June 25, 2026 • 45 mins
At 2 AM, on June 18th, 2014, Daniel Holtzclaw finished up his shift as an Oklahoma City police officer and made his way home in his all black cruiser. He saw a car swerving and pulled over 57-year-old daycare provider Jannie Ligons. About 3 hours later, Ms Ligons would claim that Officer Holtzclaw forced her to perform oral sodomy through the fly of his uniform pants from the back seat of his squad car. Her mouth swab would come up empty for Daniel’s DNA, as would a search of his uniform for hers, but nonetheless, an investigation would be launched into Daniel Holtzclaw’s field contacts with at risk African American women, soliciting stories of sexual impropriety. 21 accusers made allegations, and a media circus ensued, bolstering a grim and growing narrative of law enforcement officers abusing their authority. 8 of those 21 claims were immediately dismissed by investigators, and they still moved forward with the 13 other questionable or otherwise ill-fitting claims. Through the misconstruing of DNA evidence, 8 of the remaining 13 allegations resulted in 18 convictions. Former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw is currently serving a 263 year sentence in an undisclosed correctional facility under an assumed name for crimes he did not commit.
Please listen to our coverage and find out more at: http://www.freedanielholtzclaw.com.
Sign the petition in support of Daniel’s freedom at: https://www.change.org/p/free-daniel-holtzclaw-an-innocent-man-wrongfully-convicted
https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/with-jason-flom
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.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, it's Connor Hall, senior producer for Wrongful Conviction with
some more case updates and behind the scenes insights. And
there's a case that began back in twenty fourteen. This
is the summer after Trayvon Martin's killer was acquitted. And
then you had Michael Brown and Ferguson Missouri, and simultaneously
you had revelations about powerful men using their positions of
(00:27):
power for sex. And in the midst of that June eighteenth,
twenty fourteen, Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzklaw pulled over
a swerving automobile and found some empty pill bottles. Now
following that interaction came accusations of sexual assault, importantly that
were not corroborated by a rape kit. Additionally, the accuser
(00:49):
described a different officer, and rather than reviewing the surveillance
footage of the stop that occurred not in a quiet
cul de sac but rather at a busy intersection, investigators
took this opportunity to go fishing for other allegations against
Daniel Holt's claw from specifically African American women with pending
criminal charges, and they found twenty one others with similar
(01:12):
complaints but were they about Daniel. One thing was for certain.
This slew of stories looked like evidence of a serial
rapist in blue. But right off the bat, eight of
those stories were disregarded. Then thirteen went to trial and
only eight led to convictions. Perhaps this was an instance
where so much smoke must have meant fire, because even
(01:33):
in these cases we see victims describing officers who were
definitely not Daniel, as well as scenarios where Daniel could
not have been present or there was some other dubious detail.
Now we believe many of these allegations are credible, but
that Daniel Holt's Claw just became a patsy for a
jurisdiction that appears to be plagued by sexual violence at
(01:54):
the hands of police, while the accusers received leniency in
their pending charges for going along with the narrative. Since
our coverage in twenty nineteen, all thirteen of those that
went to trial brought a civil suit against the city,
the detectives, and Daniel, which all came to interesting conclusions,
including depositions that exonerated Daniel, as well as a paltry
(02:17):
settlement from the city for the accusers. While the suit
against Daniel got dropped, and perhaps after you hear this
new edit, as well as some of that deposition audio,
it might become more clear as to why.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
At two am on June eighteenth, twenty fourteen, Oklahoma City
police officer Daniel Holsclaw finished up his shift. On his
way home in his police cruiser, he pulled over fifty
seven year old Jannyliggins for a traffic violation at a
busy intersection where surveillance footage shows a normal traffic stop.
Around three hours later, Mims Liggans filed the complaint, claiming
(02:53):
that an officer forced her into oralsodomy. Her mouth swab
came up empty for Daniel's DNA, as did his uniform
for hers, but this allegation inexplicably launched an investigation focused
on at risk African American women that Daniel had made
contact with, bringing forth twenty one alleged victims, including one man.
Daniel became a rallying cry for everyone who doesn't want
(03:15):
to see any cop abusing their power or sexually assaulting women.
It all seemed to fit a grim and growing narrative,
and a media circus ensued. In this amazing and alarming episode,
we will speak with Daniel's sister, Jennifer Holsklaw, biologist Erika Feusch,
and will also take a phone call from an undisclosed
correctional facility from former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holsklaw,
(03:39):
who is currently serving a two hundred and sixty three
year prison sentence in a maximum security prison under assumed
name for crimes he did not commit. This is wrongful conviction.
(04:02):
Welcome back to wrongful Conviction. Today we're going to be
talking about the case of Daniel Holsklaw, a former police
officer from Oklahoma City, wrongfully convicted. He's on the phone.
So Daniel, I'm sorry you're here, but I'm glad you're
on the phone.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I appreciate having.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
Me on and my loved one. Letn't be able to
have the opportunity and definitely big one about.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
It, express my indet Well, we hope to be part
of the solution. And with us in the studio, we
have two extraordinary women. One is a biologist, Erica Fusch.
Welcome to the show, Thank you, Jason, and with her
is one of the most persistent and brave women I've
come across, the sister of Daniel. Jennifer's here and without you,
(04:48):
I can honestly say this wouldn't be happening.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
Thank you for giving us the time.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
And this whole thing happened in twenty fourteen, which was
a very fraught time, shall we say, a lot of
traversy around Ferguson and other which you know continues to
this day. Of course, the person to.
Speaker 4 (05:06):
What happened then, the Baltimore deal was going on there,
so it was literally eye of the storm.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
It was rough, and this was a national news story, international,
I guess right. And at the time, and I'm really
sorry to say this, Daniel, but at the time that
I saw had come across my screen, I was like, oh, well,
I mean, okay, they got this guy, you know, like
because the narrative was always the same and me, of
all people should not have bought into it. But it
(05:32):
was an inexorable barrage of information that was all one sided.
And Daniel, your sister, your amazing sister, you know, wouldn't
leave me alone. And at first I was like, can
you leave me alone? And she was like, no, I can't.
Speaker 5 (05:44):
The reason why I'm so passionate about it is because
when this first happened, it was definitely shocking to hear
these allegations, especially the first one, and I wanted to
know everything. I wanted to read all the transcript anything
that I can get my hand on to see my
brother have really done this, And everything that I've looked into,
everything that I've read, not just because he's my brother,
(06:06):
but just because the facts of everything that I put
my hands on, nothing pointed to Daniel's guilt. If there
was anything that proved or showed anything, I would back
out and see, Daniel, you deserve every second being in
prison forever doing this to a woman. And I haven't
found one single thing that pointed me to say that
Dale did any of the crimes that he has been
(06:26):
convicted of.
Speaker 6 (06:27):
Daniel's case is a tragedy because our society's noblest desires
to end racism and sexism and police brutality ended up
convicting an innocent man and send into prison.
Speaker 5 (06:38):
And I will fight till the day I die to
get my brother out.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Nor Your courage is inspiring, and Daniel's saying for you.
So this started when Janny Liggins. She was a woman
that Daniel pulled over right, and Jenny, you've obviously been
so deep in this ever since it happened. You want
to walk us through this because it's really weird. Right.
The video evidence doesn't matter. The descriptions don't match like
(07:03):
what happened.
Speaker 5 (07:05):
So Danielle got off of work about two am, that
was his normal shift. On his way home, not too
far from the police department, he saw a car swerving,
tenant windows limoed tint at two am. You can't see
through those tenant windows. So it's not like Daniel targeted
a woman driving. So he pulled over, questioned her. He
had asked her if he could search her car. He
brought her to his police vehicle and then he searched
(07:28):
the car. He did say that he saw hydro codon
bottles and then he did a whole search. Is there
anything underneath your bra the class and shake and she
did that looking for drugs, looking for drugs and any weapons.
And everything that Daniel claimed had happened matched up to
what Jannie Liggan said. Besides the sexual assault, Jennie Liggans
(07:50):
claimed that when she was in the back of Daniel's
vehicle that Dale made her perform oral sex right where
he had pulled her over, and it was right on
a busy intersection off of fiftieth in Lincoln in Oklahoma City.
So it's not like Daniel pulled this person over on
a side street. It was a busy intersection. There's a
security video on YouTube right now that you can see
(08:10):
the traffic stop, and you can't see everything. You can
to see a police officer pulling her over. He had
his lights on, he never turned his lights off. And
Daniel let her go. And the following morning is when
she made the claims about the sexual assault.
Speaker 6 (08:25):
A little later that morning, actually, I think, yeah, few hours,
which is.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
A significant point, right because we have with us in
the room, as I introduced you before, a respected biologist
whose works in this field.
Speaker 6 (08:38):
What was important for me to see is that Jannie
Liggins made claims that were not supported by the forensic evidence.
She had a same kit done that morning and was
interviewed by a female sex crimes detective and the same
kit ultimately came back negative. There was no DNA from
Daniel found around Janie's mouth and the swabs there. During
(09:00):
the trial, the forensic analyst actually said unfortunately there was
no DNA from Daniel, which showed her bias. Janie Wiggins
had said that Daniel had placed his hands on the
car and she had placed her hands on the patrol car,
but fingerprint analysis and DNA was not found matching either
of them on the car, so her descriptions did not
match what was found with the forensic evidence. There was
(09:23):
no forensic evidence supporting what she said happened. And later
it was discovered after this stop that Daniel did. When
Janie talked with the sex crimes detective Detective Davis, Janney
disclosed that she had been smoking pot earlier that day,
and she described the police officer as having blonde hair
and being shorter. It just didn't match.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Right, so Daniel, I mean, she must have been high
as a kite, because if Daniel's blonde, then you know,
I'm the Prime Minister of Egypt, you know what I mean? Like,
he has dark hair obviously, and Shorty's six to two.
So none of this stuff makes any sense. How could
you get that wrong? You get a lot of things wrong,
you can't get blonde to black hair wrong.
Speaker 6 (10:05):
And ultimately the detectives used Daniel's own police records, specifically
looking for African American women he had stopped. He had
criminal histories, and the detectives went and questioned over forty
women fitting this profile and then got allegations from them
to add to this initial allegation they had.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
So then they went fishing.
Speaker 7 (10:32):
Hello, this is detective days.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
I work in sex frunts and I've been working in
some cases and I received a tip that you may
have been sexually assaulted by a police officer.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
I just didn't think I've been clear on the phone.
