very ineffective defense attorney
that didn't bring that to the attention to the jury,
among other things. And yend take us back in your UM.
You know from your perspective, UM, this this is a

(20:22):
nightmare that no one can imagine living through. You would
you had been in jail in England for quite some
time before you even came to trial. You had nothing
in your life experience that would prepare you for any
of this, Um And now here you are in the
in the grip of the justice system in Virginia, UM
as a sort of an arch villain, right And what

(20:46):
was this like for you to go through this at
the time? Did you believe that you would be um,
that you would actually win this case? Um? Can I
A couple of other factories have been answer you a
question I details that corroberate the confession. At the time
of trial, the prosecutor um Um pointed out to the

(21:11):
jury twenty six times that the police found um some
O type blood at the crime scene, and that I
was the only person involved in the case who had
type of blood. The victims did not have type of blood,
and my girlfriend did not have type of blood. The

(21:32):
only person involved in the case was type old blood
was meat, is what the prosecutor told the jury twenty
six times. And it would take another two and a
half decades to find out through DNA testing that indeed
that was type of blood that was left by somebody else.

(21:53):
So what a fact that seemed to corroborate the confession
at the time of the trial his mouth shown, actually
and a sheriff harding, what percentage of the population has
uh this type of blood? I think it's about, isn't it.
It's pretty h right, So I mean that really is

(22:15):
I mean, it's a ridiculous thing to try to pin
anything on, but yet the prosecutor mentioned it for six times.
It's also worth mentioning, uh that Yenza is lead trial
lawyer was disbarred a few years after your uh, your false,
your wrongful conviction, and he was desbarred because of mental illness. Uh.
Drugs were a factor in all of this, and it

(22:38):
was shown that he was suffering from this um, this
this profound problem during the time of your trial. So
that's just another important thing to recognize. Feel like you

(23:00):
wanted to know what it felt like. UM. At that stage,
I had already been in prison for four years fighting
extra vision UM from England to the United States. For
most of those four years, I was convinced. Then all
my lawyers were convinced, and everybody thought that I would
definitely be sentenced to death. UM. So I spent four

(23:23):
years in prison in effect psychologically on death row. I
was IOWA was everybody, including my own team, totally that
had no chance of avoiding the Electric two. Um. And
then at the last minute that was avoided. We went
an appeal at the European Court of Human Rights and
I was brought back to America. And that sort of

(23:46):
thing hasn't effect on you psychologically, living in prison for
four years believing that you're gonna die pretty inclusively in
the Electric two. And then I got that brought back
to his opinion. Everybody hated me, everybody was convinced that
of guilty. UM. And it was you know, he was

(24:10):
really was scary. I was. UM. It was very frightening
experience and and I did not handle it well. I
cannot handle it well um um. But again you have
to put them against the background of my having done it.
Spent you know, three years under comminent threat of death

(24:32):
and then coming into the zoo atmosphere and having to
see Elizabeth Hayston, a woman that that sacrificed myself for
get up to understand and told herself, um, and tell
all these lives to put me away in prison. Um.

(24:53):
And when I say that he courted herself, that's not
just the claim I make. Um. Twenty six years later,
he actually admitted that in a He admitted that herself
at that trial. But at that time nobody knew that,
and nobody cared. They just wanted a witness point singer

(25:14):
at me. And she did that job she brought and
that and my own frost confession and the type of
blood that's what didn't me. And the sock print, of course,
was a ridiculous piece of evidence that no no serious
person should have ever even it shouldn't been allowed in court,
and it shouldn't have been in the way that was

(25:34):
done was very devious. Um. But I want to go
back to John and Chip here, because John, you were
a criminal defense lawyer in your younger years, and Chip
obviously you were a very accomplished investigator. UM. How would
you guys have handled this, and do you think what
could have been done to save ends? And if you were,

(25:56):
if you were representing him back then, what would you
have said. It's difficult to uh, you know, project myself
into that situation, especially now many years later. Uh. Only
practiced law for ten years, and my my dream when
I was very young was to become an accomplished courtroom lawyer,
a big time trial lawyer. And to do that, I

(26:17):
volunteered for all of the indigent cases that I could
possibly get because I needed to work. But also he
got me in the courtroom. And within uh, within two
years of finishing law school, I had tried to murder
cases by myself. Uh no second chair. They weren't capital cases,
but they were murder cases, and I had won both
of them, uh not guilty and um so I was

(26:40):
in the courtroom a lot. I did win many cases
because they weren't supposed to be one Uh. Most of
my clients went to prison. But anyway, that was that
was my world back then, was criminal defense law, and
I wanted to parlay that into you know, a courtroom
resume for for big cases. And so that was very
much the way I lived back then. Uh. And when

