May 18, 2023 • 41 mins
On November 17, 1990, Doug Estes and Jim Bennett, who were separately out hunting, were found together, shot and killed at the Fulton State Game Area in Kalamazoo, MI. 38-year-old Jeff Titus had a farm near the scene and found one of the hunter’s missing weapons. Because of this, Jeff soon came under suspicion. However, Jeff had a solid alibi and was immediately cleared as a suspect – the case went cold for ten years. In 2000, Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s Office Cold Case Unit reopened the case and focused on Jeff. By trial, Jeff’s alibi witnesses were unable to testify on his behalf, and the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence was enough to persuade the jury. Despite significant evidence of another, more viable suspect, Jeff was convicted and sentenced to two concurrent life without parole sentences. Susan Simpson talks to Jeff Titus and Dave Moran, Jeff's attorney.
To learn more and get involved, visit: https://michigan.law.umich.edu/academics/experiential-learning/clinics/michigan-innocence-clinic-0
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
November seventeenth, nineteen ninety, was the first Saturday of deer
season in Michigan. Eager hunters took to the woods, including
at the Fulton Game Area near Calabazoo. Around four point
thirty that afternoon. Not long before sunset, two gunshots rang out,
and not long after that two hunters, Augustus and Jim Bennett,
(00:23):
were found dead. A couple of days later, Jeff Titus,
whose farm was directly adjacent to the State Game Area,
found a shotgun near his property and turned it over
to the sheriff. Jeff was investigated, but he said he'd
been out hunting himself that day, nearly thirty miles away,
and witnesses attested being with him. Jeff was cleared, but
(00:43):
no other leads in the case panned out either, and
the case went cold. Ten years later, the case was
revived and reinvestigated by the recently foreigned cold case unit.
They immediately fixated on Jeff as a suspect, based mainly
on his finding the shotgun and the fact that since
the murders had hand happened, he'd often brought the case
up and talked about it with his co workers the
VA where he works as security officer. The witnesses who
(01:07):
had supported his alibi were now either unable to testify
or appeared unreliable a trial. Instead, the jury heard the
prosecution's argument that many people had found Jeff's obsession with
the killings disturbing and alleged the people who came near
his property were met with threats, and in the end
their verdict was unanimous. But this is wrongful conviction. Welcome
(01:44):
back to wrongful Conviction. I'm Susan Simpson, host of the
Proof and Undisclosed podcast, filling in for Jason Flohm. We're
here today with a case that's close to my heart.
I began investigating it in twenty twenty along with Decenda
Davis and Kevin Fitzpatrick of Red Marble Media when they
were covering it for their TV show Killer and Question.
I also covered the case in my podcast Undisclosed. There
have been a few updates since then, so I'm really
(02:06):
excited to share the story with you and for you
to meet our guest, Jeff Titus. Welcome, Jeff, Hi, and
we also have with us Jeff's attorney and co director
of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, Dave Moran. Listeners might remember
Dave from the Terry Caesar episode that Jason covered recently.
Thanks for being here again, Dave.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Thanks nice to be here, Jeff.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Before we talk about what happened in November of nineteen ninety,
why don't you tell listeners about yourself.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Well, I come from a family of nine kids. I'm
the second oldest. There was four boys, a girl and
four boys. I started working at a dairy fireman at twelve.
While I went to Penfield High School, I played football.
I worked on the farm after school, none as summers,
and then I went to the Marine Corps.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
And as a result of that, you had the honor
of serving under the president.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Yes, I was a military policeman in the Marine Corps.
I was a White House security guard for a President Nixon.
Then I come home. I went to college and met
my wife when my future wife and got married in
August of seventy nine.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
And then you had your two daughters and ended up
buying a beautiful old farmhouse on eighty acres in Fulton, Michigan.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
The house built in eighteen seventy three, and we went
through and totally restored it, and we went through and
brass ceilings and ten ceilings. The original windel still had
wooden plugs in them. I mean it was old and.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
It was directly adjacent to the Fulton Game Area state
land where people can go and hunt. So, Jeff, let's
go back to November seventeenth, nineteen ninety, the opening Saturday
of deer season. You were thirty eight at the time,
and I know you're an avid hunter. So where were
you hunting that weekend?
Speaker 3 (03:43):
I owned the first two days at my house. The
third day I left and went hunting at the northern
part of Calhoun County, north of Battle Creek, twenty seven
miles away.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
And your friends Dan Dreschool was with you as well.
The two of you hunted on two adjacent farms owned
by family friends of yours, the Crandalls and the Shepherds.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Yes, they're next to each other. Crandalls have like fifteen
hundred acres. Shepherds have five to seven hundred acres. I
think something like that.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
So on that Saturday, the day of the murders, you
were nearly thirty miles north of your place, around forty
five minute drive by car. That was a pretty typical
weekend for you in deer season, right.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Well, stand and me would hunt crandalls. He would go
to his spot. I would go to Minke and usually
we're separated aways and Stan would get deer some year,
some years he wouldn't. I always seemed to get him.
I mean, I can shoot. And that night at four thirty,
I thought I was shooting in the buck, but I
(04:43):
hit a dough and went up to the farm, got
my truck, come back, loaded it up with sand, and
then we left and waved to the farmer and went
to burger King to eat, and then went home.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
And what did you and stand fine when you got
back to your farm.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
That night we got back home, I talked to my
wife and said we were going out back to take
care of a deer. And where my woods was there
was all kinds of lights. So I drove over there
and I introduced myself and said I was a police officer,
which I was for the Veterans Administration, and I said,
(05:16):
you know what happened? And they didn't really say much.
Later I learned that two people had been shot.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
In the Fulton Game area.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Several hunters heard some shots fired, very loud, shots fired
in short succession, and when other hunters went to investigate,
they discovered two bodies in the woods and both had
been shot in the back, fatally by shotgun. The wounds
were different because there were different types of shotgun ammunition
(05:47):
used on the two men. So it was within the
game area, but it was less than one hundred yards
from the property line of the back of Jeff Titus's farm.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
I offered for them to go on my farm to
dry back to the scene, and that's what the ambulance
did later that night when they went back to get
to bodies. Then I went down to my neighbors and
told her what had happened, and that was between eight
and nine.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
And both their neighbor, Bonnie Huffman and her mother later
told police that you'd stop by around eight pm that
night and visited with them for about twenty minutes. The
police later confirmed that the two victims in the case
wereked Augustus from Kalamazoo and Jim Bennett, who lived near
Fulton and Leonidas. They had both gone to the Fulton
game area that day separately to go deer hunting, and
(06:34):
they did not know each other. Their bodies had been
found about one hundred feet behind your property line, Jeff.
Both been shot in the back, one of them with
buckshot and the other with a slug. Not long before sunset,
Doug Estes's eighteen year old stepson, who'd been hunting with him,
had heard two shots ring out. He thought maybe a
stepdad Doug had shot a deer, so after a bit
(06:56):
he went up looking for him to hopefully help him
carry a deer back. Instead, he found the two bodies
lying on the forest floor. The next day, the police
did a grid search that went out about seventy feet
in every direction from where the bodies were found. Jeff,
what were they looking for?
Speaker 3 (07:11):
They were searching for a missing gun, and they said
that they were never more than two feet apart walking
that whole wood area. Now, the day after that, I
walked back. I was checking my traps. I walked over
to that area and found the shotgun. I went up,
never touched it, went up, called the Sheriff's department. I said,
(07:33):
I just found the shotgun back on State Land and
I don't know if it's related to what happened or whatever. Then,
like I say, I called the press and let them know,
and then the police come out. I showed them where
it was at, and you know, it made me a
suspect because I found it, and that's when things started.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
That shotgun turned out to have belonged to Augustus and
had moved away from the box bodies fairly close to
your property line, actually not on your property, but much
closer than the bodies were. And at first the police said, well,
we would have found it if it was there, but
as later it was determined their actual notes suggest they
didn't search the area where you did find the shotgun,
(08:16):
but for obvious reasons. You were a suspect at least
one of the suspects in the case, and there were
two detectives who were working on it, Bruce Rosima and
Roy Ballot. What did they do to look into you?
Speaker 3 (08:29):
They went to Shepherd's Dairy Farming, Crandles and talk to them.
They did this statement they took from Shepherd's. Shepherds signed
it and both detectives signed it saying that I was
there and never left that night.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
So at this point the police knew that they had
the owners of the farm where you were at the Shepherds,
saying that you'd been there hunting at their farm until
a little after sunset when you and Stan packed up
and left. They also know that the two victims in
the case were killed a little before sunset, around four
thirty pm. So at the time that they were killed,
you had these alibi witnesses saying that you were there
(09:02):
at this farm north of Battle Creek, a forty five
minute plus drive away.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
And my vehicle was sparked right behind their house, and
you cannot leave that house without making noise because they
had a crush stone driveway, they would have heard me leave.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Yeah, So on the strength of this alibi, the original
detectives where Seema and Dallatt had excluded you as a suspect. Now,
there were other suspects in the investigation, including a man
who'd run his car into a ditch off the side
of the road near the Fulton Game area and the
aftermath of the murder, but that lead, along with others,
fizzled out and the case pretty soon went cold. Now,
(09:38):
even though you've been cleared as a suspect, there were
still people in the community who either thought you might
have done it, or at least would spread rumors about
you to that effect, right, And you also had a
habit of talking about the case. You'd mentioned it in conversation,
and it was something that came up a few times
at your workplace as well.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
People would ask me questions about the case where I worked,
and I would say this or I would say that,
and they would hear it in a way that they
wanted to hear it, like I say, And I told them,
I said, I didn't do nothing. I was another place
hunting and I'm innocent. But these people turned around start
(10:16):
calling you better to look at Jeff Titus.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
So eight years go by, and then in nineteen ninety eight,
the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Department forms a new cold case unit.
