September 5, 2025 ā¢ 28 mins
Rachael Geiser, a criminal defense investigator with 26 years of experience, shares insights from the West Memphis Three case, and reveals how scientific mistakes and overlooked evidence led to wrongful convictions that were eventually overturned.
- Updates on the Tyree Nichols case including new trials granted in federal court
- Update on Clarence Nesbit's death penalty case where the death notice was withdrawn after years of appeals
- Interviewing Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of victim Stevie Branch, who had never been interviewed by police
- Expert pathologists unanimously concluded victims' wounds were from animal predation, not knife wounds as originally claimed
- The importance of accurate forensic science and how getting it wrong "changes the whole landscape of the case"
- Reflection on how media coverage placed the West Memphis Three case alongside another major case on the same newspaper front page
Help us continue sharing these important stories about the criminal justice system. Subscribe to The Geiser Files and join us for our next episode where we'll discuss the day the West Memphis Three were finally released.
š Join the conversation: Subscribe free at thegeiserfiles.substack.com
for bonus content, behind-the-scenes notes, and a place to share your thoughts and theories.
ā Support the show: Leave a rating and review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listenāit helps more people discover The Geiser Files.
šµIntro music: Light Years, by Georgi Krastev - license no: 6697632440 from Audiio.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Tony (00:03):
For the last 26 years, Rachael Geiser has worked in the
shadows of America's mostnotorious trials.
As a criminal defenseinvestigator, she stood beside
defense teams in cases thatshook the country Damian Eccles
in the West Memphis Three, JesseDotson in the Lester Street
case and many more that nevermade the headlines but changed
lives forever.
Let's pull back the curtain andhear what really happened.
(00:26):
Welcome to the Geiser Files,hey Rachael.
Episode 3.
How's it going?
Rachael (00:36):
It's going fine, Tony.
How are you?
Tony (00:38):
We're going to try something new.
Rachael (00:39):
Okay.
Tony (00:40):
We're going to try doing something called case updates.
Rachael (00:42):
Case updates, and now is this on my cases or just
generally.
Tony (00:45):
Well, I guess just generally.
Rachael (00:47):
Okay.
Tony (00:48):
Although on occasion we will get updates from your cases
too.
Rachael (00:51):
Okay.
Tony (00:52):
But there's been developments in the Tyree
Nichols case, a case of localand national significance, but
not one that you worked on.
Rachael (01:01):
Not a case I worked on, so I've only been following and
have information just like theregular public.
Tony (01:06):
Quick summary Tyree Nichols, driving in Memphis,
pulled over, turned into abeating.
He dies a few days later in thehospital.
Lots of video of cops beatinghim up.
Five in particular were chargedin state and federal court.
They were acquitted in statecourt.
Rachael (01:25):
Three of them went to trial.
Tony (01:26):
Three of them went to trial and were found not guilty.
Rachael (01:29):
In state court.
Tony (01:30):
That's crazy to me.
In federal court they werefound guilty of some of the
charges.
Rachael (01:36):
Yeah, I believe one of them was found guilty on four
counts of the indictment and theother two were found guilty on
at least one count of somethinglesser, I believe.
Okay.
They had not been sentenced atthe time.
They went to state.
They went to federal trialfirst.
Tony (01:50):
Okay.
Rachael (01:51):
And that happened and they were awaiting sentencing in
federal court.
While they had their statetrial, they quit it in state
court and then were supposed tobe sentenced in federal court.
Okay, when something's at.
Tony (02:04):
So they were found guilty of some charges in federal court
Okay, when something's at.
So they were found guilty ofsome charges in federal court,
were awaiting sentencing whenthe judge in the case, judge
Norris, recused himself from thesentencing portion.
Rachael (02:14):
He did.
Tony (02:15):
A new judge was appointed, Judge Lippman.
Rachael (02:18):
Lippman yes.
Tony (02:18):
Judge Lippman and she, instead of proceeding with
sentencing, granted the threefound guilty defendants new
trials.
Correct.
What does it mean?
Rachael (02:29):
Well, it means that they'll have a new trial,
potentially, or there's somesort of settlement.
Tony (02:36):
Why did she?
What reason did she give?
Rachael (02:39):
Oh well, you and I both read the order and we know
nothing more than what's in theorder, but in the order it looks
like there were allegations thedefense attorneys made that the
judge and before sentencing Ithink that he felt like I think
(03:08):
his clerk had been the victim ofa crime in memphis and he felt
that maybe the defendant, one ofthe defendants or more, were
involved in that and then madecomments allegedly that the one
or more the defendants had wasin a gang and that he felt like
the Memphis Police Departmentwas infiltrated with gang ties.
Tony (03:30):
Seems a little far-fetched to me, but it does sound like a
good ruling.
Rachael (03:34):
Yeah, I would be really interested in knowing.
You know, how did the defenseattorneys find out that the
statements were made?
Attorneys find out that thestatements were made and then,
um, from the ruling itself I'vethe last paragraph of that
ruling I find interesting,because the question now becomes
what are they going to be triedon, right?
So they, three of them, werefound, they went to trial.
(03:56):
One of them was found guilty onfour counts and the other two
are found guilty, not on onecount of something, but not
guilty on some things.
So are they going back to trialon the original indictment?
Tony (04:08):
Right or only on what they potentially what that means is
they were acquitted of some ofthe charges against them and so
if they go back and retry themon that, it sounds like double
jeopardy.
Rachael (04:19):
Yeah, we're not lawyers , so we have no.
You know, we can't lawyerlyspeak to this.
Tony (04:25):
But I do have legal opinions.
Rachael (04:27):
You do.
Tony (04:28):
That was not one of them, though.
Rachael (04:30):
So, yeah, it'll be interesting to see how this
plays out and what else comes ofit.
If anything with respect to youknow any of the comments that
Judge Norris you know allegedlymade in this hearing ex parte
hearing so we'll see whathappens with that.
Tony (04:44):
OK, there was another case you wanted, you thought was
interesting.
Rachael (04:48):
Yeah, you know it was.
It happened this past summer.
There was a case, a capitalmurder case, I'd worked on in
Tennessee, Clarence Nesbitt.
He was on death row for a verylong time.
I did not work his case when itwas pre-trial.
I worked on Clarence's casewhen I was at Inquisitor in
(05:09):
post-conviction and it wasactually the first time I
testified at a post-convictionhearing as a.
I was actually classified as anexpert fact investigator and
could then testify about thingsthat had been done in the
original investigation by thatinvestigator and what should
have been done.
(05:29):
And I did testify during hispost-conviction in that capacity
.
Clarence's case was eventually.
He was eventually given a newsentencing hearing, which means
that his conviction for murderstood first-degree murder, but
that the appellate courts orSupreme Court, I'm not sure who
handled that ruling down saidthat they thought he deserved a
(05:52):
new sentencing hearing becausewhatever happened during his
original sentencing wasn'tsufficient or other reasons that
had been ongoing for years.