(27:02):
I read these cases, uh, and I read a lot
of them now being on the board of the Innocence
Project and working with innocence cases, and you see some
of the defense work by lawyers. And this was a
private attorney that end his family provided a guy who
was not even from the area. I think he's from
Detroit to someplace. Um. But to see the the incompetence

(27:22):
of defense lawyers and the and the lack of effort,
the lack of integrity and challenging the prosecution, even challenging
the judges. Uh, It's it's extremely frustrating. And we see
it all the time in in wrongful conviction cases where
you have all the reasons, all of the factors that

(27:43):
lead to wrongful convictions, whether it's junk science or jailhouse
nitches or false confessions or whatever. We have a list.
But the one that really irritates me a lot is
the incompetent defense work because there's no excuse for it's
it's a question of simple hard work or saying no
to a case you shouldn't take to begin with. So
I can't tell you specifically what I would have done

(28:04):
thirty years ago to save YenS. I can't do that.
I'm not that smart, but um, hard word, there's there's
rarely a substitute for hard work and fortitude in challenging
the facts, and I didn't see it in this case.
And Sheriff Harding, I want to talk to you because, um,
it's interesting to me that you know, YenS has assembled

(28:24):
this remarkable team and it's a great credit to him.
And you're an interesting character in this because you're a
conservative guy or a guy who's obviously law and order guy,
and yet you have devoted yourself selflessly and spent time
that you could have been doing anything else, two hundreds
of hours to this case. Um, so can you talk

(28:45):
about that? And then can you talk about the the
actual h forensic evidence right Well, his attorney, Stephen Rosenfield,
asked me to take a look at part of the
pardon petition to see if I could find a way
to strengthen it or to see if he's missmissed something
in it. And I told Steve at the beginning, I
felt like you was guilty based on everything I've seen.
I know Governor Kane had tried to send him back
to Germany. I was opposed to that, um, because I

(29:07):
felt like he was guilty. He should have been given
any special consideration just because he was a German. But
so Steve gave me the case. It won't take about
a couple of hours. Well, I ended up taking a
bunch of stuff home that night. My wife thought I
lost my mind because I spent basically the whole weekend
the dining room table covered with material that Steve gave me.
And I said, oh my god, this is nothing like
what was represented in And in conclusion, UM, I inter

(29:31):
upriting nineteen page letter to the governor breaking down the
closing arguments of the case. You know, it's the strength
of the government's case Last Might at the Apple, and
I broke that down. And then after that was published,
I had another investigator work with me for twenty five years, said,
let me help former FBI agent that I know that
I worked in another case with jumped in and one

(29:52):
of the original invest Bedford investigators said he felt like
Yan's had been railroaded and was in us. And also,
so the four of us have been working in collectively,
we've given a couple of thousand hours and um, you
want to talk briefly about to forensics. The old blood
was very powerful as was mentioned UM, and I will
say if I was on that jury, I would have
convicted him based on it the way the evidence was

(30:14):
represented so skillfully by the prosecutor. The old blood now
we know absolutely no one can test the fact that's
not insuring he's not been detected in the crime scene.
But two other males, one with a b blood and
one with old blood have been detected in the crime
scene and we have not identified those people and have
not In my opinion, Bedford County should consider having an

(30:35):
open homicide investigation. Then you look at the next piece
of evidence that was pretty powerful. The Commonwealth UM originally
got a certificate of analysis from the State Bureau of
Forensics saying that the shoes you have one minute remaining.
The shoe in socks size was consistent with a six
and a half to seven and a half woman shoe

(30:57):
a man five or six well originally had And this
just blew my mind. They originally had a small female
as a prime suspect in this thing. And the prosecutor
wrote a letter and we got a copy of it
attached with the draft aff of David saying that he
wanted this woman's blood, fingerprints and shoe impressions because her
shoe was consistent with what was in the crime scene.

(31:19):
Now that you turn in and go to trial, you
don't hear anything. The defense attorney brings nothing up. They
bring in a non qualified uh individual to testify. He
did a what we like to refer to as a
magic trick, created an over the lay of impression of
Yen's foot and said it basically fits like a glove,
reminds you of o J And he was even instructed

(31:41):
he could not testify as an expert. But when you
look at the closing arguments of the prosecutor, he says
he can only fit one man. One man in the
world could and he pointed yensering and we know that's
hoop law, that's junk evidence. And the same the same
man that that put this on in front of the jury,
Robert halott Um, did the same thing in another case
where a man was given the death penalty, and thank

(32:04):
god it took a few years. He did not get executed.
DNA prude, he absolutely didn't do it. So you have
here you have the same junk science being used again.
There was a juror that gave an affidavit to the
attorneys that said it was tied six six in the
jury room. They wanted to take a look at the
sock and shoe evidence again and he said that's what
turned the tide. And we know now, uh, we know,

