Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hudson Valley This Morning with Ed Kowalski is the new
voice in the Hudson Valley.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Hi, this is Ed.
Speaker 3 (00:06):
I am so grateful for the support you've already given us.
We are creating a platform that gives you our listeners
a voice. Together, we can build the best local community
talk program in the Hudson Valley.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
We'd love it if you tuned in to Hudson Valley
This Morning with Ed Kowalski from six to nine am
Monday through Friday on fourteen fifteen thirteen seventy am or
ninety eight five FM WKIP.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Six thirty eight on Monday morning. You're listening to the
new Hudson Valley This Morning Show with Ed Kowalski. And
I am pleased Jeffrey Dessovic has been patiently holding online.
I do appreciate that. Jeff. Jeff is the founder of
the Desk of Daskovic Foundation, a New York based five
(00:54):
oh one c three nonprofit organization whose whole mission is
committed to examenerating the wrongfully convicted, both in DNA and
non DNA cases, as well as wrongful conviction prevention. The
Foundation was established as a result of Jeffrey's own wrongful
conviction at the age of seventeen for the rape and
murder of a fifteen year old girl. Jeffrey, welcome to
(01:18):
the show.
Speaker 4 (01:20):
Thank you very much for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
You're very very welcome. Why don't you tell our listeners, Jeffrey,
a little bit of your story if you don't mind.
Speaker 4 (01:28):
No, I don't mind. I was arrested at sixteen in Pigskill,
which is city in Westchester County, New York. As you mentioned,
I was charged with murder and rape, which I did
not commit. The arrest was based on a coerce, false confession,
prosecutorial misconduct, fraud by the medical examiner, a terrible public defender.
(01:49):
I lost despite the DNA not matching me. I lost
seven appeals. I got turned down for parole. I was
blocked several times from getting further DNA testing. I was
exonerated through further DNA testing to the DNA data bank,
which affirmed my innocence while also identifying the actual perpetrator,
(02:09):
who was subsequently arrested and convicted. Of course, his DNA
was only in the data bank because he left free. Well,
I was doing time for his crime. He killed a
second victim. Three and a half years later, it was
a school teacher, mother of two. So that that's my backstory.
And of course what I have been home for my
eighteen nineteen years ready now, And I took some of
(02:29):
the compensation I received. I started the organization which you
already mentioned about, completed a bachelor's degree, the master's degree.
My master's thesis has written on awful Conviction, Cause and Reform,
and then then pursued the dream of exonerating others as
a lawyer. I became an attorney.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Jeff. It's an incredible story. And I just I mean
this week, as I spoke to you, or as I
shanged emails with you yesterday to talk to talk about
to talk about what we wanted to do this week,
how this is going to sound such a basic question?
And forgive me if it's if it's because of its simplicity.
(03:09):
But when you were going through that process, you spent
fifteen or sixteen years in jail, How lonely was that
for you? I know that's a basic question, but tell
our listeners what that was like.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
Sure, the sixteen years in prison was extremely lonely. I
was housed in primarily in Elmira. It was four four
and a half hours from the city that I grew
up in, So I had several sets of aunts and
uncles that would come and visit me, but then they'd
visit and then disappear for three years, visit, disappear for
three years, and how that pattern continue. My mother was
(03:45):
my only consistent visitor, but in the last five or
six years I was lucky if I saw her once
every six months. My grandmother used to come with her,
but then she passed away in nineteen ninety six, so
approximately five years into it. My brother, who's three and
a half years younger than me, came three times in
sixteen years, not at all in the last decade. So
(04:07):
for most intents and purposes, I did the time by myself,
and it was very very lonely, very isolating, you know.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
And jet the other thing too that i'd like you
to comment on. You know, most individuals who have experiences
with our court systems, whether it be on the civil
side and certainly on the criminal side, you know a
lot of people, you know who are not really aware
as to how that how the processes work, you know,
(04:38):
sort of sort of thinking, you know that you know
the scales of justice will always balance. You know, people
who have been arrested are obviously guilty, you know, and
I think at the end of the day, when people
have had exposure, certainly on the civil side, a lot
of times on the criminal side, it's it's it really
(04:59):
is a incomprehensible force sometimes. And can you comment a
little bit about sort of the the the the issues
that you dealt with. I mean, you highlighted a little
bit of it in the introduction, specific to prosecutorial misconduct,
you know, you know, poor representation from a public defender.
