August 17, 2020 • 36 mins
Josh Dubin sits down with Barry Scheck, Co-Founder of the Innocence Project to discuss Arson Evidence.
Built on a foundation of conjecture and best guesses that were never adequately tested and confirmed according to any valid scientific principles, what Arson Evidence experts and prosecutors have been telling juries for decades, that one can definitively determine that a fire was intentionally set, is completely wrong.
But why, after generations of experts have all been proven wrong, is there still an unwillingness to change?
Learn more and get involved.
2009 Article in The New Yorker by David Grann
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/09/07/trial-by-fire
https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/junk-science
Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It's December twenty third. Last night, you decorated a Christmas
tree with your family. You put your two year old
on your shoulder so she could hang her favorite ornament
way up high on the tree. Your twin babies gazed
up at you from the living room floor, taking the
scene in with giggles and excited kicks of their little legs.
(00:21):
Later on, your wife put the kids to bed, and
then you both stayed up late, finishing the tree and
cleaning up. In the morning, your wife leaves the house
early for some last minute chopping for the girls. The
babies hear the door slam and start to cry, as
they typically do. You take them out of their cribs,
give them eat a bottle, and put them on the
(00:41):
soft play mat on the floor so they can keep
each other company. You head back to your room and
as you lay down, you hear them cooing from across
the hall. You drift off to sleep. You are to
sleep long. You wake up to your two year old
daughter screaming, Daddy, Daddy. You're groggy, startled, but the terror
(01:05):
in her voice snaps you awake like a blaring alarm,
and then it hits you. The room is a dense
cloud of gray and black. You can barely see. You
smell charcoal, ash, smoke. Oh no, your girls. Get the
girls out of the house. It's loud. It sounds like
(01:29):
an angry windstorm. The entire house is crackling, popping. You
make your way to the baby's room and feel around
on the floor, groping in the darkness. You think you
grab one of the twins, but it's just a baby doll.
Your hair is on fire. You stand up and pat
it out and frantically get on the ground again. Then
(01:53):
there's a loud crash. Something is falling from somewhere in
the house. It must be the caving in a part
of the room for a wall, but you can't see anything.
It's so hot you can't breathe. You need to catch
your breath before you pass out. You finally make your
way outside to get help. You'll come back for them.
(02:14):
You see your neighbor on her front lawn and scream
for her to call the fire department. She sees a
hysterical man covered in soot, and she yells back, they're
on the way. You try to get back inside, breaking
the window of the baby's room with the stick you
find in the yard, flames explode from the opening. Oh God,
(02:35):
you can't get in. You're crying out for your children. Someone, anyone,
please help. The fire department finally arrives and they have
to hold you back. They find your two year old
in the bedroom on the floor. You didn't realize she
had been right there, right there. Your babies are on
(02:57):
the floor of their room where you had left them
with their bottle. You had been so close to finding them.
They try to do CPR, but it's too late. You're
escorted away from the house, and once the fires a
under control, investigators in protective gear head inside. There's no
(03:18):
sense of urgency anymore. They walk through the remains and
disappear into the black and living room where you had
spent your last night together as a family. You are
dumbfounded when they arrest you for arson murder. This was
your family. You would never lay a finger on your children.
(03:45):
At your trial, the prosecutors call expert witnesses who tell
the jury that the proven science of fire tells the
story of how you committed this crime. You pour lighter fluid,
which they referred to as an accelerant, under your baby's
beds in the hallway by the front door. The burn
marks seared into the floor indicate where that light or
(04:07):
fluid was puddled on the carpet. They say, there's no
way you tried to save your girls. If you had,
your feet would have been burned. Dripstains proved that you
poured accelerant up and down the hallway. The melted metal
door frame, the shattered glass, It all proves the fire
was so unnaturally hot that it produced temperatures that could
(04:30):
only have been created by chemicals that you intentionally poured
all over your home and your motive. Prosecutors argued this,
you love heavy metal music, and that indicates that you
have a dark side. You have posters on the walls
of your home, one of which depicts a grim reaper
(04:51):
that proves you're obsessed with death. You have a tattoo
of a skull and snake on your arm that indicates
that you're a violent person. You have psychiatric problems, perhaps
a demonic disposition. You couldn't afford to hire a lawyer,
so the court appointed you an attorney. He too, suspects
(05:12):
that you killed your children. He tells you to plead guilty.
If you do, they'll give you life in prison instead
of the death sentence. You can't do this. This was
an accident. There was no crime here. You're not going
to confess to killing your three beautiful children. You didn't
do anything wrong here. You were convicted and sentenced to
(05:37):
death on death row. The events of that day haunt you.
You look at the photos of your children, your wife
to remember the man you were, the life you once had.
Time seems to stand still on death row, and the
whole experience is nothing short of paralyzing. The date of
(06:00):
your execution eventually closes in. You write a letter to
your parents, telling them to never stop fighting to clear
your name, even if it's after they put you to death.
The last wars of your fellow inmates, the ones who
were executed before you, one by one, were often apologies.
(06:21):
Sometimes they were confessions. But before you're strapped into the
gurney and given a lethal injection, you say, I am
an innocent person convicted of a crime I did not commit.
I have been persecuted for twelve years for something I
did not do. From God's dust I came, and to
(06:44):
dust I will return, so the earth shall become my throne.
Your parents scatter your ashes over the graves of your children.