I mean what was happening withwhether or not he was going to
go have the hearing?
And the state was up until thispast June they were still
seeking the death penaltyagainst him and then this past
(06:16):
June they withdrew their deathnotice.
So he is no longer on death row.
Tony (06:21):
So he's safe from execution.
Correct Interesting CorrectInteresting.
Rachael (06:25):
Yes, so that was a big update on a case that had been
ongoing for many, many years.
Tony (06:31):
As most of these cases do, but he's not getting out of
jail.
Rachael (06:32):
No, he's still in prison.
Tony (06:34):
yes, Do you call that a win, huge yeah.
Rachael (06:36):
Anytime anyone is removed from death row.
Now you know, I do personallythink that's a huge win.
Yes, I do personally.
I think that's a huge win.
Yes, I do.
Tony (06:44):
Is that the end of the updates?
Rachael (06:46):
That is the end of the updates for today.
I think that's a lot.
That's a lot of updated news.
Tony (06:50):
A lot of updates.
All right, then Back to what.
Where are we going now?
Rachael (06:54):
We ended the West Memphis 3 case.
Tony (06:56):
The introduction.
Rachael (06:57):
The introduction with me creating the task list back
in 2006 and then beginning thework on the case right.
Mm-hmm.
Okay, so I'm working the case,doing lots of interviews, all
the things on my task list.
At some point everyone kind ofrealized that one of the
stepfathers had never beeninterviewed or we had no police
(07:18):
report.
Terry Hobbs is the stepfatherof Stevie Branch, who was one of
the eight-year-old victims onthis case.
In the discovery that we had,we realized, you know, mark
Byers had been interviewedseveral times by the police.
Other family members had beeninterviewed.
Todd Moore was out of town.
(07:40):
That was Michael Moore's dad,mark Byers was Chris Byers' dad
and there was just nothingreally from Terry Hobbs.
So, you know, we felt like weshould at least go talk to him
to see if he's willing to talkto us and tell us his
whereabouts that day.
So in February of 2007, that'swhat Ron and I did we went to
(08:03):
talk to Terry Hobbs about wherehe was and what he could tell us
about the case and his thoughtson it.
I mean, he was home and Ibelieve it was a Saturday
morning in February of 2007, andhe invited us inside into his
living room and he spoke to usfor as long as we really wanted
to talk to him, I think, aboutthe case and gave us a rundown
(08:27):
of where he was, and that wasthe first time that Terry had
been interviewed by anyone onthe case police or defense about
where he was on May the 3rd of1993.
I'm sorry, may the 5th of 1993.
Tony (08:42):
That seems extraordinary to me, that you were the first
people to talk to him.
Rachael (08:45):
Yeah, it was extraordinary to us as well how
that happened.
I mean, if you looked atā Copsdidn't talk to him.
Cops never talked to him at thetime.
They had made visits to thehome.
I believe within the reportssomething was noted and I don't
even remember which officer itwas, but that they had stopped
by and that he just wasn't home.
(09:05):
They talked to Pam.
There was really nothing inthere about an official
interview with him.
Tony (09:12):
Paradise Lost documentarians.
They didn't talk to him either.
Rachael (09:16):
Well, they probably talked to him.
That's actually a really goodquestion.
He's all over the documentaries.
He was with Pam the whole timeduring the trials, If you've
seen Paradise Lost, which is anamazing documentary really the
catalyst.
Tony (09:28):
But they weren't interviewing him in that way.
Rachael (09:30):
No, paradise Lost was the catalyst, but they weren't
interviewing him in that way.
No right, but it was the.
You know paradise last was acatalyst for everything that's
happened since or that ever cameup, or if they were just
filming.
I really don't know if theywere just filming in a more.
I'm here filming you kind ofcapacity rather than a directed
question capacity.
I mean, we know a lot of thedocumentary documentaries that
have been done since are more oftell us you know, tell us
(09:51):
things and I think you know Joeand Bruce did that maybe to some
extent, but not necessarilyabout you know.
Where were you, what were youdoing?
Tony (10:01):
Right.
Rachael (10:01):
I don't know though.
Tony (10:02):
Yeah, they had other focus , didn't they?
Rachael (10:04):
Yeah, I actually just that's so interesting that you
brought that up, because justrecently I listened to an
interview that Joe did JoeBerlinger did with the man who
does the Wrongful Convictionpodcast a really good podcast.
Joe was talking about hisintroduction to why you know how
(10:26):
he and Bruce got sent down toArkansas and did this, and this
is so interesting that you'retalking about that.
But yeah, I mean he was.
I think he said he originallywent down there to film you know
this case, this salacious caseof these teen guys that were
accused of killing kids, and hisproducers said go down there
(10:48):
and film this, and then it justobviously turned into something
much Ron and I talking to Terry,okay, so also what's going on
on the case as well.
At the time of theinvestigation, is DNA reports
coming back right?
Mm-hmm.
So a lot of evidence had beensent off and DNA profiles had
(11:10):
been attained from some of theevidence to try to figure out
who did it, or did thedefendants do it Somebody else?
And of note that is hugelyimportant is that you know none
of the defendants' DNA wasanywhere in that crime scene or
any of the evidence that thepolice had.
So that had happened, but therewere some potentially other, you
(11:34):
know, unknown people or any ofthe evidence that the police had
, so that had happened, butthere were some potentially
other, you know, unknown people,so we're trying to figure that
out.
Who is this right?
So while we're at Terry's house, I take you know he gets up and
he uses the restroom and whilehe was away I grabbed a couple
of cigarette butts out of hisashtray and then Ron and I had
also grabbed some cigarettebutts out of his front yard
(11:57):
finished the interview, sentthose where they needed to be
sent and then moved on.
You know we continued on ourinvestigations, looking at all
kinds of things and whateverelse was in my task list or
things to do or whatever elsethe attorneys or Fran or you
know wherever we were goingRight and, to be honest with you
, I moved on from that interview, just working on the case.
(12:21):
May of 2007 rolls around.
The defense attorneys are inLittle Rock for a meeting with
Peretti, who's the medicalexaminer on the case and did the
original the autopsies.
Also, at the time, as everyoneknows, we had the defense had
retained the experts of severalpathologists and all of them
came back disagreeing with theoriginal autopsy and the medical
(12:44):
examiner, peretti about thecause of the injuries to the
boys.
Right.
Tony (12:49):
Yeah, let's talk about those, the nature of those
injuries.
For a little bit, give people apicture.
Rachael (12:54):
I'll do the best I can, yes.
Tony (12:55):
Their bodies were found in a lake, number one.
Is that correct or no?
Rachael (12:59):
No, not a lake, it's like a drainage ditch in Robin
Hood Hills.
Okay.
Tony (13:02):
And their bodies were defaced a little bit apparently.