(32:26):
now that's ludicrous. Um, they're really two parts. You've got
a false confession and you also have a false alibibe.
You've got Elizabeth who claims she stayed at the hotel
room and when YenS came back. She said, Yenz comes
back that night after midnight and a sheet covered in
blood from head to toe in the rental vehicle, and

(32:46):
YenS asked her to clean it up with Coca cola.
Yet that vehicle was tested with luminol and I've never
had a case where blood had been present. Even Bleach
had gotten it all out, no indication of any blood
at all, And was testimony from the Oaks, the rental
agency that the car was an immacula condition, no signs
of any coca cola. We have since learned and and
dig it in the little limited information we can see, Um,

(33:10):
that there was actually blood found in the trap of
the shower of the master bedroom and that show wall
illuminated like fourth of July. So it gives us the
impression as investigators at least one of the participants in
this homicide took a shower, so why would he be
covered in blood from head to toe. It's impossible. And
there are three or four more things that Elizabeth says
that occurred. We can disprove with her alibi as a

(33:34):
matter of fact, not close. We have not everything that
has come out of that woman's mouth. We can either
prove as provable that she's lying or it's highly suspects
she's lying. We've looked very hard and everything at YenS
has said, and we have not caught him in a lie.
Everything that he said, we have no reason not to
believe him. There there's a book that Jens wrote with

(33:56):
Bill's seized mark called The Far, Far Better Thing, and
in uh on page to twenty, I'm going to read this.
Russell Johnson, a fully qualified footprint expert, was so averaged
that he wrote a letter to the editor of the
roan Oake Newspaper declaring that the sock print evidence was
worthless junk science. He said, there appeared to have been
a slide in the heel before it came to rest, which,

(34:18):
of course would invalidate any attempt to size the thing up.
And then he made a very strong quote that said
that the bloody sock print quote provides no evidence whatsoever
that Mr Surring was at the scene of the crime.
So the idea that this was the thing that the
juror's sight as the thing that broke them from a
six six tie to ultimately an unanimous guilty verdict, it

(34:41):
should be offensive to anyone who believes in truth and justice,
and it certainly is to us, which is why we're
here now. Um, John, do you look like you have
something on your mind? No, I'm just uh fascinated by
the level of junk science that permeates our courtroom still today.
Whether it's uh sock print analysis or bite mark analysis,

(35:05):
or hair analysis or bootprint analysis. There's a long, sad
list of these analyzes that have put so many people
in prison, uttered by people who are not qualified. Uh.
You you know, you can go to a weekend seminar
and study blood splatter analysis, get a certificate and call

(35:26):
yourself an expert, and some some prosecutors somewhere can call
you in a murder trial and you, you know, pretty
much say whatever you want you to. Say, we are
at the Innocence Project. We are laboring to provide some
national standard for forensic sciences to get to clean up
the courtroom and get all the crap out of it.
So we have good qualified experts who give valid scientific

(35:49):
opinions about things that are really really important. You know, Uh,
the Ron Williamson case, the book I wrote about the
innocent man. He was convicted in part because of hair analysis, uh,
provided by the Oklahoma State Crime Lab. And this expert
took some scalp in pubic hair from the crime scene
and said, yeah, that's it's a bit matches Ron and

(36:10):
the jury eight done up. Uh. Ten years later that
same hair when Ron was tried at eighty seven, there's
no DNA. Ten years later we had DNA and all
seventeen hairs were excluded from by DNA from Ron Williamson.
So there and then later a few years ago, the
FBI admitted that when it comes to hair analysis of

(36:30):
their own, FBI examiners got it wrong. Okay, that's the FBI,
that's the cream of the crop. Can you imagine what
the numbers are for the State crime Lab. So the
junk science is just uh sickening and and Gens is
imprisoned today because of junk science. It's there's so much

(36:51):
because this case. We're talking about a case in which
a couple was brutally murdered, stabbed multiple times, each of
them very bloody crime scene, full rich with biological evidence
from the actual killers. UM. In theory, you also had
a logical um explanation for this, in that Elizabeth had

(37:12):
said multiple times that she had been sexually abused by
her mother, that her father may have been involved in
this in some way. There was a clear motive in
that sense. You had drugs, which no one ever claimed
that you were on drugs, but we know that she
was doing hard drugs and that she was running with
a very very nefarious crew back then and would have

(37:33):
had access to the type of people who might commit
a murder like this. UM. People who knew you back then,
including some people for law enforcement, said that it was
Even Elizabeth said it was ludicrous to think that you
could have committed a brutal crime like this because you're
not a physically imposing guy. It would have had to
overpower two adults. UM. None of it ever made any sense,

