October 16, 2025 • 43 mins
On December 5th, 1984, the naked body of Theresa Fusco was pulled out of a wooded area in Lynbrook, NY - the 3rd in a string of recent disappearances, putting pressure on police to find the monster among them. The medical examiner determined that a rape lkely occurred and the cause of death was ligature strangulation. Dennis Halstead had been linked to one of the victims, and in a police interview about Halstead, John Restivo inadvertently mentioned an occasional employee John Kogut.
When police interrogated Kogut for 12 hours, during which interrogators lied to him about his failing a polygraph, Kogut signed a confession that was hand-written by one of the detectives. With the false confession, the trio were convicted and sentenced to 33 and a half years in prison.
John Restivo and Innocence Project Senior Staff Attorney Nina Morrison joined Jason at the Atlanta Innocence Network Conference to tell this amazing and terrifying tale.
To learn more and get involved:
https://www.kimlawcrimlaw.com/https://www.instagram.com/kimlawcrimlaw/?hl=enhttps://lavaforgood.com/podcast/377-jason-flom-with-tyrone-noling-update/https://lavaforgood.com/podcast/335-maggie-freleng-with-charles-jackson/
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
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 (00:05):
I'm here today with a major announcement with my longtime
producer Connor Hall in a decade's old murder case that
we covered back in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Yeah, this was the wrongful conviction of three men, John
Restivo who we got to talk to, Dennis Halstead and
John Coogan, and they were all convicted of a nineteen
eighty four rape and murder and then they were cleared
by DNA testing and eventually released in two thousand and three,
while the actual perpetrator of this entire time has remained
free up until it appears at least yesterday, October fifteenth,
(00:38):
twenty twenty five, they arrested an alternate suspect, a now
sixty three year old man named Richard Billadou Richard Billideau.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
And what's extraordinary about this case. First of all, it
feels close to home because it is close to home.
This happened in Long Island. This was a sixteen year
old girl named Teresa Fusco who had left her job
working the snow back bar at a Roler Rank in
lynn Brook, Long Island. Right.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Yeah, I remember going to birthday parties that skating rink.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
It was called Hot Skates. Wow.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Yeah, kid's birthday parties, and then this is going on.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Police said Teresa Fusco. He had been strangled, sexual assaulted,
and beaten, and then her body was found under leaves
and some shipping palace.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Now there was physical evidence taken in a rape kid,
and you know, I mean this is back in nineteen
eighty four. DNA testing hadn't even been used yet for
forensic evidence. So these guys had to wait in prison
while science progressed before being able to use the physical
evidence in this case to prove their innocence. And they
did that in nineteen ninety five, at which point they
(01:41):
didn't just free these guys. They argued that, okay, well
then that belongs to a fourth guy that you guys
have just been covering for.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
You know, however many years.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
So it took eight more years to set them free
in two thousand and three, and then over a decade
to get them compensation. John Restivo and Dennis Hollist they
got thirty six million dollars from Nasau County, and they
appealed that and appeal that and tried to refuse to
pay them it, and at some point or another, somebody
in that prosecutor's office decided, hey, maybe we should go
(02:13):
try to find the actual rapist and murderer. I'm not
sure if that happened with the election of the current
DA and Donnelly, or maybe it was just somebody else
in the office, but you know, somebody decided to track
down this alternate suspect and then get a DNA sample
from him without him knowing.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
And by the way, kudos to the team that was
involved in actually finally bringing this. I mean, if he's
the guy, which is sure seems that way. The DNA
shows that he is. This is good.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
It's while what he says when he gets picked up
because they picked up this straw out of the garbage
that he had just used out of like a smoothie
or something like that, they pick it up, they swab
that and it's a match. They go to talk to
him and he says, well, I don't know anything about that.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Man.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
A lot of people are getting away with murder back.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Then, Wow up at dollars to donuts that they're going
to find more horrible crimes attributed to this guy.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Unfortunately, I think you're right about that. And there's something
I hope that I'm not right about, which is I
hope all of a sudden, we don't see a statement
from this guy Bill Adeo saying, oh yeah, I'm the
fourth guy, and these three other guys were there with me.
Now take them back to prison, and you know, give
me a slap on the wrist for cooperating. Oh yeah,
(03:31):
and then get that thirty six million dollars back. You're
gonna have to forgive me for being jaded because of well,
you know what you're going to hear, how depraved. You know,
the original prosecutors in law enforcement were in this case
from John Restivo and his attorney Miina Morrison.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Nina Morrison, who was like the heart and soul of
the litigation team and strategy team at the end of
project for many years. She's now a better old judge
in this case. I know this case really really shook her.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
This was her first case at the Innison's Project.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Right, that's incredible, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Well, without any further ado, here we go.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
On December fifth, nineteen eighty four, the naked body of
a sixteen year old girl was found in a wooded
area of Linbrook, Long Island. The victim had been last
seen leaving her job at a local roller rink about
a month earlier. The medical examiner determined that the cause
of death was ligature strangulation and seamen found on her
Baginal swabs suggested that she had been raped. By March
(04:31):
nineteen eighty five, authorities believed that this rape and murder
were connected to similar disappearance as an investigator started focusing
on Dennis Halstead, who was believed to have been associated
with another young woman who had disappeared. John Restivo had
been interviewed as part of this investigation and mentioned that
he was acquainted with John Cogan. After Cogd was given
three polygraphs, police asserted that he lied when denying involvement
(04:55):
with the disappearance of the sixteen year old victim. He
endured twelve hours of aggressive interrogation and eventually he cracked
and signed a confession that was handwritten by one of
the detectives. According to Kogo's false confession, the victim voluntarily
got into Restevo's van, where Cogd and Halsted stripped her
and Halsted raped her. Further into this coerce statement, he
(05:16):
said that when they arrived at a cemetery, Restevo also
raped her and coged, strangled her when she regained consciousness,
and became frantic with the false confession that a number
of hairs found in Restivo's band said to have matched
the victims. The three men were tried over the course
of nineteen eighty six. John Restivo spoke with us at
the Atlanta Innocence Network conference to tell their horrifying story. Together,
(05:40):
they spent over half a century in prison for a
crime they did not come in. This is Wrongful Conviction
with Jason Plum. You're listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can
listen to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts
one week early and ad free subscribing to Lava for
(06:01):
Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction.
I'm especially excited today because I've got a guest who
I've wanted to have on my podcast from long before
I even had a podcast. So ever since I read
(06:23):
your story in The New Yorker, John Restivo, I've been
sort of in awe of your story, your your case,
your everything. So I'm really I'm really happy you're here.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Yeah, what a long, strange trip has.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Been and with you. Nina Morrison is a return guest
on the show today. Nina is the senior staff attorney
at the Innocence Project in New York. Welcome back, Thank.
Speaker 5 (06:46):
You, Jason. It's always so nice to be here.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
And just by way of background, John was convicted of
a rape murder along with two other innocent men and
sentenced to thirty three and a half years of life.
Could well have been executed if not for Governor Mario
Cuomo blocking repeatedly the death penalty in New York State.
But let's go back to it. All these crimes we
talk about are horrible. This one is particularly terrible, right.
(07:11):
This is the rape and murder of a young girl,
sixteen year old girl. And obviously everybody wants to see
those crimes solved, but they don't want to see it
solved this way. I mean, when we get the wrong
people locked up, whoever it is that did this was
free to commit other heinous crimes. But take us back
to the crime itself. And how did you first hear
(07:31):
about it? I mean you were at the time, you
were in the moving business. What were you doing?
Speaker 4 (07:35):
Yeah, we should have moving business with my brother, right,
And when young lady disappeared, we had seen articles in
the newspaper. There was missing persons fly is on different
store windows or telephone polls, so people in the community
knew that the young lady who's mission, which town was
this just was in Limbrook, New York, in Nasall County
(07:57):
all around. Yeah, And there was a couple of articles
in a newspaper. So approximately three weeks later, a body
is found and it's identified as being her body, and
now instead of it being a missing person's case, it's
a homicide.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
And this case, it's got so many layers because you
have three guys, which makes it really especially tragic because
the other two guys that were convicted of the same
time that you were convicted of were just as innocent
as you were. But one of them confessed, right, and
we know how that goes as well. But every one
of those even inside of that false confession, there's a
(08:36):
lot of nuance to those situations. Do you want to
talk about that? Because I was a guy named Kogut, right.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
Well, part of the problem with the interrogation process that
he was put through is that the police lied to him.
And I understand, okay, the police are allowed to lie
to you, but he took a lot to tachfist and
the police told.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Him he failed the light like the test.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
And we had experts that actually viewed the you know,
the polycharts, and our experts said that, you know, he
didn't lie, right, that he was telling the truth. But
the detectives used that as a tool against him. You know,
while this guy is being you know, he's in a
(09:21):
small room with a couple of these let's call him
thugs because that's what they are.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Don't get me wrong.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
I'm not calling all police thugs, and I'm not saying that,
and that's yeah, so I'm not calling all police bad.
But so they held that over his head, saying that, okay,
you lied during the polygraph test, which was an actual lie.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
I mean they were lying to him, right, And.
Speaker 4 (09:46):
Their polygraph expert said, well, I don't really go by
the charts.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
I go by the person's demeanor and.
