February 12, 2020 • 55 mins
On October 13th, 1997, Julie Rea’s nightmare would begin, when an intruder broke into her home, killed her son Joel, and the authorities would begin a bumbling, tunnel vision investigation to pin the murder on her. With their blinders on, the incompetent investigators would inadvertently destroy or fail to capture vital evidence of the intruder’s presence at the crime scene. They would ignore developing leads that implicated the 3rd party to this horrific crime of which Julie still cannot speak. The prosecution’s blood spatter “expert” who played an integral role in Julie’s conviction at her first trial would become, according to jurors, “a powerful witness for the defense” under more competent cross examination at her retrial.
The state would later willfully ignore the intruder’s confession and crassly attempt to conceal the new evidence from the retrial jury. Their gross misconduct only added insult to this grave injury. Julie was acquitted in 2006 and formally exonerated in 2010 with the help of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law under the leadership of Karen Daniel to whom this episode is dedicated. Karen’s colleague and one of Julie’s attorneys, Ron Safer, joins Julie and Jason to both pay tribute to Karen and tell Julie’s terrifying story.
You can read more about the life and career of Karen Daniel here: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-karen-daniel-obit-20191227-h3jbt3ch3ff7naqdin6kletytu-story.html
You can read the NY Times article mentioned in this episode here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/magazine/she-was-exonerated-of-the-murder-of-her-son-her-life-is-still-shattered.html
https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/with-jason-flom
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
On October thirteenth, nineteen ninety seven, Julie Ray woke to
a sound from her ten year old boy, Joel's bedroom.
When she looked, she did not see Joel, and a
man in a sche mask lunged from the darkness. Julie,
a black belt in taekwondo, struggled with the masked man
as he escaped to the backyard, slamming her head on
the ground before fleeing into the night. Julie banged on
(00:24):
her neighbor's door, asking for help and saying that Joel
was gone. When Jariff Deputy Dennis Yorke searched the house,
he found Joel between the bed and the nearby wall,
his pajamas soaked in blood. He had been stabbed twelve times.
Despite her own injuries and the minuscule amount of Joel's
blood found on her shirt, authorities came up with a
theory that there was no intruder and that Julie was
(00:45):
responsible for the death of her own son. After a
bumbling tunnel vision investigation searching only for evidence of Julie's
killed and coming up empty, the prosecution resorted to using
blood spatter analysis, a known junk science. Experts testified anyway,
employing no actual demonstration that the bloodstains were consistent with
(01:06):
Julie wielding the murder weapon. Julie was sentenced to sixty
five years in prison and subjected to the abuse that
befalls a person who murdered their own child. Just two
years later, a serial child murderer facing the death penalty
for a nearly identical crime and who was linked to
many other similar crimes, confessed to being the masked man
from Julie's version of events. His confession was corroborated, and
(01:29):
she was acquitted at her retrial in two thousand and
six and formerly exonerated in twenty ten. All of this
was made possible with the help of the Center on
Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University, and, most notably, staff attorney
Karen Daniel, to whom this episode is lovingly and respectfully dedicated.
Karen was a pioneer in the innocentce movement and a
(01:50):
hero to many. She passed away on December twenty sixth,
twenty nineteen. This is Wrongful Conviction with Jason Plum. Welcome
back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm. I'm your host
(02:14):
and I'm here today. With a woman who I am
really kind of in awe of, to put it mildly,
Julie Ray is a person of incredible integrity, strength, and purpose,
I would say. And she is an ax hoonnery from
Illinois who was wrongfully convicted of the murderer of her
(02:34):
own son. Julie, I'm very happy you're here. I'm obviously
sorry you have to be here, but I'm happy you're here.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Thank you, Jason.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
And with Julie, it's a guy named Ron Safer. Ron
is a partner at Riley Safer Homes and Cancilla. And
Ron is a former Assistant US Attorney for the Northern
District of Illinois and moreover, he does work today for
the Center of Wrongful Convictions at the north Western University
Pritzker School of Law. And he's a colleague and a
(03:05):
dear friend of the late great Karen Daniel, who will
speak to you about to whom we'll pay tribute later
in this episode. So Ron, welcome to Ronfuel Conviction.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
It's a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
So yeah, it's a side because I'm going to go
back to the beginning. I read Julie's story when she
was on the cover of the New York Times magazine
and the headline was she was exonerated of the murder
of her son. Her life is still shattered and with
that it's one of the most powerful pictures I've ever seen.
(03:37):
Let me just say that, you can look it up yourselves,
but it was. There was so much pain and so much,
so much more to it than that in this photograph.
I just thought, this is someone I know. If I
can do anything to share her story or to help
in any way, I'm committed to do it. So Julie,
(03:58):
going back to the beginning, can you take us through
what your life was like before this happened. I mean,
you were a woman of tremendous potential and someone who
had accomplished a great deal of black belt in taekwondo,
a doctoral student.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Well, the black belt in taekwon was kind of a joke,
but it was something Joel and I did together which
was really fun.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
But you were working towards your doctorate in educational psychology
right at the time that everything went completely haywire. Can
you just talk to us a little bit of how
you chose that field, and that's a hell of a
thing to take on when you're raising a child, you know,
as a single mom.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
It was a perfect fit. It gave me time to
be there for Joel, a flexible schedule. School was a
good match for me. I really enjoyed graduate work and
the field was very interesting. I had wonderful mentors, and
(05:05):
I had a planned on a career in academia, which
would give me a chance to research things I loved
and was interested in. It would give me an excellent
environment for Joel. He was brilliant and intrigued with learning.
Joel and I enjoyed the life that we had at
(05:25):
the time. We had a lot of extracurricular activities and friends.
We had a great neighborhood and community where we lived.
We were doing a lot of fun things together and
just really looking forward to the next part of our
lives together. I remember things that Joel and I used
(05:47):
to like to do before everything changed. I remember sitting
by the door when it was storming and listening to
the rain while we were reading. And his favorite soup
is chicken noodle, so he had chicken noodle, and I
like tomatoes, so I had tomato. Just so many good
(06:09):
memories of all the things we were doing in our
lives at that time. I remember, I can't sing to
save my life, and Jall kind of inherited some of
that ability from me. But we would drive through and
get tacos from this one place. It was actually a
(06:29):
little tavern, was a very small talent, so we had
limited options. And this one night of the week we
had these great tacos and they had to drive through,
and then we would drive through and get a hot
pudge Sunday and we had done that. We were coming
home from taekwondo and we weren't singing. I don't know
what those songs in the Jungle, the Mighty Jungle, the
(06:51):
lines leaps tonight with the windows down, there was just
a really happy time. So much was going right, So
much was going right.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
And Ron, if I can turn this over to you,
because I know this is borderline impossible for Julie to discuss,
but can you share some of the details of this case.
You know what happened and how this all went so
horribly wrong.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Sure, Julie and Joel were together in Julie's home and
in the middle of the night, four am, an intruder
came into the home. Julie didn't tear him. He is
somebody who has broken into homes and trailers across the
(07:43):
country without being heard. He was a serial murderer and
somebody very skilled at this, and so he was not heard.
He came into Joel's bedroom, stamped him to death, and
pushed him off the bed. Julie awoke to some sound
(08:05):
and she looked across from her bed into Joel's bedroom
and saw that he was not in the bed, and
so she woke herself up, started going towards his bedroom
and banged into somebody in the hallway. It was Tommy
Lynde Sells who she banged into, and the knife that
he held was found right there where Julie said they
(08:28):
banged into each other. He then sought to leave the house.
Julie grabbed onto his legs. Now again, Julie doesn't know
what's going on. All she knows is that Joel's not
in his bed. So you can imagine what a flood
of thoughts anybody would have at that time. So she
(08:49):
doesn't know what's going on, but she grabs onto this
guy for dear life. He drags her along the carpet,
and indeed she has rugburns on her knees from that
he breaks away get into the garage where there is
another door to the outside. Julie wants again grabs onto
(09:10):
him because he's having trouble getting out of that back door.
He breaks the glass to get out of the back door,
and Julie grabs onto him again for dear life, thinking
that he's the only link to Joel, and he drags
her along. She has scrapes on the top of her
(09:31):
feet from being dragged across the glass that is broken
from that door. He goes out into the backyard she's
holding on has grass stains from that. He then takes
her head, smashes it into the ground and walks off.
Julie immediately went to a neighbor's house and they called
(09:53):
the police, and the police found Joel's at that point
dying body. And from there, you know, of course, the
universe is changed, and everything that happened from that minute
that I started that narrative until Julie got out of
(10:16):
jail years later went wrong.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
And this one, I mean, even for me, this one
is absolutely mind boggling because it not only didn't make sense,
it couldn't have made sense. You have nothing to pin
this on Julie, And in fact, there's every arrow pointing
directly at an intruder. Of course, back then, nobody knew
(10:43):
who it was. That comes clear later at the story
when he actually confesses. Right.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
The case agent testified under my cross examination ultimately that everyone,
people who liked Julie, people who didn't like Julie, every
everyone told him that Julie and Joel had a good
and loving relationship. This was a quote. He could not
(11:08):
find anyone who would say that she raised her voice
to him, let alone her hand. So why would anybody
think that somebody who is a PhD candidate, an educational psychology,
with a good and loving relationship with their son, and
a good and caring person would do something like this.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
And no prior history of violence or mental issues or
anything nice. Quite the opposite, actually, right, So, in order
to get to where we're trying to figure out how,
I don't know if we'll ever really know why the
authorities in this case chose to pin this on Julie.