(37:56):
and there should have been It should have been relatively
simple and now. Of course, so many people have weighed
in on this, including Chuck Reid, one of the original
investigators in the case, who has said in emphatic terms
that it could not have been you, that he doesn't
believe it was you. Um. And yet we still uh
find ourselves in this situation where we're still all trying

(38:16):
to get you out, And it's it's also worth talking
about the fact that you know you have while in prison,
distinguished yourself in ways that are almost unprecedented, writing nine
books widely published um as Educating Yourself, becoming a tai

(38:39):
Chi master and meditation teacher and uh and of course
having had an absolutely perfect record behind bars. I often
talked about the fact that you've never, to my knowledge,
never even spilled your coffee. So it's it's remarkable in
what it says about you. And also about the idea
that we are a nation supposedly of second chances of forgiveness,

(39:00):
So why anyone would want to keep you in even
if they are unwilling or unable, unwilling to look at
orunable to understand the scientific evidence of your innocence. The
idea that we still keep you behind bars, Uh, it's
just it's an affront to anyone who believes in in
in just decency. It's been very various difficult for me,

(39:26):
especially over the last two and a half years since
the parting octation was submitted based on the DNA evidence.
It's been really difficult for me because for thirty years
we start, there was no DNA evidence in this case
that could prove my innocence. And then after thirty it

(39:47):
was actually I on the phone with my lawyer, Steve Rosenfield,
flipping through some old forensical points I found, and you know,
that's the part is based on. A half years later,
we cannot get anybody to act on it, you know.

(40:12):
And then and then going to listen more, let me
jump in for a second, because we have here an interesting, uh,
such an amazing group, right. We have John Grisham, who
is you know, one of the most famous, if not
the most famous virginian Um legendary figure from the literary world,

(40:36):
and who is certainly no stranger to politics or justice.
And we have Sheriff Harding, who knows his way around
law enforcement as well or better than anybody in the state.
And maybe you guys can try to give me some
insight as to why this case is such a difficult
one to resolve in the face of such overwhelming evidence

(41:00):
of innocence. Um, you know, and and such a strong
group behind the ends. I mean when I say a
strong group, Angela Merkel and La Merkel spoke to President
Obama on several occasions about YenS. I mean, when have
we ever heard of that that the president, the former
president of Germany, President Shultz, flew to Virginia just for
the purpose of meeting with the parole board to say,

(41:21):
send him home. I'll take care of him. I want
to house him, I want to get him a job,
I want to you know, mentor him. I mean, you
have the one of our most important allies in the
world who have made it a national priority at the
highest levels to extricate YenS from this impossible situation and
bring him back to his own country. And yet here
we are. Can can you guys touch on this? What?

(41:42):
How do you explain this? Touch on I can't explain it.
And I think you know, Jason from your working in
the innocence world. It's as frustrating as this is. It's
not unusual. Uh, we We've had cases before. We're Uh,
we have to fight tooth and nail to obtain a
DNA testing for one of our clients, and we we

(42:03):
get the DNA testing, all the objections of the local
prosecutors and local law enforcement, we get the DNA testing.
It clears our clients slash inmate whatever, and so he's cleared. Okay.
Then it takes a year procedurally to get him out.
Oftentimes the prosecutor will say, well, I don't really believe

(42:26):
the DNA results. We're gonna try you again, and so
they bring him back to the local jail where they
can keep him forever. Uh, And a year goes by,
two years ago. You know this is not again as
frustrating as it is, as maddening as it is. Um,
I'm ashamed to say it's not that unusual. I think

(42:48):
in Yen's case, though, we are um pressing ahead with
the full court press on many fronts. We are um
cautiously optimistic that the right people are listening to us.
We are almost sanctimonious in our belief that we are

(43:10):
right and everybody else is wrong, and it's time to
make something good happen. And um, that's that's why we
are going to these efforts, and we're not gonna, um,
we're not gonna stop, slow down or be quiet. Uh,
We're just gonna get more and more vocal and push
harder and harder until we get justice. Sheriff Hardy. On

(43:34):
top of all the other evidence and FBI agents like
Ed Saulsback who came forward and others to say that
they had been evidence that had been hidden or or
not turned over and not disclosed in the way that
the law mandates that it must be. There's also the uh,
in chapter eighteen of the book that I referenced before,
there's the story of the car in the woods, right,

(43:55):
which would again if you would think that this alone
would be enough to send Yen's home, Um, you know,
and I'm going to quote from the book again. Uh
you know. In two thousand eleven, Tony Buchanan, the retired
owner of a Lynchburg area auto transmission shops, said that
three to five months after the murders car was towed
into his shop for repairs, it's undercarriage matted with grass