Rachael (13:07):
Yes, there were all kinds of markings on the bodies
that the state of Arkansasalleged happened with some sort
of cutting instrument okay, soPeretti and these are my words,
saying that the boys were maybetortured or mutilated with like
a knife or something right thiswhen all of this played into the
(13:27):
state's theory that it was asatanic ritualistic killing
right?
Tony (13:32):
okay, and that was not true 100, not true.
Rachael (13:35):
And that is so when your science gets it wrong,
right when your science and thisis actually something I've
noticed on my many cases overthe years, not just this case-
but, when on my murder cases, inparticular when, obviously
because the medical examinercomes in on my murder cases,
they come in, they determinecause of death, right, they are
(13:59):
supposed to tell you, looking atthe science of things, how this
person was injured.
If they get that wrong, itchanges the whole landscape of
the case.
So he said that the injurieswere inflicted.
Tony (14:13):
Dr, Peretti.
Rachael (14:14):
Dr Peretti, yes, said that the injuries were inflicted
with a knife.
It looked like there were somecutting, possibly some
mutilation.
Tony (14:21):
Yeah, he was wrong.
And what did your experts say?
Rachael (14:26):
It was all animal predation.
Tony (14:28):
Animal predation.
What does that mean?
Rachael (14:30):
So when they were placed in the water or laying on
the bank of the ditch, whereverthey were, that animals had
caused those wounds.
Tony (14:40):
After death, most likely post-mortem in this case it was,
we think, maybe turtles yes, soum robin hood hills.
Rachael (14:48):
within it, one, one of the hills in particular was
called Turtle Hill and that hadbecome because there had been
sightings of snapping turtles Imean, this is Arkansas in May
and also, you know, who knowswhat was in the water if they
were on the water.
Tony (15:02):
There's all kinds of activity in water, so yes,
Snapping turtles are a lotdifferent than a knife.
Rachael (15:10):
Yes, animals are much different than knives.
Yes, so that turtles are a lotdifferent than a knife.
Yes, animals are much differentthan knives.
Yes, so that's going on right.
So not only is the whole likethe DNA coming back, not
pointing to the defendants, Ithink once youāI remember when
Ron came down and told me thatthe experts were all agreeing
that it was animal predationLike that really changed the
(15:30):
whole thinking onā everything soand they were all in agreement
about it.
This was not just one.
You know disagreeing like fourothers, right?
Tony (15:38):
Did they consult each other?
Rachael (15:40):
I don't know.
Tony (15:41):
Right.
They independently reached thesame conclusion.
Rachael (15:43):
Right, as far as I know like I was not involved in
those conversations with thepathologists that we had
retained Um, but I knew thatPeter Jackson has talked about
this in West of Memphis thatthey, they, you know, he, they
felt like getting one expert wasfine, but how about we get five
, you know, and see what theyall say?
Right, and they were all inagreement and that really just
(16:06):
changed so many things about howyou considered what could have
happened on this case.
And, like I said, I've seenthat so many times on some of my
other cases.
In my opinion, there are timesthat medical examiners do not
consider, mostly this.
They don't look at the scienceenough, rather than there are I
don't know if you know this ornot on cases police officers
(16:28):
will give the medical examinerlike a summary of what a witness
might have said, or especiallyon cases that involve children,
they will defer many times andwhen I say they generally I've
seen this happen.
So I can't say this is allmedical examiners, but there are
some that I have seen in mycases that defer to police
(16:53):
officers to hear what they haveto say about what happened
before they even determine whatthey think happened.
I just think that's crazy.
Yeah, I don't think they shouldbe doing that at all.
Tony (17:03):
Should be double blind somehow.
Rachael (17:05):
Yes, I agree.
I mean, maybe that happened onthis case.
I don't know if Peretti's everbeen asked.
Tony (17:10):
I would give them not the out, maybe, but I would give
them the leeway to, after theydraw some initial conclusion, to
modify that conclusion afterthey hear the summary.
Does that make sense?
Rachael (17:20):
No, yeah, I think you're right.
I mean, they can't just beblind to everything, and they, I
mean that might be asking toomuch.
I don't know, I would like itto be completely though.
Tony (17:30):
And there are limits, like even the best medical examiner
can't tell you everything, no,right.
But and but a very, very goodmedical examiner can't tell you
everything no Right.
Rachael (17:36):
But a very, very good medical examiner will admit that
, and that's maybe how you knowthe really good ones.
Tony (17:43):
Yeah, you say I don't know , and a lot of the science that
they rely on, especially in thiscase, turned out to be bunk
science, right?
Rachael (17:50):
Let me pause for a second and think back to the
trials.
Like I said, I wasn't there forthe trials, I trials.
I've only, you know, read andseen what was in the
documentaries well, for example,what I'm thinking about.
Tony (18:01):
Some guy shows up and looks at graffiti at a you know
and decides that there issignificant satanic activity in
the area yeah, because he's anexpert.
Rachael (18:12):
Oh, you mean just on experts and you're I'm using air
quotes right with that.
Tony (18:17):
And I'm thinking of other cases too, where it's turned out
that you know like a lot of theballistic science is bullshit,
like you cannot tell in manycases what gun a bullet came out
of.
Rachael (18:29):
Okay, you know what I mean.
All right, I'm going to deferto you on that.
Tony (18:32):
Yeah, I'll provide some documentation later.
Rachael (18:34):
Oh okay, all right.
Or on that, yeah, I'll providesome documentation later.
Oh, okay, alright.
Or you can talk about it laterif you want what you run across.
I find that interesting Now.
I have been to seminars beforewhere they talk about junk
science, potentially withrespect to ballistics.
Tony (18:46):
Handwriting analysis, stuff like that yeah we used to.
Rachael (18:48):
That's interesting.
I mean handwriting.
That used to come up quite abit and you never hear that
anymore.
Tony (18:54):
We're a little bit off topic, but I think this is
interesting.
What do you think aboutpolygraph exams?
Rachael (18:58):
Bonk.
Tony (19:00):
Really yeah, our federal government still relies on that
for security clearances andstuff.
Rachael (19:06):
Oh, that's true.
Yeah, so no, I mean, look atwhat polygraph.
I mean every person on thiscase, in this case, damien's
case they were polygraphed atthe time.
Tony (19:17):
Is that right?
Rachael (19:18):
Oh, yeah, no, oh, maybe if you didn't know that, Well,
I've forgotten.
Yeah, so yeah, the police, theywould talk to someone and then
they polygraph them and thenthey would determine whether or
not they were being truthful ornot.
Do I?
I mean honestly, and I've doneno real research into polygraphs
but or they're reliable.
I mean they're so unreliableyou can't use them in court,
right?
You can't use, you can'tintroduce that they failed.
(19:39):
A polygraph I I think I'm justgiving a very layperson
viewpoint on this any tool youuse, I think, is going to be
good or bad based on who isusing the tool, right?
So whoever the examiner is, howgood are they?
Mm-hmm.
Do they know what they're doing?
What's the tell me about yourequipment?
(20:01):
You know?
So I think it might besubjective.