Julie had just lived through a scene from the worst
horror movie that anyone could ever see, every parent's worst nightmare. So, Julie,
(11:55):
if you can talk about it from there, you weren't
arrested then in there. This was something that took time
to wind its way through, and at some point they
decided to develop a narrative, maybe just because they couldn't
figure it out that involved you. But you've spoken to
me in the article about what your life was like
in the aftermath of this horror.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Well, in defense of the police, I mean, I think
that they were poorly trained. I think that they didn't
know what to do. It was a small town, they
weren't used to handling these kinds of crime scenes. They
showed up mishandled the evidence horribly. I mean where there
were hair and fiber evidence opportunities, they lost them. They
(12:41):
actually ruined them. They picked up the quilt that Joel
had been under and took a picture of themselves destroying
evidence and then showed that picturing court as though they
were proud of it. That is the level of incompetence.
And they did not take fingerprints. They for whatever reason,
(13:06):
decided that because the way the glass broke and fell
on the floor or the ground, that it was broken
out like I told them, the man had broken the
glass out, that they didn't think that was reasonable, which
(13:27):
I don't know what is reasonable when you have somebody
coming into a home and killing someone. He did use
a knife from my home, and they didn't fingerprint around
the knife block that they took the knife from. I
guess they thought that. I really have no clue what
(13:47):
they thought. I just don't know. I thought they were
trying to solve the crime. I thought they were trying
to catch the person. I was in shock.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
I was.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
In denial. When you're in shock, you look for ways
to fix things. I thought if I helped them, maybe
somehow we could fix what had happened. I don't know,
so I just talked to them and try to answer
all their questions. I had no idea that they could
possibly consider me a suspect. I mean, they actually came
(14:25):
to me at one point and said that they had
satellite photos, and I was thrilled to death because if
they had satellite photos, then we had evidence that we
could use to catch the person that did this. And
so we went back and forth for quite a long
time because there were no satellite photos, and they thought
(14:51):
they were going to catch me in some kind of
a lie or confuse me or trip me up or something.
So they kept moving the information around like no the
satellite photos are only of a certain part of the art,
and so I would say, oh, okay, well that's fine then,
you know, just broaden the scope of whatever you've got,
(15:12):
you know, or look at the different time periods. He
had to have moved through that part of the art
at some point, and they had no satellite photos at
that point. I had no idea cops would lie, you know.
I was looking for some real information. I mean, the
kind of person that does something like this is going
(15:34):
to do it again.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
That's a key point. I'm glad you brought that up,
because as citizens, all of us want to see a
person like Tommy Linzel's apprehended and brought to justice as
quickly as possible, because everyone's at risk if not. And
of course we know from the case after case that
when the wrong person is pursued, ultimately arrested and then charged,
(16:00):
they stopped looking for the right person. In this case,
the right person was a serial killer named tommyland Sells.
And I think you're right to point out the training.
This was a small town, right, so it's reasonable to
assume that these officers didn't have a great deal of
experience investigating crimes as serious as this one. But the
fact that they didn't even dust the bedroom or the
butcher block, as you said, for fingerprints, that they didn't
(16:20):
preserve critical trace evidence from Joel's bedspread, the fact that
from the beginning they focused on you and any blood
that you might have tried to wash away, right they done.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Yeah, septic tank, they dug up the septic tank. They
did all kinds of things, and they didn't bother to
give us this information at the time. But apparently the
first officer on the scene threw up on the scene.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
Wow, I mean, and that exactly a time when you
should have been receiving nothing but care and support and they're,
you know, instead hunting you and trying to pin this
thing on you.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Okay, but let me inject a little bit of experience
into this. I was a prosecutor. These were not only
local police, they were the Illinois State Police. These people
had experience where this went off the rails, was where
cases all too often get off the rails. They did
(17:13):
not believe Julie from the first second, and often when
children are murdered, parents become suspects for whatever reason. These
officers jumped to a conclusion and then took steps that
resulted in confirmation of that conclusion. That is, they concluded
(17:37):
that Julie did it with no evidence, no reason, but
they did. Therefore, why fingerprint because her fingerprints are going
to be all over the place. Why preserve fibers because
her fibers are going to be all over the place.
And then they say, well, there's no evidence of an intruder.
(17:58):
Of course, there's no evidence of an intruder. You destroyed
it or did not capture any of the evidence of
the intruder. So when you view the evidence and then
either failed to create it or destroy the evidence that
is counter to the way you view it, then you
have a self fulfilling prophecy. And by the way, you
(18:21):
mentioned the investigation went on for years. What happened is
they investigated, investigated, investigated, got of course no evidence that
Julie committed the crime because she didn't. Asked her to
take a polygraph, She took a polygraph, passed the polygraph,
They investigated some more, asked her to take a second polygraph.
(18:43):
She passed a second polygraph.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
The local prosecutor would not indict me. He said, there's
no evidence. I'm not going to indict her. So they
got a special prosecutor and brought him in. Ed Parkinson
was a state prosecutor. He came from the specials secutor's office,
a Pellet prosecutor's office. They indicted with a grand jury,
and he promised that he would tell the grand jury
(19:08):
if they asked that I had passed two polygraphs. Not
only did he not give them that information, he himself,
who was conducting the grand jury, testified by saying, when
they asked, did she take a polygraph? He said, out
of fairness to the defendant, I will not answer that question,
(19:29):
we won't give you that information, implying I had not
passed polygraphs.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Do you feel that at this point, and you're really
a perfect person to answer this, that the people in
position to make these decisions knew that they were prosecuting
an innocent woman.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
I think that the prosecutors, if I had to guess,
didn't care. I think he certainly misled the jury and
didn't care one way or the other. The local police,
I'm not sure if they knew, but they ignored all
of the evidence of the contrary. For example, Julie put
(20:10):
together a sketch of the intruder. The local bus station
person called the police and said, Hey, that guy was
just here. He purchased a bus ticket to win Amacca, Nevada,
a tiny town. He didn't have enough money. I gave
(20:32):
him the ticket anyway, I wanted him out of here.
He gave a horrible vibe and she called the police
and told him that where was Tommy Lynn Sells arrested
at one point Winnamucca, Nevada. What is between Winnemucca, Nevada
(20:52):
and where he bought that bus ticket? Springfield, Missouri where
two days after he murdered Joel, he murdered a little
girl named Stephanie Mahaney. The police knew that. The police
ignored that, unbelievably. It gets worse because even if you
(21:26):
totally ignored Tommy Lynn Sells, if you examine the physical evidence,
you realize that it prohibits Julie as a suspect, excludes her.
And one thing that the state used at her trial
was a blood spatter expert who testified in a way
(21:48):
that is unscrupulous, is a compliment. He took over the courtroom,
he splattered fake blood all over the courtroom, and then
he testified that the bloodines convicted Julie showed that she
committed the crime. It showed, in fact, exactly the opposite.
(22:10):
Julie had three transfer stains on her T shirt that
had Joel's blood on it, which were smudged. They were
not transferred by a hand. They were transferred by a
glove or something something that an intruder might wear. There
was blood spatter all of this room. Her T shirt
(22:34):
was Christine of blood spatter, and it was not cleaned.
They luminoled the house. There was no cleaning that went on.
And there was one blood spatter from Joel's blood on
Julie's T shirt. It was a ninety degree that is,
(22:54):
a drop from directly above it on her back. So
when could that have possibly happened? Obviously not if she
was committing the crime. Could not have come from Joel,
but easily could have come from Tommy Lynn Sells or
(23:16):
some unnamed intruder at that time who after he smashed
her head into the ground in the backyard, dropped a
bit of blood whatever it is. You know that she
could not have committed that crime from that one drop
of blood spatter. They put this expert on the stand
(23:37):
in the second trial, as the juror said, he ended
up after cross examination after telling the same lies ondirect
After cross examination, he ended up being a powerful defense
witness because blood spatter evidence proved beyond any reasonable doubt
(23:57):
that Julie was totally innocent of this crime.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
And there are no eyewitnesses. Obviously, there's no forensic evidence.
As we've discussed, there's no motive. So the entire case
hinged on that tiny amount of blood on the T shirt.
And we know that blood spatter it's not conducted by scientists.