(07:06):
The story you just heard is based on the wrongful
conviction of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was wrongfully convicted and
executed in two thousand and four. I'm Josh Dubin, civil
rights and criminal defense attorney and Innocent Ambassador to the
Innocence Project in New York. Today on wrongful conviction junk science,
(07:29):
we examine arson evidence. In nineteen seventy three, the Nixon
administration published a report entitled America Burning. It was all
about damage the fires caused in America, both in terms
(07:53):
of physical destruction and the billions of dollars spent to
repair and rebuild. But unfortunately, much of what was considered
fire signs in America Burning was merely a set of
core assumptions that were never subjected to the rigors of
the scientific method, that is, develop a hypothesis, test it,
(08:13):
confirm it, reconfirm it, and repeat until you know you
have something sound and verifiable. As a result of this study,
fire investigators were given a handbook, a guide to reading
fire damage like a psychic reads tea leaves. An investigator,
having learned from this handbook, starts his investigation at the
(08:35):
exterior of a burnt down house. He sees a V
shaped burn on what's left of the walls of the
living room. He notes this is the room where the
fire started. He walks through the home, keeping an eye
out for the telltale signs of arson. First, crazed glass
windows shattered into irregular pieces with light smoke deposits that
(08:58):
indicate a rapid buildup of heat that can only be
caused by an accelerant. Second, alligatoring large shiny blisters on
burnt wood. Fast hot fires produced by accelerants create this pattern. Third,
puddle formations and burns that look like drip trails. These
(09:18):
are caused by the spreading of accelerant like gasoline or
paint thinner throughout a house before it is intentionally set
on fire. The investigator checks all of these signs off
the list. He knows this must be arson. It turns
(09:39):
out the investigator only had a fifty percent chance of
being right at best, because fire science was built on
a foundation of conjecture and best guesses that were never
adequately tested and confirmed according to valid scientific principles. What
experts and prosecutors had been telling juries for decades about
(10:00):
how you can definitively determine that a fire was intentionally
set was completely wrong. In fact, signs that indicated to
investigators that they were dealing with arson, crazed glass, alligator patterns,
burn marks indicating drips or puddles of accelerant were actually
the same things left in the wake of an accidental fire.
(10:25):
So the evidence that was used to convict Cameron Todd
Willingham and so many others was deeply, deeply flawed.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
It turns out that there was no evidence whatsoever that
this had been a fire that was set by Todd
Willingham running up and down his home, you know, just
before Christmas, spreading accelerant in all the different rooms and
down the hallway and killing his three children. It was
(11:00):
clear that this was junk science. And unfortunately, by this
point in my career I was familiar enough with the
phenomenon of junk science not to be surprised.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Joining us today to tell us about arson evidence and
how it relates to cases like Cameron Todd Willingham's is
Barry Sheck, co founder of the Innocence Project and famed
civil rights and criminal defense attorney. So Barry, first, thanks
for being here and for our listeners. Barry is one
of my personal heroes, and I'm just ecstatic that we're
(11:33):
able to get you to enlighten us about arson evidence. Now,
you worked to get Cameron Todd Willingham's case overturned after
he was executed, And this might seem like somewhat of
a pointless fight to some people, since mister Willingham was
already put to death in two thousand and four. But
(11:55):
you are fighting for mister Willingham's final wish for his
name to be cleared and him to be declared an
innocent man by a court. I think that it's well
accepted that he's an innocent man at this point. But
you're also fighting so that the kind of evidence that
was used against mister Willingham doesn't get used to convict
(12:16):
another innocent person. And so, to start off, Barry, if
some of the clues used an arson investigation or indeed
junk science, how did Cameron Todd Willingham get convicted in
the first place?
Speaker 2 (12:31):
What the fire scientists, the arson investigators in Willingham, what
they did in that case. They would go to the
scene of a fire and they would look at all
these visual cues and if they saw what was called alligatoring,
which was like the scales of an alligator on wood.
If they saw what was known as craze glass that's
(12:53):
like a spider type cracking of the glass. If they
saw spawling of concrete that's like little chips coming off
the concrete at the scene of the fire. If they
saw scouring on the floor, poor patterns, they immediately assumed
that all of these visual cues meant that somebody had
(13:16):
spread accelerant around the house and lit it and that
was the cause of the fire. And they literally said
to the jury, we look at the fire, the fire
talks to us. The fire doesn't lie. That's very powerful
to a jury. So what happened, Josh, is that when
(13:36):
we at the Innocence Project saw what happened in the
Willingham case, we had just been involved in setting up
what's known as the Texas Forensic Science Commission. They reviewed
all the crime scene evidence in the Willingham case and
they said what was clear, and that is this is
junk science. This had been discredited by Fire Protection nine
(14:01):
twenty one, ten years ago. The science was completely flawed, unreliable, ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
So even after all of that, the state of Texas
still refused to free Cameron Todd Willingham. And to show
just how flawed this evidence was, there was a man
named Ernest Willis who was convicted of a similar crime
with similar evidence than was used in the Willingham case.
But while Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death in
(14:31):
two thousand and four, Willis was declared innocent that very
same year. So how is that possible, Barry, that one
man Willingham is executed based on this junk science, while
another man, Willis, whose case was very similar, gets to
go free.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Ernest Willis went to trial, he had a completely incompetent
lawyer who was disbarred for all kinds of reasons. Willis
was so upset by the fire that you know he
killed family members, that he was literally on psychotropic medication
in the witness chair, right. He was lucky because his
(15:09):
lawyer was so incompetent, and on his death penalty appeal
he got a patent lawyer from Letha Ben Watkins in
New York who dove into the case and was able
to get the federal courts to vacate that conviction. And
when the conviction was remanded on exactly the same evidence.
(15:30):
Just like the Willingham case, Willis was not only exonerated.
There was a prosecutor in Pakos County, Texas took one
look at this and said, oh my god, this was
an accidental fire. This was not an arson murderer, and
he not only dismissed the case against Ernest Willis, Ernest
Willis was compensated as actually innocent by the state of Texas,
(15:55):
while within the same time period Cameron Todd Willingham was executed.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
It's just really hard to hear this stuff right because
right away this indicates some sort of double standard, or
at least some confusion within the justice system about what
arson evidence really means and how much it can be trusted.
And to be clear, by two thousand and four, there
shouldn't have been any confusion about this type of evidence,
(16:21):
because in the early nineties there were two incidents that
I'm going to ask you about that really proved that
the kind of arson evidence used in the Cameron Todd
Willingham case was bogus. The first was the Lime Street
case in nineteen ninety, which was the case of Gerald
Wayne Lewis. Mister Lewis was accused of killing his pregnant wife,
(16:43):
his sister, and his sister's four children by arson. Now
Gerald always maintained his innocence, but it was actually a
prosecution expert named John Lentini who was the moving force
improving Gerald's innocence.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
John Lentini was arson investigator, and he went along with
a colleague of his, John Dehan, to investigate an allegation
of arson at a home on Lime Street in Jacksonville, Florida.