They're tasked with looking into some of the area's cold cases,
of which there were quite a few. At that time,
they had had some initial successes. I think they'd solved
around eight cases, and they were very proud of their
one hundred percent success rate, as they called it. But Dave,
(10:57):
as you and I have talked about, cold case unit
often feature in local convictions, and there are broader problems
with how they operate. Can you take a minute to
explain that.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
I do think that the problem with some cold case units,
and particularly this one, is to justify their existence, that
they have to not only go back and look at
old cases, but they have to purport to solve them.
If they go back and say, yep, that one's a toughie,
there's really nowhere to go with it, and they do
that in case after case, Well, people are going to
wonder why are we funding this exercise and futility in
(11:26):
the first place. And so there's a real problem of
pressure internal or possibly external for a cold case team
to come up with a solution. And then you've got
a team like this that claims one hundred percent hit rate,
and so now they've got to solve every case that
they look at. They've got to fit round pegs and
square holes and square pegs and round holes in order
(11:46):
to keep that record up.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
And we'll talk later on about how that tunnel visionality
came into play in Jeff's case. But in nineteen ninety
nine or so, they decided to reopen the case of
the Fulton Game Area deer hunters, and then in two
thousand Jeff he received a subpoena and.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
Then I went to Kalamazoo talked to them, and then
when I got done, they said, well, we got a
search one for your house. So they followed me back
to my house when I got back there, the bomb
squad was there, the FBI was there, the sheriff's department
was there, the different police departments were all there, and
then each took a section of my barns and houses
(12:23):
and rooms and started searching.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
And what was some of the evidence, as they put it,
that they found on your property.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Had the newspaper articles of when I found the gun,
and then my videos of being a marine corpse sniper,
my thing on a Gillly suit, the movie Sniper.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
Yeah, the movie based on that Tom Clancy.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Novel, right, right, But they know they had that.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
As evidence that you were inclined to commit murder, right, Yeah.
The cold case team, well, they did a very thorough
in some way as investigation. They talked to a lot
of people, and I know from following their footsteps and
trying to retrace all their interviews just how much ground
they covered. And what they managed to find was a
lot of people who told them didn't like me, A
lot of people who didn't like you, yeah, and who
(13:07):
said that you had said things that they thought could
make you look guilty.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
See. I had a house that was out in the country.
I had no neighbors for a quarter mile each way,
and one of the things I said is if you
come to my house and break in, I'll be picking
up your body parts when I come home because my
house was wired, and that was demolitions expert. Well, that
didn't go over with people, but I'd never had a
(13:31):
break in.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
But to clarify, your house was not actually wired, No, no,
it was not. When Jacinna and I were investigating your case,
we interviewed one of the detectives from the cold case team,
Detective Workima, as well as one of the prosecutors, Stu Fitton,
and I remember Detective Workima describes something about his investigative
technique that he called waking a memory. That's his process
(13:52):
of going to a witness, talking to them once, and
then going back to them as many as six or
seven more times. Each time I am with a little
more information and feedback mother witnesses, giving the witness a
chance to basically tell a better story. And according to Werkima,
this was an effective technique because it managed to get
witnesses to say things that they would not have originally remembered.
(14:14):
On the other hand, though this could certainly have the
effect of getting witnesses to change their statements to come
up with things that match the detective's version of events,
even if it contradicted what the witnesses originally remembered happening.
And that brings us to Bonnie Huffman and her mother.
Those were your neighbors that you'd gone to see that
night to tell them about the murders. During the original investigation,
(14:37):
Bonnie told Detective Worsima that you'd come by around eight
pm that.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
Night, right Monnie Hoffman and her mother both said I
was there between eight and nine that night, because it
was after the ambulance come to my house that I
went down there and I told them what was going on.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
However, when the cold case team did their investigation and
went back to talk to Bonnie Huffman again and again,
they and to awaken a memory, a new one where
she said first that she saw you at six fifteen
and then that she saw you at five point thirty
that afternoon, so very shortly after, within a half hour
to an hour of when the murders had happened.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
She said, it was just getting dark when I pulled
in the yard. Now, if I would have been there
at that time, and she said, I stayed like twenty minutes.
Then it would have been totally dark.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Right. The deer haunt ends at dusk, when it's too
dark to haunt me longer. And that's when the shepherd
said you and Stan took off from their place. But
the cold case team came up with a theory of
their own to account for that. What did they say happened?
Speaker 3 (15:36):
Well, they decided that I had this feeling that there
was guy's trespassing on my property. I went down there
in front of them, shot him, stole their deer, and
drove back to Shepherd's and then left with that deer.
But now we stopped at Burger King. We had a
receipt at six forty five. We left. We called Stan's
wife and there is a receipt showing that if it
(16:00):
takes me forty minutes to get back there, and then
it's another time limit to get down to the Burger King.
It don't make sense.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Yeah, the cold case team believed that the original investigators
had not adequately vetted your alibi. Their crucial realization was
that although you had people who could vouch for the
fact you were hunting at the Shepherd's farm, those people
couldn't vouch for the fact that they had seen you
at the exact moment when the murders happened. Because when
you're hunting, you're going into the blind, you're out alone.
So at the time the shots were fired, the time
(16:28):
Estas and Bennett were killed around four thirty pm, you
weren't standing next to Stan. You weren't out in the
woods in a blind waiting for deer. So to the
Cold Case team, your alibi was not actually an alibi
in their version of events. You had time to sneak
away from the shepherd farm, drive back to your property,
find and shoot the two men at around four thirty pm,
steal the deer, one of them at Jot, drive back
(16:49):
to the Shepherd's farm, meet up with Stan, stop at
burger king, and then drive back to your place. Oh
in between all of that, after shooting the men and
stealing their deer, you had time to stop by your
neighbor's place for a casual twenty minute chat.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Yep, that's what they say, ludicris.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
So having done that drive, I would have to agree,
But the Cold Case team didn't see it that way.
So on December twelfth, two thousand and one, you were
arrested and take him to jail where you remain until
the trial started the following June. You had an attorney,
Bill Fetti. What did he do to help a pair
for your case?
Speaker 3 (17:24):
He hired a detective whose name was Swabash, and he
was supposed to get would the original detectives and have
them testify. Well, then you never did that. Then they
had asked about other things, and he would make phone
calls questioning different things, and that's all I knew.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
So the trial began on June twenty sixth, two thousand
and two. The prosecutor at trial was Scott Brower. Dave,
can you tell us about the trial? How did things
go for Jeff?
Speaker 4 (17:55):
First of all, he had a lawyer who, charitably I
can say is was not very good. By the time
that we got involved in the case years later, that
lawyer had been disbarred and wasn't particularly cooperative with us.
But the biggest problem in the trial was that the
lawyer had never contacted detectives Weirsima and Ballot who had
(18:16):
cleared Jeff way back in nineteen ninety nineteen ninety one,
and so because he hadn't talked to them, he didn't
have their evidence. He didn't do the obvious thing, which
is detective you thoroughly investigated this case with your partner,
what conclusions did you reach about Jeff Titus? And because
he didn't contact him, he also wasn't able to use
a workaround for the Shepherds, both of whom were supposedly
(18:39):
unavailable to testify because of their mental state.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
They said that the Shepherds had dementia, but it was
only him, not her. She was sharp as a whip
and she could have testified, but she was never called.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
But both Shepherds had written out and signed a statement
just a few weeks after the killings confirming that Jeff
was there, and that statement should have been able to
come in through the testimony of the detectives who took it.
But again, because Jeff's very poor defense attorney didn't even
interview the detectives who had cleared his client in the
(19:14):
first place, the jury never heard about any of that.
But not only had they not been interviewed by Jeff's
defense layer, they hadn't even been interviewed by the.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Cold case team.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
So the two guys who had done the initial investigation
clearing Jeff were just left out in the wilderness while
this train went through the station and in our opinion,
went off the rails.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
So the only alibi witness the jury heard from and
Jeff's defense was Stan, and Stan unfortunately was not the
best of witnesses.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Yes, made it worse.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Stan was a very problematic witness. And from the transcript
it sounds like, you know, he doesn't want to cooperate,
he wants to nitpick questions. And I met Stan on
a couple of occasions, and that's just the way he was,
That's the way he talked. But I think to the
jurors who were there, it comes across like you hiding something.