But can you go into a little bit more of then.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Absolutely, Yeah, of course that was just of course the
tee up and I figured you were asking the follow
up question, which of course you just said. Yeah. So
the prosecutorial misconduct that's a major cause of wrongful conviction
in general. That was certainly a factor in you know,
my my wrongful conviction. So specifically, firstly, before one day
(05:41):
before officially getting the DNA test results from the s
Guy labby prosecutor rushed to the grand jury to indict
me so that way he didn't have to present the
DNA test result which excluded me to them. So that
was one aspect of it. A more major aspect of
it than that was that the medical examiner had been
(06:04):
complained of in neighboring counties by law enforcement, so they
were alleging that he was giving untruthful testimony, you know,
trying to help people get away with crime. So he
was moonlighting as a defense expert. So whichever way the
money flowed was how his testimony was colored. So he
was playing a very important role in my case because
when the DNA didn't match me, that's the probably that's
(06:27):
when the medical examiner suddenly said that got to follow
this now, and it's going to be hard. He says,
he remembered that he forgot to document medical evidence that
he claimed showed the victim had been promiscuous. So that's
what allowed the prosecutor to argue that that was how
the DNA didn't match me because she was promiscuous, she
(06:49):
was sleeping around, that she slept with someone else before
I murdered and raped her. And then the prosecutor took
it a step further and he mentioned another youth by
name that he claimed had slept with the victor them.
But the issue is that the whole thing was a lie.
You know, he never said a proper evidentiary foundation for
that he like, he never had he never had a
DNA test performed on those other individuals who never even
(07:12):
called him as a witness. So in that aspect of
it was what he knew. Poscure has a duty to
correct and here untruthful testimony. But I can't imagine that
he didn't realize that the you know, that that was
improper what the medical examiner was saying. But but but
also tying into the directness conduct more than that that
(07:33):
that's where the medical examiner being complained of in neighboring
counties by authorities would have been important information to turn
over because we could have used that to challenge his credibility.
But instead he didn't give us that, and then again
making an argument without without setting up proper evidentiary foundation
is not proper either.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
He remembered that he remembered that he forgot that. That's
literally what.
Speaker 4 (07:57):
He said, correct, that is a little, that is little
what he said he remembered because he had to have
he remembered that he forgot because he had to have
an explanation for why this whole you know, consensual you know,
what why why is it that you know, why did
why did he have to have an explanation for why
did he not document before that these supposed, you know,
medical findings that that he did when he performed the
(08:19):
outside Why why did you only come up with that
after the DNA did it match me? He had to
have some explanation for that, and I guess that's the
best that he could do.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
And the Westchester County District attorney accepted that.
Speaker 4 (08:33):
Yes, yes he did as a matter of fact. And
the civil rights litigation that followed many many years later,
after I was exonerated, my civil rights lawyers found two
other cases where this medical examiner changed his opinion, uh
in order to better fit the prosecution theory. So it was,
(08:56):
it was it was a it was a you know,
a pattern and practice between the two of them. But
I want to also touch on the other part of
your question. You asked about bad wayaring. So essentially, this
public defender from Westester County League legal lead essentially didn't
defend me. He never he rarely met with me. He
was always shutting me up whenever I tried to explain
(09:18):
to him that I was innocent, and what happened in
the interrogation room. He never interviewed my alibi or called
my alibi as a witness. I was actually playing with
a ball with a friend when the crime happened. He
never explained to the jury the significance of the DNA
not matching me. He never used that to argue that
that proved that the confession was coerced and false. He
(09:38):
literally never crossed examined the medical examiner. Sometimes he told
the jury he argued to the jury that I never confessed.