Tony (20:05):
Yeah, even you know stuff like narcotics canines.
Yes.
If they think that theirhandler wants them to hit on a
car.
Rachael (20:16):
Okay, they hit All right.
Tony (20:18):
So that they get rewarded with love and affection and
treats and stuff like that.
Rachael (20:22):
Yes, I think there's.
Tony (20:23):
And now, the police officer can use that hit to
search a vehicle or make anarrest or something like that.
Rachael (20:29):
All things that should always be considered when you
decide to charge someone Likelook at how everything played
out.
Tony (20:36):
I read an article recently about a roadside drug test,
right.
So if you find a suspicioussubstance, you start mixing
things up on the side of thehighway and if it turns blue you
know you've got heroin orwhatever it is.
Rachael (20:48):
Okay.
Tony (20:50):
And they got a lot of convictions out of that.
But it turns out it would turnblue like 80% of the time.
Rachael (20:56):
Oh really.
Tony (20:56):
No, you know, with like baking powder you put in there
and it'll test positive forheroin.
Rachael (21:01):
Interesting.
Tony (21:02):
So a lot of cases got thrown out.
For that I'll have to find yousome details, but I thought that
was really cool.
Rachael (21:06):
How many people went to jail for that?
A lot.
Now are they still in jail.
Tony (21:10):
I think a lot of them.
I don't know honestly, I don't,I have to go look it up, but I
think a lot of these folks gotout well, I hope so yeah, me too
so back to the original.
Rachael (21:18):
We were talking about peretti and you know, getting
the science wrong from thebeginning and how that could
just change everything and that,and how innocent people can go
to prison, right, which is oneof the reasons that this case
happened the way it played out,in my opinion.
Get the science wrong, you geteverything wrong, which is so
(21:39):
interesting because obviouslynow we're, we're hoping to rely
on science we'll get to thatlater to find out who really did
it, right, right.
Tony (21:47):
So do you want to talk about that now?
Rachael (21:50):
or no.
No, we can do that in a laterepisode.
Okay, just getting off thetimeline a little bit, I think
so, um, but with terry, withdoing the interview with Terry,
so we have the DNA withcigarette butts.
We do know that there was ahair in the literature of
Michael Moore that they wereable to get mitochondrial DNA
off of May of 2007,.
(22:11):
They're at this meeting.
I'm not there, I don't, youknow.
Tony (22:14):
What kind of meeting?
Rachael (22:15):
Oh the attorney.
So I don't know if all of theattorneys were there.
I don't you know what kind ofmeeting.
Oh the attorney.
So I don't know if all of theattorneys were there.
I know Lori was there, denniswas there, dawn was there,
gerald Skane was there, who's alocal attorney that we were
using at the time.
He's a good friend of mine.
That night I get a call fromLori and I'm at home with you
guys.
I take the call out on thefront porch and she tells me
(22:40):
that the DNA report had comeback and that so whatever DNA
they pulled off of the you knowthe expert pulled off of one of
the cigarette butts, or one ormore of the cigarette butts, I
can't remember was consistentwith the profile of the from the
hair from the literature.
So Terry Hobbs, the cigarettebutts that we took from Terry
(23:03):
Hobbs, that DNA was consistentwith one of the hairs from the
literature of Michael Moore.
Tony (23:09):
So the hair that we're talking about was tied up with
the victim.
Rachael (23:14):
It was in the literature and honestly, I
honestly can't give you a moredescriptive.
I don't know because I didn't.
Tony (23:20):
Well, I'm just saying it was there it was at the time of
death and and I wish I could.
Rachael (23:26):
You know, I didn't do the analysis.
I don't know how, how it was ifthe literature was cut and then
they found this here.
I really don't know.
But I know it was a hair fromthe literature, that's what I
know, gotcha.
So really the focus of theinvestigation.
So obviously that's interesting, right.
I mean, we've turned a lot ofour attention investigative-wise
and for the investigation, Ishould say, looking at, you know
(23:47):
, what do we know about TerryHopps?
The police ended up bringingTerry in for an interview, you
know, finally, I believe thatwas June of 2007.
Interview, you know, finally, Ibelieve that was june of 2007.
The clients were eventuallyreleased, you know, after dennis
, brilliantly argued before thesupreme court.
And well they.
They were granted anevidentiary hearing because of
(24:07):
that and they're out now.
But we still don't know who didit right when dennis was going
to argue before the ArkansasSupreme Court about all this new
stuff.
You know the juror, misconductclaims, no DNA matching.
You know our clients and askingyou know for a new evidentiary
(24:28):
hearing.
I wanted to be there, Really,really wanted to see that
firsthand Planned on being there, except Jesse Dotson's case.
The proof was starting onJesse's case that day.
I remember I'll never forget itthat the morning that proof
started on Jesse was the sameday that Dennis was arguing.
You know, all this new stuffbefore the Arkansas Supreme
(24:50):
Court on the front page of theCommercial Appeal, which was the
main paper in our town at thattime.
This would have been August,I'm sorry, september of 2010.
Above the fold that's what youused to call, like important
things on the front page ofnewspapers, right, and I don't
even think our kids would knowwhat that means.
But uh, above the fold waseither damien's case or jesse's,
(25:13):
and below the fold was eitherDamien.
So one of them was above thefold, the other one was below
the fold and I just found thatso striking to me personally.
Yeah, you took up the entirefirst page of the paper of
record, the two biggest cases ofmy career that ever probably
that I'll ever be involved in insome way.
Tony (25:35):
Did you keep that newspaper?
Rachael (25:36):
No, I wish someone had it still.
Yeah, but I mean I had so muchgoing on that day.
It was the first day of proofon Jesse.
Tony (25:42):
Which I thought While.
Rachael (25:43):
I was also thinking of what was happening, you know, in
Little Rock.
I just thought that was socrazy, you know.
Then you know it was thebeginning of you know the end,
really, for Damien, because hewas granted the evidentiary
hearing and then released.
Tony (26:02):
Things started to happen pretty quick around then.
Rachael (26:04):
And then for Jesse, you know going to trial, you know
hopeful that things would turnout differently.
Yeah, so that was crazy to me,where we go from here.
I think, with respect to theWest Memphis Three case, I think
we should next most likely talkabout the day of release.
You were there for that, so youcan speak to that as well that
(26:25):
night.
I think that's a good story.
What do you think?
Tony (26:29):
Yeah, I like that.
It's a good idea.
Rachael (26:32):
Thanks for letting me relive that part of you know my
journey on the West MemphisThree case and I do want to say
too that you know I've doneinterviews about lots of things
with respect to Damien's case,the West of Memphis documentary.
Honestly, I was asked to do aninterview to be on the
(26:55):
investigation discovery special.
They did you turned it down.
I turned it down, yeah, and Iremember the lady said to me I
think I she asked me why, and Isaid well, you know this case
has been talked about, you know,many times.
There's other people talkingabout it.
I don't really think it'snecessary that I continue to
(27:15):
talk about it.