(44:16):
and mud, as if it had been sitting in the
woods for a while. The tow truck driver told Buchanan
the two door cheval they belonged to quote some college kids.
And here's the important part. He said in this sworn
statement that when he looked inside, he saw that the
floorboard on the driver's side was quote full of dried blood.
Beside the console between the front seats, also covered and
dried blood, was a single edged hunting type knife, the

(44:36):
same type that was used to kill the Hasoms. Now
I'm sitting here, I've got chills just reading that. And
you know, he that this same guy testified or swore
and affidated that neither none of those people was YenS.
YenS was not one of the people that returned the car.
Elizabeth was one and somebody else was the other. But
yet here we go again. Yeah, he claimced, just a shame.

(44:57):
So much time has passed. He claimed that he called
and to Rickey Gardner, who was the lead investigator in
that chief deputy in Bedford, and told him about this
Gardener Denizette says, it didn't happen. Um, so so much
time has passed. Some of the investigators did work that lead,
and we kind of ran it out because time time
was not on our side. We tried to find any

(45:17):
documentation with material checks and all that kind of stuff.
The bikes just don't have it from back in n
But if they had been followed up home properly at
the time, same way, if they had sent investigators to
the hotel they'd stayed at, it had cleared it up
right away that Yen's was there, she wouldn't. It was
his story of what he purchased was consistent with the

(45:38):
hotel bill which she said she purchased when she stayed.
There was very inconsistent way over what with the bill
showed in it. But you know the bottom line, it
most frustrated for me the law enforcement. I'm in law enforcement,

(46:02):
and I hope I'm respecting law enforcement. I'm a sitting sheriff,
and yet the sitting sheriff in Bedford County refuses to
meet with me and even discussed the case. The lead
investigator won't meet with the four of us who have
given thousands of hours pro bono. We don't have anything
in it. We're just looking for justice. We asked for
one hour and he says he doesn't have time. However,
we do have him caught on videotape saying a few
years ago, this happened thirty years ago. He was convicted

(46:25):
in court. Why do we need to go any further
than And I think that's the attitude, which is it's
really shut down. From an investigative standpoint, We've not had
access to the investigative files or any further testing because
I'm out of my jurisdiction and getting absolutely no cooperation
from Bedford. We have proved absolutely that they lied and

(46:46):
concealed the fact that there was an FBI profile done.
My buddy who's retired FBI agent, we had asked the
FBI several times and they couldn't find any information. This,
Ricky Gardner said absolutely hundred percent if it was not done.
We now have actual documents from not five from the
FBI that indicate a profile was done in Quantico, Virginia.

(47:08):
So you know, my buddy um form the FBI agent said.
If they will allow about that and it won't cooperate,
what else is there? It certainly raises a red flag
with us as investigators. Do we have any form of
corruption or wrong or doing. Yeah, they won't even allow
you to test the DNA of two guys that we
know are in for committing similar crimes in another county

(47:30):
in Virginia, who we don't we have no idea whether
they committed this crime or not, but there's there's some
reason to believe that they were. These two guys knife
demand multiple times to death within a few days, and
that far from the Hassome residents. Whether those victims were located,
and these two folks, one of them at least was,

(47:51):
according as background and we've read was involved in in
heavy drugs and the Lynchburg area, as we believe Elizabeth was.
She was admitted heroin user. And there there DNA should
be in the data bank. They're both doing life of
that murder. And we simply ask, would you take those
profiles compare them to the crime scene, and the state says,
can't do it. It's got the jurisdiction where the offense occurred.

(48:12):
They have to request it into our knowledge. They're not
doing anything, which is just remarkable, right when you think
about the idea that they just refused to test something
that can only prove like one or another, either these
guys did it or they didn't. Why wouldn't we want
to know? We want to know from investigative standpoint, do
we want to keep following those two guys as a
lead or can they be excluded based on the DNA

(48:32):
very somebody would take about three or four minutes to
compare those barcodes. It's so frustrating. I'm used to working
in my own jurisdiction. If I want something tested, I
asked Glad to do it, they do it. If I
want to search one, I get it. If I have
witnesses and we have two or three people that need
to be interview in this case, they refuse to cooperate whatsoever.
I don't have any grandeur authority to serve as a

(48:53):
peno on them. So it's I really feel for the
Innocence Project. I see what they go through now now
that I'm on the other side. Defense, I feel like
you're operating with both hands tad behind your back. Everything's
working against you. So you gotta put a lot more
work and effort into it than you really should and
try to get to the truth, which we all should want.
But apparently we don't all always want the truth and justice.