Typically is conducted by detectives or other law enforcement personnel
who may be trained in crime scene stuff, but they're
(24:25):
not trained in science, generally speaking. And the idea that
they can get up there with impunity and with authority
and make assertions to things like they did in this
case that are so damning when they actually don't know
what they're talking about or they're lying. It's another reform
that needs to be made so that this doesn't happen again.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
Right, The blood evidence really was just as you described
in the first trial. It was distorted, it was lied about,
and unfortunately Julie's attorney at that time was not equipped
to take that expert on that and the unanswered question
(25:09):
of who does this, Who breaks into a home to
kill a child, leaves an adult essentially unharmed, and forgets
to bring a murder weapon, uses the weapon from the house, Well,
the answer is tommylind Sells. He's done that in half
a dozen cases across the country. But they close their
(25:34):
mind to the possibility that a person like that existed.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
I think a big part of the reason that jury's
convict people wrongly, especially in a case like this, is
because it's terrifying to let this kind of a crime
go unanswered. And we resume that our detectives have done
(26:02):
their jobs and brought us the right people, that our
prosecutors are prosecuting sincerely, that they've done their jobs and
they've worked hard, and they know that they're prosecuting the
right people. That we can trust the people in the
stand when they're under oath, that they wouldn't lie. And sadly,
(26:23):
we are finding that we can't assume these things, and
that's a terrifying reality that's got to change. And if
we as a culture and as a country, as a
group of people, as jurors don't hold accountable prosecutors and
detectives and law enforcement, it won't change.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
I would add, by the way, that at the time
we began Julie's case, I shared the naive assumptions that
Julie just said that we have to disabuse people of
that the prosecutor are there to do the right thing,
that the police are there to do the right thing.
That had been my experience. I was a prosecutor for
ten years. The Illinois States Attorney General supervised this. When
(27:14):
I saw the evidence in this case, I said, we
need to take this to the state's attorney general because
they will dismiss this case when they hear this. And
my colleagues, who were more experienced, said no, that's not
going to happen, but I insisted on doing it. We
went to the highest levels of the state's attorney general
(27:37):
and I said, look, here's the evidence. Here's what we're
going to say an opening statement. Here's how I'm going
to cross examine your expert forget about Tommy lind says
Julie could not have committed this crime. Here's why at trial,
you're going to be humiliated. We are going to absolutely
(27:59):
not only prove that you can't prove her guilty, we
will prove her innocent. Beyond any reasonable doubt. You should
not put her through this. Stop this now, And I
was convinced they would. Obviously I was wrong.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
When they arrested me and took me to the county jail,
I still thought, when they figure out they've made a mistake,
it's all going to be okay. When they did what
they did to me in that county jail, I realize
not only do they not care, they're fully aware you're innocent.
(28:39):
That's not an issue on the table. That's not what
this is about. People have no idea what's going on
when they think privatizing prisons is an option. Think about
what happens when we privatize military. We call that mercenaries.
(29:01):
We take the heart out of the military, we take
the ethics out of it. We have mercenaries. Think about
what you're doing when you take the value and the
concern for rehabilitation out of correctional systems, you privatize that
and make that a business where the bottom line is
(29:22):
only money. My god, what is going to happen to
our country when that is a done deal.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Let's go back to this sham trial that you experience
when the jury goes out, when they came back, did
you still hold on to that belief that justice would
be done?
Speaker 2 (29:41):
You're talking about the first trial.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Yeah, when the jury came back, you.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Hope and trust that the truth will come out and
that they will have heard it, because you know you're innocent.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
But they didn't. Obviously they didn't, and they did find
you guilty and convicted you a first degree murder and
since to sixty five years in prison. At that point,
how did you even remain sane? Now you're looking at
spending the rest of your life in prison. Sixty five
years is very unlikely to survive that, but you stayed
(30:17):
strong to fight. And then along comes the team from
the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern, Karen Daniel and
her team of Avengers. Right, how did you first come
in contact with them? And what did that mean to
you when you found out that you were going to
be represented by this well, let's just call it what
it was. I mean, she was a legend.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
First, I want to say something about the time I
was in there and what happened with the conviction. And
I remember getting a letter from one of the jurors saying,
can you please forgive me for convicting you, and I
remember one of the jurors saying something about I just
needed her to look me in the eye and tell
me she didn't do it. And my attorney at my
(31:01):
first child would not let me take the stand I
wanted to, but he wouldn't let me wow, which was
very frustrating because obviously I would have been able to,
you know, tell them, you know, I didn't do it,
and what had happened, and all those kinds of things,
and you know, getting that letter and having someone say,
(31:23):
you know, I'm so sorry I can't sleep at night.
Can you please forgive me? And I remember thinking, well,
you know, that makes two of us that can't sleep
at night, but for different reasons. There's just this futility
that you feel about life. When something like this happens.
(31:44):
It takes away your faith in humanity. And that's why
I wanted to answer these questions together, because when Karen
told me that there were going to take the case,
I didn't know all of what that meant. But over
(32:07):
time I came to understand what it meant, and I
got my sense of confidence and humanity back through each
hearing and hug through every time they sat beside me.
When She told the judge she would be proud to
(32:27):
have me as her daughter, which she wasn't old enough
to have me as her daughter. She would have been
my sister and we became I mean, she did for
me the things the sister would have done.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
The team from Center of Unwrawful Convictions, again led by Karen,
they really did the work that the authorities should have
done and could have done in the first place. Right,
they found the killer, They got a confession. Can you
talk about how the whole thing on raph.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Really the identity of Tommy lynd Cells happened by an accident.
There was a twenty twenty episode on Julie's case and
it said, essentially, this is weird. This woman, you know again,
had a good and loving relationship with her son. There
(33:21):
was no reason in the world she would do this.
There was no hard evidence. On the other hand, who
does this? So it was just weird. And nobody breaks
into a home to kill a kid, leaves an adult
essentially not mortally wounded, and forgets to bring a murder weapon.
(33:42):
A woman who was writing a book on a Texas
death row inmate Tommy lynd Sells wrote to him and said,
I just heard somebody say on TV, nobody does this.
We know that's not true, because she knew as he
did that he had done this time and time again.
He wrote back and said, now this is six years
(34:04):
after the fact. Was it in Illinois? Was it two
days before? Stephanie Mahaney? And the answer, of course was
yes and yes. And she said why do you ask
and he says, because I did it. And then these
prosecutors went down and they took a tape recorded confession,
(34:24):
an eighty six page tape recorded confession. Now this is
a drug adult guy who had committed fifty murders across
the United States. So we got what the subdivision looked
like wrong, He got what the outside of the house
looked like wrong. He got a number of details wrong.
(34:45):
But he described the conflict with Julie in exactly the
same terms as she did. He described where he got
the knife exactly right. He described Joel's bedroom exactly as
it was. But they ignored all that. Northwestern came along
(35:06):
Karen Daniel, who was easily the most brilliant legal mind,
the most fearless lawyer with whom I have ever worked.
She put all of this together. She put together the
corroborating evidence that I described earlier about the bus terminal,
about the fact that he had been arrested in Winnemaka,
(35:29):
and all of the things that gave teeth to this,
and she wrapped it up in a beautiful package and
filed a habeas petition. They vacated the conviction really on
grounds that had little to do with any of that.
They vacated the conviction because the prosecutors had been pointed
(35:49):
pursuing to the wrong statute, which is kind of a technicality.
But at the same time, they had all of this
evidence in front of them, so they vacated the conviction.
Julie is free for a minute, and then they rearrested.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
That's one of the fascinating things to me about our
court system and our legal system. They specifically said, this
is not about Tommy Lindzell's you know, our court system
works that way. It's not about this, i e. It
is about this. It's not about what's logical, it's not
about necessarily what's true, and it's certainly not necessarily about
(36:30):
what's right. It's about legal precedent, it's about technicalities, and
so it really is a game. It really is a puzzle.
It really is a whole different language. And that's why
if you don't have the right attorneys, you don't have
a chance. It doesn't matter if you're innocent or not.
(36:51):
At least that's what I've learned. And if I hadn't
had Karen and Ron and Jeff and the attorneys that
I had, I would be locked up in a very
very bad situation for a very very long time if
I were still alive.
Speaker 1 (37:11):
And it's also quite shocking that the state chose to
retry you, but they did. By this point, everybody knew
you were innocent. I mean, I don't know if Iron
would disagree with that, but I think that it's fair
to say that this was now a game, right, This
was about protecting the wrongful conviction.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Oh yeah, I mean even the prosecutor he offered me
twenty years due ten both trials. And both trials, I said, look,
if you think I'm guilty, you need to be giving
me the destines because whoever committed this crime needs to
have capital punishment. That's what needs to happen here. This
(37:50):
is not the kind of crime that you give somebody
twenty years do ten for That's just an insult.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
To Joel.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
And for him to say, oh, this woman's evil, which
he went on record as saying after I was acquitted.
But to have offered me twenty years due ten, that's
just well, it doesn't equate well.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
And they did know at that point that Julie was innocent.