And so it was just a memorably bad alibi witness.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
And then of course Jeff's alibi was undermind by Bonnie
Huffman's testimony or as Detective Workma would say, her awakened
memory that Jeff had been by to see her at
around five thirty that day.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Right.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
And again that's an area where the defense lawyer's failure
to even interview detectives Weirsima and Ballot was fatal, because
had he interviewed them, he would have learned that they
spoke with Bonnie Huffman and her mother just days after
the killings, and that they told the detectives that the
conversation with Jeff happened around eight pm, so hours hours
(20:38):
after the killing. But because he didn't even interview those detectives,
Bonnie's changed testimony that the conversation happened hours earlier, as
early as five point fifteen was unrebutted other than the
fact that her mother testified to the original timeline. But
even with that piece of information, the defense lawyer's performance
was simply lousy. He didn't make a big deal about
(21:00):
out how they had given a prior statement at eight
pm that the mom was still saying it was eight pm.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
He just let it go. Just a atrocious job.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
There was also the prosecution's theory that Jeff had wiped
the shot unclean when he found it in the woods.
Their story, of course, is that Jeff did not just
find it in the woods. Rather, he had taken it
from the crime scene after comuting the murders, and then
wiped all the finger prints off and then pretended to
find it. They also had a seemingly endless stream of
Jeff's coworkers who came in to say they'd overheard Jeff
or talk to Jeff about the murders, and he'd said
(21:30):
things that were allegedly incriminating or weird, just things that
Jeff would often say struck them the wrong way.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
No, I think Jeff will admit he's a talker.
Speaker 4 (21:38):
And two of the things Jeff was very interested in
is hunting, so he often talked about hunting and killing animals,
and he often talked about the murders that had happened
near his property line and how they remained unsolved. And
over the years, in the minds of the cold case team,
that became evidence that he'd committed the crime because you
know who else but the killer would like to talk
(21:58):
about it. And then there were witnesses who claimed to
have had confrontations with Jeff after they had trespassed onto
his property from the game area, and that was that
was pretty much the prosecution's entire case was he had
confronted trespassers before he talked about the killings. And Bonnie
Hoffman now claiming that he was actually in the vicinity
(22:18):
around five point fifteen.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
So Bill Fetti, jess attorney, was really just phoning it
in apparently. But he did raise one significant issue at trial,
something that had it been fully explored by the original
investigators might have actually brought this case to a close
back in nineteen ninety because there was an alternate suspect
in the case.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Yeah, and that's the guy who was seen with his
car stuck in a ditch near the game area not
long after the shots were heard. It turned out to
be the fatal shots that killed Mistersses and mister Bennett.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
Right. So, this man was seen with his car stuck
in a ditch by a number of people, including a
neighbor of Jeff's named Helen Knopf's and her son. When
they saw the car stuck there, they'd stopped and offered
a call, but he turned them down, saying he didn't
need any help and that he'd get his car out somehow.
They would describe this man to the police as being
nervous and sweaty. The car, they said, was a blue
(23:10):
or black hatchback similar to a Chevy Manza, and the
guy said the car belong to his wife. A composite
sketch of this ditch guy, as we took to calling him,
was drawn based on their descriptions. It shows a white man,
maybe in his thirties, wearing aviator glasses and an orange
stocking cap as if he'd been not hunting. Police posted
the picture and even got some calls about it, but
(23:30):
they weren't able to locate ditch guy, and eventually the
lead was dropped.
Speaker 4 (23:34):
But that was an obvious alternative suspect, somebody who just
committed the murders and was driving away at a high
rated speed and failed to make a curve and went
into the ditch. At trial, Jeff's lawyer had a theory
as to who the guy and the ditch might have been,
but really didn't have any evidence to back it up, so.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
There wasn't much there to sway the jury. Nope, they
did deliberate though, for several days.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Finally they come back and said that I was found guilty,
and I was in a state of shock. I couldn't
believe it. I looked at my family and they couldn't
believe it. And then I was gone and taken back
to the jail, and then three days later I was
(24:20):
in prison. I was sentenced to life in prison with
no parole, and I was devastated. I have always been
(24:41):
an honest and law abiding type person. I mean, like
I said, I was a police officer, I guarried to
president and everything, and then turnaround and be said that
I was guilty of something I didn't do. It's horrible.
I felt like I was violated. And then, like I say,
(25:02):
I went to prison and that was really a culture shock.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
What did you do while you were in prison? To
survive and to pass the time?
Speaker 3 (25:11):
I worked as a tutor. First, I had my college degree,
so I was teaching people how to do stuff, and
I taught basic aged. Then I took a horticulture course,
did it in a month and became a tutor. When
I left there, I was starting to make greeting cards.
I had wildlife cards, which was my fortepe because I
(25:34):
loved the outdoors. I made religious ones, I had thinking
of use, I had birthday sympathy, but I made all kinds.
I would be doing that every day to pass the time.
I sold them for a buck and a half to
two dollars the inmates, because we don't make much money
seventy four cents a day, a dollar fourteen a day,
something like that. To be a tutor or a custodio
(25:57):
or work in a child And.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
During that time you were also working on your post
conviction appeals. With an attorney named Peter Van Hoague. You
filed a habeas petition, which unfortunately was denied by a
federal district court and then again in the Sixth Circuit,
and then the Michigan Innocence Clinic got involved as well. Dave,
how'd you hear about Jeff's case?
Speaker 4 (26:16):
When I first heard of the case was in I
believe late twenty eleven, possibly very early twenty twelve, when
detectives Weirsima and Ballot contacted me and told me that
there was a double murder in Kalamazoo County and that
the wrong man was in prison, and they knew the
wrong man was in prisoned because they had cleared him.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
And when Jeff was convicted, they were blown away and
they became Jeff's advocates because they knew the wrong man
had been convicted.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
So of course we started digging into it, and within
a fairly short time we decided to take the case.
And by the time we took it, we had a
third decorated veteran officer on board on our side, Rich Madison,
who was a member of the cold case team, and
it turns out he was a dissenter and he believed
the case against Jeff made no sense, and because he
(27:05):
didn't go along, he was actually removed from the Cold
Case team, at least for this case. They didn't want
anybody who was going to challenge their preconceived notions, and
so Rich had some information that was also very helpful
for us. So we filed a motion for relief from
judgment better known as a sixty five hundred motion here
at Michigan, and that's where we alleged a host of
(27:26):
ineffective assistants claims for failing to interview the original detectives,
and also a Brady claim, which is a claim based
on failure to turn over evidence, because nobody turned over
to the defense the evidence about Rich Madison, the descending
member of the Cold Case team, and how he had
done some analysis showing that the Cold Case team sery
didn't make any sense, but that wasn't turned over, and
(27:47):
so the centerpiece of our theory in that post conviction
motion was that trial council was ineffective for failing to
interview Weirsima in ballot and then call them as witnesses
to make up for the fact that the Shepherds allegedly
couldn't be called, and to explain how Bonnie Huffmann's story
at trial about the timing of her encounter with Jeff
(28:08):
was completely inconsistent with what she and her mother had
told the police before.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
And then there was the matter of Jeff finding the gun,
which the prosecution had also brought up a trial.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
The prosecution made a big deal about Jeff finding the gun,
and they said that there's no way that that gun
was there before Jeff found it, because the police had
done this grid search. Well, Detective Weirsomuch showed us exactly
where the gun was found, exactly where the bodies were found,
and it was well more than one hundred feet away,
and so the grid search wouldn't have found it.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
So just imagine if the jury had been able to
hear three different detectives up there, two of them saying
that they'd investigated Jeff and cleared him back in nineteen
ninety and a third from the cold case unit saying
that his team had gotten it wrong.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
The impact of that, I think would have been incalculable.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
And so we had the evident here hearing in front
of the judge, and we presented all three of those
decorated police veterans, and yet the judge said no, and
his reasoning was that none of it would make a
difference because of all of those people at the.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
VA Hospital who heard Jeff talk about the crime.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
I mean as if, as if the fact that Jeff
talked about the crime without actually admitting he did it
to all of these people at the VA hospital somehow
overcame all of that.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
But that was the judge's ruling.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
But then in twenty twenty, when I was investigating this
case with Sinda and Kevin, we learned of someone who'd
actually been a suspect back in nineteen ninety three, a
guy named Thomas Dillon from Ohio. Dave, do you remember
when I called you about him?
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (29:30):
I do. It came completely out of the blue.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
You called me and asked if I'd heard of a
guy named Thomas Dillon, and I said, no, should I have?
Speaker 2 (29:38):
And you proceeded to.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
Tell me about his work in Ohio, and I couldn't
believe it. I did a search of the transcript of
Jeff's trial and confirmed that the name Thomas Dillon had
never come up once during his trial.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
That's right. Thomas Dillon, as we learned, was a serial
killer with a very specific target he hunted hunters. In fact,
he'd killed one hunter the week before the Fulton State
Game Area shootings, and he'd killed another the week after.
He was ultimately convicted in nineteen ninety three of killing
five hunters in Ohio, but he was also a suspect
in a number of other killings and other states, including
(30:14):
in the murder of Augustus and Jim Bennett. I think
the moment that stands out to me the most from
this case is the moment that I first saw a
picture of Thomas Dillon. He is an absolute dead ringer
for the composite sketch that was prepared by the two
eye witnesses who saw ditch guy.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Yeah, it's stunning.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
When we saw the side by side comparison of a
photo of Dylan after he was arrested with drawings of
the man in the ditch, it was a dead ringer.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
And here's where things get really weird. In nineteen eighty three,
not long after Dylan was arrested, Detective Warsma had actually
brought Helen Nos and her son down to Ohio to
view a lineup which included Dylan. They were shown the
line up separately and told that if they recognized the
man from the ditch to write the number of that
man down on a piece of paper and hand it over,
(30:58):
which they both did, and which Sinda and I learned
from those Ohio files is that Helen and her son
had both id Thomas Dillon as the ditch guy. But
because this fact was never revealed to the Michigan authorities,
where Seema thought there was nothing more to pursue there.