Speaker 5 (09:55):
Telegraphs or not.
Speaker 6 (09:56):
You know, people can debate whether they have any utility
for determined if someone is or is not telling the truth.
But police have used them for decades as part of
what they the experts now call it guilt presumptive interrogation,
where they bring somebody in they've already decided based on
these subjective factors, like I get a feeling he's not
telling me the truth, or they think they have other
(10:18):
evidence the person did it, And once they decide that
the person is guilty, the interrogation is not a search
for the truth.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
It's a search for a confession.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
In the false confession, right, everything that the police had known, right,
every fact that they knew, right, was incorporated into this confession.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Right, the young.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
Lady disappears in early November of nineteen eighty four. They're
interrogating COVID in early March of nineteen eighty five. And
according to the police, in this false confession, this fact's
coming out of call over of pocabook, color of sneakies.
(11:02):
I mean things that no normal person could ever remember.
You know, last week, what did you have for breakfast
last Monday? I mean, like every fact that was known,
even like the piece of jewelry that they recovered that
she had been wearing. Right, he supposedly remembers the type
of jewelry. And since it was all fictitious to begin with, right,
(11:26):
every fact that they knew was incorporated into the false
confession except one thing the police didn't know.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
The colored blouse or.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Shirt that she was wearing on the night she disappeared,
and that's the only thing that wasn't incorporated into this
false confession. So, according to all of the experts, they
considered as a classic false confession because no normal person
would be able to actually remember all of these facts.
There were just too many facts incorporated into this confession
(12:00):
for it to be reliable.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Okay, now we know that COVID confessed, but how did
that lead to your case being brought to where it
went and ultimately you being convicted and almost executed.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
The police they incorporate my name and done this his
name into the false confession because in a way, the
police had us labeled as suspects. I don't believe that
we were labeled as targets. I personally believed that they
were going to frame us one way to the other.
Right when done, I wouldn't have a clue. I wouldn't
(12:36):
have a clue. After COVID confessed falsely confessed, my family
retained a private investigator. We're trying to figure out where
I was on a night this youngerally disappeared. We figured
out where I was through receipts because I had just
purchased the house, and that weekend that was standing the floors.
I was an out all night that evening. I was
(12:56):
on the phone with my girlfriend, who was pregnant. We
were putting poll your thane on the floor so shehes brightnt.
She couldn't be in an ause she was out of mother.
So we had phone right kids, we had receipts, so
we knew exactly where we were where I was right
and Dennis was with his kids in another town, and
Kobe was at a birthday party in another town. We
didn't even lay eyes on each other that whole weekend.
(13:17):
And beyond that, the three of us were never together
in that van as a threesome ever, And we all
had independent alibis. And by the time we got the trial,
they took my independent alibi witness because the guy that
was helping me, he was a friend at the time.
He was helping me sand the floors, right. He was
at the house all night. The cops picked him up
(13:41):
off the street. They bring him in for ten or
twelve hours, and they tell him that, well, if you
don't tell us what we want to hear, right, you're
gonna end up in jail with them so they've actually
flipped my independent alibi witness from my witness to their witness,
and he actually gave them testimony against me at trial,
(14:04):
and at the civil trial, during his testimony, the judge
actually stopped the proceedings, had the jury removed and told
him that you're on the borderline of being charged with
perjury here because he had changed his testimony so many times, right,
And when he testified at the criminal trial, he lied right,
(14:27):
but they wouldn't give us his original grand jury testimony.
So it was always my opinion that his testimony was
different from what he testified at the grand jury to
what he testified two years later at the criminal trial,
because during that timespan, the cops put so much pressure
on this dude and flipped them.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Yeah, I mean, he was in an impossible situation. It
doesn't excuse what he did.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
No, you're right.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
In a way, I felt bad for him because he
was stuck in the middle of this, right and he's
under this tremendous amount of pressure police, and he's being told, well,
if you don't tell us what we want to hear,
you're gonna end up in jail with him, and he
sees innocent people in jail, right, and he sees how
easy it was for the police to do that.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Exactly. He knows what they're capable of, because he already
knows you're innocent, and he knows what they're doing, So
there's no reason to not believe that they would do
the same rest right.
Speaker 4 (15:19):
And then we had the other problem with the police
planting evidence in the van and the judge because it
was a bench trial, so the judge concluded that the
hiss that they intimated that were found in my van
were never in the van.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Right, And you know, let's talk about that because that
is even by the standards of some of the crazy
shit that we see in this line of work. That's
going even beyond some of the misconducts, you know, this
is so far. They were literally pulling hairs from the
corpse and then taking those hairs and putting them in
(15:56):
the van, Like who does the thing like that? Well?
Speaker 5 (16:00):
Who does it?
Speaker 6 (16:00):
Are police who are desperate to solve a crime that
has the community absolutely terrified and up in arms. So
what John talked about earlier about the flyers around town,
I mean this was the mid eighties, you know, bedroom community,
suburban Long Island, the young woman who was killed in
the case that John was falsely convicted, and her name
is Teresa Fusco, was actually one of three young women
(16:23):
that went missing around that time, and the other two
to this day, those crimes have never been solved, and
for all we know, it may have been the same
killer or killers in those cases. But by the time
Teresa disappeared, she was missing for what was it, John
three weeks? Three week, about three weeks before her body
was found. So the terror and the paranoia that they're
feeling in this town is only heightening, and the parents
(16:45):
and elected officials, the teachers are saying, solve this crime,
solve this crime. And after she was found naked, brutalized
in the woods, just a horrible way to go, you know.
The police spent months basically bringing in every working class
guy between the ages of eighteen in twenty nine in
town and working them over, trying to see if they
could find a weak spot until they get poor John
(17:06):
Kogd who had had a really rough life grown up
in foster care.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
Nobody to fight for him, and even he held.
Speaker 6 (17:12):
Out for hours and hours until he finally confessed, you know,
and gave a false confession that as John said, was
a classic false confession, and that it had no information
that the police didn't already know, so he couldn't point
them to clothing or jewelry or fruits of the crime,
or anything about her that wasn't part of the police's knowledge.
But everything they did know almost too perfectly. But when
(17:35):
it came to the hair. As part of what was
wrong with this case when they decided they were going
to pin it on John and his two friends, is that.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
They had no physical evidence.
Speaker 6 (17:43):
There was no evidence against them, no DNA, no blood typing,
nothing of hers that was ever found with them, no
eyewitnesses as far as anybody knew at the time, who
had seen what vehicles she'd gotten into, and she was
leaving her job at a roller skating rink. And you know,
we don't say light that police frame people. I mean
a lot of times police will make bad mistakes, they
(18:04):
will cut corners, they will interview witnesses in a way
that's not ethical or permissible. But in this case, there
is actual scientific evidence that John.
Speaker 5 (18:12):
And his co defendants got framed.
Speaker 6 (18:14):
Namely, Detective Vulpi, the lead homicide detective, claimed that he
found several hairs when he finally got a search warrant
for John's van when he used for his moving jobs.
He claimed that he found several hairs that were long hairs,
looked just like Teresa's and microscopically appeared to be the
same as Teresa's hairs. We later did DNA and confirmed
(18:36):
that they were in fact her hairs. So that would
be pretty bad evidence, and normally you'd think, well, that
makes John guilty. The problem was those hairs would have
had to be deposited in the van during this period
when John and his friends were alleged to have abducted.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
Her for just a few minutes.
Speaker 6 (18:49):
According to the confession, they had given her a ride
and then raped her, and she was in the van
for not longer, certainly no more than an hour, and
then she was missing for several weeks.
Speaker 5 (18:58):
But the hairs came from a court.
Speaker 6 (19:00):
They had this decomposition at the roots of the hairs
called post mortem root banding, which basically happens when hairs
are attached to a corpse that's decomposing. And so detective
Vaultpi takes these hairs and whether he planted them in
the van or just put them in an envelope marked
hairs from van that was back at the lab. We
don't know and doesn't really matter, but he lied under
oath and said that these hairs came from the van.
(19:22):
And it's physically impossible because she had been decomposing for
several weeks when these when these hairs were collected, they
were from her autopsy, not.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
From the van.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
I mean, these detectives actually created a fictitious scenario after
they actually watched what we think was the actual crime scene.
And unbeknownst to us, the night she disappeared, a car
within approximately a mile of which she was last seen
was stolen, and when this car was recovered approximately a
(19:55):
week later, they found a pair of blue striped g
means with one of the legs inside out in the back,
but stuff underneath the seat, and on a missing persons
report when she was last seen, that's what she was wearing,
blue stripe jeans.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
So the homicide cops.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
Grabbed this car right, which was already cleaned by the owner,
and the blue striped jeans were thrown out by.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
The Limberth Police department.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
So there was police reports regarding the stolen car and
the blue striped jeans right, and then there was a
piece of rope missing from the car. And according to them, right,
there was a piece of rope similar used as what
would you say, the murder weapon, right, and this was
(20:44):
missing from the car. When they brought the owner back
to the area where the car was recovered, they found
the piece of rope.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
But they took a picture of the piece of rope.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
And one would think that given the significance of that,
this piece of rope would be taken into evidence and vouched,
and the police say it never was.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
So this is information that.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
Should have been turned over to the defense, and it
never was. And we never found out about this information
till we were in the civil litigation stage twenty something
years later.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
Correct, I was.