They said at the bond hearing, the first appearance that
we had on this case. First time I stood in
front of the judge said, judge, you have to let
her out on bond, because you yourself said this was
a very thin, circumstantial case. That first of all, she
(38:33):
appeared at every pre trial hearing and the trial. Second,
this circumstantial case went off on one unanswered question. Who
does this? Now? Not only do we know who does this,
but he's confessed. And the judge turned to the prosecutor
and said, yeah, what about this confession thing? And here
(38:55):
are the words that the state uttered over a decade ago,
but they are burned in my memory. This is almost verbatim, o, judge,
don't worry about Tommy lynn Sells. No one will ever
hear about him, because, first of all, Texas will not
honor an out of state subpoena for a death row inmate,
(39:18):
which is true, by the way, because they are afraid
that he will go to a non death penalty state
and they won't get him back to kill him. And
we immunized him for the death penalty. So it is
not a statement against penal interest. It is hearsay no
jury will ever hear about Tommy lyn Cells. I said,
(39:41):
wait a minute, Judge, I do not hear the representative
of the people of the state of Illinois to be
telling you that he intends to try this woman for
essentially her life while concealing from the jury the fact
that he took a confession from a serial murderer that
(40:03):
he knows is corroborated by independent evidence. I don't hear
the representative of the people of the state of Illinois
to be saying that. But if you hear him to
be saying that, you ought to say not in my courtroom.
This is not happening. Judge looked at me, looked at him,
and then imposed a significant bond. So everybody knew that
(40:28):
Julie was innocent at that point, and it was, unfortunately,
as Julie describes it, a game.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
So the retrial goes forward. This time it's all out
in the open they're not able to railroad her the
way they did the first time. This time, Julie at
the stand and proclaimed your innocence, and of course, ultimately
the jury saw through the bullshit, they're bullshit and returned
(41:12):
a not guilty verdict. And I've read that your knees
buckled in the courtroom. Is that? Is that right? When
the when the verdict was announced.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
I fell. Yes, I don't remember falling. I mean, I
know I did, but I don't remember that part. What
I remember is looking at Ron and him looking at me,
and I was just really, really, really thankful.
Speaker 3 (41:42):
I'll tell you what I remember about that day. First
of all, we were at lunch and Julie said, so,
in your experience as a criminal defense attorney, how long
does it take the jury in cases like this? I said, well,
when the jury comes back, I'll let you know, because
then I will have one criminal defense case. She said, what,
(42:06):
You've never done this before.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
Don't you sound excited or worried? I know I didn't.
Speaker 4 (42:12):
Don't you think you should have told me that? I said, well,
I guess, I said, no. Do you feel underrepresented? But
we were, we were in the courtroom.
Speaker 3 (42:24):
And look, there was no evidence. It was overwhelming. There
was no chance, and yet you're standing there. And I
remember waiting for the verdict, thinking, I don't know what
tomorrow looks like. If they say guilty, I don't know
(42:48):
how to go on in life. So I can't imagine
what Julie is thinking right now. And when they said
not guilty. I turned to Julie. Her knees did buckle.
I went to catch her missed, but we picked her up,
(43:09):
you know, and we all hugged. It was just an
enormous relief that finally she could put this aspect of
the nightmare behind her, she would never again be put
in that kind of danger.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
For all the years I've been doing this, and I'm
constantly Everyone who knows me knows I'm always out there
talking to strangers about this cause people will say to me, well, well,
there's two questions they ask. One is was the prosecutor
disciplined in any way? And the second is, tell me
the person who suffered so much the x HOGNERI was
(43:51):
compensated by the state in your case. We know the
answer the first question is no, as it is in
ninety nine point of all cases. And the answer the
second question I think you have.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
To look at compensation broadly to answer that question. There's
a lot of different kinds of riches in life. I
think I appreciate life more and I have been blessed
(44:24):
with some of the most amazing people in the world
through this experience. I think that there are lessons that
you learn when you walk a desperately lonely path where
your shadow is your only company, and there is a
homecoming when you find out that the world is full
(44:46):
of wonderful people. They've just been hidden from you for
a while and you thought they were gone. So yes,
I've been compensated.
Speaker 3 (44:56):
So you just heard the grace and generosity and strength
of character and just uniquely wonderful spirit that Julie has
to have survived with that kind of an attitude and
that kind of a desire to help others. The answer
(45:18):
to your question is no, the state didn't compensate Julie.
You know, it is unthinkable what she has had to bear,
and the way she has bored it is equally unfathomable,
but diametrically opposed way, in a wonderful way. And the
(45:39):
way we're gonna stop this is for people to stop
electing prosecutors who only care about statistics and not justice.
It's going to be to have people stop electing judges
who are off on crime and more interested in justice.
(46:08):
It's going to be people who take their oath as
jurors seriously and not have the naive presumption because you
can't have it in today's world. There's too much evidence
that people are wrongfully drawn into these courtrooms. And to
(46:29):
have jurors who have an open mind and not just
listen to the prosecution. And people like Karen Daniel devoted
her life to doing just that, to opening people's eyes
time and time and time again, to opening the judge's eyes,
to open the Port of Appeals eyes, the Supreme Court's eyes,
(46:51):
juror's eyes, citizens' eyes. Through her indomitable spirit, through her
incredible intellect and energy. And we need more of those,
and we need more Julie's in the world without the
nightmare preceding it, and we'll get them.
Speaker 2 (47:14):
Thank you Jason so much for having the show and
taking the time to do the research you do, and
I would just really beg people to do. You know
what Karen did. She didn't just see problems. She went
about finding solutions. One little endeavor at a time, and
you just put all those things together and you start
(47:36):
solving the big problems. And again, just be informed. When
you know things, when you share information, when you educate others.
These things can't continue to happen because people won't allow
them to. Information is very, very powerful, So be informed.
Speaker 1 (47:55):
Well, that's very well said, and I appreciate you. Know,
you really are doing my for me because you speak
so eloquently about the problems and the solutions, and I
think we're moving as a society in that direction. There's
been a number of positive developments recently, too numerous to
get into now. And of course also check out Center
(48:17):
for Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern who do such wonderful work,
and of course the Edocence Project Innocence Project dot org.
Now clothing arguments. Usually I asked for closing arguments, but
you guys already did them. I think at this point
all I can say is, Wow, I'm really honored to
have had both of you on the show. I think
(48:38):
the work that you've done and you continue to do
ron is exemplary and heroic. And Julie, I said it
before at the beginning of the show, and I'll say
it again. You are a hero to me and to
so many others. And I don't even have the right
words to say. You know what your perseverance and what
your The best word is grace, as Ron said, means
to all of us. It makes us all want to
(48:59):
fight harder, longer, and better and to help people in
your situation and to help prevent others from falling into
this trap going forward. So thank you just for being you,
and thank you for joining us on Wrongful Conviction. This
has been an amazing experience for.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
Thank you Jason so much so.
Speaker 1 (49:24):
Now it's with a heavy heart that I want to
offer a tribute to one of the true legends in
the field of writing wrongful convictions, a woman who we
lost too soon in a tragic accident a very short
time ago, and that person is Karen Daniel. Karen was
(49:44):
the director of the Center for Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern Moreover.
She was a warrior. She's described by so many different
people who worked with her, who loved her, who were
represented by her as someone who was tough as nails
and at the same time was warm and soft and
was a hugger and someone who cared deeply about the
(50:10):
people that she represented, and that went far beyond the
courtroom into all aspects of her life. So I think
today we have two people who were directly touched by
her in different ways, and I can't find the right words.
So I'm going to turn it over to you. I
guess we'll save Julie. We'll save you for last, and
(50:32):
let Ron first, please share your remembrances of this wonderful woman.
Karen Daniel.
Speaker 3 (50:42):
Karen was an angel who was lent to us from
heaven for a two short period of time. She was
a fierce, fearless, incredibly persuasive lawyer, and she was also
a teacher. She taught countless students about what is important
(51:03):
in a law degree. She taught me everything that I
know about wrongful conviction cases. I had never done any
I was a prosecutor in a previous life and then
a corporate lawyer. She had tremendous patience, she had tremendous intellect.
Anything that I do, anything that her students do, are
(51:26):
all because of what Karen taught us. And you know,
the ripple effect of the pebbles that Karen tossed into
the ocean with all of us would cause a title wave.
She is one of the few people who we can
(51:48):
appropriately use the term hero. Karen changed the world for
the better.
Speaker 1 (51:57):
Julie over to you.
Speaker 2 (52:00):
Karen's story is the stuff that legends are made of.
She was quiet, kind of like the sun is. She
could make things grow. She was there in ways that mattered.
She wasn't always just saying she would do things to
make the world a better place, but she was doing them.
(52:24):
She helped exoneries with legal matters beyond their exoneration. She
would help with their medical emergencies, with personal tragedies, family events, celebrations.
She was there when they made memories, and she was
there when their heart was breaking. She was the one
that walked you to the cab when everybody else had
(52:46):
already gone home from the party or was still partying.
She made sure you were safe getting from here to there,
when you were of otherwise been alone on the road.
Karen was there. She was the sister that he didn't have,
the best friend you always wanted. She wasn't about money.
(53:09):
She was better than money could ever hire or buy.
She was priceless and the changes and the things that
we all wish we could do in life, she did
and She passed that on to a lot of people,
the desire to do that, the methods for how to
(53:29):
do it. And I know that all of us who
were blessed enough to know her, who are struggling still
with losing her or trying to figure out how in
the world we're gonna do something to prove that we
deserved having had her in her life.