In fact, he'd told the Ohio authorities, Hey, we just
want to know if this guy was involved. We won't prosecute,
we just want to know who did this, and Ohio
(31:20):
refused to cooperate with them. And there's more. As we
went on, we discovered that Dylan's wife owned a car
that was a small gray Hatchback. In fact, it was
almost exactly the car that the witnesses had described and
which the ditch guy had said was his wife's car.
Dylan had also used that car to commit some of
his murders. We also learned that the day before the murders,
(31:42):
Dylan had borrowed two shotguns from two different coworkers. When
he'd returned them the following week, he told both coworkers
that he'd shot a deer with their gun.
Speaker 4 (31:51):
And the two guys in the game area were killed
with apparently two different types of shotgun ammunition.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
I also found some notes showing that after dylan arrest,
he'd been bragging to his cellmate Mike Chappelle about his
life of crime and the people he'd killed, and he
even told him about what he called his double header,
where he'd killed two hunters and one event. But when
Chappelle told the authorities what Dylan had said to him,
they did nothing. One of the reasons for that seems
to have been that the FBI had developed a profile
(32:19):
that said Dylan would never kill two people at once
because he was too much of a coward. So despite
what Schappelle told them about the confession, the authorities in
Ohio ruled Dylan out in this case. In addition to that,
Dylan had an alibi, or so they thought.
Speaker 4 (32:35):
So I went to the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's department and
searched the entire file for the sson ben At killings,
and I spent hours and hours going through it. Very
near the end of my search, I found a thin,
little manila envelope in the back of one of these
giant red ropes.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
Somebody written serial killer on.
Speaker 4 (32:51):
It, and it had about thirty pages of materials, mostly
the materials that we've already discussed, the identification procedures in
Ohio in which Nobsiner said picked him out, the borrowed shotguns,
the description of the wife's car to.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Sketch, all of that.
Speaker 4 (33:05):
But it also had math calculations, and it turns out
that that morning of November seventeenth, nineteen ninety, Dylan had
gone hunting in Revenna, Ohio, on a piece of private property,
and he got a deer that morning, and then he
checked out of the game reserve very shortly after noon
(33:25):
with his deer. And there were calculations that had been
done by the police that purported to show that Dylan
couldn't have made it from Revenna to the Fulton Game
area in time to kill ss and Bennett late in
the afternoon. But those calculations were wrong in several respects.
First of all, what they actually calculated was how long
it would have taken to drive to Kalama Zoo. They
also assumed that he didn't leave the Revenna Game area
(33:49):
until well after he'd actually checked out, And they also
assumed that he drives scrupulously within the speed limit the
entire time, which nobody in the Midwest does. And so
if you took away those silk assumptions and just entered
in how long does it take to get from the
Ravenna Grounds to the Fulton Game area using Google Maps,
he could have made it easily with almost an hour
(34:10):
to spare, without driving so fast that he would have
attracted the attention.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Of the police.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
So first the cold case detectives concocted a near impossible
round trip journey to prove Jeff guilty, and then they
came up with an equally ridiculous math equation to clear
Thomas Dillon of the murders. So right around the time
we started our investigation, there was also a new development
in Michigan. The Attorney General created a statewide conviction integrity unit,
(34:35):
headed up by a former criminal defense attorney, Robin Frankel.
Speaker 4 (34:38):
So I immediately contacted Robin to tell her about two
of our cases in particular, and Jess was one of
those cases. And then eventually Robin got some investigators, and
the investigators started going out and interviewing witnesses, and then
they interviewed Jeff himself. So the whole process took years
of investigation and patients. But this whole time we had
(34:59):
a habeas but pending, and so we agreed with the
conviction integer unit to put the habeas on hold while
the conviction Integrity Unit did its thing. So after years
of investigating and then waiting, they finally got to the
point where they agreed that the conviction had to be vacated,
(35:19):
and so we drafted a stipulated order for the federal
judge to sign granting the habeas corpus petition, so Jeff
would be released and the conviction would be vacated and
the sentence would also be vacated.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
And then finally in February of twenty twenty.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
Three, February sixteenth, the fifteenth was my seventy first birthday.
The next day the students I called them and they said, Jeff,
we're all together, all three students, as they said they
would be. And I said, are you telling me you
got good hoops? And they said yes, And then I
(35:57):
started bawling like I'm doing now, and I.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Know your release got delayed a few more days. Unfortunately
there was an ice storm among other things. But on
that Friday morning, the twenty fourth of February.
Speaker 3 (36:08):
What finally happened, Well, at ten thirty they said, Jeff,
we're here to take you up front. I said, it's happening,
and so they took me up front. Twelve o'clock. I
walked out. I hugged you, Cinda, I hugged Dave and
the other two students that were there, Naomi and Olivia.
I was still in a shock that had happened. I mean,
(36:30):
even listen to me, I sounded like I was crying.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
I should remember that day. And I know that Roy Ballot,
one of the original detectives in the case who passed
away a year ago, would have been there too if
he could have been. But his two sons and his
honor made it a point to drive through the ice
storm to be there when you came out.
Speaker 3 (36:47):
Both of them were there, and they had their dad's
badges and their police ID, and they said, here, hold
our dad's ID, and they held their badges and we
had pictures taken.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
So, Jeff, I know it's only been a few weeks now,
and I'm sure it's been a whirlwind. What have you
been up to you since you've been out.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
The past month. I have been organizing my cards to
sell them. I have been trying to get some kind
of IDs so I can open the bank account, and
just trying to get caught up on the things that
I need to do to move my life along.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
And I know you're loving getting to be outdoors again.
Speaker 3 (37:22):
Oh yeah, I've seen as many as fifteen deer in
the yard. I've had eight gobblers with great, big long beards.
I've kicked up bunny rabbits. I have all kinds of squirrels.
I feed the birds. I mean the one day I
had fourteen cardinals out there, all males.
Speaker 1 (37:39):
So, David, Jeff, what's next? Are there any current projects
that you guys are working on, or any Michigan issues
that you're hoping to address? Now?
Speaker 4 (37:46):
Sure, well, Jeff's case isn't quite over. The prosecution hasn't
actually dismissed the case against Jeff, so that needs to happen,
and then there may be some issues, the systemic issues
that we may have Jeff come in and talk about.
We do press in the Michigan Innocence Clinic for systemic reform,
for example, improved eyewitness identification procedures, improve forensic science issues,
(38:08):
and sometimes we have axoneries come in and testify to
legislative committees or state Supreme Court, which makes rules about
ways in which the system went wrong and how it
hurt them.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
Well, thank you so much for your work on Jeff's case.
We'll have a link to the Michigan Innocence Clinic and
our bio in case any of our listeners want to
help support the great work that you and your students
are doing. And now we come to the part of
our show called closing arguments. First of all, thank you
both for being here. Jeff, it has been an honor
to help tell your story, and I'd like to hear
from each of you just your final thoughts ending at
(38:40):
all that you'd want to say to our listeners. Dave,
why don't you go first?
Speaker 2 (38:45):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (38:45):
Well, this is one of the craziest cases that we've
ever handled in the Michigan Innocence Clinic. There just aren't
too many cases like this where you have such a
ludicrous theory as to how and why the alleged perpetrator
committed the and so the lesson to be drawn it
from this case is that is that you can get
a jury under the right circumstances to convict somebody based
(39:08):
on the most ridiculous, absurd evidence or lack of evidence
and crazy theory, and it takes years and years and
years to undo that injustice.
Speaker 3 (39:20):
Thank you, and I guess say, it's an honor to
be here on this show and to tell me, excuse me,
I'm starting to cry again, to tell my story and
what happened to me was truly a miscarriage by my
defense attorneys, by the cops and so on and so forth,
(39:43):
because the stuff was there and it was ignored. I said,
I'll take truth serum, I'll take hypnosis. I'll take an
extensive polygraph that showed it. I'm telling the truth. I mean,
I spent twenty years fighting to get out, and it
shouldn't take that one for a guy that was innocent.
People have asked me, well, do you have anger? I
(40:06):
said no, I might be mad, but I can't let
that anger eat me and keep eating me, because then
I'm not gonna heal. And so I go on with
my life. I do what I do. I do the interviews.
I took people out and showed them in the woods
what I liked doing. I show up my cards and
(40:27):
scratch art, and I just be myself.