She said well, you know, rachel, if you stop talking about it
especially the role that youplayed in it and like how things
played out with the newinvestigation and those sort of
things people will forget, andif people forget about it, then
it could happen again.
Right, that has stuck with metoo.
She was right about that.
(27:35):
But you know I didn't do theinterview.
I didn't so and like I saidwhen we started this podcast,
you know I think I'm ready tostart talking about these sort
of things again and thesestories.
Tony (27:47):
So here, we are and you're doing it.
Rachael (27:50):
Yeah, okay.
Tony (27:51):
Well, I love you.
Rachael (27:53):
Love you too, Thanks for.
For the last 26 years, Rachael Geiser has worked in the
shadows of America's mostnotorious trials.
As a criminal defenseinvestigator, she stood beside
defense teams in cases thatshook the country Damian Eccles
in the West Memphis Three, JesseDotson in the Lester Street
case and many more that nevermade the headlines but changed
lives forever.
Let's pull back the curtain andhear what really happened.
(00:26):
Welcome to the Geiser Files,hey Rachael.
Episode 3.
How's it going?
Rachael (00:36):
It's going fine, Tony.
How are you?
Tony (00:38):
We're going to try something new.
Rachael (00:39):
Okay.
Tony (00:40):
We're going to try doing something called case updates.
Rachael (00:42):
Case updates, and now is this on my cases or just
generally.
Tony (00:45):
Well, I guess just generally.
Rachael (00:47):
Okay.
Tony (00:48):
Although on occasion we will get updates from your cases
too.
Rachael (00:51):
Okay.
Tony (00:52):
But there's been developments in the Tyree
Nichols case, a case of localand national significance, but
not one that you worked on.
Rachael (01:01):
Not a case I worked on, so I've only been following and
have information just like theregular public.
Tony (01:06):
Quick summary Tyree Nichols, driving in Memphis,
pulled over, turned into abeating.
He dies a few days later in thehospital.
Lots of video of cops beatinghim up.
Five in particular were chargedin state and federal court.
They were acquitted in statecourt.
Rachael (01:25):
Three of them went to trial.
Tony (01:26):
Three of them went to trial and were found not guilty.
Rachael (01:29):
In state court.
Tony (01:30):
That's crazy to me.
In federal court they werefound guilty of some of the
charges.
Rachael (01:36):
Yeah, I believe one of them was found guilty on four
counts of the indictment and theother two were found guilty on
at least one count of somethinglesser, I believe.
Okay.
They had not been sentenced atthe time.
They went to state.
They went to federal trialfirst.
Tony (01:50):
Okay.
Rachael (01:51):
And that happened and they were awaiting sentencing in
federal court.
While they had their statetrial, they quit it in state
court and then were supposed tobe sentenced in federal court.
Okay, when something's at.
Tony (02:04):
So they were found guilty of some charges in federal court
Okay, when something's at.
So they were found guilty ofsome charges in federal court,
were awaiting sentencing whenthe judge in the case, judge
Norris, recused himself from thesentencing portion.
Rachael (02:14):
He did.
Tony (02:15):
A new judge was appointed, Judge Lippman.
Rachael (02:18):
Lippman yes.
Tony (02:18):
Judge Lippman and she, instead of proceeding with
sentencing, granted the threefound guilty defendants new
trials.
Correct.
What does it mean?
Rachael (02:29):
Well, it means that they'll have a new trial,
potentially, or there's somesort of settlement.
Tony (02:36):
Why did she?
What reason did she give?
Rachael (02:39):
Oh well, you and I both read the order and we know
nothing more than what's in theorder, but in the order it looks
like there were allegations thedefense attorneys made that the
judge and before sentencing Ithink that he felt like I think
(03:08):
his clerk had been the victim ofa crime in memphis and he felt
that maybe the defendant, one ofthe defendants or more, were
involved in that and then madecomments allegedly that the one
or more the defendants had wasin a gang and that he felt like
the Memphis Police Departmentwas infiltrated with gang ties.
Tony (03:30):
Seems a little far-fetched to me, but it does sound like a
good ruling.
Rachael (03:34):
Yeah, I would be really interested in knowing.
You know, how did the defenseattorneys find out that the
statements were made?
Attorneys find out that thestatements were made and then,
um, from the ruling itself I'vethe last paragraph of that
ruling I find interesting,because the question now becomes
what are they going to be triedon, right?
So they, three of them, werefound, they went to trial.
(03:56):
One of them was found guilty onfour counts and the other two
are found guilty, not on onecount of something, but not
guilty on some things.
So are they going back to trialon the original indictment?
Tony (04:08):
Right or only on what they potentially what that means is
they were acquitted of some ofthe charges against them and so
if they go back and retry themon that, it sounds like double
jeopardy.
Rachael (04:19):
Yeah, we're not lawyers , so we have no.
You know, we can't lawyerlyspeak to this.
Tony (04:25):
But I do have legal opinions.
Rachael (04:27):
You do.
Tony (04:28):
That was not one of them, though.
Rachael (04:30):
So, yeah, it'll be interesting to see how this
plays out and what else comes ofit.
If anything with respect to youknow any of the comments that
Judge Norris you know allegedlymade in this hearing ex parte
hearing so we'll see whathappens with that.
Tony (04:44):
OK, there was another case you wanted, you thought was
interesting.
Rachael (04:48):
Yeah, you know it was.
It happened this past summer.
There was a case, a capitalmurder case, I'd worked on in
Tennessee, Clarence Nesbitt.
He was on death row for a verylong time.
I did not work his case when itwas pre-trial.
I worked on Clarence's casewhen I was at Inquisitor in
(05:09):
post-conviction and it wasactually the first time I
testified at a post-convictionhearing as a.
I was actually classified as anexpert fact investigator and
could then testify about thingsthat had been done in the
original investigation by thatinvestigator and what should
have been done.
(05:29):
And I did testify during hispost-conviction in that capacity
.
Clarence's case was eventually.
He was eventually given a newsentencing hearing, which means
that his conviction for murderstood first-degree murder, but
that the appellate courts orSupreme Court, I'm not sure who
handled that ruling down saidthat they thought he deserved a
(05:52):
new sentencing hearing becausewhatever happened during his
original sentencing wasn'tsufficient or other reasons that
had been ongoing for years.
I mean what was happening withwhether or not he was going to
go have the hearing?
And the state was up until thispast June they were still
seeking the death penaltyagainst him and then this past
(06:16):
June they withdrew their deathnotice.
So he is no longer on death row.
Tony (06:21):
So he's safe from execution.
Correct Interesting CorrectInteresting.
Rachael (06:25):
Yes, so that was a big update on a case that had been
ongoing for many, many years.
Tony (06:31):
As most of these cases do, but he's not getting out of
jail.
Rachael (06:32):
No, he's still in prison.
Tony (06:34):
yes, Do you call that a win, huge yeah.
Rachael (06:36):
Anytime anyone is removed from death row.