Speaker 6 (21:18):
John's innocence project lawyer. We didn't know about this information.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
You know.
Speaker 6 (21:23):
A lot of times, as you know and a lot
of your guests have talked about there's evidence pointing to
someone's innocence, and you know, certainly in this case, this
is evidence about where the crime occurred and what type
of vehicle was used, which is a huge objective lead
that's different than the entire case that was against John
and his co defendants, but that is evidence. Often we
(21:46):
learn about that when we're in post conviction, meaning the
person's been convicted and we're litigating their appeals and we're
trying to exonerate them. In John's case, as I'll tell you,
we cleared him with DNA and other evidence that we gathered,
but we didn't even know about this other evidence the
police had of his innocence until after he was exonerated.
It only came out when he had lawyers representing him
(22:08):
in his lawsuit against the police department in the county
that this all came to light.
Speaker 5 (22:11):
So it's a really.
Speaker 6 (22:12):
Stunning fact that you can have evidence of innocence that's hidden,
possibly even from the DA's because he was in the
police file and only come out after someone's exonerated. And
so his case is a DNA exoneration case, But as
with so many, there's other evidence that could have cleared
him even before he went to trial.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
As the son of a police officer, this must have
been totally surreal to you. Bright And was your dad
around Was he alive at this time?
Speaker 4 (22:51):
My father passed away in January of eighty four, so
he wasn't around. But my father said something to me
at one time while he was on the job.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
If you ever have a problem with a top, call oil.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
And when the police brought me in and interrogated me
for twenty plus hours.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Once I was released, I immediately called a.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
W why did you call oil? At first, they.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
Wouldn't let me leave, They took my clock keys. I mean,
they wuldn't let me call the oier. You know I
was there. I mean, they weren't letting me go anywhere.
And finally they let me go. And after twenty hours,
I was so out of it. They wouldn't even let
me drive home. They drove me home and drove my call.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
There's so many things wrong with this that I'm just like.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
No, I'm just glad it's over it. But what the
cops did to me they can do to whoever they please.
I mean they could.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
They could pick somebody out of a group and make
them a target and then they fabricate a case around them.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
And that's exactly what they did to us.
Speaker 4 (23:53):
Because from day one I requested DNA testing, and back
in the eighties mid eighties, there was no DNA testing,
And back in ninety three, ninety four, ninety five, we
had three different DNA tests done. One was inclusive to
two other ones excluded us, and back in ninety five,
I thought we were going to get cut loose. I
thought that was going to be the end of the gospel.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
That wasn't the case.
Speaker 6 (24:15):
The judge should have been one of the first DNA
namies in the country because he was going in pro
se and he had a lawyer who was helping him
out for some of that time, you know, early on,
and he's incredibly smart, and he was researching and filing
his own emotions. He had a DNA test from sperm
from a sixteen year old girl who was a virgin
(24:35):
that didn't come back to him or Dennis or John Cogit,
and the DAS said, eh, doesn't matter. Could have been
a fourth guy, right, fourth guy, there's a third guy.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
There's a second guy. There was one guy. It was
his sperm and it wasn't any of these guys.
Speaker 6 (24:50):
And he goes to court and the judges back then
weren't as educated as they are now about DNA and
what it shows, and you know, he had different lawyers
and they said, sorry, not giving you a new trial.
And so there he was, you know, in the mid nineties,
starting a scare one again.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
I think probably everyone at home is experiencing the same
or in your car, or you're listening the same thing
that I'm experiencing, which is that that sounds like a
misprint or a misstatement that can't really be true.
Speaker 4 (25:19):
The prosecutor is actually lying in their papers about the
reliability of the tests. They insinuated that the test results
were not reliable, which is ludicrous because there's two independent
tests done by two independent labs and they identify the
same exact DNA profile. So if one lab made a mistake,
(25:43):
how could the other lab, independent lab make the same
mistake and identify the exact same DNA profile. So when
they argued in their papers that the tests weren't reliable,
I mean, that was totally ludicrous, and the judge adopted
old it is insanity.
Speaker 6 (26:02):
And then, if I remember correctly, after they realized they
weren't getting anywhere for a while, the judge was getting
skeptical of the reliability argument. Then they said, well, the
only thing that was tested for this last round was
off of a vaginal slide, which is a glass slide
that the medical examiner or autopsy makes from the cotton
swab that was actually had most of the sperm and
(26:23):
the semen on it, and it was just the one.
Speaker 5 (26:26):
Part of the slide.
Speaker 6 (26:27):
So maybe these three guys who we convicted, maybe their
DNA was on the rest of the slide or on
the swabs, and we just don't have enough material.
Speaker 5 (26:36):
So you had to believe two things.
Speaker 6 (26:38):
One that the test was missing all of their DNA,
but also that they had some crime partner. This mystery
John Doe, who was the fourth guy whose name didn't
come up in the confession, didn't come up from any
of the informants, didn't come up from any of the witnesses,
you know who everybody had been covering up.
Speaker 5 (26:54):
For this last ten years, which was absurd, but the
courts bought it.
Speaker 6 (26:58):
And so then they basically gave John a challenge, which
was prove us wrong.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
Prove to us that your DNA is not really there.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
And then we did that right.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
In two thousand and one, there was a small portion
of sample left and they retested it using new methodology
where it would be able to run that result through
the federal and state databases, you know, through codis right,
and again when they tested that, it comes back matching
(27:29):
the same DNA profile that came back in the nineties.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Amazing.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
Yeah, And they ran it through Codis hoping that they
would get a hit, right, And since they didn't get
a hit, they're still maintaining that it's not reliable. Then
in two thousand and two I met Nina Morrison and
IP took on more involvement in the case. Right, and
(27:55):
he got U all independent lawyers, right, They got lawyers
for dentists, they got law for John And in early
two thousand and three, Nina and a couple of little
lawyers went to inventory evidence that the police had and
lo and Behold.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
For photos and maps.
Speaker 6 (28:14):
We were looking for some old photos related to another
part of our investigation, and they wouldn't just send us
the photos, so we said, fine, can we come looks
at the boxes?
Speaker 5 (28:22):
So we were out there with.
Speaker 6 (28:22):
An Assistantda, who was new to the office, relatively new,
and she said, yeah, let's just go look for the boxes.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
And we'll behold.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
They found a plastic envelope with a glass tube in
it and a swab in it, and it has the
case number and Teresa Fusko's name on it and it's
vouched by Volpi.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
And after they.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Insinuated all the MIAs that there's no samples left to
be tested. It was right there in the box, you know,
in the DA's officer in the police headed quotas wherever
they were, and Nina scene is and the DA scene is,
and then now they had to collaborate. Okay, now where
are we going to send us to have it tested?
And they sent it out to have it tested. And
this is his sample that was never touched, so it's
(29:04):
in pristine condition.
Speaker 6 (29:05):
If anybody had you know, raped her, that DNA is
going to be on there. So they had said for years,
well the other guys, you know, John and his co defendants,
their DNA was there. We just burned all the samples,
so we can't protest it now. And then suddenly we
had this big intact swab that everybody said was gone
for fifteen years that was finally available, and not surprising
(29:26):
to any of us, we tested it and guess what,
it's the same guy whose profile has been coming up
again and again, but this time because it was such
a big sample, the DA's office finally, you know, that,
plus a whole lot of other evidence we gathered, we
went out and made a presentation to them, a whole
coalition of people that really did take a village. It
was my very first innisance project case. I was a
(29:47):
young lawyer and very motivated, shall we say, and a
whole bunch of us enturing ministries the Unison's project to
Delmernard and then my old law schoolassmate Terry Maroney who
was a lawyer at a big firm. We all did
this big presentation with Barrysheck together and got them to
finally agree. They actually came in and agreed we didn't
have to go to court. They agreed to throughout their convictions.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
You had a kind of a bright future at the time, right,
you had a pregnant girlfriend. Right, you had a good job. Right,
you had a career that was growing. And all of
a sudden you're accused and ultimately convicted of the worst
crime that anyone could be convicted of, right, I think,
which is the rape and murder of an underage person,
(30:41):
child and a teenager or whatever. How did you deal
with this? And then you had to go through this
eighteen years in the maximum security prisons. I mean, can
you kick us through that.
Speaker 4 (30:51):
In the beginning and turn my life upside down and
turned my family's life upside down. But that being said,
my family always supported me. Right, my original trial lawyer
always supported me, and everybody.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
Always believes in my innocence.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
And I had the one thing going for me that
I knew that not only was I innocent, that I
was framed because I watched the evidence come out during
the course of the trial. Right, so I knew that
I was framed. Now it was up to me to
prove all it is. So I ended up in the penitentiary,
(31:33):
and I started going to the law library and I
started teaching myself how to use the books. I taught
myself how to become a legal writer. I don't want
to say a legal scholar, but I became a legal writer.
And I started writing and writing, and I started writing
letters to all kinds of organizations or individuals seeking help.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
And I wrote.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
Censuring ministries in nineteen eighty seven and started corresponding with them.
And then I started corresponding with the Innostance Project.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
And you know, there.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
Was a lot of setbacks, you know, like because originally
when we exprat the DNA testing, the dis Returnings Office
refused to do it.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
This is no way we're not going to do that.