Speaker 1 (40:35):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'm your guest
host Susan Simpson. Thanks to executive producers Jason Flahm and
Kevin Wardis for inviting me to be here, and thanks
also to our production team Connor Hall, Annie Chelsea, Leyla
Robinson and Jeff Cliburn. The music in this production comes
from Free Time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure
to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook
(40:58):
at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction,
as well as Lava for Good. On all three platforms,
you can find me on Twitter at the View from
LL two and Instagram at soosim and you can listen
to my podcast Proof and Undisclosed wherever you listen to
your podcasts. Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for
Good podcast, an association with Signal Company Number one
November seventeenth, nineteen ninety, was the first Saturday of deer
season in Michigan. Eager hunters took to the woods, including
at the Fulton Game Area near Calabazoo. Around four point
thirty that afternoon. Not long before sunset, two gunshots rang out,
and not long after that two hunters, Augustus and Jim Bennett,
(00:23):
were found dead. A couple of days later, Jeff Titus,
whose farm was directly adjacent to the State Game Area,
found a shotgun near his property and turned it over
to the sheriff. Jeff was investigated, but he said he'd
been out hunting himself that day, nearly thirty miles away,
and witnesses attested being with him. Jeff was cleared, but
(00:43):
no other leads in the case panned out either, and
the case went cold. Ten years later, the case was
revived and reinvestigated by the recently foreigned cold case unit.
They immediately fixated on Jeff as a suspect, based mainly
on his finding the shotgun and the fact that since
the murders had hand happened, he'd often brought the case
up and talked about it with his co workers the
VA where he works as security officer. The witnesses who
(01:07):
had supported his alibi were now either unable to testify
or appeared unreliable a trial. Instead, the jury heard the
prosecution's argument that many people had found Jeff's obsession with
the killings disturbing and alleged the people who came near
his property were met with threats, and in the end
their verdict was unanimous. But this is wrongful conviction. Welcome
(01:44):
back to wrongful Conviction. I'm Susan Simpson, host of the
Proof and Undisclosed podcast, filling in for Jason Flohm. We're
here today with a case that's close to my heart.
I began investigating it in twenty twenty along with Decenda
Davis and Kevin Fitzpatrick of Red Marble Media when they
were covering it for their TV show Killer and Question.
I also covered the case in my podcast Undisclosed. There
have been a few updates since then, so I'm really
(02:06):
excited to share the story with you and for you
to meet our guest, Jeff Titus. Welcome, Jeff, Hi, and
we also have with us Jeff's attorney and co director
of the Michigan Innocence Clinic, Dave Moran. Listeners might remember
Dave from the Terry Caesar episode that Jason covered recently.
Thanks for being here again, Dave.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Thanks nice to be here, Jeff.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Before we talk about what happened in November of nineteen ninety,
why don't you tell listeners about yourself.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
Well, I come from a family of nine kids. I'm
the second oldest. There was four boys, a girl and
four boys. I started working at a dairy fireman at twelve.
While I went to Penfield High School, I played football.
I worked on the farm after school, none as summers,
and then I went to the Marine Corps.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
And as a result of that, you had the honor
of serving under the president.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Yes, I was a military policeman in the Marine Corps.
I was a White House security guard for a President Nixon.
Then I come home. I went to college and met
my wife when my future wife and got married in
August of seventy nine.
Speaker 1 (03:09):
And then you had your two daughters and ended up
buying a beautiful old farmhouse on eighty acres in Fulton, Michigan.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
The house built in eighteen seventy three, and we went
through and totally restored it, and we went through and
brass ceilings and ten ceilings. The original windel still had
wooden plugs in them. I mean it was old and.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
It was directly adjacent to the Fulton Game Area state
land where people can go and hunt. So, Jeff, let's
go back to November seventeenth, nineteen ninety, the opening Saturday
of deer season. You were thirty eight at the time,
and I know you're an avid hunter. So where were
you hunting that weekend?
Speaker 3 (03:43):
I owned the first two days at my house. The
third day I left and went hunting at the northern
part of Calhoun County, north of Battle Creek, twenty seven
miles away.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
And your friends Dan Dreschool was with you as well.
The two of you hunted on two adjacent farms owned
by family friends of yours, the Crandalls and the Shepherds.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
Yes, they're next to each other. Crandalls have like fifteen
hundred acres. Shepherds have five to seven hundred acres. I
think something like that.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
So on that Saturday, the day of the murders, you
were nearly thirty miles north of your place, around forty
five minute drive by car. That was a pretty typical
weekend for you in deer season, right.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
Well, stand and me would hunt crandalls. He would go
to his spot. I would go to Minke and usually
we're separated aways and Stan would get deer some year,
some years he wouldn't. I always seemed to get him.
I mean, I can shoot. And that night at four thirty,
I thought I was shooting in the buck, but I
(04:43):
hit a dough and went up to the farm, got
my truck, come back, loaded it up with sand, and
then we left and waved to the farmer and went
to burger King to eat, and then went home.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
And what did you and stand fine when you got
back to your farm.
Speaker 3 (04:56):
That night we got back home, I talked to my
wife and said we were going out back to take
care of a deer. And where my woods was there
was all kinds of lights. So I drove over there
and I introduced myself and said I was a police officer,
which I was for the Veterans Administration, and I said,
(05:16):
you know what happened? And they didn't really say much.
Later I learned that two people had been shot.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
In the Fulton Game area.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Several hunters heard some shots fired, very loud, shots fired
in short succession, and when other hunters went to investigate,
they discovered two bodies in the woods and both had
been shot in the back, fatally by shotgun. The wounds
were different because there were different types of shotgun ammunition
(05:47):
used on the two men. So it was within the
game area, but it was less than one hundred yards
from the property line of the back of Jeff Titus's farm.
Speaker 3 (05:57):
I offered for them to go on my farm to
dry back to the scene, and that's what the ambulance
did later that night when they went back to get
to bodies. Then I went down to my neighbors and
told her what had happened, and that was between eight
and nine.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
And both their neighbor, Bonnie Huffman and her mother later
told police that you'd stop by around eight pm that
night and visited with them for about twenty minutes. The
police later confirmed that the two victims in the case
wereked Augustus from Kalamazoo and Jim Bennett, who lived near
Fulton and Leonidas. They had both gone to the Fulton
game area that day separately to go deer hunting, and
(06:34):
they did not know each other. Their bodies had been
found about one hundred feet behind your property line, Jeff.
Both been shot in the back, one of them with
buckshot and the other with a slug. Not long before sunset,
Doug Estes's eighteen year old stepson, who'd been hunting with him,
had heard two shots ring out. He thought maybe a
stepdad Doug had shot a deer, so after a bit
(06:56):
he went up looking for him to hopefully help him
carry a deer back. Instead, he found the two bodies
lying on the forest floor. The next day, the police
did a grid search that went out about seventy feet
in every direction from where the bodies were found. Jeff,
what were they looking for?
Speaker 3 (07:11):
They were searching for a missing gun, and they said
that they were never more than two feet apart walking
that whole wood area. Now, the day after that, I
walked back. I was checking my traps. I walked over
to that area and found the shotgun. I went up,
never touched it, went up, called the Sheriff's department. I said,
(07:33):
I just found the shotgun back on State Land and
I don't know if it's related to what happened or whatever. Then,
like I say, I called the press and let them know,
and then the police come out. I showed them where
it was at, and you know, it made me a
suspect because I found it, and that's when things started.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
That shotgun turned out to have belonged to Augustus and
had moved away from the box bodies fairly close to
your property line, actually not on your property, but much
closer than the bodies were. And at first the police said, well,
we would have found it if it was there, but
as later it was determined their actual notes suggest they
didn't search the area where you did find the shotgun,
(08:16):
but for obvious reasons. You were a suspect at least
one of the suspects in the case, and there were
two detectives who were working on it, Bruce Rosima and
Roy Ballot. What did they do to look into you?
Speaker 3 (08:29):
They went to Shepherd's Dairy Farming, Crandles and talk to them.
They did this statement they took from Shepherd's. Shepherds signed
it and both detectives signed it saying that I was
there and never left that night.
Speaker 1 (08:41):
So at this point the police knew that they had
the owners of the farm where you were at the Shepherds,
saying that you'd been there hunting at their farm until
a little after sunset when you and Stan packed up
and left. They also know that the two victims in
the case were killed a little before sunset, around four
thirty pm. So at the time that they were killed,
you had these alibi witnesses saying that you were there
(09:02):
at this farm north of Battle Creek, a forty five
minute plus drive away.
Speaker 3 (09:06):
And my vehicle was sparked right behind their house, and
you cannot leave that house without making noise because they
had a crush stone driveway, they would have heard me leave.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Yeah, So on the strength of this alibi, the original
detectives where Seema and Dallatt had excluded you as a suspect. Now,
there were other suspects in the investigation, including a man
who'd run his car into a ditch off the side
of the road near the Fulton Game area and the
aftermath of the murder, but that lead, along with others,
fizzled out and the case pretty soon went cold. Now,
(09:38):
even though you've been cleared as a suspect, there were
still people in the community who either thought you might
have done it, or at least would spread rumors about
you to that effect, right, And you also had a
habit of talking about the case. You'd mentioned it in conversation,
and it was something that came up a few times
at your workplace as well.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
People would ask me questions about the case where I worked,
and I would say this or I would say that,
and they would hear it in a way that they
wanted to hear it, like I say, And I told them,
I said, I didn't do nothing. I was another place
hunting and I'm innocent. But these people turned around start
(10:16):
calling you better to look at Jeff Titus.
Speaker 1 (10:35):
So eight years go by, and then in nineteen ninety eight,
the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's Department forms a new cold case unit.
They're tasked with looking into some of the area's cold cases,
of which there were quite a few. At that time,
they had had some initial successes. I think they'd solved
around eight cases, and they were very proud of their
one hundred percent success rate, as they called it. But Dave,
(10:57):
as you and I have talked about, cold case unit
often feature in local convictions, and there are broader problems
with how they operate. Can you take a minute to
explain that.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
I do think that the problem with some cold case units,
and particularly this one, is to justify their existence, that
they have to not only go back and look at
old cases, but they have to purport to solve them.