Speaker 1 (53:52):
That's beautiful. Thank you, Julie, and thank you un You're
welcome Karen wherever you are. You're gone but never forgotten,
and we're sending our respect and appreciation your way. Don't
(54:14):
forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you get
your podcasts. It really helps. And I'm a proud donor
to the Innocence Project, and I really hope you'll join
me in supporting this very important cause and helping to
prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to Innocenceproject dot org to
learn how to donate and get involved. I'd like to
thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wartis. The
(54:36):
music in the show is by three time OSCAR nominated
composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram
at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast.
Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm is a production of Lava
for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number one
On October thirteenth, nineteen ninety seven, Julie Ray woke to
a sound from her ten year old boy, Joel's bedroom.
When she looked, she did not see Joel, and a
man in a sche mask lunged from the darkness. Julie,
a black belt in taekwondo, struggled with the masked man
as he escaped to the backyard, slamming her head on
the ground before fleeing into the night. Julie banged on
(00:24):
her neighbor's door, asking for help and saying that Joel
was gone. When Jariff Deputy Dennis Yorke searched the house,
he found Joel between the bed and the nearby wall,
his pajamas soaked in blood. He had been stabbed twelve times.
Despite her own injuries and the minuscule amount of Joel's
blood found on her shirt, authorities came up with a
theory that there was no intruder and that Julie was
(00:45):
responsible for the death of her own son. After a
bumbling tunnel vision investigation searching only for evidence of Julie's
killed and coming up empty, the prosecution resorted to using
blood spatter analysis, a known junk science. Experts testified anyway,
employing no actual demonstration that the bloodstains were consistent with
(01:06):
Julie wielding the murder weapon. Julie was sentenced to sixty
five years in prison and subjected to the abuse that
befalls a person who murdered their own child. Just two
years later, a serial child murderer facing the death penalty
for a nearly identical crime and who was linked to
many other similar crimes, confessed to being the masked man
from Julie's version of events. His confession was corroborated, and
(01:29):
she was acquitted at her retrial in two thousand and
six and formerly exonerated in twenty ten. All of this
was made possible with the help of the Center on
Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University, and, most notably, staff attorney
Karen Daniel, to whom this episode is lovingly and respectfully dedicated.
Karen was a pioneer in the innocentce movement and a
(01:50):
hero to many. She passed away on December twenty sixth,
twenty nineteen. This is Wrongful Conviction with Jason Plum. Welcome
back to Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm. I'm your host
(02:14):
and I'm here today. With a woman who I am
really kind of in awe of, to put it mildly,
Julie Ray is a person of incredible integrity, strength, and purpose,
I would say. And she is an ax hoonnery from
Illinois who was wrongfully convicted of the murderer of her
(02:34):
own son. Julie, I'm very happy you're here. I'm obviously
sorry you have to be here, but I'm happy you're here.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Thank you, Jason.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
And with Julie, it's a guy named Ron Safer. Ron
is a partner at Riley Safer Homes and Cancilla. And
Ron is a former Assistant US Attorney for the Northern
District of Illinois and moreover, he does work today for
the Center of Wrongful Convictions at the north Western University
Pritzker School of Law. And he's a colleague and a
(03:05):
dear friend of the late great Karen Daniel, who will
speak to you about to whom we'll pay tribute later
in this episode. So Ron, welcome to Ronfuel Conviction.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
It's a pleasure to be here.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
So yeah, it's a side because I'm going to go
back to the beginning. I read Julie's story when she
was on the cover of the New York Times magazine
and the headline was she was exonerated of the murder
of her son. Her life is still shattered and with
that it's one of the most powerful pictures I've ever seen.
(03:37):
Let me just say that, you can look it up yourselves,
but it was. There was so much pain and so much,
so much more to it than that in this photograph.
I just thought, this is someone I know. If I
can do anything to share her story or to help
in any way, I'm committed to do it. So Julie,
(03:58):
going back to the beginning, can you take us through
what your life was like before this happened. I mean,
you were a woman of tremendous potential and someone who
had accomplished a great deal of black belt in taekwondo,
a doctoral student.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
Well, the black belt in taekwon was kind of a joke,
but it was something Joel and I did together which
was really fun.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
But you were working towards your doctorate in educational psychology
right at the time that everything went completely haywire. Can
you just talk to us a little bit of how
you chose that field, and that's a hell of a
thing to take on when you're raising a child, you know,
as a single mom.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
It was a perfect fit. It gave me time to
be there for Joel, a flexible schedule. School was a
good match for me. I really enjoyed graduate work and
the field was very interesting. I had wonderful mentors, and
(05:05):
I had a planned on a career in academia, which
would give me a chance to research things I loved
and was interested in. It would give me an excellent
environment for Joel. He was brilliant and intrigued with learning.
Joel and I enjoyed the life that we had at
(05:25):
the time. We had a lot of extracurricular activities and friends.
We had a great neighborhood and community where we lived.
We were doing a lot of fun things together and
just really looking forward to the next part of our
lives together. I remember things that Joel and I used
(05:47):
to like to do before everything changed. I remember sitting
by the door when it was storming and listening to
the rain while we were reading. And his favorite soup
is chicken noodle, so he had chicken noodle, and I
like tomatoes, so I had tomato. Just so many good
(06:09):
memories of all the things we were doing in our
lives at that time. I remember, I can't sing to
save my life, and Jall kind of inherited some of
that ability from me. But we would drive through and
get tacos from this one place. It was actually a
(06:29):
little tavern, was a very small talent, so we had
limited options. And this one night of the week we
had these great tacos and they had to drive through,
and then we would drive through and get a hot
pudge Sunday and we had done that. We were coming
home from taekwondo and we weren't singing. I don't know
what those songs in the Jungle, the Mighty Jungle, the
(06:51):
lines leaps tonight with the windows down, there was just
a really happy time. So much was going right, So
much was going right.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
And Ron, if I can turn this over to you,
because I know this is borderline impossible for Julie to discuss,
but can you share some of the details of this case.
You know what happened and how this all went so
horribly wrong.
Speaker 3 (07:22):
Sure, Julie and Joel were together in Julie's home and
in the middle of the night, four am, an intruder
came into the home. Julie didn't tear him. He is
somebody who has broken into homes and trailers across the
(07:43):
country without being heard. He was a serial murderer and
somebody very skilled at this, and so he was not heard.
He came into Joel's bedroom, stamped him to death, and
pushed him off the bed. Julie awoke to some sound
(08:05):
and she looked across from her bed into Joel's bedroom
and saw that he was not in the bed, and
so she woke herself up, started going towards his bedroom
and banged into somebody in the hallway. It was Tommy
Lynde Sells who she banged into, and the knife that
he held was found right there where Julie said they
(08:28):
banged into each other. He then sought to leave the house.
Julie grabbed onto his legs. Now again, Julie doesn't know
what's going on. All she knows is that Joel's not
in his bed. So you can imagine what a flood
of thoughts anybody would have at that time. So she
(08:49):
doesn't know what's going on, but she grabs onto this
guy for dear life. He drags her along the carpet,
and indeed she has rugburns on her knees from that
he breaks away get into the garage where there is
another door to the outside. Julie wants again grabs onto
(09:10):
him because he's having trouble getting out of that back door.
He breaks the glass to get out of the back door,
and Julie grabs onto him again for dear life, thinking
that he's the only link to Joel, and he drags
her along. She has scrapes on the top of her
(09:31):
feet from being dragged across the glass that is broken
from that door. He goes out into the backyard she's
holding on has grass stains from that. He then takes
her head, smashes it into the ground and walks off.
Julie immediately went to a neighbor's house and they called
(09:53):
the police, and the police found Joel's at that point
dying body. And from there, you know, of course, the
universe is changed, and everything that happened from that minute
that I started that narrative until Julie got out of
(10:16):
jail years later went wrong.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
And this one, I mean, even for me, this one
is absolutely mind boggling because it not only didn't make sense,
it couldn't have made sense. You have nothing to pin
this on Julie, And in fact, there's every arrow pointing
directly at an intruder. Of course, back then, nobody knew
(10:43):
who it was. That comes clear later at the story
when he actually confesses. Right.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
The case agent testified under my cross examination ultimately that everyone,
people who liked Julie, people who didn't like Julie, every
everyone told him that Julie and Joel had a good
and loving relationship. This was a quote. He could not
(11:08):
find anyone who would say that she raised her voice
to him, let alone her hand. So why would anybody
think that somebody who is a PhD candidate, an educational psychology,
with a good and loving relationship with their son, and
a good and caring person would do something like this.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
And no prior history of violence or mental issues or
anything nice. Quite the opposite, actually, right, So, in order
to get to where we're trying to figure out how,
I don't know if we'll ever really know why the
authorities in this case chose to pin this on Julie.