Now you know, I do personallythink that's a huge win.
Yes, I do personally.
I think that's a huge win.
Yes, I do.
Tony (06:44):
Is that the end of the updates?
Rachael (06:46):
That is the end of the updates for today.
I think that's a lot.
That's a lot of updated news.
Tony (06:50):
A lot of updates.
All right, then Back to what.
Where are we going now?
Rachael (06:54):
We ended the West Memphis 3 case.
Tony (06:56):
The introduction.
Rachael (06:57):
The introduction with me creating the task list back
in 2006 and then beginning thework on the case right.
Mm-hmm.
Okay, so I'm working the case,doing lots of interviews, all
the things on my task list.
At some point everyone kind ofrealized that one of the
stepfathers had never beeninterviewed or we had no police
(07:18):
report.
Terry Hobbs is the stepfatherof Stevie Branch, who was one of
the eight-year-old victims onthis case.
In the discovery that we had,we realized, you know, mark
Byers had been interviewedseveral times by the police.
Other family members had beeninterviewed.
Todd Moore was out of town.
(07:40):
That was Michael Moore's dad,mark Byers was Chris Byers' dad
and there was just nothingreally from Terry Hobbs.
So, you know, we felt like weshould at least go talk to him
to see if he's willing to talkto us and tell us his
whereabouts that day.
So in February of 2007, that'swhat Ron and I did we went to
(08:03):
talk to Terry Hobbs about wherehe was and what he could tell us
about the case and his thoughtson it.
I mean, he was home and Ibelieve it was a Saturday
morning in February of 2007, andhe invited us inside into his
living room and he spoke to usfor as long as we really wanted
to talk to him, I think, aboutthe case and gave us a rundown
(08:27):
of where he was, and that wasthe first time that Terry had
been interviewed by anyone onthe case police or defense about
where he was on May the 3rd of1993.
I'm sorry, may the 5th of 1993.
Tony (08:42):
That seems extraordinary to me, that you were the first
people to talk to him.
Rachael (08:45):
Yeah, it was extraordinary to us as well how
that happened.
I mean, if you looked atā Copsdidn't talk to him.
Cops never talked to him at thetime.
They had made visits to thehome.
I believe within the reportssomething was noted and I don't
even remember which officer itwas, but that they had stopped
by and that he just wasn't home.
(09:05):
They talked to Pam.
There was really nothing inthere about an official
interview with him.
Tony (09:12):
Paradise Lost documentarians.
They didn't talk to him either.
Rachael (09:16):
Well, they probably talked to him.
That's actually a really goodquestion.
He's all over the documentaries.
He was with Pam the whole timeduring the trials, If you've
seen Paradise Lost, which is anamazing documentary really the
catalyst.
Tony (09:28):
But they weren't interviewing him in that way.
Rachael (09:30):
No, paradise Lost was the catalyst, but they weren't
interviewing him in that way.
No right, but it was the.
You know paradise last was acatalyst for everything that's
happened since or that ever cameup, or if they were just
filming.
I really don't know if theywere just filming in a more.
I'm here filming you kind ofcapacity rather than a directed
question capacity.
I mean, we know a lot of thedocumentary documentaries that
have been done since are more oftell us you know, tell us
(09:51):
things and I think you know Joeand Bruce did that maybe to some
extent, but not necessarilyabout you know.
Where were you, what were youdoing?
Tony (10:01):
Right.
Rachael (10:01):
I don't know though.
Tony (10:02):
Yeah, they had other focus , didn't they?
Rachael (10:04):
Yeah, I actually just that's so interesting that you
brought that up, because justrecently I listened to an
interview that Joe did JoeBerlinger did with the man who
does the Wrongful Convictionpodcast a really good podcast.
Joe was talking about hisintroduction to why you know how
(10:26):
he and Bruce got sent down toArkansas and did this, and this
is so interesting that you'retalking about that.
But yeah, I mean he was.
I think he said he originallywent down there to film you know
this case, this salacious caseof these teen guys that were
accused of killing kids, and hisproducers said go down there
(10:48):
and film this, and then it justobviously turned into something
much Ron and I talking to Terry,okay, so also what's going on
on the case as well.
At the time of theinvestigation, is DNA reports
coming back right?
Mm-hmm.
So a lot of evidence had beensent off and DNA profiles had
(11:10):
been attained from some of theevidence to try to figure out
who did it, or did thedefendants do it Somebody else?
And of note that is hugelyimportant is that you know none
of the defendants' DNA wasanywhere in that crime scene or
any of the evidence that thepolice had.
So that had happened, but therewere some potentially other, you
(11:34):
know, unknown people or any ofthe evidence that the police had
, so that had happened, butthere were some potentially
other, you know, unknown people,so we're trying to figure that
out.
Who is this right?
So while we're at Terry's house, I take you know he gets up and
he uses the restroom and whilehe was away I grabbed a couple
of cigarette butts out of hisashtray and then Ron and I had
also grabbed some cigarettebutts out of his front yard
(11:57):
finished the interview, sentthose where they needed to be
sent and then moved on.
You know we continued on ourinvestigations, looking at all
kinds of things and whateverelse was in my task list or
things to do or whatever elsethe attorneys or Fran or you
know wherever we were goingRight and, to be honest with you
, I moved on from that interview, just working on the case.
(12:21):
May of 2007 rolls around.
The defense attorneys are inLittle Rock for a meeting with
Peretti, who's the medicalexaminer on the case and did the
original the autopsies.
Also, at the time, as everyoneknows, we had the defense had
retained the experts of severalpathologists and all of them
came back disagreeing with theoriginal autopsy and the medical
(12:44):
examiner, peretti about thecause of the injuries to the
boys.
Right.
Tony (12:49):
Yeah, let's talk about those, the nature of those
injuries.
For a little bit, give people apicture.
Rachael (12:54):
I'll do the best I can, yes.
Tony (12:55):
Their bodies were found in a lake, number one.
Is that correct or no?
Rachael (12:59):
No, not a lake, it's like a drainage ditch in Robin
Hood Hills.
Okay.
Tony (13:02):
And their bodies were defaced a little bit apparently.
Rachael (13:07):
Yes, there were all kinds of markings on the bodies
that the state of Arkansasalleged happened with some sort
of cutting instrument okay, soPeretti and these are my words,
saying that the boys were maybetortured or mutilated with like
a knife or something right thiswhen all of this played into the
(13:27):
state's theory that it was asatanic ritualistic killing
right?
Tony (13:32):
okay, and that was not true 100, not true.
Rachael (13:35):
And that is so when your science gets it wrong,
right when your science and thisis actually something I've
noticed on my many cases overthe years, not just this case-
but, when on my murder cases, inparticular when, obviously
because the medical examinercomes in on my murder cases,
they come in, they determinecause of death, right, they are
(13:59):
supposed to tell you, looking atthe science of things, how this
person was injured.
If they get that wrong, itchanges the whole landscape of
the case.