Speaker 8 (10:46):
When we talked.
Speaker 9 (10:47):
Yea quite clear, But like I said, that's the only
time that I had that happened to me. He exposed
his stuff to me.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
That was a black officer.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
I've had to go to a.
Speaker 8 (10:54):
Lot of women.
Speaker 6 (10:56):
They didn't come forward.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
I've had to go find them.
Speaker 6 (10:59):
And Yeah, it's disturbing because the lieutenant who was in
charge of the investigation specifically looked back through six months
of Daniel's police records and created a list of the
specifically African American women quote who had a drug history,
prostitution history, or a significant criminal history whom Daniel had stopped.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
Why did they only question one race if they were
really wanting to figure out if he's a serial rapist,
why didn't the other races matter?
Speaker 6 (11:24):
So people presumed Daniel was guilty of racism, when in fact,
it was the detectives who were targeting African American women
at risk African American women, encouraging them to make allegations
against Daniel as they were railroading Daniel right, and.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
They brought these women in and the videos are as
troubling as the audience who's listening now probably thinks they
are right. There's one who came in and said the
seven times she was asked, did anything happen, and seven
times she said no, And then eventually they got her
to change her story.
Speaker 6 (11:56):
She then said that the only officer who'd been inappropriate
was a black police officer several years ago who exposed
himself to her, And then the detective kept on questioning,
and ultimately this woman then claimed that Daniel had wanted
her to lift up her bra. He didn't say anything,
but she just did it, and that was the whole allegation.
So I don't think that the detective reported that she
(12:16):
actually accused a black police officer just jumped instead right
ahead to saying that Daniel had done something right.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
And the number were just summarily dismissed because they were
so ridiculous that they couldn't even take him to trial.
Speaker 6 (12:28):
Yeah, there were eight people who made allegations against Daniel,
and those allegations were weeded out right away that never
went to trial. And then the trial, there were thirteen allegations.
Five of them led to acquittals, and the eight that
ended up causing convictions had numerous problems in them, like
one of the women saying that it was a shorter
police officer who was black, a shade darker than her
(12:51):
own skin color, and thee got the most number, yes,
two years for her allegations.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Right, so you were mistaken for a short black guy.
And anyone who hasn't already seen pictures of Daniel take
a look. I mean he as a linebacker and he's
the six to two, very bulky guy who's Asian. I mean,
this is not confusing, right, this is nuts. This is
absolutely nuts. But with the sheer number of allegations seeming
(13:19):
so overwhelming, it's kind of understandable how that could have
continued to cast doubt on Daniel's innocence. After all, just
because one allegation is doubtful does not disprove another, which
is why we need to take a look at each
allegation individually. I also want to be clear that we're
not here to point at the alleged victim's life choices
as evidence of credibility or lack thereof. Now, Initially twenty
(13:41):
one accusers came forward, but eight were eliminated immediately as
false allegations against Daniel. For example, one of them alleged
that Daniel had used his position as a police officer
to sexually assault her after he had been put on
administrative leave. Others later admitted to lying, including Shenise Barksdale.
Speaker 6 (14:00):
He never touched you.
Speaker 9 (14:02):
Why as just felt bad for her and I just
wanted to know right she wasn't.
Speaker 8 (14:07):
Only you feel bad for who?
Speaker 3 (14:12):
And you found out about her from one the Facebook.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Five of the remaining thirteen accusations resulted in acquittal. For
privacy protection, we will refer to each of these accusers
as quote acquittal and a corresponding number acquittal. One told
investigators about an alleged assault made by an officer in
an area that Daniel had never patrolled. When investigators fed
her details and a timeline to match Daniel's beat, she
(14:39):
denied that story until getting arrested for unrelated drug charges,
at which time she decided to agree to change her
story to match the different location. Acquittal two claimed to
have flashed officer holes law her breasts, thinking that was
what he wanted, even though he had not requested it.
She denied any inappropriate contact. Then she told investigators about
(14:59):
an alleged in decent exposure by a black police officer.
Acquittal three claimed that Daniel had raped her for twenty
to thirty minutes and orally sodomized her through the unzipped
fly of his pants. This alleged incident would have happened
just hours before the Jennie Liggans traffic stop. However, there
was no match to her DNA either, as well as
(15:19):
no evidence of body fluid on Daniel's fly. She also
said that her attacker had ticketed her one year prior.
Daniel had never ticketed this woman. Acquittal four claimed that
Daniel groped her breast, but described the alleged groper as
quote part Hispanic and having quote slightly gray hair. She
also testified in court that lying and giving false social
security numbers to the police is appropriate behavior. Lastly, Daniel
(15:44):
friended a message with Acquittal five on Facebook after an
incident involving an overdose on PCP in which acquittal five
disposed of the substance by eating a glass vial full
of it. In fact, Daniel escorted her life saving ambulance
ride to the hospital. In her police interview, she claimed
that while she was recovering from that incident, Daniel allegedly
(16:04):
forced her into oralsodomy while she was handcuffed to her
bed in a busy hospital. This is what she said
on her way out of that interview. So this is
good evidence, Well you tell me, I.
Speaker 9 (16:15):
Think so, because I mean, even if he didn't like
even right now about it, Letton, he filled in.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
And so all five of these allegations ended in acquittal
of the original twenty one accusers. Eight allegations resulted in convictions,
and we are going to now one by one examine
the facts of each case. Again, for protection of privacy,
we refer to all as conviction and a corresponding number.
You're already aware of. Conviction one. Jenny Leggins, whom we
(16:44):
covered earlier. Conviction two, alleged that Daniel had orally sodomized
her near a public park, then transported her inside the
public park by a closed school, and proceeded to rape
her for five to ten minutes. This is how she
described her attacker.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
Tell me your description him black man, muscular, muscular, So
you think he's shorter than you.
Speaker 6 (17:06):
Yeah, okay, I'll tell you five eleven.
Speaker 4 (17:10):
What kind of car did he have?
Speaker 5 (17:12):
A black and white, black and white Corps, Oklahoma City
Police Corps.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Daniel also had made contact with her at some point
near that old school in the public park, but when
he did, his automatic vehicle locator or AVL, a GPS
device attracts the movements of police cars, says that his
car stopped for less than four minutes, not five to ten.
He's also six two and half white, half Japanese, definitely
not shorter than five to eleven, and definitely not black.
(17:38):
Conviction three claimed that Daniel allowed her to drive under
the influence while he followed her to her relative's house,
at which point she alleged that he drove her to
the end of the street and raped her. However, his
AVL tells us that he never drove on that street. Further,
the duration of the alleged rape changed from quote a
long time to quote five to ten minutes, and then
a trial to quote maybe about three minutes or so.
(18:01):
But when she and Daniel did have an interaction, his
AVL still would only allow for a window of less
than three minutes for a possible attack. Conviction four alleged
that when Daniel raped and orally sodomized her in her
room in a house, that she wiped phlegm from that
oral sodomy on a chair. The swab from the chair, however,
revealed the DNA profile of a male that was not Daniel.
(18:22):
Conviction five claimed that her alleged attacker drove the older
model Oklahoma City PD Black and White. However, Daniel drove
the newer all black Cruiser. Conviction six testified that her
attacker was a tan color like someone from India, not dark,
but not pale. She also claimed that he made her
expose herself. However, a witness claimed that she was handcuffed
(18:43):
at the start of their encounter. For Conviction seven, there's
no DNA evans to speak of, but she did change
her story several times. At first, an officer allegedly fondled
her breast over her clothing, Then at a preliminary hearing,
she claimed that the groping was skinned to skin contact.
It was back to her over the clothing. Allegation Finally,
(19:04):
the crux of the prosecution's case Conviction eight, a seventeen
year old girl who claimed that Daniel pat searched her,
inserted a finger in her vagina, and proceeded to rape
her through the unzipped fly of his buckled pants on
her mother's porch. This is what she had told her
mother about their encounter.
Speaker 4 (19:20):
She said, I met this really hot cop.
Speaker 10 (19:23):
He told me I had a couple of.
Speaker 4 (19:24):
Want but he said, don't worry about it. She really
nicely affect them.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
No body fluid was detected or observed on the fly
of his pants. However, a microscopic trace amount of her
DNA was found on his fly, along with DNA from
at least two other individuals, including at least one unknown male,
which goes to support the defense's theory that the presence
of her DNA on his fly can be explained by
secondary transfer transfer of DNA to objects or people through
(19:57):
an intermediary.
Speaker 6 (20:02):
The main evidence in the case was DNA found on
the fly of Daniel's pants, but the DNA evidence on
the fly of the pants included no evidence of body fluid,
and ultimately Daniel was accused of raping one woman through
the unzipped fly of those buckled pants and there's no stains,
no deposits on them at all, So that would make
(20:22):
it very unlikely that there had been any kind of
sexual assault to be able to give evidence. That's just
a low quantity of DNA that matches most closely with
indirect transfer of DNA.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Is it possible for Daniel to have done these crimes
and not left any trace of biological evidence anywhere?
Speaker 6 (20:40):
I would say very unlikely.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
This is so troubling because the idea that Daniel or
anyone could be convicted of eight different crimes with the
absence of any real biological evidence. And it takes you,
coming from Iowa, an outsider, to come in and do
the work that the forensic people should have and could
(21:03):
have very easily done in the first place. The mistakes,
there's so many mistakes that we don't have time to
cover it on this show. I mean, I have a
list of ninety five of them, right, and there's no
way we could talk for hours that we wouldn't cover
all of the mistakes that were made, both deliberate and
sloppy mistakes. Right, But back to you.
Speaker 6 (21:22):
When I looked at the news about the case, which
is how I found out about it. It was mentioning
how the prosecutors were so proud to have gotten convictions
on eight women's allegations based on a little bit of DNA.
The more I looked, I saw there's no evidence of
body fluids. And it turns out the forensic analysts just
looked at the pants with the bright light and magnifying
(21:43):
glass and saw there was no evidence of vaginal fluid
or body fluid, and then went right to testing just
the fly of the pants. She did not do any
control tests on other places on Daniel's uniform pants and belts.
The main problem I think at the Oklahoma City Police
Department is the detectives and then the prosecutors above them.
They just did not understand that DNA can transfer innocently.