Speaker 4 (32:20):
And this was in the late eighties because DNA was
first used in a criminal case. I think it was
nineteen eighty eight or nineteen eighty nine, something like that,
and I think it was an Oldding County case. And
so I wrote my lawyer, I mean, if they're going
to use this to convict somebody, why can't we use
this to exonerate us?
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Right? And I got letters.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Signed by John by Dennis Agreen to have this DNA
test done in my lawyer correct, right, because I'm not
doing this just for me. I mean, this is a
frame job, it's not like So we all agree, and
my lawyer filed the motion the judge, and then my
lawyer went on his own writing campaign to the DA,
(33:05):
and finally, on the eve of when New York State
legislature was getting ready to sign the post conviction Statute
for forty to allow DNA testing, the prosecutors or the
DA's office finally agreed to do the DNA testing. And
that's why DNA testing occurred in ninety three, ninety four, five,
(33:27):
or otherwise, if that legislation wasn't going to be on
the books, they would probably continue to refuse it, even
though you know, people at that point were being exonerated
because of the results of the DNA tests. These people
fought tooth and nail against this DNA test, and then
when we finally got the DNA test are going, they
just finds it unreliable, like we mentioned before. But you know,
(33:49):
I always had this hope, right and then you know,
things started falling together with more people getting involved, and
the more people that got involved and more confident I
felt I was going to one day be vindicated.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
It seems like it would have been really easy for
you to either give up or get consumed by anger,
because this was not a situation where it was a mistake.
This was a situation where you were deliberately prosecuted and
persecuted by people who did you incredible harm and also
(34:24):
deny justice to the family who must have been fucking devastated.
I mean, like, as a father, I can't imagine, you
know what they went through, and then there's no justice
for them either. So is there a secret that you
could share that allowed you to sort of find this
extra gear and instead of banging your head against the
wall or doing whatever, you channeled this.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
It seems like this is going to sound strange, but
I still use this line today.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
It could be worse right.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
And I was facing a level of adversity that the
average person could never understand. While I was inside, I
read a lot, but I didn't read, you know, novels.
I read a lot of nonfiction. I read a lot
about World War Two. I read a lot about POWs.
(35:14):
So I'm putting in my brain like, okay, me doing
this life sentence for somebody didn't do.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
How does that compare to an eighteen.
Speaker 4 (35:22):
Year old kid that is pushed onto the beach in
Normandy and you know it lives for five minutes and
he's gone, right, or a pow in the Philippines that
is being tortured every day. So I'm putting my adversity
in kind of perspective of, you know, adversity that other
people in worse situations that I was in.
Speaker 3 (35:45):
Right, at least I was getting, you know, three meals
a day.
Speaker 4 (35:48):
I wasn't being physically tortured, nobody was pulling my fingernails out.
I put it all in perspective of, you know, a
peow in the Philippines or a peow in Vietnam, and
and I got it in my brain, well, at the end.
Speaker 3 (36:01):
Of the day, I don't belong here. But it could
be worse.
Speaker 6 (36:04):
John's too modest to talk about this, but I'm going
to say he also spent a lot of time when
he was in prison trying to make it a less
horrible place for other people, and also helping people on
the outside. So among the many things he did, like
when I first talked to his prison counselor, she just
blew out my phone with oh my god, John, He's
just incredible.
Speaker 5 (36:24):
I want him to go home, but what are we
going to do without him?
Speaker 6 (36:26):
He was a HIV AIDS counselor for other inmates, either
on how to avoid contracting the disease or helping him
deal with their diagnoses, even though he was a street
man who was HIV negative at a time in the
eighties and nineties when people were scared to talk about AIDS,
much less work directly with people who were affected. He
worked with mentally ill and mad's, the guys that everybody
thought was crazy and were prized at the prison, and
(36:47):
he was just trying to help them get the medication
they needed and the support they needed. And then people
on the outside, I know who John was like their
phone buddy, you know, family friends and young nieces and
nephews who he would call once a week and like
talk them through their problems in school, their issues with
their families. You know, all the while he's facing the
most unimaginable thing any of us think we could go through.
(37:09):
And that's just a testament to who he is and how.
Speaker 5 (37:11):
Strong he is.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
I'm glad you said that, because that is an awesome
thing to hear from me. I'm sure many other people
who are going through whatever they're going through to hear
your perspective on that. And here then, Nina, you know,
adding in what you were too modest or humble to
talk about. It's incredible. And I got to tell you John,
and you know it's true too that I think I
can speak for Nina and almost any of the other
(37:35):
six hundred of us who are here at the Innocent
Network conference who are part of the network right the activist,
the lawyers, the social workers, the people who are just
obsessed with this stuff like me. And the simple reason
why is because of people like you. When someone's made
aware of the quality of person that you are, and
that I would say the overwhelming majority of the people,
(37:56):
the men and women who've been exonerated what they're made
out of It's like it only inspires us to want
to do more. And that's why for anyone who's ever
asked me, you know why you keep doing this, it's
because of people like you. So you know what can
I say? You have all my respect.
Speaker 4 (38:14):
And I appreciate where you're coming from. But to me,
people in nina shoes, people in your shoes, what you
do for the movement, you're my hero, and everybody who
supports this movement, dear my hero. Right because if it
wasn't for people like Nina and people like you, right,
(38:36):
I probably still be in that six y eight.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
John, I just want to ask you one more question
and then I am going to get to the closing.
So I interviewed Gloria Kelly on on the podcast, and
she said she's an amazing, amazing woman, very powerful presence
and wrongfully convicted sort of seventeen and a half years.
I encourage people to listen to her episode of the podcast.
(39:01):
But she said something that I think is important to hear,
and I want to get your perspective on this. She said,
to anyone listening, if you don't think this can happen
to you, it can happen to you. Would you agree
with that most definitely.
Speaker 4 (39:16):
And you could be walking down the street one day
just mining your business and get surrounded by cops and
before you know it.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
You're thrown into the system and you.
Speaker 4 (39:26):
Don't have a clue as to what's going on until
all of a sudden you're brought in front of a
judge and you're being charged with whatever, and you're totally
clueless as to what happened. And a lot of these
wrongful conviction cases, that's exactly what occurred. I mean, because
if so many things that this can't happen to them.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
That's totally wrong.
Speaker 4 (39:48):
Because being willfully convicted, it can happen to anybody, anybody,
And I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy to
have to go through something like this, because no matter
what you do, after you're exonerated, you carry it for
the rest of your life.
Speaker 1 (40:04):
Well, yeah, you can't get back those years and all
the things that you missed, the birthdays, the family stuff,
just everything. I mean, nobody can give you those back.
If we could, we would. But that being said, it's
amazing to see you making the most out of it,
and you're in Florida, you're enjoying some sun and some
palm trees or whatever it is down there, and I'm
(40:25):
really glad that things are going your way. And now
comes my favorite part of the show, where I first
of all, thank both of you, Nina Morrison and John
Restivo for joining me sharing your thoughts on wrongful conviction.
So thank you both for being here. And now I
get to sit back and listen for final thoughts. And
(40:50):
I'm gonna let Nina go first because it would be
appropriate for you to close the show, so you're batting
clean up, so to speak. So anyway, so Nina, well
I want.
Speaker 6 (41:01):
To say, is you know your listeners have gotten a
flavor for who John is and what he's gone through.
But one of the things that's really special about John
is what he's done after he's been out and how
much he's done.
Speaker 5 (41:14):
He's done a.
Speaker 6 (41:14):
Lot to help get people registered to vote in Florida,
to feed the homeless, to make his community better, and
his personal journey is told in this beautiful, Beautiful Future
story in the New Yorker magazine by a writer named
Ariel Levy. And if people google John's name and the title,
I think is the Price of a Life, And it's
all about the deep pain and suffering that he went through.
(41:36):
If your listeners are interested in the human toll that
wrongful convictions take. Ariel told his story in a very
revealing and intimate way, and I hope folks will check
it out.
Speaker 3 (41:47):
John.
Speaker 4 (41:47):
I just take it one day at the time I
wake up in the morning, and I just say to myself,
no day in paradise.
Speaker 3 (41:54):
I'm just glad to be free.
Speaker 4 (41:57):
And if I can do something to help my community,
or if I feel or if I see something that
needs to be done, I try to help. And I
was involved in two thousand and eight in this huge
voter registration thing that we had going in Florida, and
(42:20):
we just got passed. We got an amendment passed where
felons are going to be allowed to vote. So now
we're going to have to start getting felons registered to
vote for our upcoming election. And when I'm asked, I
have a group of friends, and when I'm asked to help,
(42:40):
I'm more than happy to help. And I want to
thank you for.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
Having us here, thank you for listening to wrongul Conviction.
You can listen to this and all the Lava for
Good podcasts one week early and ed free by subscribing
to Lava for Good plus on Apple Podcasts. I want
to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kathleen Fink,
(43:05):
as well as my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis,
and Jeff Kleiber. The music in this production was supplied
by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure
to follow us across all social media platforms at Lava
for Good and at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow
me on Instagram at It's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is
the production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with
(43:26):
Signal Company Number One.