So he said that the injurieswere inflicted.
Tony (14:13):
Dr, Peretti.
Rachael (14:14):
Dr Peretti, yes, said that the injuries were inflicted
with a knife.
It looked like there were somecutting, possibly some
mutilation.
Tony (14:21):
Yeah, he was wrong.
And what did your experts say?
Rachael (14:26):
It was all animal predation.
Tony (14:28):
Animal predation.
What does that mean?
Rachael (14:30):
So when they were placed in the water or laying on
the bank of the ditch, whereverthey were, that animals had
caused those wounds.
Tony (14:40):
After death, most likely post-mortem in this case it was,
we think, maybe turtles yes, soum robin hood hills.
Rachael (14:48):
within it, one, one of the hills in particular was
called Turtle Hill and that hadbecome because there had been
sightings of snapping turtles Imean, this is Arkansas in May
and also, you know, who knowswhat was in the water if they
were on the water.
Tony (15:02):
There's all kinds of activity in water, so yes,
Snapping turtles are a lotdifferent than a knife.
Rachael (15:10):
Yes, animals are much different than knives.
Yes, so that turtles are a lotdifferent than a knife.
Yes, animals are much differentthan knives.
Yes, so that's going on right.
So not only is the whole likethe DNA coming back, not
pointing to the defendants, Ithink once youāI remember when
Ron came down and told me thatthe experts were all agreeing
that it was animal predationLike that really changed the
(15:30):
whole thinking onā everything soand they were all in agreement
about it.
This was not just one.
You know disagreeing like fourothers, right?
Tony (15:38):
Did they consult each other?
Rachael (15:40):
I don't know.
Tony (15:41):
Right.
They independently reached thesame conclusion.
Rachael (15:43):
Right, as far as I know like I was not involved in
those conversations with thepathologists that we had
retained Um, but I knew thatPeter Jackson has talked about
this in West of Memphis thatthey, they, you know, he, they
felt like getting one expert wasfine, but how about we get five
, you know, and see what theyall say?
Right, and they were all inagreement and that really just
(16:06):
changed so many things about howyou considered what could have
happened on this case.
And, like I said, I've seenthat so many times on some of my
other cases.
In my opinion, there are timesthat medical examiners do not
consider, mostly this.
They don't look at the scienceenough, rather than there are I
don't know if you know this ornot on cases police officers
(16:28):
will give the medical examinerlike a summary of what a witness
might have said, or especiallyon cases that involve children,
they will defer many times andwhen I say they generally I've
seen this happen.
So I can't say this is allmedical examiners, but there are
some that I have seen in mycases that defer to police
(16:53):
officers to hear what they haveto say about what happened
before they even determine whatthey think happened.
I just think that's crazy.
Yeah, I don't think they shouldbe doing that at all.
Tony (17:03):
Should be double blind somehow.
Rachael (17:05):
Yes, I agree.
I mean, maybe that happened onthis case.
I don't know if Peretti's everbeen asked.
Tony (17:10):
I would give them not the out, maybe, but I would give
them the leeway to, after theydraw some initial conclusion, to
modify that conclusion afterthey hear the summary.
Does that make sense?
Rachael (17:20):
No, yeah, I think you're right.
I mean, they can't just beblind to everything, and they, I
mean that might be asking toomuch.
I don't know, I would like itto be completely though.
Tony (17:30):
And there are limits, like even the best medical examiner
can't tell you everything, no,right.
But and but a very, very goodmedical examiner can't tell you
everything no Right.
Rachael (17:36):
But a very, very good medical examiner will admit that
, and that's maybe how you knowthe really good ones.
Tony (17:43):
Yeah, you say I don't know , and a lot of the science that
they rely on, especially in thiscase, turned out to be bunk
science, right?
Rachael (17:50):
Let me pause for a second and think back to the
trials.
Like I said, I wasn't there forthe trials, I trials.
I've only, you know, read andseen what was in the
documentaries well, for example,what I'm thinking about.
Tony (18:01):
Some guy shows up and looks at graffiti at a you know
and decides that there issignificant satanic activity in
the area yeah, because he's anexpert.
Rachael (18:12):
Oh, you mean just on experts and you're I'm using air
quotes right with that.
Tony (18:17):
And I'm thinking of other cases too, where it's turned out
that you know like a lot of theballistic science is bullshit,
like you cannot tell in manycases what gun a bullet came out
of.
Rachael (18:29):
Okay, you know what I mean.
All right, I'm going to deferto you on that.
Tony (18:32):
Yeah, I'll provide some documentation later.
Rachael (18:34):
Oh okay, all right.
Or on that, yeah, I'll providesome documentation later.
Oh, okay, alright.
Or you can talk about it laterif you want what you run across.
I find that interesting Now.
I have been to seminars beforewhere they talk about junk
science, potentially withrespect to ballistics.
Tony (18:46):
Handwriting analysis, stuff like that yeah we used to.
Rachael (18:48):
That's interesting.
I mean handwriting.
That used to come up quite abit and you never hear that
anymore.
Tony (18:54):
We're a little bit off topic, but I think this is
interesting.
What do you think aboutpolygraph exams?
Rachael (18:58):
Bonk.
Tony (19:00):
Really yeah, our federal government still relies on that
for security clearances andstuff.
Rachael (19:06):
Oh, that's true.
Yeah, so no, I mean, look atwhat polygraph.
I mean every person on thiscase, in this case, damien's
case they were polygraphed atthe time.
Tony (19:17):
Is that right?
Rachael (19:18):
Oh, yeah, no, oh, maybe if you didn't know that, Well,
I've forgotten.
Yeah, so yeah, the police, theywould talk to someone and then
they polygraph them and thenthey would determine whether or
not they were being truthful ornot.
Do I?
I mean honestly, and I've doneno real research into polygraphs
but or they're reliable.
I mean they're so unreliableyou can't use them in court,
right?
You can't use, you can'tintroduce that they failed.
(19:39):
A polygraph I I think I'm justgiving a very layperson
viewpoint on this any tool youuse, I think, is going to be
good or bad based on who isusing the tool, right?
So whoever the examiner is, howgood are they?
Mm-hmm.
Do they know what they're doing?
What's the tell me about yourequipment?
(20:01):
You know?
So I think it might besubjective.
Tony (20:05):
Yeah, even you know stuff like narcotics canines.
Yes.
If they think that theirhandler wants them to hit on a
car.
Rachael (20:16):
Okay, they hit All right.
Tony (20:18):
So that they get rewarded with love and affection and
treats and stuff like that.
Rachael (20:22):
Yes, I think there's.
Tony (20:23):
And now, the police officer can use that hit to
search a vehicle or make anarrest or something like that.
Rachael (20:29):
All things that should always be considered when you
decide to charge someone Likelook at how everything played
out.
Tony (20:36):
I read an article recently about a roadside drug test,
right.