(22:06):
So as soon as they found a mixture of DNA
on the fly of Daniel's pants, the police thought that
meant he was guilty of sexual conduct and therefore guilty
of sexual crimes. They wanted to then go out and
find the female who matched the major contributor to that
DNA mixture, assuming she was a victim. So they had
(22:28):
that mindset, that bias that developed into tunnel vision on
Daniel right from the beginning of the investigation, and then
went out and solicited allegations from women whom Daniel had stopped.
And it's no surprise that some of the women did remember, yes,
they were stopped by Daniel, because they had been contacted,
because the police knew Daniel stopped them. Daniel's case would
(22:49):
be like someone meeting with you in your office and
then later they find a woman's DNA on the fly
of her pants and the woman said, yes, I was
at his office, and they conclude that you're guilty just
because you had an interaction with someone.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
So if you shook hands this morning with somebody who
you met on the street, and then you went into
a friend whatever, and then they went and went to
the bathroom afterwards, a little bit of your DNA, a
touch DNA would be on somewhere on the wherever they
unzipped or on buttons, it would be there.
Speaker 6 (23:19):
It could very well be there, right because.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
We're always transferring to DNA, always shedding. It's like we'd
leave it on every day, We leave it on the
coffee cup, we leave it everywhere we go. When you
(23:45):
were first taken in for questioning, did you request a lawyer.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
I didn't request a.
Speaker 8 (23:51):
Lawyer at the time. I just wanted to a professional.
I wanted to clear my name. Any in an any.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
Department in law enforcement, your repiga where you.
Speaker 8 (24:01):
Go on with and you want to go to their promotion.
You want to go to any in special unit. You're
remigi when's on the line and when people hear about you.
And so I'm talking about my name. I don't know
what you going to allegate you guys before me. I'm
talking to my name.
Speaker 4 (24:14):
I trug co operate and get out of there.
Speaker 8 (24:17):
Right.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
But we see so many times when we see young
kids picked up by a police for questioning and they
don't even know they're supposed to ask for a lawyer.
Right they're in high school, or they're from they're from
a background where they had no knowledge of how these
things work. You were in law enforcement, right, college graduate,
You've got a degree in criminal justice. I mean that's
where I go. Well, wait a minute, if there was
(24:37):
anything on your mind, the first thing you would have
said is okay, I want to lawyer. I'm not stocking
you guys now. And actually you went in the complete
opposite direction from what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong.
You turned over your passwords, you turned over the keys
to your apartment.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
I basically cooperated the pools. Anything asked, I answered Again.
I wanted to be professional. I didn't rage. Now I
didn't phrase my police they asked, I answered. And that's
kind of how in the sense that you were training
the academy, you know, you're broken down and then you're
raised up, and so if you're asked the question you're addressed,
(25:12):
you're going to reply anything that they asked. Yeah, go ahead,
please please do that. Go ahead and go with DNA test,
and go ahead and go to my apartment, whatever you
need to do to clear my name so I could
get back and continue my job. I thought I did
really good at please.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Do after this had become this insane media circus that
reached people all over the world. Now you go to trial,
and I'm sure it was a crazy scene there.
Speaker 4 (25:40):
Trial was a long period of time that this has
happened during the Thanksgiving break. So the biggest thing I
want to try to address to the audience is help media
affects people's perception in their opinions. So when they used
that national media into the aid of the d eighth Office.
I'm already presumed guilty before I stepped in that courtroom.
So when Judge Henderson, after the jury members are everyone
(26:02):
in the courtroom, praise your right hand if you have
seen this man or ever heard of the name day.
I looked at the whole courtroom raised their hand.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
My friend Josh Dubin conducted a study with a help
from a lot of other people that showed that jury
members have a presumption of guilt that teeters on eighty
percent just because they see somebody in the defendant's box.
In your case, it was probably one hundred percent of
them assumed you must be guilty of something. Because it
was impossible to find a jury that hadn't heard about
(26:31):
the case. You couldn't have found one anywhere in America
at that point in time, but least of all in Oklahoma.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Again, media has such as a fact on the outcome
of the cases. Because all I showed is highlights. They
don't show the fact. They could edit and they could
crop whatever they want to say what they want, and
the mature of the cases is the Roman narrative. It's
all not the right fact.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
You know, when the jury is sitting there. You know,
they're not dumb people. So they're sitting the to going well,
this doesn't make sense, and that wasn't true, and this
doesn't up. And he's not a black guy, and he's
not short, and he's not blonde. And but on the
other hand, I saw this thing on TV.
Speaker 4 (27:05):
It was a huge burden overcome. So it's you guilty,
then you got to prove yourself innocent. And then, like
I said, going back to the Thanksgiving break, you have
Jess Henderson's quarterors is don't talk to your significant others
when you go back home. Will come on listen. In reality,
that's not going to happen. You know, honey, what do
you do today? Well, I was at the whole small trial,
the biggest thing going on in Oklahoma. Of course you're
(27:26):
going to talk about it. So the people that are
not in even the court room that the husband and
wife is reinforcing the presumption of guilt. And then only
that you have before my lawyers. You know, we hire
a DNA expert, and yet you're going to.
Speaker 6 (27:40):
Fail me on that the forensic analyst misrepresented the DNA
evidence on the fly of Daniel's pants. There was a
mixture of DNA from at least three people. There are
four different stretches of fabrics, two on the outside and
two on the inside of the fly that were swabbed,
and it turns out all of them had male DNA.
(28:01):
And the reason this is significant is the prosecution ended
up arguing that they claimed Daniel's DNA was not there,
and so if he had just innocently transferred DNA matching
the teenager accuser, you would supposedly expect to find Daniel's
DNA there. The forensic analysts ended up telling the jury
there was no male DNA on the inside of the fly,
(28:22):
and the prosecutor again and again would have her say
that there's no DNA, so Daniels DNA is not there,
and then argued to the jury that this meant it
was very unlikely that you could have DNA transferring innocently,
So the jury was misled into believing there was no
male DNA.
Speaker 4 (28:39):
We have to wait till Eric to comes along to
find that that's not right.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
Anytime you have DNA misrepresented in a trial, it's bad
because DNA weighs so heavily in the minds of jurors.
Daniel's attorney never even challenged these claims by the States
forensic analysts that there was no male DNA or that
Daniels DNA wasn't there.
Speaker 4 (29:00):
Hearts were in the trial. I felt like, you know,
my work could have set up an objecte or said something.
Speaker 6 (29:06):
What's really important is how the DNA evidence contributed heavily
to Daniel's conviction, because the prosecutor actually said in his
closing argument quote, the most important thing about the teenager
whose DNA profile was found on the fly of Daniels
pants is the fact, said the prosecutor, that DNA from
the walls of her vagina was transferred to vaginal fluids
(29:28):
on the outside and the inside, not of his pockets,
not of his cuff, not where he sits, but at
the exact location she says his penis came in contact.
So the prosecutor lied to the jury telling them there
was vaginal fluid that was there was not. And we
know from a juror's interview after the trial that the jury,
at least this one juror thought there was vaginal fluid
(29:50):
because he was interviewed on Crimewatch Daily and he said, well,
I mean, I'm not a DNA expert. They told us
the DNA was from the vaginal fluid of a seventeen
year old.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Well, I mean, I'm not a d NA expert.
Speaker 9 (30:02):
I told us it was the DNA from the vaginal
fluid from a seventeen year old.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
So we know at least Wonder was misled by the
prosecutor to believe there's vaginal fluid, and so of course
they're going to end up convicting, not just for the
teenager's allegations. That jurors explained afterwards that this impacted their
deliberations for all these allegations.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Yeah, and this was during closing arguments. Could you later
have objected in the closing argument? He still can. Yeah,
and he should have. In fact, it should be a mistrial.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
And he didn't.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Yeah, they didn't object to that. That's crazy to a
gross misstatement.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
There was times when I was that and I remember
one time I'm just like Scott, what do you injecting?
Like what are you doing? And we kind of got
into bigger many like calm down and calm down. Well,
it's hard for me to calm down when you see
the quote unquote victims that go on the stands and
not even addressing the questions, and in addition to that,
you have lead detective Davis and Greg Ray that are
(30:56):
coaching them along and nodding everything they want to say. Okay, yuh,
that's where I continue on and they're looking at datements
and I'm looking at the jury members. Are you serious?
Are you not seeing this?
Speaker 2 (31:07):
So this is actually the perfect storm for a wrongful conviction. Right,
you have the media frenzy reporting inaccuracies left and right,
making up a narrative that sells advertising time or newspapers.
You have a jury pool that then is hopelessly tainted.
You have bumbling and competent and biased investigators throughout this process.
(31:30):
You have a defense attorney who is I don't want
to say incompetent, but was not up to the task.
Because this is as serious as a case could be.
We're talking about life in prison. I mean, I just
did the math Daniel's sentence. If you were to serve
a sentence, he'd be in prison until the year twenty
two hundred and seventy seven. Then you have a prosecutor
who lied, forensic people who lied or were misstated or inaccurate,
(31:53):
whatever the word you want to choose. Right, with all
of that the outcome was preordained. Did you have any
hope that you would still be vindicated?
Speaker 4 (32:05):
Well, I always leading the judicial system, That's why with
the cop and so it was really frustrating. Obviously I
was in toul shock when the murdy came down.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
I remember vividly there was a DURM member that she
was a female that I would look and you know,
acknowledge every time they came in the courtroom, I left
the courtroom, she would look at me, she would smile.
And when the verdict.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
Was coming in and.
Speaker 4 (32:30):
They walked into the courtroom, I saw even males, the.
Speaker 7 (32:34):
Male GERM members, and cheery eyed. And then I saw
her crying hysterically. And this is when I'm really freaking
out and I'm shaking.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Up there, you know, what's going on? And on adord to.
Speaker 4 (32:45):
My lawyers and I'm like, well, what's going on? You know,
and she's crying hysterically, everyone's crying, the GERM members. That
does make sense because if he thought it was a
guilty villain white crying, you know.
Speaker 7 (33:00):
And then when they ran dogs American you know, y me.
I mean, I was an old No, I don't even
remember what I and I even remember I think I
just drop.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
My head and you know, like God, why it was
something about it every.
Speaker 8 (33:17):
Thought possible would happen.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
We're here because we want to educate the public as
to how these things could happen, and how it could
happen to someone you love, and to educate people who
are going to be serving on juries at some point
in their life that you know, whoever's listening, it could
have been you in that jury box, and how would
you have done? And I'm sure people are saying, well,
I would never have convicted him, but twelve people did.