Speaker 2 (43:28):
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported
in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed
by the individuals featured in this show are their own
and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
I'm here today with a major announcement with my longtime
producer Connor Hall in a decade's old murder case that
we covered back in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Yeah, this was the wrongful conviction of three men, John
Restivo who we got to talk to, Dennis Halstead and
John Coogan, and they were all convicted of a nineteen
eighty four rape and murder and then they were cleared
by DNA testing and eventually released in two thousand and three,
while the actual perpetrator of this entire time has remained
free up until it appears at least yesterday, October fifteenth,
(00:38):
twenty twenty five, they arrested an alternate suspect, a now
sixty three year old man named Richard Billadou Richard Billideau.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
And what's extraordinary about this case. First of all, it
feels close to home because it is close to home.
This happened in Long Island. This was a sixteen year
old girl named Teresa Fusco who had left her job
working the snow back bar at a Roler Rank in
lynn Brook, Long Island. Right.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Yeah, I remember going to birthday parties that skating rink.
Speaker 1 (01:06):
It was called Hot Skates. Wow.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Yeah, kid's birthday parties, and then this is going on.
Speaker 1 (01:11):
Police said Teresa Fusco. He had been strangled, sexual assaulted,
and beaten, and then her body was found under leaves
and some shipping palace.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Now there was physical evidence taken in a rape kid,
and you know, I mean this is back in nineteen
eighty four. DNA testing hadn't even been used yet for
forensic evidence. So these guys had to wait in prison
while science progressed before being able to use the physical
evidence in this case to prove their innocence. And they
did that in nineteen ninety five, at which point they
(01:41):
didn't just free these guys. They argued that, okay, well
then that belongs to a fourth guy that you guys
have just been covering for.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
You know, however many years.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
So it took eight more years to set them free
in two thousand and three, and then over a decade
to get them compensation. John Restivo and Dennis Hollist they
got thirty six million dollars from Nasau County, and they
appealed that and appeal that and tried to refuse to
pay them it, and at some point or another, somebody
in that prosecutor's office decided, hey, maybe we should go
(02:13):
try to find the actual rapist and murderer. I'm not
sure if that happened with the election of the current
DA and Donnelly, or maybe it was just somebody else
in the office, but you know, somebody decided to track
down this alternate suspect and then get a DNA sample
from him without him knowing.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
And by the way, kudos to the team that was
involved in actually finally bringing this. I mean, if he's
the guy, which is sure seems that way. The DNA
shows that he is. This is good.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
It's while what he says when he gets picked up
because they picked up this straw out of the garbage
that he had just used out of like a smoothie
or something like that, they pick it up, they swab
that and it's a match. They go to talk to
him and he says, well, I don't know anything about that.
Speaker 1 (02:58):
Man.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
A lot of people are getting away with murder back.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Then, Wow up at dollars to donuts that they're going
to find more horrible crimes attributed to this guy.
Speaker 4 (03:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
Unfortunately, I think you're right about that. And there's something
I hope that I'm not right about, which is I
hope all of a sudden, we don't see a statement
from this guy Bill Adeo saying, oh yeah, I'm the
fourth guy, and these three other guys were there with me.
Now take them back to prison, and you know, give
me a slap on the wrist for cooperating. Oh yeah,
(03:31):
and then get that thirty six million dollars back. You're
gonna have to forgive me for being jaded because of well,
you know what you're going to hear, how depraved. You know,
the original prosecutors in law enforcement were in this case
from John Restivo and his attorney Miina Morrison.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Nina Morrison, who was like the heart and soul of
the litigation team and strategy team at the end of
project for many years. She's now a better old judge
in this case. I know this case really really shook her.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
This was her first case at the Innison's Project.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Right, that's incredible, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Well, without any further ado, here we go.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
On December fifth, nineteen eighty four, the naked body of
a sixteen year old girl was found in a wooded
area of Linbrook, Long Island. The victim had been last
seen leaving her job at a local roller rink about
a month earlier. The medical examiner determined that the cause
of death was ligature strangulation and seamen found on her
Baginal swabs suggested that she had been raped. By March
(04:31):
nineteen eighty five, authorities believed that this rape and murder
were connected to similar disappearance as an investigator started focusing
on Dennis Halstead, who was believed to have been associated
with another young woman who had disappeared. John Restivo had
been interviewed as part of this investigation and mentioned that
he was acquainted with John Cogan. After Cogd was given
three polygraphs, police asserted that he lied when denying involvement
(04:55):
with the disappearance of the sixteen year old victim. He
endured twelve hours of aggressive interrogation and eventually he cracked
and signed a confession that was handwritten by one of
the detectives. According to Kogo's false confession, the victim voluntarily
got into Restevo's van, where Cogd and Halsted stripped her
and Halsted raped her. Further into this coerce statement, he
(05:16):
said that when they arrived at a cemetery, Restevo also
raped her and coged, strangled her when she regained consciousness,
and became frantic with the false confession that a number
of hairs found in Restivo's band said to have matched
the victims. The three men were tried over the course
of nineteen eighty six. John Restivo spoke with us at
the Atlanta Innocence Network conference to tell their horrifying story. Together,
(05:40):
they spent over half a century in prison for a
crime they did not come in. This is Wrongful Conviction
with Jason Plum. You're listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can
listen to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts
one week early and ad free subscribing to Lava for
(06:01):
Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction.
I'm especially excited today because I've got a guest who
I've wanted to have on my podcast from long before
I even had a podcast. So ever since I read
(06:23):
your story in The New Yorker, John Restivo, I've been
sort of in awe of your story, your your case,
your everything. So I'm really I'm really happy you're here.
Speaker 3 (06:35):
Yeah, what a long, strange trip has.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Been and with you. Nina Morrison is a return guest
on the show today. Nina is the senior staff attorney
at the Innocence Project in New York. Welcome back, Thank.
Speaker 5 (06:46):
You, Jason. It's always so nice to be here.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
And just by way of background, John was convicted of
a rape murder along with two other innocent men and
sentenced to thirty three and a half years of life.
Could well have been executed if not for Governor Mario
Cuomo blocking repeatedly the death penalty in New York State.
But let's go back to it. All these crimes we
talk about are horrible. This one is particularly terrible, right.
(07:11):
This is the rape and murder of a young girl,
sixteen year old girl. And obviously everybody wants to see
those crimes solved, but they don't want to see it
solved this way. I mean, when we get the wrong
people locked up, whoever it is that did this was
free to commit other heinous crimes. But take us back
to the crime itself. And how did you first hear
(07:31):
about it? I mean you were at the time, you
were in the moving business. What were you doing?
Speaker 4 (07:35):
Yeah, we should have moving business with my brother, right,
And when young lady disappeared, we had seen articles in
the newspaper. There was missing persons fly is on different
store windows or telephone polls, so people in the community
knew that the young lady who's mission, which town was
this just was in Limbrook, New York, in Nasall County
(07:57):
all around. Yeah, And there was a couple of articles
in a newspaper. So approximately three weeks later, a body
is found and it's identified as being her body, and
now instead of it being a missing person's case, it's
a homicide.
Speaker 1 (08:15):
And this case, it's got so many layers because you
have three guys, which makes it really especially tragic because
the other two guys that were convicted of the same
time that you were convicted of were just as innocent
as you were. But one of them confessed, right, and
we know how that goes as well. But every one
of those even inside of that false confession, there's a
(08:36):
lot of nuance to those situations. Do you want to
talk about that? Because I was a guy named Kogut, right.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
Well, part of the problem with the interrogation process that
he was put through is that the police lied to him.
And I understand, okay, the police are allowed to lie
to you, but he took a lot to tachfist and
the police told.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
Him he failed the light like the test.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
And we had experts that actually viewed the you know,
the polycharts, and our experts said that, you know, he
didn't lie, right, that he was telling the truth. But
the detectives used that as a tool against him. You know,
while this guy is being you know, he's in a
(09:21):
small room with a couple of these let's call him
thugs because that's what they are.
Speaker 3 (09:26):
Don't get me wrong.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
I'm not calling all police thugs, and I'm not saying that,
and that's yeah, so I'm not calling all police bad.
But so they held that over his head, saying that, okay,
you lied during the polygraph test, which was an actual lie.
Speaker 3 (09:43):
I mean they were lying to him, right, And.
Speaker 4 (09:46):
Their polygraph expert said, well, I don't really go by
the charts.
Speaker 3 (09:53):
I go by the person's demeanor and.
Speaker 5 (09:55):
Telegraphs or not.
Speaker 6 (09:56):
You know, people can debate whether they have any utility
for determined if someone is or is not telling the truth.
But police have used them for decades as part of
what they the experts now call it guilt presumptive interrogation,
where they bring somebody in they've already decided based on
these subjective factors, like I get a feeling he's not
telling me the truth, or they think they have other
(10:18):
evidence the person did it, And once they decide that
the person is guilty, the interrogation is not a search
for the truth.
Speaker 5 (10:24):
It's a search for a confession.
Speaker 4 (10:26):
In the false confession, right, everything that the police had known, right,
every fact that they knew, right, was incorporated into this confession.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
Right, the young.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
Lady disappears in early November of nineteen eighty four. They're
interrogating COVID in early March of nineteen eighty five. And
according to the police, in this false confession, this fact's
coming out of call over of pocabook, color of sneakies.
(11:02):
I mean things that no normal person could ever remember.