Julie had just lived through a scene from the worst
horror movie that anyone could ever see, every parent's worst nightmare. So, Julie,
(11:55):
if you can talk about it from there, you weren't
arrested then in there. This was something that took time
to wind its way through, and at some point they
decided to develop a narrative, maybe just because they couldn't
figure it out that involved you. But you've spoken to
me in the article about what your life was like
in the aftermath of this horror.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Well, in defense of the police, I mean, I think
that they were poorly trained. I think that they didn't
know what to do. It was a small town, they
weren't used to handling these kinds of crime scenes. They
showed up mishandled the evidence horribly. I mean where there
were hair and fiber evidence opportunities, they lost them. They
(12:41):
actually ruined them. They picked up the quilt that Joel
had been under and took a picture of themselves destroying
evidence and then showed that picturing court as though they
were proud of it. That is the level of incompetence.
And they did not take fingerprints. They for whatever reason,
(13:06):
decided that because the way the glass broke and fell
on the floor or the ground, that it was broken
out like I told them, the man had broken the
glass out, that they didn't think that was reasonable, which
(13:27):
I don't know what is reasonable when you have somebody
coming into a home and killing someone. He did use
a knife from my home, and they didn't fingerprint around
the knife block that they took the knife from. I
guess they thought that. I really have no clue what
(13:47):
they thought. I just don't know. I thought they were
trying to solve the crime. I thought they were trying
to catch the person. I was in shock.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
I was.
Speaker 2 (14:00):
In denial. When you're in shock, you look for ways
to fix things. I thought if I helped them, maybe
somehow we could fix what had happened. I don't know,
so I just talked to them and try to answer
all their questions. I had no idea that they could
possibly consider me a suspect. I mean, they actually came
(14:25):
to me at one point and said that they had
satellite photos, and I was thrilled to death because if
they had satellite photos, then we had evidence that we
could use to catch the person that did this. And
so we went back and forth for quite a long
time because there were no satellite photos, and they thought
(14:51):
they were going to catch me in some kind of
a lie or confuse me or trip me up or something.
So they kept moving the information around like no the
satellite photos are only of a certain part of the art,
and so I would say, oh, okay, well that's fine then,
you know, just broaden the scope of whatever you've got,
(15:12):
you know, or look at the different time periods. He
had to have moved through that part of the art
at some point, and they had no satellite photos at
that point. I had no idea cops would lie, you know.
I was looking for some real information. I mean, the
kind of person that does something like this is going
(15:34):
to do it again.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
That's a key point. I'm glad you brought that up,
because as citizens, all of us want to see a
person like Tommy Linzel's apprehended and brought to justice as
quickly as possible, because everyone's at risk if not. And
of course we know from the case after case that
when the wrong person is pursued, ultimately arrested and then charged,
(16:00):
they stopped looking for the right person. In this case,
the right person was a serial killer named tommyland Sells.
And I think you're right to point out the training.
This was a small town, right, so it's reasonable to
assume that these officers didn't have a great deal of
experience investigating crimes as serious as this one. But the
fact that they didn't even dust the bedroom or the
butcher block, as you said, for fingerprints, that they didn't
(16:20):
preserve critical trace evidence from Joel's bedspread, the fact that
from the beginning they focused on you and any blood
that you might have tried to wash away, right they done.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Yeah, septic tank, they dug up the septic tank. They
did all kinds of things, and they didn't bother to
give us this information at the time. But apparently the
first officer on the scene threw up on the scene.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
Wow, I mean, and that exactly a time when you
should have been receiving nothing but care and support and they're,
you know, instead hunting you and trying to pin this
thing on you.
Speaker 3 (16:52):
Okay, but let me inject a little bit of experience
into this. I was a prosecutor. These were not only
local police, they were the Illinois State Police. These people
had experience where this went off the rails, was where
cases all too often get off the rails. They did
(17:13):
not believe Julie from the first second, and often when
children are murdered, parents become suspects for whatever reason. These
officers jumped to a conclusion and then took steps that
resulted in confirmation of that conclusion. That is, they concluded
(17:37):
that Julie did it with no evidence, no reason, but
they did. Therefore, why fingerprint because her fingerprints are going
to be all over the place. Why preserve fibers because
her fibers are going to be all over the place.
And then they say, well, there's no evidence of an intruder.
(17:58):
Of course, there's no evidence of an intruder. You destroyed
it or did not capture any of the evidence of
the intruder. So when you view the evidence and then
either failed to create it or destroy the evidence that
is counter to the way you view it, then you
have a self fulfilling prophecy. And by the way, you
(18:21):
mentioned the investigation went on for years. What happened is
they investigated, investigated, investigated, got of course no evidence that
Julie committed the crime because she didn't. Asked her to
take a polygraph, She took a polygraph, passed the polygraph,
They investigated some more, asked her to take a second polygraph.
(18:43):
She passed a second polygraph.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
The local prosecutor would not indict me. He said, there's
no evidence. I'm not going to indict her. So they
got a special prosecutor and brought him in. Ed Parkinson
was a state prosecutor. He came from the specials secutor's office,
a Pellet prosecutor's office. They indicted with a grand jury,
and he promised that he would tell the grand jury
(19:08):
if they asked that I had passed two polygraphs. Not
only did he not give them that information, he himself,
who was conducting the grand jury, testified by saying, when
they asked, did she take a polygraph? He said, out
of fairness to the defendant, I will not answer that question,
(19:29):
we won't give you that information, implying I had not
passed polygraphs.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
Do you feel that at this point, and you're really
a perfect person to answer this, that the people in
position to make these decisions knew that they were prosecuting
an innocent woman.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
I think that the prosecutors, if I had to guess,
didn't care. I think he certainly misled the jury and
didn't care one way or the other. The local police,
I'm not sure if they knew, but they ignored all
of the evidence of the contrary. For example, Julie put
(20:10):
together a sketch of the intruder. The local bus station
person called the police and said, Hey, that guy was
just here. He purchased a bus ticket to win Amacca, Nevada,
a tiny town. He didn't have enough money. I gave
(20:32):
him the ticket anyway, I wanted him out of here.
He gave a horrible vibe and she called the police
and told him that where was Tommy Lynn Sells arrested
at one point Winnamucca, Nevada. What is between Winnemucca, Nevada
(20:52):
and where he bought that bus ticket? Springfield, Missouri where
two days after he murdered Joel, he murdered a little
girl named Stephanie Mahaney. The police knew that. The police
ignored that, unbelievably. It gets worse because even if you
(21:26):
totally ignored Tommy Lynn Sells, if you examine the physical evidence,
you realize that it prohibits Julie as a suspect, excludes her.
And one thing that the state used at her trial
was a blood spatter expert who testified in a way
(21:48):
that is unscrupulous, is a compliment. He took over the courtroom,
he splattered fake blood all over the courtroom, and then
he testified that the bloodines convicted Julie showed that she
committed the crime. It showed, in fact, exactly the opposite.
(22:10):
Julie had three transfer stains on her T shirt that
had Joel's blood on it, which were smudged. They were
not transferred by a hand. They were transferred by a
glove or something something that an intruder might wear. There
was blood spatter all of this room. Her T shirt
(22:34):
was Christine of blood spatter, and it was not cleaned.
They luminoled the house. There was no cleaning that went on.
And there was one blood spatter from Joel's blood on
Julie's T shirt. It was a ninety degree that is,
(22:54):
a drop from directly above it on her back. So
when could that have possibly happened? Obviously not if she
was committing the crime. Could not have come from Joel,
but easily could have come from Tommy Lynn Sells or
(23:16):
some unnamed intruder at that time who after he smashed
her head into the ground in the backyard, dropped a
bit of blood whatever it is. You know that she
could not have committed that crime from that one drop
of blood spatter. They put this expert on the stand
(23:37):
in the second trial, as the juror said, he ended
up after cross examination after telling the same lies ondirect
After cross examination, he ended up being a powerful defense
witness because blood spatter evidence proved beyond any reasonable doubt
(23:57):
that Julie was totally innocent of this crime.
Speaker 1 (24:02):
And there are no eyewitnesses. Obviously, there's no forensic evidence.
As we've discussed, there's no motive. So the entire case
hinged on that tiny amount of blood on the T shirt.
And we know that blood spatter it's not conducted by scientists.
Typically is conducted by detectives or other law enforcement personnel
who may be trained in crime scene stuff, but they're
(24:25):
not trained in science, generally speaking. And the idea that
they can get up there with impunity and with authority
and make assertions to things like they did in this
case that are so damning when they actually don't know
what they're talking about or they're lying. It's another reform
that needs to be made so that this doesn't happen again.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
Right, The blood evidence really was just as you described
in the first trial. It was distorted, it was lied about,
and unfortunately Julie's attorney at that time was not equipped
to take that expert on that and the unanswered question
(25:09):
of who does this, Who breaks into a home to
kill a child, leaves an adult essentially unharmed, and forgets
to bring a murder weapon, uses the weapon from the house, Well,
the answer is tommylind Sells. He's done that in half
a dozen cases across the country. But they close their
(25:34):
mind to the possibility that a person like that existed.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
I think a big part of the reason that jury's
convict people wrongly, especially in a case like this, is
because it's terrifying to let this kind of a crime
go unanswered. And we resume that our detectives have done
(26:02):
their jobs and brought us the right people, that our
prosecutors are prosecuting sincerely, that they've done their jobs and
they've worked hard, and they know that they're prosecuting the
right people. That we can trust the people in the
stand when they're under oath, that they wouldn't lie. And sadly,
(26:23):
we are finding that we can't assume these things, and
that's a terrifying reality that's got to change. And if
we as a culture and as a country, as a
group of people, as jurors don't hold accountable prosecutors and
detectives and law enforcement, it won't change.