Other times he argued that I did confess, but but
I was coerced. And at still other times he was
arguing that it was a false confession. So you know
(09:58):
ed that you can't just sit there and throw things
against the wall, you know, and still maintain credibility. Last place,
he should have never represented me in the first place
because of a conflict of interest.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Okay, jeff I'm going to ask you do me if everyone,
If you wouldn't mind, I just have to take a
quick two minute break right now. Can you just hang
on and I want to be able to continue this conversation. Absolutely,
thank you, sir. We'll be right back with Jeffrey Dskovic
six fifty on Monday morning. This is at Kowalski. We
(10:33):
returned with Jeffrey Didskovic. Jeff can continue your your fascinating story.
Speaker 4 (10:39):
Absolutely so. So lastly, my public defender should not have
represented me in the first place because of a conflict
of interest, So the youth of the prosecutor was falsely
saying I've slept with the victim was represented by another
member of west Sister County League Delaid and specifically by
(10:59):
the lawyer that was supposed to be supervising him on
my case. So that conflict prevented the defense from asking
him to give a DNA sample. That prevented the defense
from owning mess awitness.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
Jeff how long did your trial run? How long was
the actual trial?
Speaker 4 (11:15):
Approximately two weeks?
Speaker 2 (11:17):
Two weeks And again as a matter of public record,
Janine Pierrot was the Westchester County District Attorney during this case,
wasn't she?
Speaker 4 (11:26):
Well, she was not the district attorney when I was
from the time of the trial when I was convicted.
She did take office though before my first appeal was decided,
so she was the one who kept the ball rolling
against me, so she bought against me in seven appeals.
She blocked me from getting further DNA testing several times.
(11:47):
She even got me thrown out of federal court. The
court clerk had given my lawyer the wrong information pertaining
to the filing procedure, and as a result of that,
my petition arrived day is too late, which her office
argued the court to simp the rule that I was late,
and I even consider the issues that we were raising,
(12:07):
and that's what the court did. Well, why do you
she was definitely a major factor for sure.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
Why do you think and this is sort of a
leading question here, but why do you think there was
such a a determined method to be able to sort
of just keep this case closed from from from from
the DA's perspective. Were they embarrassed over the over the
(12:33):
the fact of the how, how, what occurred? Or what?
What do you think was going on there?
Speaker 4 (12:40):
Well, a lot of times they just simply want to win.
It doesn't become a search for for for the truth
or you know, about pursuing justice. It's just about wins
and losses. And you know, once you get a conviction,
I mean preserving the conviction. That's about keeping a win
in the win column. So I think that's part of it,
and you know, just trying to cover up for Ki
you knows, misdeeds. You know, my job prosecutor continued on
(13:04):
and the you know, George Bollen continued on in the
West st Ada's officer, you know, quite a while after
my conviction. So I think that was I think that
that was part of it.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
How now, if we go fast forward, what occurred then
in terms of who actually took up the case on
your on your behalf. How did that tell our listeners
a little bit about what occurred in terms of getting
this thing, you know, reopened, relooked at, and eventually overturned.
Speaker 4 (13:34):
Yes, so my appeals were over, you know, after eleven years,
I had seven appeals. When the appeals are over, the
only way back into court is if you could find
some previously unknown evidence of innocence. So I didn't have
any money to hire an attorney or investigator. Hence I
embarked on a letter writing campaign over the course of
(13:54):
four years, just looking for, you know, a a attorney
and investigator to take my case on pro bono. So
one of the letters that I wrote to a publishing
company was eventually forwarded to an investigator, and an investigator
ultimately connected me to the Innocence Project. They're a nonprofit
organization located in Manhattan that works for free monthly convicted
(14:17):
prisoners across the country or those cases where DNA can
demonstrate innocence.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Is that is that Barry Schek's organization.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
It is Barry Scheck's organization. YEP, Barry Scheck and Peter
Nuffeld are the co founders of it. So they agreed
to represent me. That was the first key. H And
I want to also mention that one of their intake workers,
Maggie Taylor, was the lawyer. Now she represented my case.