You know, last week, what did you have for breakfast
last Monday? I mean, like every fact that was known,
even like the piece of jewelry that they recovered that
she had been wearing. Right, he supposedly remembers the type
of jewelry. And since it was all fictitious to begin with, right,
(11:26):
every fact that they knew was incorporated into the false
confession except one thing the police didn't know.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
The colored blouse or.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Shirt that she was wearing on the night she disappeared,
and that's the only thing that wasn't incorporated into this
false confession. So, according to all of the experts, they
considered as a classic false confession because no normal person
would be able to actually remember all of these facts.
There were just too many facts incorporated into this confession
(12:00):
for it to be reliable.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Okay, now we know that COVID confessed, but how did
that lead to your case being brought to where it
went and ultimately you being convicted and almost executed.
Speaker 4 (12:12):
The police they incorporate my name and done this his
name into the false confession because in a way, the
police had us labeled as suspects. I don't believe that
we were labeled as targets. I personally believed that they
were going to frame us one way to the other.
Right when done, I wouldn't have a clue. I wouldn't
(12:36):
have a clue. After COVID confessed falsely confessed, my family
retained a private investigator. We're trying to figure out where
I was on a night this youngerally disappeared. We figured
out where I was through receipts because I had just
purchased the house, and that weekend that was standing the floors.
I was an out all night that evening. I was
(12:56):
on the phone with my girlfriend, who was pregnant. We
were putting poll your thane on the floor so shehes brightnt.
She couldn't be in an ause she was out of mother.
So we had phone right kids, we had receipts, so
we knew exactly where we were where I was right
and Dennis was with his kids in another town, and
Kobe was at a birthday party in another town. We
didn't even lay eyes on each other that whole weekend.
(13:17):
And beyond that, the three of us were never together
in that van as a threesome ever, And we all
had independent alibis. And by the time we got the trial,
they took my independent alibi witness because the guy that
was helping me, he was a friend at the time.
He was helping me sand the floors, right. He was
at the house all night. The cops picked him up
(13:41):
off the street. They bring him in for ten or
twelve hours, and they tell him that, well, if you
don't tell us what we want to hear, right, you're
gonna end up in jail with them so they've actually
flipped my independent alibi witness from my witness to their witness,
and he actually gave them testimony against me at trial,
(14:04):
and at the civil trial, during his testimony, the judge
actually stopped the proceedings, had the jury removed and told
him that you're on the borderline of being charged with
perjury here because he had changed his testimony so many times, right,
And when he testified at the criminal trial, he lied right,
(14:27):
but they wouldn't give us his original grand jury testimony.
So it was always my opinion that his testimony was
different from what he testified at the grand jury to
what he testified two years later at the criminal trial,
because during that timespan, the cops put so much pressure
on this dude and flipped them.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Yeah, I mean, he was in an impossible situation. It
doesn't excuse what he did.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
No, you're right.
Speaker 4 (14:50):
In a way, I felt bad for him because he
was stuck in the middle of this, right and he's
under this tremendous amount of pressure police, and he's being told, well,
if you don't tell us what we want to hear,
you're gonna end up in jail with him, and he
sees innocent people in jail, right, and he sees how
easy it was for the police to do that.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Exactly. He knows what they're capable of, because he already
knows you're innocent, and he knows what they're doing, So
there's no reason to not believe that they would do
the same rest right.
Speaker 4 (15:19):
And then we had the other problem with the police
planting evidence in the van and the judge because it
was a bench trial, so the judge concluded that the
hiss that they intimated that were found in my van
were never in the van.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
Right, And you know, let's talk about that because that
is even by the standards of some of the crazy
shit that we see in this line of work. That's
going even beyond some of the misconducts, you know, this
is so far. They were literally pulling hairs from the
corpse and then taking those hairs and putting them in
(15:56):
the van, Like who does the thing like that? Well?
Speaker 5 (16:00):
Who does it?
Speaker 6 (16:00):
Are police who are desperate to solve a crime that
has the community absolutely terrified and up in arms. So
what John talked about earlier about the flyers around town,
I mean this was the mid eighties, you know, bedroom community,
suburban Long Island, the young woman who was killed in
the case that John was falsely convicted, and her name
is Teresa Fusco, was actually one of three young women
(16:23):
that went missing around that time, and the other two
to this day, those crimes have never been solved, and
for all we know, it may have been the same
killer or killers in those cases. But by the time
Teresa disappeared, she was missing for what was it, John
three weeks? Three week, about three weeks before her body
was found. So the terror and the paranoia that they're
feeling in this town is only heightening, and the parents
(16:45):
and elected officials, the teachers are saying, solve this crime,
solve this crime. And after she was found naked, brutalized
in the woods, just a horrible way to go, you know.
The police spent months basically bringing in every working class
guy between the ages of eighteen in twenty nine in
town and working them over, trying to see if they
could find a weak spot until they get poor John
(17:06):
Kogd who had had a really rough life grown up
in foster care.
Speaker 5 (17:09):
Nobody to fight for him, and even he held.
Speaker 6 (17:12):
Out for hours and hours until he finally confessed, you know,
and gave a false confession that as John said, was
a classic false confession, and that it had no information
that the police didn't already know, so he couldn't point
them to clothing or jewelry or fruits of the crime,
or anything about her that wasn't part of the police's knowledge.
But everything they did know almost too perfectly. But when
(17:35):
it came to the hair. As part of what was
wrong with this case when they decided they were going
to pin it on John and his two friends, is that.
Speaker 5 (17:41):
They had no physical evidence.
Speaker 6 (17:43):
There was no evidence against them, no DNA, no blood typing,
nothing of hers that was ever found with them, no
eyewitnesses as far as anybody knew at the time, who
had seen what vehicles she'd gotten into, and she was
leaving her job at a roller skating rink. And you know,
we don't say light that police frame people. I mean
a lot of times police will make bad mistakes, they
(18:04):
will cut corners, they will interview witnesses in a way
that's not ethical or permissible. But in this case, there
is actual scientific evidence that John.
Speaker 5 (18:12):
And his co defendants got framed.
Speaker 6 (18:14):
Namely, Detective Vulpi, the lead homicide detective, claimed that he
found several hairs when he finally got a search warrant
for John's van when he used for his moving jobs.
He claimed that he found several hairs that were long hairs,
looked just like Teresa's and microscopically appeared to be the
same as Teresa's hairs. We later did DNA and confirmed
(18:36):
that they were in fact her hairs. So that would
be pretty bad evidence, and normally you'd think, well, that
makes John guilty. The problem was those hairs would have
had to be deposited in the van during this period
when John and his friends were alleged to have abducted.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
Her for just a few minutes.
Speaker 6 (18:49):
According to the confession, they had given her a ride
and then raped her, and she was in the van
for not longer, certainly no more than an hour, and
then she was missing for several weeks.
Speaker 5 (18:58):
But the hairs came from a court.
Speaker 6 (19:00):
They had this decomposition at the roots of the hairs
called post mortem root banding, which basically happens when hairs
are attached to a corpse that's decomposing. And so detective
Vaultpi takes these hairs and whether he planted them in
the van or just put them in an envelope marked
hairs from van that was back at the lab. We
don't know and doesn't really matter, but he lied under
oath and said that these hairs came from the van.
(19:22):
And it's physically impossible because she had been decomposing for
several weeks when these when these hairs were collected, they
were from her autopsy, not.
Speaker 1 (19:30):
From the van.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
I mean, these detectives actually created a fictitious scenario after
they actually watched what we think was the actual crime scene.
And unbeknownst to us, the night she disappeared, a car
within approximately a mile of which she was last seen
was stolen, and when this car was recovered approximately a
(19:55):
week later, they found a pair of blue striped g
means with one of the legs inside out in the back,
but stuff underneath the seat, and on a missing persons
report when she was last seen, that's what she was wearing,
blue stripe jeans.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
So the homicide cops.
Speaker 4 (20:15):
Grabbed this car right, which was already cleaned by the owner,
and the blue striped jeans were thrown out by.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
The Limberth Police department.
Speaker 4 (20:24):
So there was police reports regarding the stolen car and
the blue striped jeans right, and then there was a
piece of rope missing from the car. And according to them, right,
there was a piece of rope similar used as what
would you say, the murder weapon, right, and this was
(20:44):
missing from the car. When they brought the owner back
to the area where the car was recovered, they found
the piece of rope.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
But they took a picture of the piece of rope.
Speaker 4 (20:54):
And one would think that given the significance of that,
this piece of rope would be taken into evidence and vouched,
and the police say it never was.
Speaker 3 (21:04):
So this is information that.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
Should have been turned over to the defense, and it
never was. And we never found out about this information
till we were in the civil litigation stage twenty something
years later.
Speaker 3 (21:18):
Correct, I was.
Speaker 6 (21:18):
John's innocence project lawyer. We didn't know about this information.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
You know.
Speaker 6 (21:23):
A lot of times, as you know and a lot
of your guests have talked about there's evidence pointing to
someone's innocence, and you know, certainly in this case, this
is evidence about where the crime occurred and what type
of vehicle was used, which is a huge objective lead
that's different than the entire case that was against John
and his co defendants, but that is evidence. Often we
(21:46):
learn about that when we're in post conviction, meaning the
person's been convicted and we're litigating their appeals and we're
trying to exonerate them. In John's case, as I'll tell you,
we cleared him with DNA and other evidence that we gathered,
but we didn't even know about this other evidence the
police had of his innocence until after he was exonerated.