If they go back and say, yep, that one's a toughie,
there's really nowhere to go with it, and they do
that in case after case, Well, people are going to
wonder why are we funding this exercise and futility in
(11:26):
the first place. And so there's a real problem of
pressure internal or possibly external for a cold case team
to come up with a solution. And then you've got
a team like this that claims one hundred percent hit rate,
and so now they've got to solve every case that
they look at. They've got to fit round pegs and
square holes and square pegs and round holes in order
(11:46):
to keep that record up.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
And we'll talk later on about how that tunnel visionality
came into play in Jeff's case. But in nineteen ninety
nine or so, they decided to reopen the case of
the Fulton Game Area deer hunters, and then in two
thousand Jeff he received a subpoena and.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
Then I went to Kalamazoo talked to them, and then
when I got done, they said, well, we got a
search one for your house. So they followed me back
to my house when I got back there, the bomb
squad was there, the FBI was there, the sheriff's department
was there, the different police departments were all there, and
then each took a section of my barns and houses
(12:23):
and rooms and started searching.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
And what was some of the evidence, as they put it,
that they found on your property.
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Had the newspaper articles of when I found the gun,
and then my videos of being a marine corpse sniper,
my thing on a Gillly suit, the movie Sniper.
Speaker 1 (12:40):
Yeah, the movie based on that Tom Clancy.
Speaker 3 (12:42):
Novel, right, right, But they know they had that.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
As evidence that you were inclined to commit murder, right, Yeah.
The cold case team, well, they did a very thorough
in some way as investigation. They talked to a lot
of people, and I know from following their footsteps and
trying to retrace all their interviews just how much ground
they covered. And what they managed to find was a
lot of people who told them didn't like me, A
lot of people who didn't like you, yeah, and who
(13:07):
said that you had said things that they thought could
make you look guilty.
Speaker 3 (13:11):
See. I had a house that was out in the country.
I had no neighbors for a quarter mile each way,
and one of the things I said is if you
come to my house and break in, I'll be picking
up your body parts when I come home because my
house was wired, and that was demolitions expert. Well, that
didn't go over with people, but I'd never had a
(13:31):
break in.
Speaker 1 (13:32):
But to clarify, your house was not actually wired, No, no,
it was not. When Jacinna and I were investigating your case,
we interviewed one of the detectives from the cold case team,
Detective Workima, as well as one of the prosecutors, Stu Fitton,
and I remember Detective Workima describes something about his investigative
technique that he called waking a memory. That's his process
(13:52):
of going to a witness, talking to them once, and
then going back to them as many as six or
seven more times. Each time I am with a little
more information and feedback mother witnesses, giving the witness a
chance to basically tell a better story. And according to Werkima,
this was an effective technique because it managed to get
witnesses to say things that they would not have originally remembered.
(14:14):
On the other hand, though this could certainly have the
effect of getting witnesses to change their statements to come
up with things that match the detective's version of events,
even if it contradicted what the witnesses originally remembered happening.
And that brings us to Bonnie Huffman and her mother.
Those were your neighbors that you'd gone to see that
night to tell them about the murders. During the original investigation,
(14:37):
Bonnie told Detective Worsima that you'd come by around eight
pm that.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
Night, right Monnie Hoffman and her mother both said I
was there between eight and nine that night, because it
was after the ambulance come to my house that I
went down there and I told them what was going on.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
However, when the cold case team did their investigation and
went back to talk to Bonnie Huffman again and again,
they and to awaken a memory, a new one where
she said first that she saw you at six fifteen
and then that she saw you at five point thirty
that afternoon, so very shortly after, within a half hour
to an hour of when the murders had happened.
Speaker 3 (15:13):
She said, it was just getting dark when I pulled
in the yard. Now, if I would have been there
at that time, and she said, I stayed like twenty minutes.
Then it would have been totally dark.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Right. The deer haunt ends at dusk, when it's too
dark to haunt me longer. And that's when the shepherd
said you and Stan took off from their place. But
the cold case team came up with a theory of
their own to account for that. What did they say happened?
Speaker 3 (15:36):
Well, they decided that I had this feeling that there
was guy's trespassing on my property. I went down there
in front of them, shot him, stole their deer, and
drove back to Shepherd's and then left with that deer.
But now we stopped at Burger King. We had a
receipt at six forty five. We left. We called Stan's
wife and there is a receipt showing that if it
(16:00):
takes me forty minutes to get back there, and then
it's another time limit to get down to the Burger King.
It don't make sense.
Speaker 1 (16:07):
Yeah, the cold case team believed that the original investigators
had not adequately vetted your alibi. Their crucial realization was
that although you had people who could vouch for the
fact you were hunting at the Shepherd's farm, those people
couldn't vouch for the fact that they had seen you
at the exact moment when the murders happened. Because when
you're hunting, you're going into the blind, you're out alone.
So at the time the shots were fired, the time
(16:28):
Estas and Bennett were killed around four thirty pm, you
weren't standing next to Stan. You weren't out in the
woods in a blind waiting for deer. So to the
Cold Case team, your alibi was not actually an alibi
in their version of events. You had time to sneak
away from the shepherd farm, drive back to your property,
find and shoot the two men at around four thirty pm,
steal the deer, one of them at Jot, drive back
(16:49):
to the Shepherd's farm, meet up with Stan, stop at
burger king, and then drive back to your place. Oh
in between all of that, after shooting the men and
stealing their deer, you had time to stop by your
neighbor's place for a casual twenty minute chat.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Yep, that's what they say, ludicris.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
So having done that drive, I would have to agree,
But the Cold Case team didn't see it that way.
So on December twelfth, two thousand and one, you were
arrested and take him to jail where you remain until
the trial started the following June. You had an attorney,
Bill Fetti. What did he do to help a pair
for your case?
Speaker 3 (17:24):
He hired a detective whose name was Swabash, and he
was supposed to get would the original detectives and have
them testify. Well, then you never did that. Then they
had asked about other things, and he would make phone
calls questioning different things, and that's all I knew.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
So the trial began on June twenty sixth, two thousand
and two. The prosecutor at trial was Scott Brower. Dave,
can you tell us about the trial? How did things
go for Jeff?
Speaker 4 (17:55):
First of all, he had a lawyer who, charitably I
can say is was not very good. By the time
that we got involved in the case years later, that
lawyer had been disbarred and wasn't particularly cooperative with us.
But the biggest problem in the trial was that the
lawyer had never contacted detectives Weirsima and Ballot who had
(18:16):
cleared Jeff way back in nineteen ninety nineteen ninety one,
and so because he hadn't talked to them, he didn't
have their evidence. He didn't do the obvious thing, which
is detective you thoroughly investigated this case with your partner,
what conclusions did you reach about Jeff Titus? And because
he didn't contact him, he also wasn't able to use
a workaround for the Shepherds, both of whom were supposedly
(18:39):
unavailable to testify because of their mental state.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
They said that the Shepherds had dementia, but it was
only him, not her. She was sharp as a whip
and she could have testified, but she was never called.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
But both Shepherds had written out and signed a statement
just a few weeks after the killings confirming that Jeff
was there, and that statement should have been able to
come in through the testimony of the detectives who took it.
But again, because Jeff's very poor defense attorney didn't even
interview the detectives who had cleared his client in the
(19:14):
first place, the jury never heard about any of that.
But not only had they not been interviewed by Jeff's
defense layer, they hadn't even been interviewed by the.
Speaker 2 (19:20):
Cold case team.
Speaker 4 (19:21):
So the two guys who had done the initial investigation
clearing Jeff were just left out in the wilderness while
this train went through the station and in our opinion,
went off the rails.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
So the only alibi witness the jury heard from and
Jeff's defense was Stan, and Stan unfortunately was not the
best of witnesses.
Speaker 3 (19:41):
Yes, made it worse.
Speaker 4 (19:43):
Stan was a very problematic witness. And from the transcript
it sounds like, you know, he doesn't want to cooperate,
he wants to nitpick questions. And I met Stan on
a couple of occasions, and that's just the way he was,
That's the way he talked. But I think to the
jurors who were there, it comes across like you hiding something.
And so it was just a memorably bad alibi witness.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
And then of course Jeff's alibi was undermind by Bonnie
Huffman's testimony or as Detective Workma would say, her awakened
memory that Jeff had been by to see her at
around five thirty that day.
Speaker 3 (20:15):
Right.
Speaker 4 (20:16):
And again that's an area where the defense lawyer's failure
to even interview detectives Weirsima and Ballot was fatal, because
had he interviewed them, he would have learned that they
spoke with Bonnie Huffman and her mother just days after
the killings, and that they told the detectives that the
conversation with Jeff happened around eight pm, so hours hours
(20:38):
after the killing. But because he didn't even interview those detectives,
Bonnie's changed testimony that the conversation happened hours earlier, as
early as five point fifteen was unrebutted other than the
fact that her mother testified to the original timeline. But
even with that piece of information, the defense lawyer's performance
was simply lousy. He didn't make a big deal about
(21:00):
out how they had given a prior statement at eight
pm that the mom was still saying it was eight pm.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
He just let it go. Just a atrocious job.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
There was also the prosecution's theory that Jeff had wiped
the shot unclean when he found it in the woods.