And they examined the crime scene and they were all ready,
by their own admission, to make a recommendation that it
(17:21):
was an intentional arson. But they realized that right next
to the house that burned down was another house that
was abandoned, but it was the same construction. So they
rebuilt the house right next door to be identical to
the Lime Street house that burned down, and then they
(17:44):
basically put a cigarette on a couch. They began the
fire in a way that would be completely accidental. The
whole place burned down, and they saw all the clues,
all the visual clues from the craze glass alligator burning
under furniture, a completely compartmentalized fire. They saw all these
(18:06):
cues and they knew that it was an accidental fire,
not a deliberate one, and so that began to change everything.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
So again, this is very ironic and rare because Lentini's
a fire investigator that's working for the prosecution and he's
actually trying to prove that this Lime Street case was
in fact arson and that Gerald Wayne Lewis had actually
done it. But he realizes that there was some serious
(18:36):
issues with his assumptions because this accidental fire actually resembled
an arson, and it resembled it in very critical ways.
And what was most shocking to me about this was
that Lentini saw puddlestains and trail marks that looked identical
to what he had been taught and so many other
(18:58):
investigators had been taught, or the telltale signs of someone
dripping gasoline or another accelerant throughout a house. But that
definitely was not the case here. And they knew that
because they set the fire themselves with a cigarette exactly, and.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
They'd say, well, that really can't happen unless it's an
intentionally set fire. But it turns out with this phenomenon
of flashover, which is you get this hot, combustible object
in a small space, ordinarily a room, right, and then
it begins to cause this huge burst of heat and
fire in that room, and the whole place becomes engulfed.
(19:39):
So that's what creates the intense heat that arson investigators
had hypothesized must come from the deliberate use of accelerants.
It turns out that it could all happen in a
completely accidental fire.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
So Lintini the investigator realizes that accidental fires can look
just like arson, and he does something that is actually
quite remarkable. But it shouldn't be, because whether you're working
for the prosecution or the defense, when the science tells
you something, you should not have a bias in its application. Right.
(20:32):
He doesn't say, Oh, this is just some weird coincidence.
I'm going to keep working for prosecutors to convict people
in arson cases based on this evidence that I now
know is clearly faulty. It's wrong. Instead, he's pretty shocked,
appalled by what he sees, and he feels like he's
been misled by this evidence for years. Right, And he
(20:56):
gets an opportunity to examine a bunch more more accidental
fires and make sure that his findings in the Lime
Street case were consistent with other accidental fires.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
I don't know if people remember, but these homes on
the in the hills in Oakland, California, began to burn down,
you know, in what was plainly a series of accidental fires.
And after all these homes were burned down, the fire
scientists went at and examined each and every one of
them and they realized, once again, here were plainly accidental fires.
(21:29):
But all these visual cues that arson experts had been
relying on demonstrated that it was an accident. It was
not an intentionally set fire. So take just the craze glass.
That's a simple thing to understand. You know, you look
at the glass, it's sort of spider glass, and that
supposedly an indication of suddenly intense heat that comes from
(21:55):
you know, an accelerant induced fire. In fact, you've had
craze glass all over in Oakland in the Lime Street fire.
Because craze glass happens when people come to put out
the fire and they put cold water on it and
the glass cracks. That's how you get crazed glass.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
So these arson investigators have been testifying for years and
years that the reason you see crazed glass, and it's
no pun intend that it's actually a crazy notion that
they're testifying to one thing and it turns out to
be the exact opposite. All right, So crazed glass was
caused by the cooling of the glass when they're putting
the fire out. What were some other things they were
(22:39):
wrong about?
Speaker 2 (22:40):
They would say, oh, we're looking at mattress springs in
a bed or something and they're melted. That can only
happen if it's an intentionally set fire. But when they
went to the hills of Oakland and looked at these homes,
they saw the same thing, and the same thing at
the Lime Street fire.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
I mean, you would think that would be the end
of people trying to use this kind of junk science,
this kind of false evidence, but that isn't the case.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
What is really upsetting is that you see over the
next few decades, nonetheless, lots of people who were convicted
because they never did scientific validation in the first place.
You actually have to conduct experiments, you have to have hypotheses,
(23:28):
and you have to prove that they're true, instead of
just having you know, really you know, sort of law
enforcement people in lab codes, so to speak, or people
that have expertise by way of quote unquote experience going
to crime scenes and looking at fire scenes and really
(23:49):
coming up with their own hypotheses that were never demonstrated
to be true by science. That's what's so shocking about
this whole area. In other words, if you believe all
these different visual cues demonstrate that an accelerant has been used,
you should do experiments to prove the point.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
Now, Barry, this isn't the case where these investigators were
out to harm people. This is just how they were trained.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
I have some sympathy for a whole group of people
who had, many of them just high school graduates who
were trained in arson investigation to believe all these different
visual cues were a sign of the use of an
(24:37):
accelerant and intentionally set fire that was never empirically demonstrated,
and yet they were doing it, and that's how they
made a living. That's true, and they thought that they
had expertise. It's imagine how horrendous it is to believe,
as a prosecutor or as a so called know arson investigator,
(25:02):
that you were wrong and you destroyed people's lives. People
don't get up in the morning and say let's do that, right,
But it happens and it's very hard to admit to it.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
All right, So why do you think it is that?
You know, generations of experts have all been proven to
be wrong. The assumptions they rely on turn out to
be incorrect, but there's this unwillingness to change.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Once you have invested yourself in this belief and all
these very weighty consequences follow, it's very hard to admit
that you were wrong, even when there's scientific proof that
you're wrong. John Linini and John de Haan and all
these various experts, you know, they started off as regular
(25:53):
ARSON investigators that we're taught to believe these things, but
engaging in real sessellience and doing these experiments, they realized
it was all wrong, and they had an enormous amount
of trouble persuading the forensic science community to stop, and
they're still fighting about it even to this day. I mean,
(26:17):
I think that the Willingham case and all these other
exonerations have exposed the community to it, and you literally
can see fewer ARSON convictions since that happened. But Josh,
you're absolutely right, it's mystifying. It's so upsetting that it
is taking so long to change it.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
And meanwhile these convictions based on this false arson science
or there's fire evidence, just keep on coming.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Hantak Lee, whose daughter, who suffered from mental illness, was
found literally burnt to death, incinerated, you know, in a
small community in Pennsylvania. He gets convicted of killing his
daughter intentionally in a fire which did not happen.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Right. The case of Hantok Lee is just it's really
really troubling. I mean, here's a guy that spent fifteen
years in prison for a murder he did not commit.