It only came out when he had lawyers representing him
(22:08):
in his lawsuit against the police department in the county
that this all came to light.
Speaker 5 (22:11):
So it's a really.
Speaker 6 (22:12):
Stunning fact that you can have evidence of innocence that's hidden,
possibly even from the DA's because he was in the
police file and only come out after someone's exonerated. And
so his case is a DNA exoneration case, But as
with so many, there's other evidence that could have cleared
him even before he went to trial.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
As the son of a police officer, this must have
been totally surreal to you. Bright And was your dad
around Was he alive at this time?
Speaker 4 (22:51):
My father passed away in January of eighty four, so
he wasn't around. But my father said something to me
at one time while he was on the job.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
If you ever have a problem with a top, call oil.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
And when the police brought me in and interrogated me
for twenty plus hours.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Once I was released, I immediately called a.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
W why did you call oil? At first, they.
Speaker 4 (23:19):
Wouldn't let me leave, They took my clock keys. I mean,
they wuldn't let me call the oier. You know I
was there. I mean, they weren't letting me go anywhere.
And finally they let me go. And after twenty hours,
I was so out of it. They wouldn't even let
me drive home. They drove me home and drove my call.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
There's so many things wrong with this that I'm just like.
Speaker 3 (23:38):
No, I'm just glad it's over it. But what the
cops did to me they can do to whoever they please.
I mean they could.
Speaker 4 (23:45):
They could pick somebody out of a group and make
them a target and then they fabricate a case around them.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
And that's exactly what they did to us.
Speaker 4 (23:53):
Because from day one I requested DNA testing, and back
in the eighties mid eighties, there was no DNA testing,
And back in ninety three, ninety four, ninety five, we
had three different DNA tests done. One was inclusive to
two other ones excluded us, and back in ninety five,
I thought we were going to get cut loose. I
thought that was going to be the end of the gospel.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
That wasn't the case.
Speaker 6 (24:15):
The judge should have been one of the first DNA
namies in the country because he was going in pro
se and he had a lawyer who was helping him
out for some of that time, you know, early on,
and he's incredibly smart, and he was researching and filing
his own emotions. He had a DNA test from sperm
from a sixteen year old girl who was a virgin
(24:35):
that didn't come back to him or Dennis or John Cogit,
and the DAS said, eh, doesn't matter. Could have been
a fourth guy, right, fourth guy, there's a third guy.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
There's a second guy. There was one guy. It was
his sperm and it wasn't any of these guys.
Speaker 6 (24:50):
And he goes to court and the judges back then
weren't as educated as they are now about DNA and
what it shows, and you know, he had different lawyers
and they said, sorry, not giving you a new trial.
And so there he was, you know, in the mid nineties,
starting a scare one again.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
I think probably everyone at home is experiencing the same
or in your car, or you're listening the same thing
that I'm experiencing, which is that that sounds like a
misprint or a misstatement that can't really be true.
Speaker 4 (25:19):
The prosecutor is actually lying in their papers about the
reliability of the tests. They insinuated that the test results
were not reliable, which is ludicrous because there's two independent
tests done by two independent labs and they identify the
same exact DNA profile. So if one lab made a mistake,
(25:43):
how could the other lab, independent lab make the same
mistake and identify the exact same DNA profile. So when
they argued in their papers that the tests weren't reliable,
I mean, that was totally ludicrous, and the judge adopted
old it is insanity.
Speaker 6 (26:02):
And then, if I remember correctly, after they realized they
weren't getting anywhere for a while, the judge was getting
skeptical of the reliability argument. Then they said, well, the
only thing that was tested for this last round was
off of a vaginal slide, which is a glass slide
that the medical examiner or autopsy makes from the cotton
swab that was actually had most of the sperm and
(26:23):
the semen on it, and it was just the one.
Speaker 5 (26:26):
Part of the slide.
Speaker 6 (26:27):
So maybe these three guys who we convicted, maybe their
DNA was on the rest of the slide or on
the swabs, and we just don't have enough material.
Speaker 5 (26:36):
So you had to believe two things.
Speaker 6 (26:38):
One that the test was missing all of their DNA,
but also that they had some crime partner. This mystery
John Doe, who was the fourth guy whose name didn't
come up in the confession, didn't come up from any
of the informants, didn't come up from any of the witnesses,
you know who everybody had been covering up.
Speaker 5 (26:54):
For this last ten years, which was absurd, but the
courts bought it.
Speaker 6 (26:58):
And so then they basically gave John a challenge, which
was prove us wrong.
Speaker 5 (27:03):
Prove to us that your DNA is not really there.
Speaker 3 (27:05):
And then we did that right.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
In two thousand and one, there was a small portion
of sample left and they retested it using new methodology
where it would be able to run that result through
the federal and state databases, you know, through codis right,
and again when they tested that, it comes back matching
(27:29):
the same DNA profile that came back in the nineties.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Amazing.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
Yeah, And they ran it through Codis hoping that they
would get a hit, right, And since they didn't get
a hit, they're still maintaining that it's not reliable. Then
in two thousand and two I met Nina Morrison and
IP took on more involvement in the case. Right, and
(27:55):
he got U all independent lawyers, right, They got lawyers
for dentists, they got law for John And in early
two thousand and three, Nina and a couple of little
lawyers went to inventory evidence that the police had and
lo and Behold.
Speaker 5 (28:13):
For photos and maps.
Speaker 6 (28:14):
We were looking for some old photos related to another
part of our investigation, and they wouldn't just send us
the photos, so we said, fine, can we come looks
at the boxes?
Speaker 5 (28:22):
So we were out there with.
Speaker 6 (28:22):
An Assistantda, who was new to the office, relatively new,
and she said, yeah, let's just go look for the boxes.
Speaker 3 (28:27):
And we'll behold.
Speaker 4 (28:28):
They found a plastic envelope with a glass tube in
it and a swab in it, and it has the
case number and Teresa Fusko's name on it and it's
vouched by Volpi.
Speaker 3 (28:40):
And after they.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Insinuated all the MIAs that there's no samples left to
be tested. It was right there in the box, you know,
in the DA's officer in the police headed quotas wherever
they were, and Nina scene is and the DA scene is,
and then now they had to collaborate. Okay, now where
are we going to send us to have it tested?
And they sent it out to have it tested. And
this is his sample that was never touched, so it's
(29:04):
in pristine condition.
Speaker 6 (29:05):
If anybody had you know, raped her, that DNA is
going to be on there. So they had said for years,
well the other guys, you know, John and his co defendants,
their DNA was there. We just burned all the samples,
so we can't protest it now. And then suddenly we
had this big intact swab that everybody said was gone
for fifteen years that was finally available, and not surprising
(29:26):
to any of us, we tested it and guess what,
it's the same guy whose profile has been coming up
again and again, but this time because it was such
a big sample, the DA's office finally, you know, that,
plus a whole lot of other evidence we gathered, we
went out and made a presentation to them, a whole
coalition of people that really did take a village. It
was my very first innisance project case. I was a
(29:47):
young lawyer and very motivated, shall we say, and a
whole bunch of us enturing ministries the Unison's project to
Delmernard and then my old law schoolassmate Terry Maroney who
was a lawyer at a big firm. We all did
this big presentation with Barrysheck together and got them to
finally agree. They actually came in and agreed we didn't
have to go to court. They agreed to throughout their convictions.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
You had a kind of a bright future at the time, right,
you had a pregnant girlfriend. Right, you had a good job. Right,
you had a career that was growing. And all of
a sudden you're accused and ultimately convicted of the worst
crime that anyone could be convicted of, right, I think,
which is the rape and murder of an underage person,
(30:41):
child and a teenager or whatever. How did you deal
with this? And then you had to go through this
eighteen years in the maximum security prisons. I mean, can
you kick us through that.
Speaker 4 (30:51):
In the beginning and turn my life upside down and
turned my family's life upside down. But that being said,
my family always supported me. Right, my original trial lawyer
always supported me, and everybody.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
Always believes in my innocence.
Speaker 4 (31:09):
And I had the one thing going for me that
I knew that not only was I innocent, that I
was framed because I watched the evidence come out during
the course of the trial. Right, so I knew that
I was framed. Now it was up to me to
prove all it is. So I ended up in the penitentiary,
(31:33):
and I started going to the law library and I
started teaching myself how to use the books. I taught
myself how to become a legal writer. I don't want
to say a legal scholar, but I became a legal writer.
And I started writing and writing, and I started writing
letters to all kinds of organizations or individuals seeking help.
Speaker 3 (31:56):
And I wrote.
Speaker 4 (31:58):
Censuring ministries in nineteen eighty seven and started corresponding with them.
And then I started corresponding with the Innostance Project.
Speaker 3 (32:09):
And you know, there.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
Was a lot of setbacks, you know, like because originally
when we exprat the DNA testing, the dis Returnings Office
refused to do it.
Speaker 3 (32:17):
This is no way we're not going to do that.
Speaker 4 (32:20):
And this was in the late eighties because DNA was
first used in a criminal case. I think it was
nineteen eighty eight or nineteen eighty nine, something like that,
and I think it was an Oldding County case. And
so I wrote my lawyer, I mean, if they're going
to use this to convict somebody, why can't we use
this to exonerate us?