Their story, of course, is that Jeff did not just
find it in the woods. Rather, he had taken it
from the crime scene after comuting the murders, and then
wiped all the finger prints off and then pretended to
find it. They also had a seemingly endless stream of
Jeff's coworkers who came in to say they'd overheard Jeff
or talk to Jeff about the murders, and he'd said
(21:30):
things that were allegedly incriminating or weird, just things that
Jeff would often say struck them the wrong way.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
No, I think Jeff will admit he's a talker.
Speaker 4 (21:38):
And two of the things Jeff was very interested in
is hunting, so he often talked about hunting and killing animals,
and he often talked about the murders that had happened
near his property line and how they remained unsolved. And
over the years, in the minds of the cold case team,
that became evidence that he'd committed the crime because you
know who else but the killer would like to talk
(21:58):
about it. And then there were witnesses who claimed to
have had confrontations with Jeff after they had trespassed onto
his property from the game area, and that was that
was pretty much the prosecution's entire case was he had
confronted trespassers before he talked about the killings. And Bonnie
Hoffman now claiming that he was actually in the vicinity
(22:18):
around five point fifteen.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
So Bill Fetti, jess attorney, was really just phoning it
in apparently. But he did raise one significant issue at trial,
something that had it been fully explored by the original
investigators might have actually brought this case to a close
back in nineteen ninety because there was an alternate suspect
in the case.
Speaker 4 (22:37):
Yeah, and that's the guy who was seen with his
car stuck in a ditch near the game area not
long after the shots were heard. It turned out to
be the fatal shots that killed Mistersses and mister Bennett.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
Right. So, this man was seen with his car stuck
in a ditch by a number of people, including a
neighbor of Jeff's named Helen Knopf's and her son. When
they saw the car stuck there, they'd stopped and offered
a call, but he turned them down, saying he didn't
need any help and that he'd get his car out somehow.
They would describe this man to the police as being
nervous and sweaty. The car, they said, was a blue
(23:10):
or black hatchback similar to a Chevy Manza, and the
guy said the car belong to his wife. A composite
sketch of this ditch guy, as we took to calling him,
was drawn based on their descriptions. It shows a white man,
maybe in his thirties, wearing aviator glasses and an orange
stocking cap as if he'd been not hunting. Police posted
the picture and even got some calls about it, but
(23:30):
they weren't able to locate ditch guy, and eventually the
lead was dropped.
Speaker 4 (23:34):
But that was an obvious alternative suspect, somebody who just
committed the murders and was driving away at a high
rated speed and failed to make a curve and went
into the ditch. At trial, Jeff's lawyer had a theory
as to who the guy and the ditch might have been,
but really didn't have any evidence to back it up, so.
Speaker 1 (23:51):
There wasn't much there to sway the jury. Nope, they
did deliberate though, for several days.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Finally they come back and said that I was found guilty,
and I was in a state of shock. I couldn't
believe it. I looked at my family and they couldn't
believe it. And then I was gone and taken back
to the jail, and then three days later I was
(24:20):
in prison. I was sentenced to life in prison with
no parole, and I was devastated. I have always been
(24:41):
an honest and law abiding type person. I mean, like
I said, I was a police officer, I guarried to
president and everything, and then turnaround and be said that
I was guilty of something I didn't do. It's horrible.
I felt like I was violated. And then, like I say,
(25:02):
I went to prison and that was really a culture shock.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
What did you do while you were in prison? To
survive and to pass the time?
Speaker 3 (25:11):
I worked as a tutor. First, I had my college degree,
so I was teaching people how to do stuff, and
I taught basic aged. Then I took a horticulture course,
did it in a month and became a tutor. When
I left there, I was starting to make greeting cards.
I had wildlife cards, which was my fortepe because I
(25:34):
loved the outdoors. I made religious ones, I had thinking
of use, I had birthday sympathy, but I made all kinds.
I would be doing that every day to pass the time.
I sold them for a buck and a half to
two dollars the inmates, because we don't make much money
seventy four cents a day, a dollar fourteen a day,
something like that. To be a tutor or a custodio
(25:57):
or work in a child And.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
During that time you were also working on your post
conviction appeals. With an attorney named Peter Van Hoague. You
filed a habeas petition, which unfortunately was denied by a
federal district court and then again in the Sixth Circuit,
and then the Michigan Innocence Clinic got involved as well. Dave,
how'd you hear about Jeff's case?
Speaker 4 (26:16):
When I first heard of the case was in I
believe late twenty eleven, possibly very early twenty twelve, when
detectives Weirsima and Ballot contacted me and told me that
there was a double murder in Kalamazoo County and that
the wrong man was in prison, and they knew the
wrong man was in prisoned because they had cleared him.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
And when Jeff was convicted, they were blown away and
they became Jeff's advocates because they knew the wrong man
had been convicted.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
So of course we started digging into it, and within
a fairly short time we decided to take the case.
And by the time we took it, we had a
third decorated veteran officer on board on our side, Rich Madison,
who was a member of the cold case team, and
it turns out he was a dissenter and he believed
the case against Jeff made no sense, and because he
(27:05):
didn't go along, he was actually removed from the Cold
Case team, at least for this case. They didn't want
anybody who was going to challenge their preconceived notions, and
so Rich had some information that was also very helpful
for us. So we filed a motion for relief from
judgment better known as a sixty five hundred motion here
at Michigan, and that's where we alleged a host of
(27:26):
ineffective assistants claims for failing to interview the original detectives,
and also a Brady claim, which is a claim based
on failure to turn over evidence, because nobody turned over
to the defense the evidence about Rich Madison, the descending
member of the Cold Case team, and how he had
done some analysis showing that the Cold Case team sery
didn't make any sense, but that wasn't turned over, and
(27:47):
so the centerpiece of our theory in that post conviction
motion was that trial council was ineffective for failing to
interview Weirsima in ballot and then call them as witnesses
to make up for the fact that the Shepherds allegedly
couldn't be called, and to explain how Bonnie Huffmann's story
at trial about the timing of her encounter with Jeff
(28:08):
was completely inconsistent with what she and her mother had
told the police before.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
And then there was the matter of Jeff finding the gun,
which the prosecution had also brought up a trial.
Speaker 4 (28:17):
The prosecution made a big deal about Jeff finding the gun,
and they said that there's no way that that gun
was there before Jeff found it, because the police had
done this grid search. Well, Detective Weirsomuch showed us exactly
where the gun was found, exactly where the bodies were found,
and it was well more than one hundred feet away,
and so the grid search wouldn't have found it.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
So just imagine if the jury had been able to
hear three different detectives up there, two of them saying
that they'd investigated Jeff and cleared him back in nineteen
ninety and a third from the cold case unit saying
that his team had gotten it wrong.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
The impact of that, I think would have been incalculable.
Speaker 4 (28:53):
And so we had the evident here hearing in front
of the judge, and we presented all three of those
decorated police veterans, and yet the judge said no, and
his reasoning was that none of it would make a
difference because of all of those people at the.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
VA Hospital who heard Jeff talk about the crime.
Speaker 4 (29:07):
I mean as if, as if the fact that Jeff
talked about the crime without actually admitting he did it
to all of these people at the VA hospital somehow
overcame all of that.
Speaker 2 (29:15):
But that was the judge's ruling.
Speaker 1 (29:17):
But then in twenty twenty, when I was investigating this
case with Sinda and Kevin, we learned of someone who'd
actually been a suspect back in nineteen ninety three, a
guy named Thomas Dillon from Ohio. Dave, do you remember
when I called you about him?
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (29:30):
I do. It came completely out of the blue.
Speaker 4 (29:32):
You called me and asked if I'd heard of a
guy named Thomas Dillon, and I said, no, should I have?
Speaker 2 (29:38):
And you proceeded to.
Speaker 4 (29:39):
Tell me about his work in Ohio, and I couldn't
believe it. I did a search of the transcript of
Jeff's trial and confirmed that the name Thomas Dillon had
never come up once during his trial.
Speaker 1 (29:51):
That's right. Thomas Dillon, as we learned, was a serial
killer with a very specific target he hunted hunters. In fact,
he'd killed one hunter the week before the Fulton State
Game Area shootings, and he'd killed another the week after.
He was ultimately convicted in nineteen ninety three of killing
five hunters in Ohio, but he was also a suspect
in a number of other killings and other states, including
(30:14):
in the murder of Augustus and Jim Bennett. I think
the moment that stands out to me the most from
this case is the moment that I first saw a
picture of Thomas Dillon. He is an absolute dead ringer
for the composite sketch that was prepared by the two
eye witnesses who saw ditch guy.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
Yeah, it's stunning.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
When we saw the side by side comparison of a
photo of Dylan after he was arrested with drawings of
the man in the ditch, it was a dead ringer.
Speaker 1 (30:38):
And here's where things get really weird. In nineteen eighty three,
not long after Dylan was arrested, Detective Warsma had actually
brought Helen Nos and her son down to Ohio to
view a lineup which included Dylan. They were shown the
line up separately and told that if they recognized the
man from the ditch to write the number of that
man down on a piece of paper and hand it over,
(30:58):
which they both did, and which Sinda and I learned
from those Ohio files is that Helen and her son
had both id Thomas Dillon as the ditch guy. But
because this fact was never revealed to the Michigan authorities,
where Seema thought there was nothing more to pursue there.