And there's a quote that always stuck with me from
an opinion written by a judge during Hantok Lee's appeal,
and it was this quote. Much of what was presented
(27:27):
to Lee's jury as science is now conceded to be
little more than superstition end quote. I mean, that's so remarkable,
isn't it. And you know, again, the fact that this
is still used in the face of quotes like that,
it's just it's hard to understand. You know. He was
granted a new trial and finally exonerated, thankfully, in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
Another was a Sonya Casey, who is convicted of burning
Dana house and killing I guess it was her uncle
Bill Richardson, and and of course it turned out that
Bill Richardson was actually a heavy smoker and had probably
fallen asleep with a burning cigarette. But plainly she did
not start this fire. All the same kind of junk
(28:12):
science was used in that case. And that's the great tragedy.
When you look at the arson cases, so many people
like Ernest Willis or Cameron Todd Willingham or a Hantock League,
you know, they're all convicted of killing with intentionally set fires.
They're loved ones. That to me is, you know, the horrible,
(28:36):
horrible irony of these junk science cases.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Now, for our listeners, I know, Barry, you know twenty
years and I've seen you get emotional before and passionate
about a lot of cases. But I want to go
back to the Cameron Todd Willingham case for a moment
because it seems to me that this is one that
really stuck with you. And it seems to me like
(29:03):
one of the two or three cases that has really
haunted you in all your innocence work.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
How can it not haunt you? It should haunt everyone
in this country. I mean, this is a case that
ought to change the way the people look at capital
punishment and forensic science. I think we look we've made
a lot of progress, but we still haven't corrected the
biggest injustice of all, and that is the wrongful execution
(29:33):
of Cameron Todd Willingham. You see the suffering up to
the very very end, and the execution of an innocent man.
How could it not haunt you? There's so much importance
attached with the state finally admitting that it was wrong
and that an innocent person is executed, and that will
(29:56):
happen in Texas. It will.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Something we keep returning back to in this podcast is
the two thousand and nine National Academy of Sciences Report,
which is a report published by rigorous scientists that is
very critical of forensic sciences like arson investigation. In fact,
the only one that it's not really critical of is DNA.
(30:34):
And you've done a lot to try to push the
lessons of this report to overturn convictions based on junk science.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
Truth is The two thousand and nine and National Academy
of Science Report recommended that there be an independent entity
in the federal government that would be dedicated to providing
a scientific basis and oversight to all these forensic science
(31:05):
disciplines and independent entity. The National Commission on Forensic Science
was put into place, which had independent experts from lots
of different scientific communities. When Trump was elected, he abolished
the National Commission on Forensic Science.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
Look, it's really inspiring to see that, despite all that's
gone wrong and all that hasn't worked, that you're still hopeful.
Because something else that's so shocking is that this issue
about what kind of evidence should be considered scientific facts,
something that can literally determine whether or not some much
live or die based on a crime they may not
(31:46):
have committed. It's all still being treated like a political issue,
and you have personal experience with these political barriers. Yet
you're still hopeful despite all of the harm that's been
done and continues to be done by political officials, by presidents,
by judges who, unlike Lentini, refuse to see the light,
(32:09):
so to speak.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
You know, it becomes this big echo chamber. Junk science
is admitted by one court, right, and all the experts
can then testify again and again and again, even though
it was never properly validated in the first place. And
we've had a lot of that, and judges really have
to be rigorous on dealing with it. And the problem
(32:30):
with judges is that we all went to law school
and not medical school. The judges really do have to
be better in terms of getting into the nuts and
bolts of the science. It's intimidating to them, just as
it's intimidating to a lot of lawyers.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
You might be listening to this wondering what you can
do to help. I want every listener to consider that
even those who are wrongly convicted and are lucky enough
to be released from prison, their lives are just never
the same. Let's take the example of Sonia Casey. She's
the woman Barry shk mentioned who was accused of murdering
(33:12):
her uncle by arson. We know that miss Casey was
innocent because, amongst other evidence, it was later found during
the autopsy of her uncle that he most likely died
from a heart attack. There was no soot in his lungs,
which would have been there if he had in fact
died in the fire. Instead, there was fluid in his lungs,
(33:34):
so the evidence supported the conclusion that he was dead
before the fire had even spread. Nevertheless, Casey was sentenced
to ninety nine years in prison. Sonya Casey was eventually exonerated,
but the stain of her wrongful conviction meant that on
every job application or when she would try to rent
an apartment, she would either have to check a box
(33:57):
saying that she had been convicted of a crime, or
it would be revealed on a background check that made
it nearly impossible for her to find work or a
place to live. So, if you own a business, or
you're a landlord, or you're just in a position to
either approve or reject someone for work or a place
(34:17):
to live, and someone checks the box that they have
previously been convicted of a crime, please talk to them,
learn about the circumstances of their arrest, the accusations against them,
who they are now as a human being. Perhaps you'll
find that they were the victim, yes, the victim of
a wrongful conviction. Or maybe it's just that they've done
(34:39):
something in their past and are no longer that person.
The great civil rights attorney Brian Stevenson said it best.
Each one of us is more than the worst thing
we've ever done. The true measure of our character is
how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the accused, the incarcerated,
and the condemned. I think we can all learn something
(35:02):
from that. Next week will analyze hair microscopy, the profoundly
flawed junk science that attempts to use human hair to
accuse and convict people of crimes they did not commit.