(49:15):
You know. It's also something I want to touch on
before I turn over to John for a second, which
is that back in two thousand and eight or nine,
with the support of Bishop Sullivan and other luminaries both
religious and political, figures. Governor Kane granted a conditional pardon.
I guess you would say that's would have allowed you

(49:37):
to go back to Germany. And this is such an
unbelievable thing to even think about. When I hear myself
tell the story to people, I don't even believe it myself,
but I know it's true. And then as literally as
you were packing your bags, UH, the governor, the new
governor came in, Governor McDonald, and he revoked for the
first time and then two and thirty four year history

(49:59):
of Virginia. He revoked the previous governor's order and and
and decided that you would be kept in prison for
the rest of your life, which is just an unbelievable
thing to process, and it is it is remarkable going
back and thinking about the number of people, on the
quality of people that have come to your defense, and
even now the support of amazing people from journalism the

(50:22):
Washington Post who are even here today covering the story. UM.
So many of of the literally the finest UM organizations
and and the leaders of different UH from all all
all parts of the UH the country have have taken
up this cause. And I wanted to ask you, John

(50:42):
of all the millions of things you could be doing
with your time right now, and we know that with
about you know, the estimates are five percent of people
in President America, which is about a hundred thousand people,
are innocent. There's so many innocent people. And again there's
so many other things that you Sheriff me. Uh, the
million of the pro bono lawyers who have helped the
Ends throughout the years and still help him now. Steve

(51:03):
Rosen fellops in north and others. Why are you so
obsessed with this case? I wouldn't say I'm obsessed. I'm
very concerned about it. Uh. Since The Innocent Man was
published in two thousand and six and I joined the
board of the Innocence Project in New York, I've done
a lot of this type of work as you have, Jason.

(51:25):
I haven't done as much as you have. But we,
as individual members, we we tend to get involved in
cases that we hear about. I'm still involved with the
two guys in Oklahoma. There's a case in Mississippi that
I'm involved with. I've known about the end Seering case
here for Tive. We went to twenty five years in
Charlettsville and um I've read about the case a long time,

(51:48):
becau I didn't pay much attention to it. I saw
that it was a confession. I figured, well, okay, they
got the right guy. Um it was never too involved
in the case. And then a couple of years ago,
UM talked to Steve Rosenville. We you know, we had
we had a coffee, talked about the case, and he
asked me to take a look at it. Well, by
the end the case had been looked at, uh so

(52:11):
many different ways by so many different people. And Chip
Harding also, uh you know, spoke about the case and
said he by then he had five hours in the case.
He's probably got five thousand now. But Um, I just
started reading about the case. He read, read the book,
UH saw the movie and realized this took place, you know,

(52:32):
very close to where I lived. I was convinced, became
convinced it was a huge miscarriage of justice, and UH
became fascinated with it. And UM, you know, I thought
about writing the story. I thought about writing the book.
These instance cases always inspired me to UM write the
story because the stories are so almost all of them
are so fascinating, compelling, heartbreaking, but they're just good, rich, deep,

(52:57):
complicated stories, and I love that type of a story. So, UM,
you know, I talk to you Jason. We we've known
each other for a long time. We we sort of
got involved in the case after you and and here
we are. And the more work that I do, I'm
still catching up to you guys. But the more we
work together, the more we're more determined we are to

(53:20):
to to get a just decision in this case. And
U we have. You know, we have several avenues left.
It's not it's not hopeless by any means. We don't
view it as hopeless. We we think we can smell victory.
John was just thinking about the multiple avenues available. Um,

(53:42):
most citizens cases have only one real option, and that's
hardened and that's usually a full part. And that makes
it very difficult because somebody has to admit that they
made it terrible mistake. My case is a little bit
unusual and that the state actually has still sen They
have the option of an absolute pardon, which would be

(54:04):
to declare my innocence and actually admit what really happened,
which was that this is a wrongful conviction. But they
have trod options. They have a conditional pardon, which would
be just to say that there's a lot of doubts,
but not to say I'm actually innocent, just to say
there's a lot of questions and a lot of doubts,
you can't be sure. And then there's a third option,

(54:26):
and that would be parole. So what are mystifying things
to me about this my case in comparison to other cases,
that they have a whole smartest board of options to
choose from full pardon or absolute pardon, conditional pardon, and
then row, and they're choosing not to exercise any of

(54:49):
these options. And I find that truggling. Sheriff Harty, I'm
gonna put the same question to you. I mean, I
have my own reasons. I mean, different cases affect all
of us differently. Um, you're both of Virginia, of guys.
I'm a New York guy, but you know I recognize
injustice when I see it, and I also recognize in
this case the the added tragedy of human potential and