(33:53):
And how could they get it so wrong? How could
they look at at at things that are so clearly
black and white and go, yeah, I know it's false,
but you know, and they had a complicated task. They're
looking at things that they know are false, right, They're
looking at testimony that they know is false from a
number of different people. At the same time, they're being
(34:15):
presented with quote unquote evidence by people who they respect,
prosecutors and forensic people, and so they're stuck in a conflict.
But as citizens and as everyone again potential jury remembers,
your duty is to if there's doubt, to acquit you know,
it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That's something
(34:36):
we all learn in high school, right, beyond a reasonable doubt?
Not maybe it could be. I don't know. It's a conflict.
I'm not sure, you know. And then there's that quote
that I can never say enough times better that one
hundred guilty men should go free than that one instance
should suffer. And that's sort of been turned on its head.
But Daniel, here you are. You're stuck in a situation
(34:58):
that would break I think most people, how do you
do it? Day by day? How? I mean, how are
you getting along on the inside.
Speaker 4 (35:06):
I used to hate here and that and think's happened
for a reason, And I used to hate that, But
I think there's a greater purpose from God, and I
think God has a plan for me. You know, be
down in my heart, I know I'm going to be free.
But that said, I can be here without any all
my loved ones and supporters, so everyone that had come
along the way, it's a blessing. It's just an act
of God right there, and finding never gave up, never
(35:31):
had a thought of giving up. And that day when
I'm free, you better bet your blood and I'm going
to fight for all the wrongful convicted people out there.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Well, it's going to be an honor to work with you.
So what happens next and how can people help?
Speaker 5 (35:49):
I suggest people if they want to learn more, go
to free d Holds claw dot com, my Facebook, Jenny
holtzklaw is public. I post all the facts and information
and give daily updates of what's going on his case.
Another thing I want to point on too is we
have a petition going. We have over thirty five thousand
signatures right now and you can find that on my
Facebook or freading Holds dot com for the link to
(36:09):
actually sign the petition.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
We will have Jennifer's Facebook as well as the petition
linked in the episode description. Now, all thirteen accusers that
had taken Daniel to trial went on to sue the city,
the detectives, and Daniel, and then the lead up to
a potential civil trial against the city. There were depositions
conviction one that's Jenny Liggins. There was the grainy traffic video.
(36:35):
She also described a blonde officer in her initial statement
there was no DNA from Daniel in a rape kit.
And then this is what happened when asked about Daniel
in her deposition, do you recall.
Speaker 9 (36:46):
Listening to audio recording interviews of Daniel Holtz call who I'm.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Sorry, No, I couldn't. I can't remember.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
Doesn't remember the man who allegedly assaulted her and whom
she sent to prison because she did experience a very
real assault, but it was never Daniel. That conviction accounts
for twenty one years of his sentence. Conviction two originally
described her attacker as shorter than five to eleven and black,
which obviously is not Daniel, who was six' two and
(37:17):
ethnically Half, european Half, japanese and she confirmed That daniel
was not her attacker during her. Deposition how do you
recognize that person from?
Speaker 7 (37:27):
Court do you recognize that person from any other time
in your?
Speaker 8 (37:30):
Life?
Speaker 1 (37:31):
NO i have never seen him before.
Speaker 2 (37:34):
Trial that's What i'll bally see who accused of riping?
Speaker 1 (37:39):
Meat that conviction accounts for sixty two years Of daniel.
Sentence conviction three was the one that was dispelled by
the squad car's. Geolocator he'd never driven on that block
where she alleged the attack took. Place that's thirty more
years For. Daniel conviction four had this to, say about
the first time she made a statement To Detective. Davis
(38:00):
she was coming down off crack in.
Speaker 2 (38:02):
Jail she hasn't be, quitness like send to, that get
stopped or. Whatever at, FIRST i.
Speaker 1 (38:08):
Was kind of. Angry i'm angry like that When i'm
coming down so and you're in jail somewhere you don't
want to.
Speaker 9 (38:13):
Be, yeah Then i'm looking for a ticket out SO
i can get high.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
Again Sel so she traded a story to get high
again another twenty. Years For daniel conviction, five her story
changed over, time including what kind of car her attacker.
Drove it also appears that she decided to cooperate following
other pending. Charges that conviction meant another forty six. Years
For Daniel conviction, six described her attacker as ten like
(38:39):
maybe From, india so once again not Describing, daniel and
the charges stemmed from an allegation that he had made
her expose herself and fondled her bare. Breasts during her,
deposition she confirmed That daniel never touched.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Her how many times Did Hultz claw touch you? Inappropriately
she didn't touch. Me he never touched.
Speaker 10 (39:01):
You no next to the or the third of the last,
line says Hol squaud didn't Ask Plaintiff barnes if there
was anything under her, breast and Final Planeiff barnes is naked.
Speaker 8 (39:11):
Breast do you see?
Speaker 9 (39:12):
That is?
Speaker 2 (39:13):
Ready, YES i see, it.
Speaker 10 (39:14):
Sir isn't that different than what you testified?
Speaker 2 (39:16):
Today what do you mean is that?
Speaker 10 (39:18):
Different didn't you say Hols claud didn't touch.
Speaker 2 (39:20):
You he didn't touch, Me so this is a. Mistake
he did not touch, me.
Speaker 10 (39:28):
Okay and if you go back To defend's exhibit number,
eleven count, one five lines from the bottom of count
one DIRECTING tb to expose her breast and then touching
her bare breast with his hand without her, consent that's
also a.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Mistake he didn't touch, me.
Speaker 10 (39:45):
Okay and you understand that Mister holsclaud was convicted of
sexual battery on that count as a result of your.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
Testimony, yes eighteen more years For. Daniel conviction seven onces
again had a differing description of her, attacker who was
taller Than, daniel not the same, haircut and then there
were inconsistencies between her story and. Reality another sixteen years For,
daniel and finally conviction, eight probably the most consequential of
(40:15):
all the. Convictions the victim WHOSE dna was found On
daniel's fly with a mix of several other, profiles including
an unknown male, profile and during her, deposition she recalled
when the Prosecutor Galen geiger made the same misrepresentation about
THE dna evidence to her that he eventually made in
his closing.
Speaker 9 (40:34):
Argument, WELL i was and the witness room or whatever
that room is, called before they have the witnesses waiting
to go testifile is there And Galen geiger came to
me and he told, ME i believe. You out of
all the other, WOMEN i believe. You AND i said,
Why and he, said because we were looking for a
(40:54):
match OF dna that we found inside his police pants
and it was. You we found your vaginal fluid on
inside and outside his belief.
Speaker 8 (41:02):
Pants and what did you. SAY i don't THINK i.
Speaker 9 (41:05):
Said anything anything.
Speaker 4 (41:07):
Else he.
Speaker 9 (41:08):
Said he encouraged me to testify because it would help
the other women IF i, testified BECAUSE i was the
only one with physical.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
Evidence so not only does this recollection reveal that the
prosecutor may have really only believed In conviction eight's, allegation
but that belief may have stemmed from a misunderstanding of
THE dna, evidence and then the eventual misrepresentation of that
evidence to the jury granted credence to all the other.
Accusations despite the inconsistencies and sometimes wholly unbelievable, statements the
(41:45):
final conviction meant another fifty years For. Daniel, interestingly after these,
depositions the states settled with the accusers for what we
understand to be very small sums under like ten grand.
Piece why would they have accepted so little if they
had strong, cases strong enough for the state to, settle
(42:07):
yet weak enough to accept so. Little perhaps both the
accusers and the state know what this, was and maybe
the state chose to settle as to not put these
witnesses back on the. Record if they intended on, winning
they destroy their own witnesses Against, daniel Giving daniel's team
more ammo for post. Conviction they'd expose how the sausage was,
(42:29):
made how these people were, lying maybe not about their,
experiences but about who was. Guilty. Now soon after this
settlement was, reached civil proceedings began Against, daniel but soon
came to a halt When daniel's team shared their briefs
and the accusers dropped the suit Against. Daniel altogether looks
like they didn't have a prayer Against. Daniel so now
(42:54):
post conviction litigation. Continues if anyone has information about this,
case please reach out to any Holtz. Claw Her facebook
is linked in the episode description along with the. Petition
and with that we'll go To daniel's closing thoughts as
they were originally.
Speaker 3 (43:08):
Recorded all, Right i'll just try to be quick out.
Speaker 4 (43:13):
Versus thank you for having letting us come on board
and be able to speak my side And manu SENSE
i appreciate. It jason just to, add you, know real.
Fast and someone asked, me, well why do you think
you're roughly Convicted, Daniels i'd probably say the.
Speaker 8 (43:27):
MEDIA i think the media plays.
Speaker 4 (43:28):
A huge factor in people's. Reception LIKE i said earlier
in the, show people WATCH tv shows where it's law
and order in THE. Ipss you, know THAT'S tv. Show
that's not the reality of what, happens and that's support.
Rooms people believe that this, defendant this high profile on national.
Television oh, man he must be. Guilty the defense, warrier oh,
(43:49):
man he's grew up in bed War he's trying to
get paint. Here he's going to try to get them
off on a, Technicality well that's not the. Case please
just don't believe in to the, media don't believe in
that mass medium and nihilation where they get edit and
crop and wherever they want to. Do and the majority
of them are just aiding the prosecutions, side and people
believe the prosecutions are the good guys with all they
care about is the. Fictionary SO i just ask that you,
(44:12):
guys please just don't jump to the assumption that this
person is. Guilty looking in the facts of the case and,
actually you, know do your, homework come out with your own,
opinion and don't don't believe with the, MEDIA i always
trying to. Portray SO i know it's fun to hang
up right. Now but, again thank you everyone and all
the loved with all the floers that came along as a.
Spiracle that Where i'm at right now is thanks to.
You i'm a continia to, fight never give, up AND
(44:35):
i know one want to be. Free so thank you
everyone out there that's.
Speaker 6 (44:39):
LISTENING i love, Guys thank, you love, You Daniel Hie, daniel.