Speaker 3 (26:47):
I would add, by the way, that at the time
we began Julie's case, I shared the naive assumptions that
Julie just said that we have to disabuse people of
that the prosecutor are there to do the right thing,
that the police are there to do the right thing.
That had been my experience. I was a prosecutor for
ten years. The Illinois States Attorney General supervised this. When
(27:14):
I saw the evidence in this case, I said, we
need to take this to the state's attorney general because
they will dismiss this case when they hear this. And
my colleagues, who were more experienced, said no, that's not
going to happen, but I insisted on doing it. We
went to the highest levels of the state's attorney general
(27:37):
and I said, look, here's the evidence. Here's what we're
going to say an opening statement. Here's how I'm going
to cross examine your expert forget about Tommy lind says
Julie could not have committed this crime. Here's why at trial,
you're going to be humiliated. We are going to absolutely
(27:59):
not only prove that you can't prove her guilty, we
will prove her innocent. Beyond any reasonable doubt. You should
not put her through this. Stop this now, And I
was convinced they would. Obviously I was wrong.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
When they arrested me and took me to the county jail,
I still thought, when they figure out they've made a mistake,
it's all going to be okay. When they did what
they did to me in that county jail, I realize
not only do they not care, they're fully aware you're innocent.
(28:39):
That's not an issue on the table. That's not what
this is about. People have no idea what's going on
when they think privatizing prisons is an option. Think about
what happens when we privatize military. We call that mercenaries.
(29:01):
We take the heart out of the military, we take
the ethics out of it. We have mercenaries. Think about
what you're doing when you take the value and the
concern for rehabilitation out of correctional systems, you privatize that
and make that a business where the bottom line is
(29:22):
only money. My god, what is going to happen to
our country when that is a done deal.
Speaker 1 (29:30):
Let's go back to this sham trial that you experience
when the jury goes out, when they came back, did
you still hold on to that belief that justice would
be done?
Speaker 2 (29:41):
You're talking about the first trial.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
Yeah, when the jury came back, you.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
Hope and trust that the truth will come out and
that they will have heard it, because you know you're innocent.
Speaker 1 (29:56):
But they didn't. Obviously they didn't, and they did find
you guilty and convicted you a first degree murder and
since to sixty five years in prison. At that point,
how did you even remain sane? Now you're looking at
spending the rest of your life in prison. Sixty five
years is very unlikely to survive that, but you stayed
(30:17):
strong to fight. And then along comes the team from
the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern, Karen Daniel and
her team of Avengers. Right, how did you first come
in contact with them? And what did that mean to
you when you found out that you were going to
be represented by this well, let's just call it what
it was. I mean, she was a legend.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
First, I want to say something about the time I
was in there and what happened with the conviction. And
I remember getting a letter from one of the jurors saying,
can you please forgive me for convicting you, and I
remember one of the jurors saying something about I just
needed her to look me in the eye and tell
me she didn't do it. And my attorney at my
(31:01):
first child would not let me take the stand I
wanted to, but he wouldn't let me wow, which was
very frustrating because obviously I would have been able to,
you know, tell them, you know, I didn't do it,
and what had happened, and all those kinds of things,
and you know, getting that letter and having someone say,
(31:23):
you know, I'm so sorry I can't sleep at night.
Can you please forgive me? And I remember thinking, well,
you know, that makes two of us that can't sleep
at night, but for different reasons. There's just this futility
that you feel about life. When something like this happens.
(31:44):
It takes away your faith in humanity. And that's why
I wanted to answer these questions together, because when Karen
told me that there were going to take the case,
I didn't know all of what that meant. But over
(32:07):
time I came to understand what it meant, and I
got my sense of confidence and humanity back through each
hearing and hug through every time they sat beside me.
When She told the judge she would be proud to
(32:27):
have me as her daughter, which she wasn't old enough
to have me as her daughter. She would have been
my sister and we became I mean, she did for
me the things the sister would have done.
Speaker 1 (32:43):
The team from Center of Unwrawful Convictions, again led by Karen,
they really did the work that the authorities should have
done and could have done in the first place. Right,
they found the killer, They got a confession. Can you
talk about how the whole thing on raph.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Really the identity of Tommy lynd Cells happened by an accident.
There was a twenty twenty episode on Julie's case and
it said, essentially, this is weird. This woman, you know again,
had a good and loving relationship with her son. There
(33:21):
was no reason in the world she would do this.
There was no hard evidence. On the other hand, who
does this? So it was just weird. And nobody breaks
into a home to kill a kid, leaves an adult
essentially not mortally wounded, and forgets to bring a murder weapon.
(33:42):
A woman who was writing a book on a Texas
death row inmate Tommy lynd Sells wrote to him and said,
I just heard somebody say on TV, nobody does this.
We know that's not true, because she knew as he
did that he had done this time and time again.
He wrote back and said, now this is six years
(34:04):
after the fact. Was it in Illinois? Was it two
days before? Stephanie Mahaney? And the answer, of course was
yes and yes. And she said why do you ask
and he says, because I did it. And then these
prosecutors went down and they took a tape recorded confession,
(34:24):
an eighty six page tape recorded confession. Now this is
a drug adult guy who had committed fifty murders across
the United States. So we got what the subdivision looked
like wrong, He got what the outside of the house
looked like wrong. He got a number of details wrong.
(34:45):
But he described the conflict with Julie in exactly the
same terms as she did. He described where he got
the knife exactly right. He described Joel's bedroom exactly as
it was. But they ignored all that. Northwestern came along
(35:06):
Karen Daniel, who was easily the most brilliant legal mind,
the most fearless lawyer with whom I have ever worked.
She put all of this together. She put together the
corroborating evidence that I described earlier about the bus terminal,
about the fact that he had been arrested in Winnemaka,
(35:29):
and all of the things that gave teeth to this,
and she wrapped it up in a beautiful package and
filed a habeas petition. They vacated the conviction really on
grounds that had little to do with any of that.
They vacated the conviction because the prosecutors had been pointed
(35:49):
pursuing to the wrong statute, which is kind of a technicality.
But at the same time, they had all of this
evidence in front of them, so they vacated the conviction.
Julie is free for a minute, and then they rearrested.
Speaker 2 (36:07):
That's one of the fascinating things to me about our
court system and our legal system. They specifically said, this
is not about Tommy Lindzell's you know, our court system
works that way. It's not about this, i e. It
is about this. It's not about what's logical, it's not
about necessarily what's true, and it's certainly not necessarily about
(36:30):
what's right. It's about legal precedent, it's about technicalities, and
so it really is a game. It really is a puzzle.
It really is a whole different language. And that's why
if you don't have the right attorneys, you don't have
a chance. It doesn't matter if you're innocent or not.
(36:51):
At least that's what I've learned. And if I hadn't
had Karen and Ron and Jeff and the attorneys that
I had, I would be locked up in a very
very bad situation for a very very long time if
I were still alive.
Speaker 1 (37:11):
And it's also quite shocking that the state chose to
retry you, but they did. By this point, everybody knew
you were innocent. I mean, I don't know if Iron
would disagree with that, but I think that it's fair
to say that this was now a game, right, This
was about protecting the wrongful conviction.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
Oh yeah, I mean even the prosecutor he offered me
twenty years due ten both trials. And both trials, I said, look,
if you think I'm guilty, you need to be giving
me the destines because whoever committed this crime needs to
have capital punishment. That's what needs to happen here. This
(37:50):
is not the kind of crime that you give somebody
twenty years do ten for That's just an insult.
Speaker 1 (37:54):
To Joel.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
And for him to say, oh, this woman's evil, which
he went on record as saying after I was acquitted.
But to have offered me twenty years due ten, that's
just well, it doesn't equate well.
Speaker 3 (38:12):
And they did know at that point that Julie was innocent.
They said at the bond hearing, the first appearance that
we had on this case. First time I stood in
front of the judge said, judge, you have to let
her out on bond, because you yourself said this was
a very thin, circumstantial case. That first of all, she
(38:33):
appeared at every pre trial hearing and the trial. Second,
this circumstantial case went off on one unanswered question. Who
does this? Now? Not only do we know who does this,
but he's confessed. And the judge turned to the prosecutor
and said, yeah, what about this confession thing? And here
(38:55):
are the words that the state uttered over a decade ago,
but they are burned in my memory. This is almost verbatim, o, judge,
don't worry about Tommy lynn Sells. No one will ever
hear about him, because, first of all, Texas will not
honor an out of state subpoena for a death row inmate,
(39:18):
which is true, by the way, because they are afraid
that he will go to a non death penalty state
and they won't get him back to kill him. And
we immunized him for the death penalty. So it is
not a statement against penal interest. It is hearsay no
jury will ever hear about Tommy lyn Cells. I said,
(39:41):
wait a minute, Judge, I do not hear the representative
of the people of the state of Illinois to be
telling you that he intends to try this woman for
essentially her life while concealing from the jury the fact
that he took a confession from a serial murderer that
(40:03):
he knows is corroborated by independent evidence. I don't hear
the representative of the people of the state of Illinois
to be saying that. But if you hear him to
be saying that, you ought to say not in my courtroom.