(35:25):
Wrongful Conviction Junk Science is a production of Lava for
Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One. Thanks
to our executive producer Jason Flam and the team at
Signal Company Number one executive producer Kevin Wardis and senior
producers Karen Kornhaber and Britz Spangler. Our music was composed
by Jay Ralph. You can follow me on Instagram at
(35:47):
dubin Josh, follow the Wrongful Conviction podcast on Facebook and
on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at wrong
Conviction
It's December twenty third. Last night, you decorated a Christmas
tree with your family. You put your two year old
on your shoulder so she could hang her favorite ornament
way up high on the tree. Your twin babies gazed
up at you from the living room floor, taking the
scene in with giggles and excited kicks of their little legs.
(00:21):
Later on, your wife put the kids to bed, and
then you both stayed up late, finishing the tree and
cleaning up. In the morning, your wife leaves the house
early for some last minute chopping for the girls. The
babies hear the door slam and start to cry, as
they typically do. You take them out of their cribs,
give them eat a bottle, and put them on the
(00:41):
soft play mat on the floor so they can keep
each other company. You head back to your room and
as you lay down, you hear them cooing from across
the hall. You drift off to sleep. You are to
sleep long. You wake up to your two year old
daughter screaming, Daddy, Daddy. You're groggy, startled, but the terror
(01:05):
in her voice snaps you awake like a blaring alarm,
and then it hits you. The room is a dense
cloud of gray and black. You can barely see. You
smell charcoal, ash, smoke. Oh no, your girls. Get the
girls out of the house. It's loud. It sounds like
(01:29):
an angry windstorm. The entire house is crackling, popping. You
make your way to the baby's room and feel around
on the floor, groping in the darkness. You think you
grab one of the twins, but it's just a baby doll.
Your hair is on fire. You stand up and pat
it out and frantically get on the ground again. Then
(01:53):
there's a loud crash. Something is falling from somewhere in
the house. It must be the caving in a part
of the room for a wall, but you can't see anything.
It's so hot you can't breathe. You need to catch
your breath before you pass out. You finally make your
way outside to get help. You'll come back for them.
(02:14):
You see your neighbor on her front lawn and scream
for her to call the fire department. She sees a
hysterical man covered in soot, and she yells back, they're
on the way. You try to get back inside, breaking
the window of the baby's room with the stick you
find in the yard, flames explode from the opening. Oh God,
(02:35):
you can't get in. You're crying out for your children. Someone, anyone,
please help. The fire department finally arrives and they have
to hold you back. They find your two year old
in the bedroom on the floor. You didn't realize she
had been right there, right there. Your babies are on
(02:57):
the floor of their room where you had left them
with their bottle. You had been so close to finding them.
They try to do CPR, but it's too late. You're
escorted away from the house, and once the fires a
under control, investigators in protective gear head inside. There's no
(03:18):
sense of urgency anymore. They walk through the remains and
disappear into the black and living room where you had
spent your last night together as a family. You are
dumbfounded when they arrest you for arson murder. This was
your family. You would never lay a finger on your children.
(03:45):
At your trial, the prosecutors call expert witnesses who tell
the jury that the proven science of fire tells the
story of how you committed this crime. You pour lighter fluid,
which they referred to as an accelerant, under your baby's
beds in the hallway by the front door. The burn
marks seared into the floor indicate where that light or
(04:07):
fluid was puddled on the carpet. They say, there's no
way you tried to save your girls. If you had,
your feet would have been burned. Dripstains proved that you
poured accelerant up and down the hallway. The melted metal
door frame, the shattered glass, It all proves the fire
was so unnaturally hot that it produced temperatures that could
(04:30):
only have been created by chemicals that you intentionally poured
all over your home and your motive. Prosecutors argued this,
you love heavy metal music, and that indicates that you
have a dark side. You have posters on the walls
of your home, one of which depicts a grim reaper
(04:51):
that proves you're obsessed with death. You have a tattoo
of a skull and snake on your arm that indicates
that you're a violent person. You have psychiatric problems, perhaps
a demonic disposition. You couldn't afford to hire a lawyer,
so the court appointed you an attorney. He too, suspects
(05:12):
that you killed your children. He tells you to plead guilty.
If you do, they'll give you life in prison instead
of the death sentence. You can't do this. This was
an accident. There was no crime here. You're not going
to confess to killing your three beautiful children. You didn't
do anything wrong here. You were convicted and sentenced to
(05:37):
death on death row. The events of that day haunt you.
You look at the photos of your children, your wife
to remember the man you were, the life you once had.
Time seems to stand still on death row, and the
whole experience is nothing short of paralyzing. The date of
(06:00):
your execution eventually closes in. You write a letter to
your parents, telling them to never stop fighting to clear
your name, even if it's after they put you to death.
The last wars of your fellow inmates, the ones who
were executed before you, one by one, were often apologies.
(06:21):
Sometimes they were confessions. But before you're strapped into the
gurney and given a lethal injection, you say, I am
an innocent person convicted of a crime I did not commit.
I have been persecuted for twelve years for something I
did not do. From God's dust I came, and to
(06:44):
dust I will return, so the earth shall become my throne.
Your parents scatter your ashes over the graves of your children.
(07:06):
The story you just heard is based on the wrongful
conviction of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was wrongfully convicted and
executed in two thousand and four. I'm Josh Dubin, civil
rights and criminal defense attorney and Innocent Ambassador to the
Innocence Project in New York. Today on wrongful conviction junk science,
(07:29):
we examine arson evidence. In nineteen seventy three, the Nixon
administration published a report entitled America Burning. It was all
about damage the fires caused in America, both in terms
(07:53):
of physical destruction and the billions of dollars spent to
repair and rebuild. But unfortunately, much of what was considered
fire signs in America Burning was merely a set of
core assumptions that were never subjected to the rigors of
the scientific method, that is, develop a hypothesis, test it,
(08:13):
confirm it, reconfirm it, and repeat until you know you
have something sound and verifiable. As a result of this study,
fire investigators were given a handbook, a guide to reading
fire damage like a psychic reads tea leaves. An investigator,
having learned from this handbook, starts his investigation at the
(08:35):
exterior of a burnt down house. He sees a V
shaped burn on what's left of the walls of the
living room. He notes this is the room where the
fire started. He walks through the home, keeping an eye
out for the telltale signs of arson. First, crazed glass
windows shattered into irregular pieces with light smoke deposits that
(08:58):
indicate a rapid buildup of heat that can only be
caused by an accelerant. Second, alligatoring large shiny blisters on
burnt wood. Fast hot fires produced by accelerants create this pattern. Third,
puddle formations and burns that look like drip trails. These
(09:18):
are caused by the spreading of accelerant like gasoline or
paint thinner throughout a house before it is intentionally set
on fire. The investigator checks all of these signs off
the list. He knows this must be arson. It turns
(09:39):
out the investigator only had a fifty percent chance of
being right at best, because fire science was built on
a foundation of conjecture and best guesses that were never
adequately tested and confirmed according to valid scientific principles. What
experts and prosecutors had been telling juries for decades about
(10:00):
how you can definitively determine that a fire was intentionally
set was completely wrong. In fact, signs that indicated to
investigators that they were dealing with arson, crazed glass, alligator patterns,
burn marks indicating drips or puddles of accelerant were actually
the same things left in the wake of an accidental fire.