Speaker 2 (44:49):
Thank you for listening To Wrongful. Conviction you can listen
to this and all The lava for good podcasts one
week early and ad free by subscribing To lava For
good plus On Apple. PODCASTS i want to thank our production,
Team Connor hall And Kathleen, fink as well as my
fellow executive Producers Jeff, Kempler Kevin, wartis And Jeff. Cleiber
the music in this production was supplied by three TIME
(45:09):
oscar nominated Composer Jay. Rouse 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 a production Of
lava For Good podcasts in association With Signal Company Number.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
One 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
Hey, it's Connor Hall, senior producer for Wrongful Conviction with
some more case updates and behind the scenes insights. And
there's a case that began back in twenty fourteen. This
is the summer after Trayvon Martin's killer was acquitted. And
then you had Michael Brown and Ferguson Missouri, and simultaneously
you had revelations about powerful men using their positions of
(00:27):
power for sex. And in the midst of that June eighteenth,
twenty fourteen, Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzklaw pulled over
a swerving automobile and found some empty pill bottles. Now
following that interaction came accusations of sexual assault, importantly that
were not corroborated by a rape kit. Additionally, the accuser
(00:49):
described a different officer, and rather than reviewing the surveillance
footage of the stop that occurred not in a quiet
cul de sac but rather at a busy intersection, investigators
took this opportunity to go fishing for other allegations against
Daniel Holt's claw from specifically African American women with pending
criminal charges, and they found twenty one others with similar
(01:12):
complaints but were they about Daniel. One thing was for certain.
This slew of stories looked like evidence of a serial
rapist in blue. But right off the bat, eight of
those stories were disregarded. Then thirteen went to trial and
only eight led to convictions. Perhaps this was an instance
where so much smoke must have meant fire, because even
(01:33):
in these cases we see victims describing officers who were
definitely not Daniel, as well as scenarios where Daniel could
not have been present or there was some other dubious detail.
Now we believe many of these allegations are credible, but
that Daniel Holt's Claw just became a patsy for a
jurisdiction that appears to be plagued by sexual violence at
(01:54):
the hands of police, while the accusers received leniency in
their pending charges for going along with the narrative. Since
our coverage in twenty nineteen, all thirteen of those that
went to trial brought a civil suit against the city,
the detectives, and Daniel, which all came to interesting conclusions,
including depositions that exonerated Daniel, as well as a paltry
(02:17):
settlement from the city for the accusers. While the suit
against Daniel got dropped, and perhaps after you hear this
new edit, as well as some of that deposition audio,
it might become more clear as to why.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
At two am on June eighteenth, twenty fourteen, Oklahoma City
police officer Daniel Holsclaw finished up his shift. On his
way home in his police cruiser, he pulled over fifty
seven year old Jannyliggins for a traffic violation at a
busy intersection where surveillance footage shows a normal traffic stop.
Around three hours later, Mims Liggans filed the complaint, claiming
(02:53):
that an officer forced her into oralsodomy. Her mouth swab
came up empty for Daniel's DNA, as did his uniform
for hers, but this allegation inexplicably launched an investigation focused
on at risk African American women that Daniel had made
contact with, bringing forth twenty one alleged victims, including one man.
Daniel became a rallying cry for everyone who doesn't want
(03:15):
to see any cop abusing their power or sexually assaulting women.
It all seemed to fit a grim and growing narrative,
and a media circus ensued. In this amazing and alarming episode,
we will speak with Daniel's sister, Jennifer Holsklaw, biologist Erika Feusch,
and will also take a phone call from an undisclosed
correctional facility from former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holsklaw,
(03:39):
who is currently serving a two hundred and sixty three
year prison sentence in a maximum security prison under assumed
name for crimes he did not commit. This is wrongful conviction.
(04:02):
Welcome back to wrongful Conviction. Today we're going to be
talking about the case of Daniel Holsklaw, a former police
officer from Oklahoma City, wrongfully convicted. He's on the phone.
So Daniel, I'm sorry you're here, but I'm glad you're
on the phone.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
I appreciate having.
Speaker 4 (04:19):
Me on and my loved one. Letn't be able to
have the opportunity and definitely big one about.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
It, express my indet Well, we hope to be part
of the solution. And with us in the studio, we
have two extraordinary women. One is a biologist, Erica Fusch.
Welcome to the show, Thank you, Jason, and with her
is one of the most persistent and brave women I've
come across, the sister of Daniel. Jennifer's here and without you,
(04:48):
I can honestly say this wouldn't be happening.
Speaker 5 (04:50):
Thank you for giving us the time.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
And this whole thing happened in twenty fourteen, which was
a very fraught time, shall we say, a lot of
traversy around Ferguson and other which you know continues to
this day. Of course, the person to.
Speaker 4 (05:06):
What happened then, the Baltimore deal was going on there,
so it was literally eye of the storm.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
It was rough, and this was a national news story, international,
I guess right. And at the time, and I'm really
sorry to say this, Daniel, but at the time that
I saw had come across my screen, I was like, oh, well,
I mean, okay, they got this guy, you know, like
because the narrative was always the same and me, of
all people should not have bought into it. But it
(05:32):
was an inexorable barrage of information that was all one sided.
And Daniel, your sister, your amazing sister, you know, wouldn't
leave me alone. And at first I was like, can
you leave me alone? And she was like, no, I can't.
Speaker 5 (05:44):
The reason why I'm so passionate about it is because
when this first happened, it was definitely shocking to hear
these allegations, especially the first one, and I wanted to
know everything. I wanted to read all the transcript anything
that I can get my hand on to see my
brother have really done this, And everything that I've looked into,
everything that I've read, not just because he's my brother,
(06:06):
but just because the facts of everything that I put
my hands on, nothing pointed to Daniel's guilt. If there
was anything that proved or showed anything, I would back
out and see, Daniel, you deserve every second being in
prison forever doing this to a woman. And I haven't
found one single thing that pointed me to say that
Dale did any of the crimes that he has been
(06:26):
convicted of.
Speaker 6 (06:27):
Daniel's case is a tragedy because our society's noblest desires
to end racism and sexism and police brutality ended up
convicting an innocent man and send into prison.
Speaker 5 (06:38):
And I will fight till the day I die to
get my brother out.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Nor Your courage is inspiring, and Daniel's saying for you.
So this started when Janny Liggins. She was a woman
that Daniel pulled over right, and Jenny, you've obviously been
so deep in this ever since it happened. You want
to walk us through this because it's really weird. Right.
The video evidence doesn't matter. The descriptions don't match like
(07:03):
what happened.
Speaker 5 (07:05):
So Danielle got off of work about two am, that
was his normal shift. On his way home, not too
far from the police department, he saw a car swerving,
tenant windows limoed tint at two am. You can't see
through those tenant windows. So it's not like Daniel targeted
a woman driving. So he pulled over, questioned her. He
had asked her if he could search her car. He
brought her to his police vehicle and then he searched
(07:28):
the car. He did say that he saw hydro codon
bottles and then he did a whole search. Is there
anything underneath your bra the class and shake and she
did that looking for drugs, looking for drugs and any weapons.
And everything that Daniel claimed had happened matched up to
what Jannie Liggan said. Besides the sexual assault, Jennie Liggans
(07:50):
claimed that when she was in the back of Daniel's
vehicle that Dale made her perform oral sex right where
he had pulled her over, and it was right on
a busy intersection off of fiftieth in Lincoln in Oklahoma City.
So it's not like Daniel pulled this person over on
a side street. It was a busy intersection. There's a
security video on YouTube right now that you can see
(08:10):
the traffic stop, and you can't see everything. You can
to see a police officer pulling her over. He had
his lights on, he never turned his lights off. And
Daniel let her go. And the following morning is when
she made the claims about the sexual assault.
Speaker 6 (08:25):
A little later that morning, actually, I think, yeah, few hours,
which is.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
A significant point, right because we have with us in
the room, as I introduced you before, a respected biologist
whose works in this field.
Speaker 6 (08:38):
What was important for me to see is that Jannie
Liggins made claims that were not supported by the forensic evidence.
She had a same kit done that morning and was
interviewed by a female sex crimes detective and the same
kit ultimately came back negative. There was no DNA from
Daniel found around Janie's mouth and the swabs there. During
(09:00):
the trial, the forensic analyst actually said unfortunately there was
no DNA from Daniel, which showed her bias. Janie Wiggins
had said that Daniel had placed his hands on the
car and she had placed her hands on the patrol car,
but fingerprint analysis and DNA was not found matching either
of them on the car, so her descriptions did not
match what was found with the forensic evidence. There was
(09:23):
no forensic evidence supporting what she said happened. And later
it was discovered after this stop that Daniel did. When
Janie talked with the sex crimes detective Detective Davis, Janney
disclosed that she had been smoking pot earlier that day,
and she described the police officer as having blonde hair
and being shorter. It just didn't match.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Right, so Daniel, I mean, she must have been high
as a kite, because if Daniel's blonde, then you know,
I'm the Prime Minister of Egypt, you know what I mean? Like,
he has dark hair obviously, and Shorty's six to two.
So none of this stuff makes any sense. How could
you get that wrong? You get a lot of things wrong,
you can't get blonde to black hair wrong.
Speaker 6 (10:05):
And ultimately the detectives used Daniel's own police records, specifically
looking for African American women he had stopped. He had
criminal histories, and the detectives went and questioned over forty
women fitting this profile and then got allegations from them
to add to this initial allegation they had.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
So then they went fishing.
Speaker 7 (10:32):
Hello, this is detective days.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
I work in sex frunts and I've been working in
some cases and I received a tip that you may
have been sexually assaulted by a police officer.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
I just didn't think I've been clear on the phone.
Speaker 8 (10:46):
When we talked.
Speaker 9 (10:47):
Yea quite clear, But like I said, that's the only
time that I had that happened to me. He exposed
his stuff to me.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
That was a black officer.
Speaker 1 (10:54):
I've had to go to a.
Speaker 8 (10:54):
Lot of women.
Speaker 6 (10:56):
They didn't come forward.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
I've had to go find them.
Speaker 6 (10:59):
And Yeah, it's disturbing because the lieutenant who was in
charge of the investigation specifically looked back through six months
of Daniel's police records and created a list of the
specifically African American women quote who had a drug history,
prostitution history, or a significant criminal history whom Daniel had stopped.
Speaker 5 (11:17):
Why did they only question one race if they were
really wanting to figure out if he's a serial rapist,
why didn't the other races matter?