In fact, he'd told the Ohio authorities, Hey, we just
want to know if this guy was involved. We won't prosecute,
we just want to know who did this, and Ohio
(31:20):
refused to cooperate with them. And there's more. As we
went on, we discovered that Dylan's wife owned a car
that was a small gray Hatchback. In fact, it was
almost exactly the car that the witnesses had described and
which the ditch guy had said was his wife's car.
Dylan had also used that car to commit some of
his murders. We also learned that the day before the murders,
(31:42):
Dylan had borrowed two shotguns from two different coworkers. When
he'd returned them the following week, he told both coworkers
that he'd shot a deer with their gun.
Speaker 4 (31:51):
And the two guys in the game area were killed
with apparently two different types of shotgun ammunition.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
I also found some notes showing that after dylan arrest,
he'd been bragging to his cellmate Mike Chappelle about his
life of crime and the people he'd killed, and he
even told him about what he called his double header,
where he'd killed two hunters and one event. But when
Chappelle told the authorities what Dylan had said to him,
they did nothing. One of the reasons for that seems
to have been that the FBI had developed a profile
(32:19):
that said Dylan would never kill two people at once
because he was too much of a coward. So despite
what Schappelle told them about the confession, the authorities in
Ohio ruled Dylan out in this case. In addition to that,
Dylan had an alibi, or so they thought.
Speaker 4 (32:35):
So I went to the Kalamazoo County Sheriff's department and
searched the entire file for the sson ben At killings,
and I spent hours and hours going through it. Very
near the end of my search, I found a thin,
little manila envelope in the back of one of these
giant red ropes.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
Somebody written serial killer on.
Speaker 4 (32:51):
It, and it had about thirty pages of materials, mostly
the materials that we've already discussed, the identification procedures in
Ohio in which Nobsiner said picked him out, the borrowed shotguns,
the description of the wife's car to.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
Sketch, all of that.
Speaker 4 (33:05):
But it also had math calculations, and it turns out
that that morning of November seventeenth, nineteen ninety, Dylan had
gone hunting in Revenna, Ohio, on a piece of private property,
and he got a deer that morning, and then he
checked out of the game reserve very shortly after noon
(33:25):
with his deer. And there were calculations that had been
done by the police that purported to show that Dylan
couldn't have made it from Revenna to the Fulton Game
area in time to kill ss and Bennett late in
the afternoon. But those calculations were wrong in several respects.
First of all, what they actually calculated was how long
it would have taken to drive to Kalama Zoo. They
also assumed that he didn't leave the Revenna Game area
(33:49):
until well after he'd actually checked out, And they also
assumed that he drives scrupulously within the speed limit the
entire time, which nobody in the Midwest does. And so
if you took away those silk assumptions and just entered
in how long does it take to get from the
Ravenna Grounds to the Fulton Game area using Google Maps,
he could have made it easily with almost an hour
(34:10):
to spare, without driving so fast that he would have
attracted the attention.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Of the police.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
So first the cold case detectives concocted a near impossible
round trip journey to prove Jeff guilty, and then they
came up with an equally ridiculous math equation to clear
Thomas Dillon of the murders. So right around the time
we started our investigation, there was also a new development
in Michigan. The Attorney General created a statewide conviction integrity unit,
(34:35):
headed up by a former criminal defense attorney, Robin Frankel.
Speaker 4 (34:38):
So I immediately contacted Robin to tell her about two
of our cases in particular, and Jess was one of
those cases. And then eventually Robin got some investigators, and
the investigators started going out and interviewing witnesses, and then
they interviewed Jeff himself. So the whole process took years
of investigation and patients. But this whole time we had
(34:59):
a habeas but pending, and so we agreed with the
conviction integer unit to put the habeas on hold while
the conviction Integrity Unit did its thing. So after years
of investigating and then waiting, they finally got to the
point where they agreed that the conviction had to be vacated,
(35:19):
and so we drafted a stipulated order for the federal
judge to sign granting the habeas corpus petition, so Jeff
would be released and the conviction would be vacated and
the sentence would also be vacated.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
And then finally in February of twenty twenty.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
Three, February sixteenth, the fifteenth was my seventy first birthday.
The next day the students I called them and they said, Jeff,
we're all together, all three students, as they said they
would be. And I said, are you telling me you
got good hoops? And they said yes, And then I
(35:57):
started bawling like I'm doing now, and I.
Speaker 1 (36:00):
Know your release got delayed a few more days. Unfortunately
there was an ice storm among other things. But on
that Friday morning, the twenty fourth of February.
Speaker 3 (36:08):
What finally happened, Well, at ten thirty they said, Jeff,
we're here to take you up front. I said, it's happening,
and so they took me up front. Twelve o'clock. I
walked out. I hugged you, Cinda, I hugged Dave and
the other two students that were there, Naomi and Olivia.
I was still in a shock that had happened. I mean,
(36:30):
even listen to me, I sounded like I was crying.
Speaker 1 (36:33):
I should remember that day. And I know that Roy Ballot,
one of the original detectives in the case who passed
away a year ago, would have been there too if
he could have been. But his two sons and his
honor made it a point to drive through the ice
storm to be there when you came out.
Speaker 3 (36:47):
Both of them were there, and they had their dad's
badges and their police ID, and they said, here, hold
our dad's ID, and they held their badges and we
had pictures taken.
Speaker 1 (36:58):
So, Jeff, I know it's only been a few weeks now,
and I'm sure it's been a whirlwind. What have you
been up to you since you've been out.
Speaker 3 (37:04):
The past month. I have been organizing my cards to
sell them. I have been trying to get some kind
of IDs so I can open the bank account, and
just trying to get caught up on the things that
I need to do to move my life along.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
And I know you're loving getting to be outdoors again.
Speaker 3 (37:22):
Oh yeah, I've seen as many as fifteen deer in
the yard. I've had eight gobblers with great, big long beards.
I've kicked up bunny rabbits. I have all kinds of squirrels.
I feed the birds. I mean the one day I
had fourteen cardinals out there, all males.
Speaker 1 (37:39):
So, David, Jeff, what's next? Are there any current projects
that you guys are working on, or any Michigan issues
that you're hoping to address? Now?
Speaker 4 (37:46):
Sure, well, Jeff's case isn't quite over. The prosecution hasn't
actually dismissed the case against Jeff, so that needs to happen,
and then there may be some issues, the systemic issues
that we may have Jeff come in and talk about.
We do press in the Michigan Innocence Clinic for systemic reform,
for example, improved eyewitness identification procedures, improve forensic science issues,
(38:08):
and sometimes we have axoneries come in and testify to
legislative committees or state Supreme Court, which makes rules about
ways in which the system went wrong and how it
hurt them.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
Well, thank you so much for your work on Jeff's case.
We'll have a link to the Michigan Innocence Clinic and
our bio in case any of our listeners want to
help support the great work that you and your students
are doing. And now we come to the part of
our show called closing arguments. First of all, thank you
both for being here. Jeff, it has been an honor
to help tell your story, and I'd like to hear
from each of you just your final thoughts ending at
(38:40):
all that you'd want to say to our listeners. Dave,
why don't you go first?
Speaker 2 (38:45):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (38:45):
Well, this is one of the craziest cases that we've
ever handled in the Michigan Innocence Clinic. There just aren't
too many cases like this where you have such a
ludicrous theory as to how and why the alleged perpetrator
committed the and so the lesson to be drawn it
from this case is that is that you can get
a jury under the right circumstances to convict somebody based
(39:08):
on the most ridiculous, absurd evidence or lack of evidence
and crazy theory, and it takes years and years and
years to undo that injustice.
Speaker 3 (39:20):
Thank you, and I guess say, it's an honor to
be here on this show and to tell me, excuse me,
I'm starting to cry again, to tell my story and
what happened to me was truly a miscarriage by my
defense attorneys, by the cops and so on and so forth,
(39:43):
because the stuff was there and it was ignored. I said,
I'll take truth serum, I'll take hypnosis. I'll take an
extensive polygraph that showed it. I'm telling the truth. I mean,
I spent twenty years fighting to get out, and it
shouldn't take that one for a guy that was innocent.
People have asked me, well, do you have anger? I
(40:06):
said no, I might be mad, but I can't let
that anger eat me and keep eating me, because then
I'm not gonna heal. And so I go on with
my life. I do what I do. I do the interviews.
I took people out and showed them in the woods
what I liked doing. I show up my cards and
(40:27):
scratch art, and I just be myself.
Speaker 1 (40:35):
Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'm your guest
host Susan Simpson. Thanks to executive producers Jason Flahm and
Kevin Wardis for inviting me to be here, and thanks
also to our production team Connor Hall, Annie Chelsea, Leyla
Robinson and Jeff Cliburn. The music in this production comes
from Free Time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure
to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook
(40:58):
at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and on Twitter at wrong Conviction,
as well as Lava for Good. On all three platforms,
you can find me on Twitter at the View from
LL two and Instagram at soosim and you can listen
to my podcast Proof and Undisclosed wherever you listen to
your podcasts. Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for
Good podcast, an association with Signal Company Number one
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com