This is not happening. Judge looked at me, looked at him,
and then imposed a significant bond. So everybody knew that
(40:28):
Julie was innocent at that point, and it was, unfortunately,
as Julie describes it, a game.
Speaker 1 (40:48):
So the retrial goes forward. This time it's all out
in the open they're not able to railroad her the
way they did the first time. This time, Julie at
the stand and proclaimed your innocence, and of course, ultimately
the jury saw through the bullshit, they're bullshit and returned
(41:12):
a not guilty verdict. And I've read that your knees
buckled in the courtroom. Is that? Is that right? When
the when the verdict was announced.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
I fell. Yes, I don't remember falling. I mean, I
know I did, but I don't remember that part. What
I remember is looking at Ron and him looking at me,
and I was just really, really, really thankful.
Speaker 3 (41:42):
I'll tell you what I remember about that day. First
of all, we were at lunch and Julie said, so,
in your experience as a criminal defense attorney, how long
does it take the jury in cases like this? I said, well,
when the jury comes back, I'll let you know, because
then I will have one criminal defense case. She said, what,
(42:06):
You've never done this before.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
Don't you sound excited or worried? I know I didn't.
Speaker 4 (42:12):
Don't you think you should have told me that? I said, well,
I guess, I said, no. Do you feel underrepresented? But
we were, we were in the courtroom.
Speaker 3 (42:24):
And look, there was no evidence. It was overwhelming. There
was no chance, and yet you're standing there. And I
remember waiting for the verdict, thinking, I don't know what
tomorrow looks like. If they say guilty, I don't know
(42:48):
how to go on in life. So I can't imagine
what Julie is thinking right now. And when they said
not guilty. I turned to Julie. Her knees did buckle.
I went to catch her missed, but we picked her up,
(43:09):
you know, and we all hugged. It was just an
enormous relief that finally she could put this aspect of
the nightmare behind her, she would never again be put
in that kind of danger.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
For all the years I've been doing this, and I'm
constantly Everyone who knows me knows I'm always out there
talking to strangers about this cause people will say to me, well, well,
there's two questions they ask. One is was the prosecutor
disciplined in any way? And the second is, tell me
the person who suffered so much the x HOGNERI was
(43:51):
compensated by the state in your case. We know the
answer the first question is no, as it is in
ninety nine point of all cases. And the answer the
second question I think you have.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
To look at compensation broadly to answer that question. There's
a lot of different kinds of riches in life. I
think I appreciate life more and I have been blessed
(44:24):
with some of the most amazing people in the world
through this experience. I think that there are lessons that
you learn when you walk a desperately lonely path where
your shadow is your only company, and there is a
homecoming when you find out that the world is full
(44:46):
of wonderful people. They've just been hidden from you for
a while and you thought they were gone. So yes,
I've been compensated.
Speaker 3 (44:56):
So you just heard the grace and generosity and strength
of character and just uniquely wonderful spirit that Julie has
to have survived with that kind of an attitude and
that kind of a desire to help others. The answer
(45:18):
to your question is no, the state didn't compensate Julie.
You know, it is unthinkable what she has had to bear,
and the way she has bored it is equally unfathomable,
but diametrically opposed way, in a wonderful way. And the
(45:39):
way we're gonna stop this is for people to stop
electing prosecutors who only care about statistics and not justice.
It's going to be to have people stop electing judges
who are off on crime and more interested in justice.
(46:08):
It's going to be people who take their oath as
jurors seriously and not have the naive presumption because you
can't have it in today's world. There's too much evidence
that people are wrongfully drawn into these courtrooms. And to
(46:29):
have jurors who have an open mind and not just
listen to the prosecution. And people like Karen Daniel devoted
her life to doing just that, to opening people's eyes
time and time and time again, to opening the judge's eyes,
to open the Port of Appeals eyes, the Supreme Court's eyes,
(46:51):
juror's eyes, citizens' eyes. Through her indomitable spirit, through her
incredible intellect and energy. And we need more of those,
and we need more Julie's in the world without the
nightmare preceding it, and we'll get them.
Speaker 2 (47:14):
Thank you Jason so much for having the show and
taking the time to do the research you do, and
I would just really beg people to do. You know
what Karen did. She didn't just see problems. She went
about finding solutions. One little endeavor at a time, and
you just put all those things together and you start
(47:36):
solving the big problems. And again, just be informed. When
you know things, when you share information, when you educate others.
These things can't continue to happen because people won't allow
them to. Information is very, very powerful, So be informed.
Speaker 1 (47:55):
Well, that's very well said, and I appreciate you. Know,
you really are doing my for me because you speak
so eloquently about the problems and the solutions, and I
think we're moving as a society in that direction. There's
been a number of positive developments recently, too numerous to
get into now. And of course also check out Center
(48:17):
for Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern who do such wonderful work,
and of course the Edocence Project Innocence Project dot org.
Now clothing arguments. Usually I asked for closing arguments, but
you guys already did them. I think at this point
all I can say is, Wow, I'm really honored to
have had both of you on the show. I think
(48:38):
the work that you've done and you continue to do
ron is exemplary and heroic. And Julie, I said it
before at the beginning of the show, and I'll say
it again. You are a hero to me and to
so many others. And I don't even have the right
words to say. You know what your perseverance and what
your The best word is grace, as Ron said, means
to all of us. It makes us all want to
(48:59):
fight harder, longer, and better and to help people in
your situation and to help prevent others from falling into
this trap going forward. So thank you just for being you,
and thank you for joining us on Wrongful Conviction. This
has been an amazing experience for.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
Thank you Jason so much so.
Speaker 1 (49:24):
Now it's with a heavy heart that I want to
offer a tribute to one of the true legends in
the field of writing wrongful convictions, a woman who we
lost too soon in a tragic accident a very short
time ago, and that person is Karen Daniel. Karen was
(49:44):
the director of the Center for Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern Moreover.
She was a warrior. She's described by so many different
people who worked with her, who loved her, who were
represented by her as someone who was tough as nails
and at the same time was warm and soft and
was a hugger and someone who cared deeply about the
(50:10):
people that she represented, and that went far beyond the
courtroom into all aspects of her life. So I think
today we have two people who were directly touched by
her in different ways, and I can't find the right words.
So I'm going to turn it over to you. I
guess we'll save Julie. We'll save you for last, and
(50:32):
let Ron first, please share your remembrances of this wonderful woman.
Karen Daniel.
Speaker 3 (50:42):
Karen was an angel who was lent to us from
heaven for a two short period of time. She was
a fierce, fearless, incredibly persuasive lawyer, and she was also
a teacher. She taught countless students about what is important
(51:03):
in a law degree. She taught me everything that I
know about wrongful conviction cases. I had never done any
I was a prosecutor in a previous life and then
a corporate lawyer. She had tremendous patience, she had tremendous intellect.
Anything that I do, anything that her students do, are
(51:26):
all because of what Karen taught us. And you know,
the ripple effect of the pebbles that Karen tossed into
the ocean with all of us would cause a title wave.
She is one of the few people who we can
(51:48):
appropriately use the term hero. Karen changed the world for
the better.
Speaker 1 (51:57):
Julie over to you.
Speaker 2 (52:00):
Karen's story is the stuff that legends are made of.
She was quiet, kind of like the sun is. She
could make things grow. She was there in ways that mattered.
She wasn't always just saying she would do things to
make the world a better place, but she was doing them.
(52:24):
She helped exoneries with legal matters beyond their exoneration. She
would help with their medical emergencies, with personal tragedies, family events, celebrations.
She was there when they made memories, and she was
there when their heart was breaking. She was the one
that walked you to the cab when everybody else had
(52:46):
already gone home from the party or was still partying.
She made sure you were safe getting from here to there,
when you were of otherwise been alone on the road.
Karen was there. She was the sister that he didn't have,
the best friend you always wanted. She wasn't about money.
(53:09):
She was better than money could ever hire or buy.
She was priceless and the changes and the things that
we all wish we could do in life, she did
and She passed that on to a lot of people,
the desire to do that, the methods for how to
(53:29):
do it. And I know that all of us who
were blessed enough to know her, who are struggling still
with losing her or trying to figure out how in
the world we're gonna do something to prove that we
deserved having had her in her life.
Speaker 1 (53:52):
That's beautiful. Thank you, Julie, and thank you un You're
welcome Karen wherever you are. You're gone but never forgotten,
and we're sending our respect and appreciation your way. Don't
(54:14):
forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you get
your podcasts. It really helps. And I'm a proud donor
to the Innocence Project, and I really hope you'll join
me in supporting this very important cause and helping to
prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to Innocenceproject dot org to
learn how to donate and get involved. I'd like to
thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wartis. The
(54:36):
music in the show is by three time OSCAR nominated
composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram
at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast.
Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flamm is a production of Lava
for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number one
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.