(10:25):
So the evidence that was used to convict Cameron Todd
Willingham and so many others was deeply, deeply flawed.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
It turns out that there was no evidence whatsoever that
this had been a fire that was set by Todd
Willingham running up and down his home, you know, just
before Christmas, spreading accelerant in all the different rooms and
down the hallway and killing his three children. It was
(11:00):
clear that this was junk science. And unfortunately, by this
point in my career I was familiar enough with the
phenomenon of junk science not to be surprised.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
Joining us today to tell us about arson evidence and
how it relates to cases like Cameron Todd Willingham's is
Barry Sheck, co founder of the Innocence Project and famed
civil rights and criminal defense attorney. So Barry, first, thanks
for being here and for our listeners. Barry is one
of my personal heroes, and I'm just ecstatic that we're
(11:33):
able to get you to enlighten us about arson evidence. Now,
you worked to get Cameron Todd Willingham's case overturned after
he was executed, And this might seem like somewhat of
a pointless fight to some people, since mister Willingham was
already put to death in two thousand and four. But
(11:55):
you are fighting for mister Willingham's final wish for his
name to be cleared and him to be declared an
innocent man by a court. I think that it's well
accepted that he's an innocent man at this point. But
you're also fighting so that the kind of evidence that
was used against mister Willingham doesn't get used to convict
(12:16):
another innocent person. And so, to start off, Barry, if
some of the clues used an arson investigation or indeed
junk science, how did Cameron Todd Willingham get convicted in
the first place?
Speaker 2 (12:31):
What the fire scientists, the arson investigators in Willingham, what
they did in that case. They would go to the
scene of a fire and they would look at all
these visual cues and if they saw what was called alligatoring,
which was like the scales of an alligator on wood.
If they saw what was known as craze glass that's
(12:53):
like a spider type cracking of the glass. If they
saw spawling of concrete that's like little chips coming off
the concrete at the scene of the fire. If they
saw scouring on the floor, poor patterns, they immediately assumed
that all of these visual cues meant that somebody had
(13:16):
spread accelerant around the house and lit it and that
was the cause of the fire. And they literally said
to the jury, we look at the fire, the fire
talks to us. The fire doesn't lie. That's very powerful
to a jury. So what happened, Josh, is that when
(13:36):
we at the Innocence Project saw what happened in the
Willingham case, we had just been involved in setting up
what's known as the Texas Forensic Science Commission. They reviewed
all the crime scene evidence in the Willingham case and
they said what was clear, and that is this is
junk science. This had been discredited by Fire Protection nine
(14:01):
twenty one, ten years ago. The science was completely flawed, unreliable, ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
So even after all of that, the state of Texas
still refused to free Cameron Todd Willingham. And to show
just how flawed this evidence was, there was a man
named Ernest Willis who was convicted of a similar crime
with similar evidence than was used in the Willingham case.
But while Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death in
(14:31):
two thousand and four, Willis was declared innocent that very
same year. So how is that possible, Barry, that one
man Willingham is executed based on this junk science, while
another man, Willis, whose case was very similar, gets to
go free.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Ernest Willis went to trial, he had a completely incompetent
lawyer who was disbarred for all kinds of reasons. Willis
was so upset by the fire that you know he
killed family members, that he was literally on psychotropic medication
in the witness chair, right. He was lucky because his
(15:09):
lawyer was so incompetent, and on his death penalty appeal
he got a patent lawyer from Letha Ben Watkins in
New York who dove into the case and was able
to get the federal courts to vacate that conviction. And
when the conviction was remanded on exactly the same evidence.
(15:30):
Just like the Willingham case, Willis was not only exonerated.
There was a prosecutor in Pakos County, Texas took one
look at this and said, oh my god, this was
an accidental fire. This was not an arson murderer, and
he not only dismissed the case against Ernest Willis, Ernest
Willis was compensated as actually innocent by the state of Texas,
(15:55):
while within the same time period Cameron Todd Willingham was executed.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
It's just really hard to hear this stuff right because
right away this indicates some sort of double standard, or
at least some confusion within the justice system about what
arson evidence really means and how much it can be trusted.
And to be clear, by two thousand and four, there
shouldn't have been any confusion about this type of evidence,
(16:21):
because in the early nineties there were two incidents that
I'm going to ask you about that really proved that
the kind of arson evidence used in the Cameron Todd
Willingham case was bogus. The first was the Lime Street
case in nineteen ninety, which was the case of Gerald
Wayne Lewis. Mister Lewis was accused of killing his pregnant wife,
(16:43):
his sister, and his sister's four children by arson. Now
Gerald always maintained his innocence, but it was actually a
prosecution expert named John Lentini who was the moving force
improving Gerald's innocence.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
John Lentini was arson investigator, and he went along with
a colleague of his, John Dehan, to investigate an allegation
of arson at a home on Lime Street in Jacksonville, Florida.