Speaker 6 (11:24):
So people presumed Daniel was guilty of racism, when in fact,
it was the detectives who were targeting African American women
at risk African American women, encouraging them to make allegations
against Daniel as they were railroading Daniel right, and.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
They brought these women in and the videos are as
troubling as the audience who's listening now probably thinks they
are right. There's one who came in and said the
seven times she was asked, did anything happen, and seven
times she said no, And then eventually they got her
to change her story.
Speaker 6 (11:56):
She then said that the only officer who'd been inappropriate
was a black police officer several years ago who exposed
himself to her, And then the detective kept on questioning,
and ultimately this woman then claimed that Daniel had wanted
her to lift up her bra. He didn't say anything,
but she just did it, and that was the whole allegation.
So I don't think that the detective reported that she
(12:16):
actually accused a black police officer just jumped instead right
ahead to saying that Daniel had done something right.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
And the number were just summarily dismissed because they were
so ridiculous that they couldn't even take him to trial.
Speaker 6 (12:28):
Yeah, there were eight people who made allegations against Daniel,
and those allegations were weeded out right away that never
went to trial. And then the trial, there were thirteen allegations.
Five of them led to acquittals, and the eight that
ended up causing convictions had numerous problems in them, like
one of the women saying that it was a shorter
police officer who was black, a shade darker than her
(12:51):
own skin color, and thee got the most number, yes,
two years for her allegations.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
Right, so you were mistaken for a short black guy.
And anyone who hasn't already seen pictures of Daniel take
a look. I mean he as a linebacker and he's
the six to two, very bulky guy who's Asian. I mean,
this is not confusing, right, this is nuts. This is
absolutely nuts. But with the sheer number of allegations seeming
(13:19):
so overwhelming, it's kind of understandable how that could have
continued to cast doubt on Daniel's innocence. After all, just
because one allegation is doubtful does not disprove another, which
is why we need to take a look at each
allegation individually. I also want to be clear that we're
not here to point at the alleged victim's life choices
as evidence of credibility or lack thereof. Now, Initially twenty
(13:41):
one accusers came forward, but eight were eliminated immediately as
false allegations against Daniel. For example, one of them alleged
that Daniel had used his position as a police officer
to sexually assault her after he had been put on
administrative leave. Others later admitted to lying, including Shenise Barksdale.
Speaker 6 (14:00):
He never touched you.
Speaker 9 (14:02):
Why as just felt bad for her and I just
wanted to know right she wasn't.
Speaker 8 (14:07):
Only you feel bad for who?
Speaker 3 (14:12):
And you found out about her from one the Facebook.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Five of the remaining thirteen accusations resulted in acquittal. For
privacy protection, we will refer to each of these accusers
as quote acquittal and a corresponding number acquittal. One told
investigators about an alleged assault made by an officer in
an area that Daniel had never patrolled. When investigators fed
her details and a timeline to match Daniel's beat, she
(14:39):
denied that story until getting arrested for unrelated drug charges,
at which time she decided to agree to change her
story to match the different location. Acquittal two claimed to
have flashed officer holes law her breasts, thinking that was
what he wanted, even though he had not requested it.
She denied any inappropriate contact. Then she told investigators about
(14:59):
an alleged in decent exposure by a black police officer.
Acquittal three claimed that Daniel had raped her for twenty
to thirty minutes and orally sodomized her through the unzipped
fly of his pants. This alleged incident would have happened
just hours before the Jennie Liggans traffic stop. However, there
was no match to her DNA either, as well as
(15:19):
no evidence of body fluid on Daniel's fly. She also
said that her attacker had ticketed her one year prior.
Daniel had never ticketed this woman. Acquittal four claimed that
Daniel groped her breast, but described the alleged groper as
quote part Hispanic and having quote slightly gray hair. She
also testified in court that lying and giving false social
security numbers to the police is appropriate behavior. Lastly, Daniel
(15:44):
friended a message with Acquittal five on Facebook after an
incident involving an overdose on PCP in which acquittal five
disposed of the substance by eating a glass vial full
of it. In fact, Daniel escorted her life saving ambulance
ride to the hospital. In her police interview, she claimed
that while she was recovering from that incident, Daniel allegedly
(16:04):
forced her into oralsodomy while she was handcuffed to her
bed in a busy hospital. This is what she said
on her way out of that interview. So this is
good evidence, Well you tell me, I.
Speaker 9 (16:15):
Think so, because I mean, even if he didn't like
even right now about it, Letton, he filled in.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
And so all five of these allegations ended in acquittal
of the original twenty one accusers. Eight allegations resulted in convictions,
and we are going to now one by one examine
the facts of each case. Again, for protection of privacy,
we refer to all as conviction and a corresponding number.
You're already aware of. Conviction one. Jenny Leggins, whom we
(16:44):
covered earlier. Conviction two, alleged that Daniel had orally sodomized
her near a public park, then transported her inside the
public park by a closed school, and proceeded to rape
her for five to ten minutes. This is how she
described her attacker.
Speaker 4 (16:58):
Tell me your description him black man, muscular, muscular, So
you think he's shorter than you.
Speaker 6 (17:06):
Yeah, okay, I'll tell you five eleven.
Speaker 4 (17:10):
What kind of car did he have?
Speaker 5 (17:12):
A black and white, black and white Corps, Oklahoma City
Police Corps.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Daniel also had made contact with her at some point
near that old school in the public park, but when
he did, his automatic vehicle locator or AVL, a GPS
device attracts the movements of police cars, says that his
car stopped for less than four minutes, not five to ten.
He's also six two and half white, half Japanese, definitely
not shorter than five to eleven, and definitely not black.
(17:38):
Conviction three claimed that Daniel allowed her to drive under
the influence while he followed her to her relative's house,
at which point she alleged that he drove her to
the end of the street and raped her. However, his
AVL tells us that he never drove on that street. Further,
the duration of the alleged rape changed from quote a
long time to quote five to ten minutes, and then
a trial to quote maybe about three minutes or so.
(18:01):
But when she and Daniel did have an interaction, his
AVL still would only allow for a window of less
than three minutes for a possible attack. Conviction four alleged
that when Daniel raped and orally sodomized her in her
room in a house, that she wiped phlegm from that
oral sodomy on a chair. The swab from the chair, however,
revealed the DNA profile of a male that was not Daniel.
(18:22):
Conviction five claimed that her alleged attacker drove the older
model Oklahoma City PD Black and White. However, Daniel drove
the newer all black Cruiser. Conviction six testified that her
attacker was a tan color like someone from India, not dark,
but not pale. She also claimed that he made her
expose herself. However, a witness claimed that she was handcuffed
(18:43):
at the start of their encounter. For Conviction seven, there's
no DNA evans to speak of, but she did change
her story several times. At first, an officer allegedly fondled
her breast over her clothing, Then at a preliminary hearing,
she claimed that the groping was skinned to skin contact.
It was back to her over the clothing. Allegation Finally,
(19:04):
the crux of the prosecution's case Conviction eight, a seventeen
year old girl who claimed that Daniel pat searched her,
inserted a finger in her vagina, and proceeded to rape
her through the unzipped fly of his buckled pants on
her mother's porch. This is what she had told her
mother about their encounter.
Speaker 4 (19:20):
She said, I met this really hot cop.
Speaker 10 (19:23):
He told me I had a couple of.
Speaker 4 (19:24):
Want but he said, don't worry about it. She really
nicely affect them.
Speaker 2 (19:33):
No body fluid was detected or observed on the fly
of his pants. However, a microscopic trace amount of her
DNA was found on his fly, along with DNA from
at least two other individuals, including at least one unknown male,
which goes to support the defense's theory that the presence
of her DNA on his fly can be explained by
secondary transfer transfer of DNA to objects or people through
(19:57):
an intermediary.
Speaker 6 (20:02):
The main evidence in the case was DNA found on
the fly of Daniel's pants, but the DNA evidence on
the fly of the pants included no evidence of body fluid,
and ultimately Daniel was accused of raping one woman through
the unzipped fly of those buckled pants and there's no stains,
no deposits on them at all, So that would make
(20:22):
it very unlikely that there had been any kind of
sexual assault to be able to give evidence. That's just
a low quantity of DNA that matches most closely with
indirect transfer of DNA.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Is it possible for Daniel to have done these crimes
and not left any trace of biological evidence anywhere?
Speaker 6 (20:40):
I would say very unlikely.
Speaker 2 (20:42):
This is so troubling because the idea that Daniel or
anyone could be convicted of eight different crimes with the
absence of any real biological evidence. And it takes you,
coming from Iowa, an outsider, to come in and do
the work that the forensic people should have and could
(21:03):
have very easily done in the first place. The mistakes,
there's so many mistakes that we don't have time to
cover it on this show. I mean, I have a
list of ninety five of them, right, and there's no
way we could talk for hours that we wouldn't cover
all of the mistakes that were made, both deliberate and
sloppy mistakes. Right, But back to you.
Speaker 6 (21:22):
When I looked at the news about the case, which
is how I found out about it. It was mentioning
how the prosecutors were so proud to have gotten convictions
on eight women's allegations based on a little bit of DNA.
The more I looked, I saw there's no evidence of
body fluids. And it turns out the forensic analysts just
looked at the pants with the bright light and magnifying
(21:43):
glass and saw there was no evidence of vaginal fluid
or body fluid, and then went right to testing just
the fly of the pants. She did not do any
control tests on other places on Daniel's uniform pants and belts.
The main problem I think at the Oklahoma City Police
Department is the detectives and then the prosecutors above them.
They just did not understand that DNA can transfer innocently.
(22:06):
So as soon as they found a mixture of DNA
on the fly of Daniel's pants, the police thought that
meant he was guilty of sexual conduct and therefore guilty
of sexual crimes. They wanted to then go out and
find the female who matched the major contributor to that
DNA mixture, assuming she was a victim. So they had
(22:28):
that mindset, that bias that developed into tunnel vision on
Daniel right from the beginning of the investigation, and then
went out and solicited allegations from women whom Daniel had stopped.
And it's no surprise that some of the women did remember, yes,
they were stopped by Daniel, because they had been contacted,
because the police knew Daniel stopped them. Daniel's case would
(22:49):
be like someone meeting with you in your office and
then later they find a woman's DNA on the fly
of her pants and the woman said, yes, I was
at his office, and they conclude that you're guilty just
because you had an interaction with someone.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
So if you shook hands this morning with somebody who
you met on the street, and then you went into
a friend whatever, and then they went and went to
the bathroom afterwards, a little bit of your DNA, a
touch DNA would be on somewhere on the wherever they
unzipped or on buttons, it would be there.