(55:10):
that ends. And he and I've talked about this at length. Um,
the idea that Ens could be I mean, he has
contributed a lot to society, even from the inside of
these maximum security prisons, he's been stuck in for all
these years. But the idea that he could be out,
you know, doing great things. Um, with his intellect and
with his his spirit and his courage. But what what

(55:32):
is it about this case in particular that makes you
wanted to vote your free time when you know, again
you could be out fishing or whatever it is, playing golf. Well,
this just came to me and I'm captivated by it.
Like you say, you really have to dig into it
to what's really grandhold of you. I first got it,

(55:53):
really interested in this type of work, innocence work, by
reading John Grisham's book back when it first came at
The Innocent Man. And then I became friends with Brandon Garrett,
used to be a professor here at the uv a's
at Duke University. Now he has a book out Wrong
Full Convictions, How criminal prosecutions went wrong, and he's got
a lot of research data. Um. I'm not bragging, but

(56:13):
I worked as an investigator and invest get a supervisor
for thirty years and I never lost a case and
always thought I did it right. But after reading John's
book with Holy Talita, I don't think I ever wrongly
convicted someone. But the opportunity surely was there. You tend
to get tunnel vision, just like these folks did here.
You tend to go in those gray areas that you

(56:36):
think because you think you've got the right guy, you're
doing the right thing to protect your community, and you're
not necessarily doing that. So and looking at this case,
I'm seeing all of those things. I'm seeing tunnel vision.
I'm seeing junk signs. I'm seeing so much it's wouldn't
be interesting. I'm if I had to sit in jail
like he has to look at it. But I'm founding
a fascinating case to dig into. Um. I I read

(57:00):
some of the letters, it just blew me away. There
was one by Elizabeth that she wrote ninety days before
the murder that said, I'd always believe that I made
men fall in love with me so I could take
out all the hatred I felt for them by humiliating them.
I despised their cheap lust and easy passions, and in
the end I made them hate themselves for loving me

(57:23):
and the torture inflicted so she might be enjoying him
sitting there. The other part of it is looking at
Jim Updyke, who give him credit. I thought that he
did a good, masterful job of winning the case. I
don't know if it was about justice, he wrote in
an in an interview that I've got a copy of.
On one hand, she freely admitted her parents wouldn't be

(57:44):
dead if not for her. I agree with that she
wanted them dead. On the other hand, she was a
great assistance to me, up Dyke said. Haysam helped him
gather the evidence against Soaring and even outlined the whole
case for him. Where you gotta be kidding me, but
you see this stuff all over the country. Um, you

(58:07):
know right now, I've got a lot of invested in this,
as do the other investigators. And and we'll do anything
we can, yeah, prove his innocence if he if we
do feel like he is, and we will prevail because
we're not going, as John said, we're not going to stop. Um,
We're going to keep fighting until we get him out
and then we'll move on to the next one. But
until that's done, um, we're not. We're just going to

(58:29):
get noisier and we're going to get more efficient, and
uh we're going to uh you know, ultimately prevail. I
think that you know, we do have, UM a state
here where I think there's a number of very good
people in the system. I think that people on the
parole board are very well meaning people. And uh, I

(58:51):
think the governor is a is a good governor who
cares about this stuff, UM, cares about justice. UM. I
don't think that's true in all states by any means,
but I think that that is true here, and we're
gonna we're gonna find out just how true it is,
UM by shining a light on all these different aspects
of the case. UM yend's before we close, I did
want to ask you about your your current team, UM,

(59:13):
what they've meant to you, UM, as well as Gayle
Starling Marshall and you know, if you can just touch
on that, I had a really really bad Kyle La
especially the start, like you mentioned, I had really really
fantastic loves, frightening funny, including UM so much defarity Attorney

(59:36):
General Marshall, UM also feel bad and who's in the
movie and of course Steve Ensfield, who is stuff like
so many years and Steve mart you know, there's you know,
lawyers can blame, but there's some really wonderful motels as well,

(59:58):
and m and that has been really really hopeful to
me as well to know that, um, you know, not
everybody and the legal is also there is some rolling
really time to human beings working as wires. And and
then you know, the start seeing you guys that time,
wonderful people like you and and telling profession and and

(01:00:22):
not team to adjust to a ready to the editor
public yesterday in the Richmond Times that um, you know,
people who really have no important better things to do
with their life and to worry about me. Um, you know,
stepping into my life and trying to help me. UM,

(01:00:43):
that's that's really really impowerted and and and it's given
me hope and and it gives me the hope. Yeah,
trying to hold on a little while longer, um, you know,
to see whether this can be is a in some
way span before I have all day. UM, I can

(01:01:03):
tell you exactly eleven seven five days, okay, eleven India.
UM here months in the leven days. And it hasn't
been easy, but that's you do have an extraordinary, extraordinary team,