Speaker 3 (32:40):
Right? And I got letters.
Speaker 4 (32:43):
Signed by John by Dennis Agreen to have this DNA
test done in my lawyer correct, right, because I'm not
doing this just for me. I mean, this is a
frame job, it's not like So we all agree, and
my lawyer filed the motion the judge, and then my
lawyer went on his own writing campaign to the DA,
(33:05):
and finally, on the eve of when New York State
legislature was getting ready to sign the post conviction Statute
for forty to allow DNA testing, the prosecutors or the
DA's office finally agreed to do the DNA testing. And
that's why DNA testing occurred in ninety three, ninety four, five,
(33:27):
or otherwise, if that legislation wasn't going to be on
the books, they would probably continue to refuse it, even
though you know, people at that point were being exonerated
because of the results of the DNA tests. These people
fought tooth and nail against this DNA test, and then
when we finally got the DNA test are going, they
just finds it unreliable, like we mentioned before. But you know,
(33:49):
I always had this hope, right and then you know,
things started falling together with more people getting involved, and
the more people that got involved and more confident I
felt I was going to one day be vindicated.
Speaker 1 (34:04):
It seems like it would have been really easy for
you to either give up or get consumed by anger,
because this was not a situation where it was a mistake.
This was a situation where you were deliberately prosecuted and
persecuted by people who did you incredible harm and also
(34:24):
deny justice to the family who must have been fucking devastated.
I mean, like, as a father, I can't imagine, you
know what they went through, and then there's no justice
for them either. So is there a secret that you
could share that allowed you to sort of find this
extra gear and instead of banging your head against the
wall or doing whatever, you channeled this.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
It seems like this is going to sound strange, but
I still use this line today.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
It could be worse right.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
And I was facing a level of adversity that the
average person could never understand. While I was inside, I
read a lot, but I didn't read, you know, novels.
I read a lot of nonfiction. I read a lot
about World War Two. I read a lot about POWs.
(35:14):
So I'm putting in my brain like, okay, me doing
this life sentence for somebody didn't do.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
How does that compare to an eighteen.
Speaker 4 (35:22):
Year old kid that is pushed onto the beach in
Normandy and you know it lives for five minutes and
he's gone, right, or a pow in the Philippines that
is being tortured every day. So I'm putting my adversity
in kind of perspective of, you know, adversity that other
people in worse situations that I was in.
Speaker 3 (35:45):
Right, at least I was getting, you know, three meals
a day.
Speaker 4 (35:48):
I wasn't being physically tortured, nobody was pulling my fingernails out.
I put it all in perspective of, you know, a
peow in the Philippines or a peow in Vietnam, and
and I got it in my brain, well, at the end.
Speaker 3 (36:01):
Of the day, I don't belong here. But it could
be worse.
Speaker 6 (36:04):
John's too modest to talk about this, but I'm going
to say he also spent a lot of time when
he was in prison trying to make it a less
horrible place for other people, and also helping people on
the outside. So among the many things he did, like
when I first talked to his prison counselor, she just
blew out my phone with oh my god, John, He's
just incredible.
Speaker 5 (36:24):
I want him to go home, but what are we
going to do without him?
Speaker 6 (36:26):
He was a HIV AIDS counselor for other inmates, either
on how to avoid contracting the disease or helping him
deal with their diagnoses, even though he was a street
man who was HIV negative at a time in the
eighties and nineties when people were scared to talk about AIDS,
much less work directly with people who were affected. He
worked with mentally ill and mad's, the guys that everybody
thought was crazy and were prized at the prison, and
(36:47):
he was just trying to help them get the medication
they needed and the support they needed. And then people
on the outside, I know who John was like their
phone buddy, you know, family friends and young nieces and
nephews who he would call once a week and like
talk them through their problems in school, their issues with
their families. You know, all the while he's facing the
most unimaginable thing any of us think we could go through.
(37:09):
And that's just a testament to who he is and how.
Speaker 5 (37:11):
Strong he is.
Speaker 1 (37:12):
I'm glad you said that, because that is an awesome
thing to hear from me. I'm sure many other people
who are going through whatever they're going through to hear
your perspective on that. And here then, Nina, you know,
adding in what you were too modest or humble to
talk about. It's incredible. And I got to tell you John,
and you know it's true too that I think I
can speak for Nina and almost any of the other
(37:35):
six hundred of us who are here at the Innocent
Network conference who are part of the network right the activist,
the lawyers, the social workers, the people who are just
obsessed with this stuff like me. And the simple reason
why is because of people like you. When someone's made
aware of the quality of person that you are, and
that I would say the overwhelming majority of the people,
(37:56):
the men and women who've been exonerated what they're made
out of It's like it only inspires us to want
to do more. And that's why for anyone who's ever
asked me, you know why you keep doing this, it's
because of people like you. So you know what can
I say? You have all my respect.
Speaker 4 (38:14):
And I appreciate where you're coming from. But to me,
people in nina shoes, people in your shoes, what you
do for the movement, you're my hero, and everybody who
supports this movement, dear my hero. Right because if it
wasn't for people like Nina and people like you, right,
(38:36):
I probably still be in that six y eight.
Speaker 1 (38:39):
John, I just want to ask you one more question
and then I am going to get to the closing.
So I interviewed Gloria Kelly on on the podcast, and
she said she's an amazing, amazing woman, very powerful presence
and wrongfully convicted sort of seventeen and a half years.
I encourage people to listen to her episode of the podcast.
(39:01):
But she said something that I think is important to hear,
and I want to get your perspective on this. She said,
to anyone listening, if you don't think this can happen
to you, it can happen to you. Would you agree
with that most definitely.
Speaker 4 (39:16):
And you could be walking down the street one day
just mining your business and get surrounded by cops and
before you know it.
Speaker 3 (39:24):
You're thrown into the system and you.
Speaker 4 (39:26):
Don't have a clue as to what's going on until
all of a sudden you're brought in front of a
judge and you're being charged with whatever, and you're totally
clueless as to what happened. And a lot of these
wrongful conviction cases, that's exactly what occurred. I mean, because
if so many things that this can't happen to them.
Speaker 3 (39:47):
That's totally wrong.
Speaker 4 (39:48):
Because being willfully convicted, it can happen to anybody, anybody,
And I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy to
have to go through something like this, because no matter
what you do, after you're exonerated, you carry it for
the rest of your life.
Speaker 1 (40:04):
Well, yeah, you can't get back those years and all
the things that you missed, the birthdays, the family stuff,
just everything. I mean, nobody can give you those back.
If we could, we would. But that being said, it's
amazing to see you making the most out of it,
and you're in Florida, you're enjoying some sun and some
palm trees or whatever it is down there, and I'm
(40:25):
really glad that things are going your way. And now
comes my favorite part of the show, where I first
of all, thank both of you, Nina Morrison and John
Restivo for joining me sharing your thoughts on wrongful conviction.
So thank you both for being here. And now I
get to sit back and listen for final thoughts. And
(40:50):
I'm gonna let Nina go first because it would be
appropriate for you to close the show, so you're batting
clean up, so to speak. So anyway, so Nina, well
I want.
Speaker 6 (41:01):
To say, is you know your listeners have gotten a
flavor for who John is and what he's gone through.
But one of the things that's really special about John
is what he's done after he's been out and how
much he's done.
Speaker 5 (41:14):
He's done a.
Speaker 6 (41:14):
Lot to help get people registered to vote in Florida,
to feed the homeless, to make his community better, and
his personal journey is told in this beautiful, Beautiful Future
story in the New Yorker magazine by a writer named
Ariel Levy. And if people google John's name and the title,
I think is the Price of a Life, And it's
all about the deep pain and suffering that he went through.
(41:36):
If your listeners are interested in the human toll that
wrongful convictions take. Ariel told his story in a very
revealing and intimate way, and I hope folks will check
it out.
Speaker 3 (41:47):
John.
Speaker 4 (41:47):
I just take it one day at the time I
wake up in the morning, and I just say to myself,
no day in paradise.
Speaker 3 (41:54):
I'm just glad to be free.
Speaker 4 (41:57):
And if I can do something to help my community,
or if I feel or if I see something that
needs to be done, I try to help. And I
was involved in two thousand and eight in this huge
voter registration thing that we had going in Florida, and
(42:20):
we just got passed. We got an amendment passed where
felons are going to be allowed to vote. So now
we're going to have to start getting felons registered to
vote for our upcoming election. And when I'm asked, I
have a group of friends, and when I'm asked to help,
(42:40):
I'm more than happy to help. And I want to
thank you for.
Speaker 1 (42:45):
Having us here, thank you for listening to wrongul Conviction.
You can listen to this and all the Lava for
Good podcasts one week early and ed free by subscribing
to Lava for Good plus on Apple Podcasts. I want
to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kathleen Fink,
(43:05):
as well as my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis,
and Jeff Kleiber. The music in this production was supplied
by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure
to follow us across all social media platforms at Lava
for Good and at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow
me on Instagram at It's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is
the production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with
(43:26):
Signal Company Number One.
Speaker 2 (43:28):
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported
in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed
by the individuals featured in this show are their own
and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
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
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.