Speaker 6 (23:19):
It could very well be there, right because.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
We're always transferring to DNA, always shedding. It's like we'd
leave it on every day, We leave it on the
coffee cup, we leave it everywhere we go. When you
(23:45):
were first taken in for questioning, did you request a lawyer.
Speaker 4 (23:50):
I didn't request a.
Speaker 8 (23:51):
Lawyer at the time. I just wanted to a professional.
I wanted to clear my name. Any in an any.
Speaker 4 (23:58):
Department in law enforcement, your repiga where you.
Speaker 8 (24:01):
Go on with and you want to go to their promotion.
You want to go to any in special unit. You're
remigi when's on the line and when people hear about you.
And so I'm talking about my name. I don't know
what you going to allegate you guys before me. I'm
talking to my name.
Speaker 4 (24:14):
I trug co operate and get out of there.
Speaker 8 (24:17):
Right.
Speaker 2 (24:17):
But we see so many times when we see young
kids picked up by a police for questioning and they
don't even know they're supposed to ask for a lawyer.
Right they're in high school, or they're from they're from
a background where they had no knowledge of how these
things work. You were in law enforcement, right, college graduate,
You've got a degree in criminal justice. I mean that's
where I go. Well, wait a minute, if there was
(24:37):
anything on your mind, the first thing you would have
said is okay, I want to lawyer. I'm not stocking
you guys now. And actually you went in the complete
opposite direction from what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong.
You turned over your passwords, you turned over the keys
to your apartment.
Speaker 4 (24:52):
I basically cooperated the pools. Anything asked, I answered Again.
I wanted to be professional. I didn't rage. Now I
didn't phrase my police they asked, I answered. And that's
kind of how in the sense that you were training
the academy, you know, you're broken down and then you're
raised up, and so if you're asked the question you're addressed,
(25:12):
you're going to reply anything that they asked. Yeah, go ahead,
please please do that. Go ahead and go with DNA test,
and go ahead and go to my apartment, whatever you
need to do to clear my name so I could
get back and continue my job. I thought I did
really good at please.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Do after this had become this insane media circus that
reached people all over the world. Now you go to trial,
and I'm sure it was a crazy scene there.
Speaker 4 (25:40):
Trial was a long period of time that this has
happened during the Thanksgiving break. So the biggest thing I
want to try to address to the audience is help media
affects people's perception in their opinions. So when they used
that national media into the aid of the d eighth Office.
I'm already presumed guilty before I stepped in that courtroom.
So when Judge Henderson, after the jury members are everyone
(26:02):
in the courtroom, praise your right hand if you have
seen this man or ever heard of the name day.
I looked at the whole courtroom raised their hand.
Speaker 2 (26:10):
My friend Josh Dubin conducted a study with a help
from a lot of other people that showed that jury
members have a presumption of guilt that teeters on eighty
percent just because they see somebody in the defendant's box.
In your case, it was probably one hundred percent of
them assumed you must be guilty of something. Because it
was impossible to find a jury that hadn't heard about
(26:31):
the case. You couldn't have found one anywhere in America
at that point in time, but least of all in Oklahoma.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
Again, media has such as a fact on the outcome
of the cases. Because all I showed is highlights. They
don't show the fact. They could edit and they could
crop whatever they want to say what they want, and
the mature of the cases is the Roman narrative. It's
all not the right fact.
Speaker 2 (26:53):
You know, when the jury is sitting there. You know,
they're not dumb people. So they're sitting the to going well,
this doesn't make sense, and that wasn't true, and this
doesn't up. And he's not a black guy, and he's
not short, and he's not blonde. And but on the
other hand, I saw this thing on TV.
Speaker 4 (27:05):
It was a huge burden overcome. So it's you guilty,
then you got to prove yourself innocent. And then, like
I said, going back to the Thanksgiving break, you have
Jess Henderson's quarterors is don't talk to your significant others
when you go back home. Will come on listen. In reality,
that's not going to happen. You know, honey, what do
you do today? Well, I was at the whole small trial,
the biggest thing going on in Oklahoma. Of course you're
(27:26):
going to talk about it. So the people that are
not in even the court room that the husband and
wife is reinforcing the presumption of guilt. And then only
that you have before my lawyers. You know, we hire
a DNA expert, and yet you're going to.
Speaker 6 (27:40):
Fail me on that the forensic analyst misrepresented the DNA
evidence on the fly of Daniel's pants. There was a
mixture of DNA from at least three people. There are
four different stretches of fabrics, two on the outside and
two on the inside of the fly that were swabbed,
and it turns out all of them had male DNA.
(28:01):
And the reason this is significant is the prosecution ended
up arguing that they claimed Daniel's DNA was not there,
and so if he had just innocently transferred DNA matching
the teenager accuser, you would supposedly expect to find Daniel's
DNA there. The forensic analysts ended up telling the jury
there was no male DNA on the inside of the fly,
(28:22):
and the prosecutor again and again would have her say
that there's no DNA, so Daniels DNA is not there,
and then argued to the jury that this meant it
was very unlikely that you could have DNA transferring innocently,
So the jury was misled into believing there was no
male DNA.
Speaker 4 (28:39):
We have to wait till Eric to comes along to
find that that's not right.
Speaker 6 (28:44):
Anytime you have DNA misrepresented in a trial, it's bad
because DNA weighs so heavily in the minds of jurors.
Daniel's attorney never even challenged these claims by the States
forensic analysts that there was no male DNA or that
Daniels DNA wasn't there.
Speaker 4 (29:00):
Hearts were in the trial. I felt like, you know,
my work could have set up an objecte or said something.
Speaker 6 (29:06):
What's really important is how the DNA evidence contributed heavily
to Daniel's conviction, because the prosecutor actually said in his
closing argument quote, the most important thing about the teenager
whose DNA profile was found on the fly of Daniels
pants is the fact, said the prosecutor, that DNA from
the walls of her vagina was transferred to vaginal fluids
(29:28):
on the outside and the inside, not of his pockets,
not of his cuff, not where he sits, but at
the exact location she says his penis came in contact.
So the prosecutor lied to the jury telling them there
was vaginal fluid that was there was not. And we
know from a juror's interview after the trial that the jury,
at least this one juror thought there was vaginal fluid
(29:50):
because he was interviewed on Crimewatch Daily and he said, well,
I mean, I'm not a DNA expert. They told us
the DNA was from the vaginal fluid of a seventeen
year old.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Well, I mean, I'm not a d NA expert.
Speaker 9 (30:02):
I told us it was the DNA from the vaginal
fluid from a seventeen year old.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
So we know at least Wonder was misled by the
prosecutor to believe there's vaginal fluid, and so of course
they're going to end up convicting, not just for the
teenager's allegations. That jurors explained afterwards that this impacted their
deliberations for all these allegations.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Yeah, and this was during closing arguments. Could you later
have objected in the closing argument? He still can. Yeah,
and he should have. In fact, it should be a mistrial.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
And he didn't.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Yeah, they didn't object to that. That's crazy to a
gross misstatement.
Speaker 4 (30:35):
There was times when I was that and I remember
one time I'm just like Scott, what do you injecting?
Like what are you doing? And we kind of got
into bigger many like calm down and calm down. Well,
it's hard for me to calm down when you see
the quote unquote victims that go on the stands and
not even addressing the questions, and in addition to that,
you have lead detective Davis and Greg Ray that are
(30:56):
coaching them along and nodding everything they want to say. Okay, yuh,
that's where I continue on and they're looking at datements
and I'm looking at the jury members. Are you serious?
Are you not seeing this?
Speaker 2 (31:07):
So this is actually the perfect storm for a wrongful conviction. Right,
you have the media frenzy reporting inaccuracies left and right,
making up a narrative that sells advertising time or newspapers.
You have a jury pool that then is hopelessly tainted.
You have bumbling and competent and biased investigators throughout this process.
(31:30):
You have a defense attorney who is I don't want
to say incompetent, but was not up to the task.
Because this is as serious as a case could be.
We're talking about life in prison. I mean, I just
did the math Daniel's sentence. If you were to serve
a sentence, he'd be in prison until the year twenty
two hundred and seventy seven. Then you have a prosecutor
who lied, forensic people who lied or were misstated or inaccurate,
(31:53):
whatever the word you want to choose. Right, with all
of that the outcome was preordained. Did you have any
hope that you would still be vindicated?
Speaker 4 (32:05):
Well, I always leading the judicial system, That's why with
the cop and so it was really frustrating. Obviously I
was in toul shock when the murdy came down.
Speaker 3 (32:15):
I remember vividly there was a DURM member that she
was a female that I would look and you know,
acknowledge every time they came in the courtroom, I left
the courtroom, she would look at me, she would smile.
And when the verdict.
Speaker 1 (32:29):
Was coming in and.
Speaker 4 (32:30):
They walked into the courtroom, I saw even males, the.
Speaker 7 (32:34):
Male GERM members, and cheery eyed. And then I saw
her crying hysterically. And this is when I'm really freaking
out and I'm shaking.
Speaker 3 (32:43):
Up there, you know, what's going on? And on adord to.
Speaker 4 (32:45):
My lawyers and I'm like, well, what's going on? You know,
and she's crying hysterically, everyone's crying, the GERM members. That
does make sense because if he thought it was a
guilty villain white crying, you know.
Speaker 7 (33:00):
And then when they ran dogs American you know, y me.
I mean, I was an old No, I don't even
remember what I and I even remember I think I
just drop.
Speaker 4 (33:11):
My head and you know, like God, why it was
something about it every.
Speaker 8 (33:17):
Thought possible would happen.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
We're here because we want to educate the public as
to how these things could happen, and how it could
happen to someone you love, and to educate people who
are going to be serving on juries at some point
in their life that you know, whoever's listening, it could
have been you in that jury box, and how would
you have done? And I'm sure people are saying, well,
I would never have convicted him, but twelve people did.
(33:53):
And how could they get it so wrong? How could
they look at at at things that are so clearly
black and white and go, yeah, I know it's false,
but you know, and they had a complicated task. They're
looking at things that they know are false, right, They're
looking at testimony that they know is false from a
number of different people. At the same time, they're being
(34:15):
presented with quote unquote evidence by people who they respect,
prosecutors and forensic people, and so they're stuck in a conflict.