(01:01:29):
including the leaders of Germany. So um past and present. UM,
I want to tell the audience there's there's a movie
Killing for Love and the book is a far far
better thing by Yensering and Bill Sizemore, A far far
better thing, um and uh. For audience members who want

(01:01:51):
to get involved, you can send an email to Elena
A L. E n A dot yar Movski, which is
why A R m O s k A hy at
Governor dot Virginia dot gov. Or you can go to
the website which is Governor dot Virginia dot gov. That's
Governor dot Virginia dot gov. UM. And then this is

(01:02:15):
part of the show that we've become known for. It's
I think everyone's favorite part of the show. It's mine.
And this is a part of the show where I
get to thank our guests. UM. In this case of
course John Grisham, John, thanks for being here. And Sheriff Harding,
Sheriff Chip Harving our album Wall Accounty. Of course, U

(01:02:36):
Yen's thanks for for participating in this and sharing your
thoughts and experience and educating our audience. I want to
turn it over to each of you just for brief
closing thoughts, and of course we'll end with you. UM anyway, John, UM,
final thoughts just far as uh. Yeah, I've said it before.
These rawful conviction stories are always compelling and tempting from

(01:03:00):
my point of view, too uh right about them to
to tell the fantastic stories as said as they are, uh,
but to also hopefully raise awareness. Had I not written
The Innocent Man published it uh for thirteen years ago,
there would not be the Netflix series now, which is

(01:03:21):
getting far more attention in the book, which is all good,
But as far as the stories go, you know, I've
I've got my top five innocent stories that I've went
across in the past twelve years, and uh, Yens's case
has got to be in the top three. It's just
such a compelling uh story of wrongful conviction, all the

(01:03:43):
different ways that that that the things that go wrong
with our system, and also the relationship with us um
his accuser is fantastic. I hope there's a happy ending.
We believe it's gonna be a happy ending, because we're
all uh working hard with a game plan to get
YenS out and they're getting back to Germany, and Jens

(01:04:05):
and I have this uh kind of a running gag
that one day soon we're gonna be drinking a beer
together in Munich of October Fest. I'm coming to and
by the way here and I have the same deal,
so you know I don't I don't want to make
you not feel special, but we got the same We're
all invited. We're all invited to october Fest. That's right, um,
Sheriff Harding final thoughts. Until I got involved in this

(01:04:28):
kind of work, I always thought that you were found
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But it looks like in America,
once you're found guilty, to be found innocent or pardon,
it almost has to be your innocent beyond a shadow
of a doubt. The standard is way too high. It's
shameful for me to have fifty years in the justice

(01:04:49):
system and to see the pushback. Not just in this case,
but I think I've read three or four cases from
prosecutors and law enforcement that don't man up and step
up and admit they make mistakes and seek the truth,
and no one has ever held accountable. In the first
two fifty cases that Brandon Garrett examined, in many cases

(01:05:12):
prosecutors with held excupltore evidence. So the law enforcement in
that one single case, that one officer ever go to
trial or spend one day in jail. So we can't
police ourselves. How do we anticipate the public is going
to have a confidence in us to police them? And now, UM,
saving the best for last, UM ends UH your final thoughts.

(01:05:35):
Thank you. UM. I think it's important for your audience,
UM to realize that they are estimated one hundred thousands
wrongfully convicted prisoners in the United States. UM. That's a
small city, and I'm far from the only one. I'm

(01:05:58):
really really grateful to the three of you, John Grisham,
your parting and Taste Flam for drawing attention to my case.
But let's not forget the other victims of miscarriages of justice. UM.

(01:06:19):
One of the things that I really would hope for
here is that if I'm ever released, UM, I can
maybe help UM draw attention to all those other people
and work towards systemic changes so that things likeness don't

(01:06:40):
happen to other people in future US. You know something
to think about. There's a hundred thousands innocent people in
prim in the United States. UM. Somebody should be really
bothered by that, and we hope help your audience thinks
about them as well. And I'm want to stand giving

(01:07:01):
this opportunity to speak today talk about John Grisham, Sheriff
Chip Harvy of Babolore County, and you and sirring the
thank you don't forget to give us a fantastic review.

(01:07:24):
Wherever you get your podcasts, it really helps. And I'm
a proud donor to the Innisis Project and I really
hope you'll join me in supporting this very important cause
and helping to prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to inniss
project dot org to learn how to donate and get involved.
I'd like to thank our production team, Connor Hall and
Kevin Wardis. The music on the show is by three

(01:07:46):
time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow
us on Instagram at rang Full Conviction and on Facebook
at rang Full Conviction podcast. Rawn Full Conviction with Jason
Flam is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts in
association with Segnal Company Number one h