She presented it like three times to the to the attorneys,
and they didn't want to take it the first couple
(14:46):
of times, but she got them to agree to take it.
That was the first key. Second key is that Piro
left office and her successor, Jenety Fury, was willing to
allow me to have the further testing without getting over that.
And thirdly, we got lucky that the actual perpetrators DNA
was in the data bank, so it matched him and
(15:08):
so when it matched him, confronted with that evidence, he
admitted that he was the person who.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
But but but Jeff yes, that's correct. His DNA was
in the data bank, but that was because he murdered
someone else.
Speaker 4 (15:23):
Yes, yes, he killed a second victim three and a
half years later, who was a school teacher and had
two children. Yes.
Speaker 2 (15:30):
Oh my gosh. It's just absolutely staggering, and just get
it scored away. Hey, jeff can I ask you to
hold through another break if you wouldn't mind. I want
to continue this conversation.
Speaker 4 (15:40):
Absolutely, Let's do it long as you have time.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
I have time.
Speaker 4 (15:43):
I love sharing the story.
Speaker 5 (15:44):
I got the time, Jeffrey. We'll be right back with
Jeffrey desco Vic. This is zid Kuwalski seven oh six.
(16:07):
This is Ed Kowalski on Hudson Valley this morning. With
Ed Kowalski. We are rejoined by a very patient Jeffrey Deskovic.
So thank you very much Jeff for holding through continue
with your story because I'm absolutely fascinated by it, and
I know our listeners are, and I think, Jeff the
thing that really is of concern to me is that
(16:28):
what you just said to my last question, which is
why do you think the prosecutors in the way the
Westchester County District Attorney Attorney's Office you know, were sort
of really doing everything they could to sort of just
sort of keep this case in the in the convicted column.
What you said is really frightening to me. It's like
(16:49):
they wanted to keep it in the win column. You know,
they really lost, they really lost the perspective of being
able to seek justice, and they wanted to keep it
in the win column. That's scary, it.
Speaker 4 (17:05):
Really, it really is. I mean, remember that, you know,
they're the government. They had the know, they're very powerful,
that they have almost unlimited resources, and you know, the
idea that somebody would you know, not use that responsibility
to you know, to seek justice, but instead just simply
the win and to preserve preserve a win, I mean,
even at the expense of you know so, and then
(17:26):
it's a person's freedom like mine, that is that is
very scary. I really believe that I'm home. I'm you know,
as I said when I was released, I'm not free
because of the system. I'm here despite the system. I'm
here because I overcame the system.
Speaker 2 (17:41):
But let's talk about that. And let's talk about that now, Jeff.
In light of the fact that it's Thanksgiving week and
and and I know this is going to sound like
a very naive question, but but what are you thankful
for when you when you look back and and and
I know that's a silly question, but but I want,
I want you to use your own voice and your
own word to tell the listeners you know what you're
(18:03):
thankful for, what you're looking to be able to do.
And then I want to talk a little bit about
what your foundation is all about.
Speaker 4 (18:10):
Sure, I'm thankful that I have my I'm thankful that
I have my freedom, that I haven't lost my mind,
that you know, I you know, I don't. I don't
have like cuts or scratches in my face or anywhere
else in my body. You know that That's that's what
I'm thankful for. I'm thankful just for the small things.