But as citizens and as everyone again potential jury remembers,
your duty is to if there's doubt, to acquit you know,
it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That's something
(34:36):
we all learn in high school, right, beyond a reasonable doubt?
Not maybe it could be. I don't know. It's a conflict.
I'm not sure, you know. And then there's that quote
that I can never say enough times better that one
hundred guilty men should go free than that one instance
should suffer. And that's sort of been turned on its head.
But Daniel, here you are. You're stuck in a situation
(34:58):
that would break I think most people, how do you
do it? Day by day? How? I mean, how are
you getting along on the inside.
Speaker 4 (35:06):
I used to hate here and that and think's happened
for a reason, And I used to hate that, But
I think there's a greater purpose from God, and I
think God has a plan for me. You know, be
down in my heart, I know I'm going to be free.
But that said, I can be here without any all
my loved ones and supporters, so everyone that had come
along the way, it's a blessing. It's just an act
of God right there, and finding never gave up, never
(35:31):
had a thought of giving up. And that day when
I'm free, you better bet your blood and I'm going
to fight for all the wrongful convicted people out there.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
Well, it's going to be an honor to work with you.
So what happens next and how can people help?
Speaker 5 (35:49):
I suggest people if they want to learn more, go
to free d Holds claw dot com, my Facebook, Jenny
holtzklaw is public. I post all the facts and information
and give daily updates of what's going on his case.
Another thing I want to point on too is we
have a petition going. We have over thirty five thousand
signatures right now and you can find that on my
Facebook or freading Holds dot com for the link to
(36:09):
actually sign the petition.
Speaker 1 (36:12):
We will have Jennifer's Facebook as well as the petition
linked in the episode description. Now, all thirteen accusers that
had taken Daniel to trial went on to sue the city,
the detectives, and Daniel, and then the lead up to
a potential civil trial against the city. There were depositions
conviction one that's Jenny Liggins. There was the grainy traffic video.
(36:35):
She also described a blonde officer in her initial statement
there was no DNA from Daniel in a rape kit.
And then this is what happened when asked about Daniel
in her deposition, do you recall.
Speaker 9 (36:46):
Listening to audio recording interviews of Daniel Holtz call who I'm.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Sorry, No, I couldn't. I can't remember.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
Doesn't remember the man who allegedly assaulted her and whom
she sent to prison because she did experience a very
real assault, but it was never Daniel. That conviction accounts
for twenty one years of his sentence. Conviction two originally
described her attacker as shorter than five to eleven and black,
which obviously is not Daniel, who was six' two and
(37:17):
ethnically Half, european Half, japanese and she confirmed That daniel
was not her attacker during her. Deposition how do you
recognize that person from?
Speaker 7 (37:27):
Court do you recognize that person from any other time
in your?
Speaker 8 (37:30):
Life?
Speaker 1 (37:31):
NO i have never seen him before.
Speaker 2 (37:34):
Trial that's What i'll bally see who accused of riping?
Speaker 1 (37:39):
Meat that conviction accounts for sixty two years Of daniel.
Sentence conviction three was the one that was dispelled by
the squad car's. Geolocator he'd never driven on that block
where she alleged the attack took. Place that's thirty more
years For. Daniel conviction four had this to, say about
the first time she made a statement To Detective. Davis
(38:00):
she was coming down off crack in.
Speaker 2 (38:02):
Jail she hasn't be, quitness like send to, that get
stopped or. Whatever at, FIRST i.
Speaker 1 (38:08):
Was kind of. Angry i'm angry like that When i'm
coming down so and you're in jail somewhere you don't
want to.
Speaker 9 (38:13):
Be, yeah Then i'm looking for a ticket out SO
i can get high.
Speaker 1 (38:16):
Again Sel so she traded a story to get high
again another twenty. Years For daniel conviction, five her story
changed over, time including what kind of car her attacker.
Drove it also appears that she decided to cooperate following
other pending. Charges that conviction meant another forty six. Years
For Daniel conviction, six described her attacker as ten like
(38:39):
maybe From, india so once again not Describing, daniel and
the charges stemmed from an allegation that he had made
her expose herself and fondled her bare. Breasts during her,
deposition she confirmed That daniel never touched.
Speaker 2 (38:54):
Her how many times Did Hultz claw touch you? Inappropriately
she didn't touch. Me he never touched.
Speaker 10 (39:01):
You no next to the or the third of the last,
line says Hol squaud didn't Ask Plaintiff barnes if there
was anything under her, breast and Final Planeiff barnes is naked.
Speaker 8 (39:11):
Breast do you see?
Speaker 9 (39:12):
That is?
Speaker 2 (39:13):
Ready, YES i see, it.
Speaker 10 (39:14):
Sir isn't that different than what you testified?
Speaker 2 (39:16):
Today what do you mean is that?
Speaker 10 (39:18):
Different didn't you say Hols claud didn't touch.
Speaker 2 (39:20):
You he didn't touch, Me so this is a. Mistake
he did not touch, me.
Speaker 10 (39:28):
Okay and if you go back To defend's exhibit number,
eleven count, one five lines from the bottom of count
one DIRECTING tb to expose her breast and then touching
her bare breast with his hand without her, consent that's
also a.
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Mistake he didn't touch, me.
Speaker 10 (39:45):
Okay and you understand that Mister holsclaud was convicted of
sexual battery on that count as a result of your.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
Testimony, yes eighteen more years For. Daniel conviction seven onces
again had a differing description of her, attacker who was
taller Than, daniel not the same, haircut and then there
were inconsistencies between her story and. Reality another sixteen years For,
daniel and finally conviction, eight probably the most consequential of
(40:15):
all the. Convictions the victim WHOSE dna was found On
daniel's fly with a mix of several other, profiles including
an unknown male, profile and during her, deposition she recalled
when the Prosecutor Galen geiger made the same misrepresentation about
THE dna evidence to her that he eventually made in
his closing.
Speaker 9 (40:34):
Argument, WELL i was and the witness room or whatever
that room is, called before they have the witnesses waiting
to go testifile is there And Galen geiger came to
me and he told, ME i believe. You out of
all the other, WOMEN i believe. You AND i said,
Why and he, said because we were looking for a
(40:54):
match OF dna that we found inside his police pants
and it was. You we found your vaginal fluid on
inside and outside his belief.
Speaker 8 (41:02):
Pants and what did you. SAY i don't THINK i.
Speaker 9 (41:05):
Said anything anything.
Speaker 4 (41:07):
Else he.
Speaker 9 (41:08):
Said he encouraged me to testify because it would help
the other women IF i, testified BECAUSE i was the
only one with physical.
Speaker 1 (41:19):
Evidence so not only does this recollection reveal that the
prosecutor may have really only believed In conviction eight's, allegation
but that belief may have stemmed from a misunderstanding of
THE dna, evidence and then the eventual misrepresentation of that
evidence to the jury granted credence to all the other.
Accusations despite the inconsistencies and sometimes wholly unbelievable, statements the
(41:45):
final conviction meant another fifty years For. Daniel, interestingly after these,
depositions the states settled with the accusers for what we
understand to be very small sums under like ten grand.
Piece why would they have accepted so little if they
had strong, cases strong enough for the state to, settle
(42:07):
yet weak enough to accept so. Little perhaps both the
accusers and the state know what this, was and maybe
the state chose to settle as to not put these
witnesses back on the. Record if they intended on, winning
they destroy their own witnesses Against, daniel Giving daniel's team
more ammo for post. Conviction they'd expose how the sausage was,
(42:29):
made how these people were, lying maybe not about their,
experiences but about who was. Guilty. Now soon after this
settlement was, reached civil proceedings began Against, daniel but soon
came to a halt When daniel's team shared their briefs
and the accusers dropped the suit Against. Daniel altogether looks
like they didn't have a prayer Against. Daniel so now
(42:54):
post conviction litigation. Continues if anyone has information about this,
case please reach out to any Holtz. Claw Her facebook
is linked in the episode description along with the. Petition
and with that we'll go To daniel's closing thoughts as
they were originally.
Speaker 3 (43:08):
Recorded all, Right i'll just try to be quick out.
Speaker 4 (43:13):
Versus thank you for having letting us come on board
and be able to speak my side And manu SENSE
i appreciate. It jason just to, add you, know real.
Fast and someone asked, me, well why do you think
you're roughly Convicted, Daniels i'd probably say the.
Speaker 8 (43:27):
MEDIA i think the media plays.
Speaker 4 (43:28):
A huge factor in people's. Reception LIKE i said earlier
in the, show people WATCH tv shows where it's law
and order in THE. Ipss you, know THAT'S tv. Show
that's not the reality of what, happens and that's support.
Rooms people believe that this, defendant this high profile on national.
Television oh, man he must be. Guilty the defense, warrier oh,
(43:49):
man he's grew up in bed War he's trying to
get paint. Here he's going to try to get them
off on a, Technicality well that's not the. Case please
just don't believe in to the, media don't believe in
that mass medium and nihilation where they get edit and
crop and wherever they want to. Do and the majority
of them are just aiding the prosecutions, side and people
believe the prosecutions are the good guys with all they
care about is the. Fictionary SO i just ask that you,
(44:12):
guys please just don't jump to the assumption that this
person is. Guilty looking in the facts of the case and,
actually you, know do your, homework come out with your own,
opinion and don't don't believe with the, MEDIA i always
trying to. Portray SO i know it's fun to hang
up right. Now but, again thank you everyone and all
the loved with all the floers that came along as a.
Spiracle that Where i'm at right now is thanks to.
You i'm a continia to, fight never give, up AND
(44:35):
i know one want to be. Free so thank you
everyone out there that's.
Speaker 6 (44:39):
LISTENING i love, Guys thank, you love, You Daniel Hie, daniel.
Speaker 2 (44:49):
Thank you for listening To Wrongful. Conviction you can listen
to this and all The lava for good podcasts one
week early and ad free by subscribing To lava For
good plus On Apple. PODCASTS i want to thank our production,
Team Connor hall And Kathleen, fink as well as my
fellow executive Producers Jeff, Kempler Kevin, wartis And Jeff. Cleiber
the music in this production was supplied by three TIME
(45:09):
oscar nominated Composer Jay. Rouse 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 a production Of
lava For Good podcasts in association With Signal Company Number.
Speaker 1 (45:25):
One 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
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.