And they examined the crime scene and they were all ready,
by their own admission, to make a recommendation that it
(17:21):
was an intentional arson. But they realized that right next
to the house that burned down was another house that
was abandoned, but it was the same construction. So they
rebuilt the house right next door to be identical to
the Lime Street house that burned down, and then they
(17:44):
basically put a cigarette on a couch. They began the
fire in a way that would be completely accidental. The
whole place burned down, and they saw all the clues,
all the visual clues from the craze glass alligator burning
under furniture, a completely compartmentalized fire. They saw all these
(18:06):
cues and they knew that it was an accidental fire,
not a deliberate one, and so that began to change everything.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
So again, this is very ironic and rare because Lentini's
a fire investigator that's working for the prosecution and he's
actually trying to prove that this Lime Street case was
in fact arson and that Gerald Wayne Lewis had actually
done it. But he realizes that there was some serious
(18:36):
issues with his assumptions because this accidental fire actually resembled
an arson, and it resembled it in very critical ways.
And what was most shocking to me about this was
that Lentini saw puddlestains and trail marks that looked identical
to what he had been taught and so many other
(18:58):
investigators had been taught, or the telltale signs of someone
dripping gasoline or another accelerant throughout a house. But that
definitely was not the case here. And they knew that
because they set the fire themselves with a cigarette exactly, and.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
They'd say, well, that really can't happen unless it's an
intentionally set fire. But it turns out with this phenomenon
of flashover, which is you get this hot, combustible object
in a small space, ordinarily a room, right, and then
it begins to cause this huge burst of heat and
fire in that room, and the whole place becomes engulfed.
(19:39):
So that's what creates the intense heat that arson investigators
had hypothesized must come from the deliberate use of accelerants.
It turns out that it could all happen in a
completely accidental fire.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
So Lintini the investigator realizes that accidental fires can look
just like arson, and he does something that is actually
quite remarkable. But it shouldn't be, because whether you're working
for the prosecution or the defense, when the science tells
you something, you should not have a bias in its application. Right.
(20:32):
He doesn't say, Oh, this is just some weird coincidence.
I'm going to keep working for prosecutors to convict people
in arson cases based on this evidence that I now
know is clearly faulty. It's wrong. Instead, he's pretty shocked,
appalled by what he sees, and he feels like he's
been misled by this evidence for years. Right, And he
(20:56):
gets an opportunity to examine a bunch more more accidental
fires and make sure that his findings in the Lime
Street case were consistent with other accidental fires.
Speaker 2 (21:07):
I don't know if people remember, but these homes on
the in the hills in Oakland, California, began to burn down,
you know, in what was plainly a series of accidental fires.
And after all these homes were burned down, the fire
scientists went at and examined each and every one of
them and they realized, once again, here were plainly accidental fires.
(21:29):
But all these visual cues that arson experts had been
relying on demonstrated that it was an accident. It was
not an intentionally set fire. So take just the craze glass.
That's a simple thing to understand. You know, you look
at the glass, it's sort of spider glass, and that
supposedly an indication of suddenly intense heat that comes from
(21:55):
you know, an accelerant induced fire. In fact, you've had
craze glass all over in Oakland in the Lime Street fire.
Because craze glass happens when people come to put out
the fire and they put cold water on it and
the glass cracks. That's how you get crazed glass.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
So these arson investigators have been testifying for years and
years that the reason you see crazed glass, and it's
no pun intend that it's actually a crazy notion that
they're testifying to one thing and it turns out to
be the exact opposite. All right, So crazed glass was
caused by the cooling of the glass when they're putting
the fire out. What were some other things they were
(22:39):
wrong about?
Speaker 2 (22:40):
They would say, oh, we're looking at mattress springs in
a bed or something and they're melted. That can only
happen if it's an intentionally set fire. But when they
went to the hills of Oakland and looked at these homes,
they saw the same thing, and the same thing at
the Lime Street fire.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
I mean, you would think that would be the end
of people trying to use this kind of junk science,
this kind of false evidence, but that isn't the case.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
What is really upsetting is that you see over the
next few decades, nonetheless, lots of people who were convicted
because they never did scientific validation in the first place.
You actually have to conduct experiments, you have to have hypotheses,
(23:28):
and you have to prove that they're true, instead of
just having you know, really you know, sort of law
enforcement people in lab codes, so to speak, or people
that have expertise by way of quote unquote experience going
to crime scenes and looking at fire scenes and really
(23:49):
coming up with their own hypotheses that were never demonstrated
to be true by science. That's what's so shocking about
this whole area. In other words, if you believe all
these different visual cues demonstrate that an accelerant has been used,
you should do experiments to prove the point.
Speaker 1 (24:09):
Now, Barry, this isn't the case where these investigators were
out to harm people. This is just how they were trained.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
I have some sympathy for a whole group of people
who had, many of them just high school graduates who
were trained in arson investigation to believe all these different
visual cues were a sign of the use of an
(24:37):
accelerant and intentionally set fire that was never empirically demonstrated,
and yet they were doing it, and that's how they
made a living. That's true, and they thought that they
had expertise. It's imagine how horrendous it is to believe,
as a prosecutor or as a so called know arson investigator,
(25:02):
that you were wrong and you destroyed people's lives. People
don't get up in the morning and say let's do that, right,
But it happens and it's very hard to admit to it.
Speaker 1 (25:15):
All right, So why do you think it is that?
You know, generations of experts have all been proven to
be wrong. The assumptions they rely on turn out to
be incorrect, but there's this unwillingness to change.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
Once you have invested yourself in this belief and all
these very weighty consequences follow, it's very hard to admit
that you were wrong, even when there's scientific proof that
you're wrong. John Linini and John de Haan and all
these various experts, you know, they started off as regular
(25:53):
ARSON investigators that we're taught to believe these things, but
engaging in real sessellience and doing these experiments, they realized
it was all wrong, and they had an enormous amount
of trouble persuading the forensic science community to stop, and
they're still fighting about it even to this day. I mean,
(26:17):
I think that the Willingham case and all these other
exonerations have exposed the community to it, and you literally
can see fewer ARSON convictions since that happened. But Josh,
you're absolutely right, it's mystifying. It's so upsetting that it
is taking so long to change it.