So if you find a suspicioussubstance, you start mixing
things up on the side of thehighway and if it turns blue you
know you've got heroin orwhatever it is.
Rachael (20:48):
Okay.
Tony (20:50):
And they got a lot of convictions out of that.
But it turns out it would turnblue like 80% of the time.
Rachael (20:56):
Oh really.
Tony (20:56):
No, you know, with like baking powder you put in there
and it'll test positive forheroin.
Rachael (21:01):
Interesting.
Tony (21:02):
So a lot of cases got thrown out.
For that I'll have to find yousome details, but I thought that
was really cool.
Rachael (21:06):
How many people went to jail for that?
A lot.
Now are they still in jail.
Tony (21:10):
I think a lot of them.
I don't know honestly, I don't,I have to go look it up, but I
think a lot of these folks gotout well, I hope so yeah, me too
so back to the original.
Rachael (21:18):
We were talking about peretti and you know, getting
the science wrong from thebeginning and how that could
just change everything and that,and how innocent people can go
to prison, right, which is oneof the reasons that this case
happened the way it played out,in my opinion.
Get the science wrong, you geteverything wrong, which is so
(21:39):
interesting because obviouslynow we're, we're hoping to rely
on science we'll get to thatlater to find out who really did
it, right, right.
Tony (21:47):
So do you want to talk about that now?
Rachael (21:50):
or no.
No, we can do that in a laterepisode.
Okay, just getting off thetimeline a little bit, I think
so, um, but with terry, withdoing the interview with Terry,
so we have the DNA withcigarette butts.
We do know that there was ahair in the literature of
Michael Moore that they wereable to get mitochondrial DNA
off of May of 2007,.
(22:11):
They're at this meeting.
I'm not there, I don't, youknow.
Tony (22:14):
What kind of meeting?
Rachael (22:15):
Oh the attorney.
So I don't know if all of theattorneys were there.
I don't you know what kind ofmeeting.
Oh the attorney.
So I don't know if all of theattorneys were there.
I know Lori was there, denniswas there, dawn was there,
gerald Skane was there, who's alocal attorney that we were
using at the time.
He's a good friend of mine.
That night I get a call fromLori and I'm at home with you
guys.
I take the call out on thefront porch and she tells me
(22:40):
that the DNA report had comeback and that so whatever DNA
they pulled off of the you knowthe expert pulled off of one of
the cigarette butts, or one ormore of the cigarette butts, I
can't remember was consistentwith the profile of the from the
hair from the literature.
So Terry Hobbs, the cigarettebutts that we took from Terry
(23:03):
Hobbs, that DNA was consistentwith one of the hairs from the
literature of Michael Moore.
Tony (23:09):
So the hair that we're talking about was tied up with
the victim.
Rachael (23:14):
It was in the literature and honestly, I
honestly can't give you a moredescriptive.
I don't know because I didn't.
Tony (23:20):
Well, I'm just saying it was there it was at the time of
death and and I wish I could.
Rachael (23:26):
You know, I didn't do the analysis.
I don't know how, how it was ifthe literature was cut and then
they found this here.
I really don't know.
But I know it was a hair fromthe literature, that's what I
know, gotcha.
So really the focus of theinvestigation.
So obviously that's interesting, right.
I mean, we've turned a lot ofour attention investigative-wise
and for the investigation, Ishould say, looking at, you know
(23:47):
, what do we know about TerryHopps?
The police ended up bringingTerry in for an interview, you
know, finally, I believe thatwas June of 2007.
Interview, you know, finally, Ibelieve that was june of 2007.
The clients were eventuallyreleased, you know, after dennis
, brilliantly argued before thesupreme court.
And well they.
They were granted anevidentiary hearing because of
(24:07):
that and they're out now.
But we still don't know who didit right when dennis was going
to argue before the ArkansasSupreme Court about all this new
stuff.
You know the juror, misconductclaims, no DNA matching.
You know our clients and askingyou know for a new evidentiary
(24:28):
hearing.
I wanted to be there, Really,really wanted to see that
firsthand Planned on being there, except Jesse Dotson's case.
The proof was starting onJesse's case that day.
I remember I'll never forget itthat the morning that proof
started on Jesse was the sameday that Dennis was arguing.
You know, all this new stuffbefore the Arkansas Supreme
(24:50):
Court on the front page of theCommercial Appeal, which was the
main paper in our town at thattime.
This would have been August,I'm sorry, september of 2010.
Above the fold that's what youused to call, like important
things on the front page ofnewspapers, right, and I don't
even think our kids would knowwhat that means.
But uh, above the fold waseither damien's case or jesse's,
(25:13):
and below the fold was eitherDamien.
So one of them was above thefold, the other one was below
the fold and I just found thatso striking to me personally.
Yeah, you took up the entirefirst page of the paper of
record, the two biggest cases ofmy career that ever probably
that I'll ever be involved in insome way.
Tony (25:35):
Did you keep that newspaper?
Rachael (25:36):
No, I wish someone had it still.
Yeah, but I mean I had so muchgoing on that day.
It was the first day of proofon Jesse.
Tony (25:42):
Which I thought While.
Rachael (25:43):
I was also thinking of what was happening, you know, in
Little Rock.
I just thought that was socrazy, you know.
Then you know it was thebeginning of you know the end,
really, for Damien, because hewas granted the evidentiary
hearing and then released.
Tony (26:02):
Things started to happen pretty quick around then.
Rachael (26:04):
And then for Jesse, you know going to trial, you know
hopeful that things would turnout differently.
Yeah, so that was crazy to me,where we go from here.
I think, with respect to theWest Memphis Three case, I think
we should next most likely talkabout the day of release.
You were there for that, so youcan speak to that as well that
(26:25):
night.
I think that's a good story.
What do you think?
Tony (26:29):
Yeah, I like that.
It's a good idea.
Rachael (26:32):
Thanks for letting me relive that part of you know my
journey on the West MemphisThree case and I do want to say
too that you know I've doneinterviews about lots of things
with respect to Damien's case,the West of Memphis documentary.
Honestly, I was asked to do aninterview to be on the
(26:55):
investigation discovery special.
They did you turned it down.
I turned it down, yeah, and Iremember the lady said to me I
think I she asked me why, and Isaid well, you know this case
has been talked about, you know,many times.
There's other people talkingabout it.
I don't really think it'snecessary that I continue to
(27:15):
talk about it.
She said well, you know, rachel, if you stop talking about it
especially the role that youplayed in it and like how things
played out with the newinvestigation and those sort of
things people will forget, andif people forget about it, then
it could happen again.
Right, that has stuck with metoo.
She was right about that.
(27:35):
But you know I didn't do theinterview.
I didn't so and like I saidwhen we started this podcast,
you know I think I'm ready tostart talking about these sort
of things again and thesestories.
Tony (27:47):
So here, we are and you're doing it.
Rachael (27:50):
Yeah, okay.
Tony (27:51):
Well, I love you.
Rachael (27:53):
Love you too, Thanks for.
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.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
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