Speaker 1 (26:39):
And meanwhile these convictions based on this false arson science
or there's fire evidence, just keep on coming.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
Hantak Lee, whose daughter, who suffered from mental illness, was
found literally burnt to death, incinerated, you know, in a
small community in Pennsylvania. He gets convicted of killing his
daughter intentionally in a fire which did not happen.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Right. The case of Hantok Lee is just it's really
really troubling. I mean, here's a guy that spent fifteen
years in prison for a murder he did not commit.
And there's a quote that always stuck with me from
an opinion written by a judge during Hantok Lee's appeal,
and it was this quote. Much of what was presented
(27:27):
to Lee's jury as science is now conceded to be
little more than superstition end quote. I mean, that's so remarkable,
isn't it. And you know, again, the fact that this
is still used in the face of quotes like that,
it's just it's hard to understand. You know. He was
granted a new trial and finally exonerated, thankfully, in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
Another was a Sonya Casey, who is convicted of burning
Dana house and killing I guess it was her uncle
Bill Richardson, and and of course it turned out that
Bill Richardson was actually a heavy smoker and had probably
fallen asleep with a burning cigarette. But plainly she did
not start this fire. All the same kind of junk
(28:12):
science was used in that case. And that's the great tragedy.
When you look at the arson cases, so many people
like Ernest Willis or Cameron Todd Willingham or a Hantock League,
you know, they're all convicted of killing with intentionally set fires.
They're loved ones. That to me is, you know, the horrible,
(28:36):
horrible irony of these junk science cases.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Now, for our listeners, I know, Barry, you know twenty
years and I've seen you get emotional before and passionate
about a lot of cases. But I want to go
back to the Cameron Todd Willingham case for a moment
because it seems to me that this is one that
really stuck with you. And it seems to me like
(29:03):
one of the two or three cases that has really
haunted you in all your innocence work.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
How can it not haunt you? It should haunt everyone
in this country. I mean, this is a case that
ought to change the way the people look at capital
punishment and forensic science. I think we look we've made
a lot of progress, but we still haven't corrected the
biggest injustice of all, and that is the wrongful execution
(29:33):
of Cameron Todd Willingham. You see the suffering up to
the very very end, and the execution of an innocent man.
How could it not haunt you? There's so much importance
attached with the state finally admitting that it was wrong
and that an innocent person is executed, and that will
(29:56):
happen in Texas. It will.
Speaker 1 (30:13):
Something we keep returning back to in this podcast is
the two thousand and nine National Academy of Sciences Report,
which is a report published by rigorous scientists that is
very critical of forensic sciences like arson investigation. In fact,
the only one that it's not really critical of is DNA.
(30:34):
And you've done a lot to try to push the
lessons of this report to overturn convictions based on junk science.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
Truth is The two thousand and nine and National Academy
of Science Report recommended that there be an independent entity
in the federal government that would be dedicated to providing
a scientific basis and oversight to all these forensic science
(31:05):
disciplines and independent entity. The National Commission on Forensic Science
was put into place, which had independent experts from lots
of different scientific communities. When Trump was elected, he abolished
the National Commission on Forensic Science.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
Look, it's really inspiring to see that, despite all that's
gone wrong and all that hasn't worked, that you're still hopeful.
Because something else that's so shocking is that this issue
about what kind of evidence should be considered scientific facts,
something that can literally determine whether or not some much
live or die based on a crime they may not
(31:46):
have committed. It's all still being treated like a political issue,
and you have personal experience with these political barriers. Yet
you're still hopeful despite all of the harm that's been
done and continues to be done by political officials, by presidents,
by judges who, unlike Lentini, refuse to see the light,
(32:09):
so to speak.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
You know, it becomes this big echo chamber. Junk science
is admitted by one court, right, and all the experts
can then testify again and again and again, even though
it was never properly validated in the first place. And
we've had a lot of that, and judges really have
to be rigorous on dealing with it. And the problem
(32:30):
with judges is that we all went to law school
and not medical school. The judges really do have to
be better in terms of getting into the nuts and
bolts of the science. It's intimidating to them, just as
it's intimidating to a lot of lawyers.
Speaker 1 (32:52):
You might be listening to this wondering what you can
do to help. I want every listener to consider that
even those who are wrongly convicted and are lucky enough
to be released from prison, their lives are just never
the same. Let's take the example of Sonia Casey. She's
the woman Barry shk mentioned who was accused of murdering
(33:12):
her uncle by arson. We know that miss Casey was
innocent because, amongst other evidence, it was later found during
the autopsy of her uncle that he most likely died
from a heart attack. There was no soot in his lungs,
which would have been there if he had in fact
died in the fire. Instead, there was fluid in his lungs,
(33:34):
so the evidence supported the conclusion that he was dead
before the fire had even spread. Nevertheless, Casey was sentenced
to ninety nine years in prison. Sonya Casey was eventually exonerated,
but the stain of her wrongful conviction meant that on
every job application or when she would try to rent
an apartment, she would either have to check a box
(33:57):
saying that she had been convicted of a crime, or
it would be revealed on a background check that made
it nearly impossible for her to find work or a
place to live. So, if you own a business, or
you're a landlord, or you're just in a position to
either approve or reject someone for work or a place
(34:17):
to live, and someone checks the box that they have
previously been convicted of a crime, please talk to them,
learn about the circumstances of their arrest, the accusations against them,
who they are now as a human being. Perhaps you'll
find that they were the victim, yes, the victim of
a wrongful conviction. Or maybe it's just that they've done
(34:39):
something in their past and are no longer that person.
The great civil rights attorney Brian Stevenson said it best.
Each one of us is more than the worst thing
we've ever done. The true measure of our character is
how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the accused, the incarcerated,
and the condemned. I think we can all learn something
(35:02):
from that. Next week will analyze hair microscopy, the profoundly
flawed junk science that attempts to use human hair to
accuse and convict people of crimes they did not commit.
(35:25):
Wrongful Conviction Junk Science is a production of Lava for
Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One. Thanks
to our executive producer Jason Flam and the team at
Signal Company Number one executive producer Kevin Wardis and senior
producers Karen Kornhaber and Britz Spangler. Our music was composed
by Jay Ralph. You can follow me on Instagram at
(35:47):
dubin Josh, follow the Wrongful Conviction podcast on Facebook and
on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at wrong
Conviction
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
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.