(18:30):
You know, I appreciate things like, you know, the sun
on my face, some some some fresh some fresh air,
being able to be outside in the night time, you know,
free freedom of travel. You know, there's so many options
that you can do for for education and freedom of
of career, all of which is you know, completely contrasted
with you know, with with the prison they closed the
(18:52):
yard at night. Is the only have whatever programs the
prison happens to be happens to uh, you know, to
to offer it's very limiting them, you know, just to
be just to not be in an environment where you know,
violence is uh as an everyday thing. That that's what
that's what prison is. And you know, having to walk
on eggshells at times, you know, in certain guards on
(19:15):
just to try to avoid coming to their attention. I mean,
you know, these things are not normal. It's not normal
to be hyper visionlant or you know, when you hear
a noise or commotion and you know you got to
put you back to the walls so that nobody, you know,
it doesn't sneak attack. I mean, none of these things
are normal. I mean the world inside prison is not
at all like the world on the on the outside.
(19:38):
You know, medical care is terrible. Food it was sometimes
it was burned, other times it wasn't it wasn't fully cooked.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Amazing. How the decision that you made after being released
to go to law school, what was that like?
Speaker 4 (20:01):
Well, that was not a decision easily made, you know,
I did. I did do work as an individual advocate
for about five years. I was speaking up and down
New York and throughout the country. I was making some
funds doing that, and I became a columnist for the
Westchester Guardian, a weekly newspaper, And I was meeting trading
(20:24):
privacy for awareness by doing print, radio, television, and ultimately
new media interviews. And I was ugly meeting with elected officials.
Got a scholarship from Mercy University to finish the Machter's degree,
which I had come a year of completing while wrongfully imprisoned.
Did not get into law school. Got a master's from
John Jay because I thought the master's degree would assist
(20:45):
me with being a more effective advocate. I got compensated.
I used some of the money to start the Jeffrey
Deskerbick Foundation for Justice. But at some point I will
get into that with your next question, but I just
want to say that at some point I became not
satisfied with sitting in the front row of the courtroom.
I wanted to go to sit at the defense table.
(21:07):
I wanted to go to represent some of the clients,
make some of the arguments tense, making a second foray
into law school and pursue the dream of exonerating others
as a lawyer.
Speaker 2 (21:19):
And talk about that your foundation right now, tell our
listeners what your foundation is doing. I think you've actually
been instrumental in have you overturned thirteen lungful convictions or
you're actively pursuing the overturning of those convictions.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
Yes, okay, So as an organization overall, since opening our
doors in twenty eleven, we've been able to free fifteen people.
So I choose my words wisely. Okay. Freeing is one thing,
as generation is another. Out of the fifteen people that
we helped free of which we were all, you know,
we were convinced that they were innocent, six of those
(22:00):
exonerations okay. And there's another case that's not in that
category that that the convictions overturned. The client's released, but
it's not an ex generation because the Bronx District Attorney
is appealing is appealing the reversal. So out of the
out of those fifteen cases, I was co counselor and
(22:21):
Andre Brown case, which is the case I was just
referring to with lead attorney Oscar Michelin, we're waiting for
a decision. Uh one though the das that has appealed
the reversal. And then approximately six weeks ago I as
co counsel. I did achieve exoneration in the Thomas Thomas
Schaeffer case. Mister Shaffer had been wrongfully convicted of from
a fourth degree grand larceny. So yeah. So now at
(22:44):
this point we have thirteen active cases of which I'm
an attorney in not in nine of them, mostly second
seating more experienced lawyers, but a few cases where I
am the lead attorney and I have the more experienced
guy second seating me. It's the get the experience of
doing that, and then we're pursuing policy changes in New York, Pennsylvania, California.
(23:08):
I'd just like to briefly mentioned what the policy changes are.
Keeping in mind overlall we help the past nine laws,
including the Mission on Prosecutor Conduct, Discovery Reform, a bill
that mandated police recording interrogations, and Identification Bill. Six of
those were with the National Coalition Group That Could Happen
(23:29):
to You, which the Foundation is part of and I'm
advisory board member of. In terms of currently pending legislation,
so I want to share for contexts that false confessions
have caused wrongful convictions in twenty nine percent to the
DNA proven wrongful conviction. So there's three bills that are
pending down in the New York State legislature. One of
them is a bill that would mandate that the police
(23:52):
record all interrogations. Current law mandates that they have to
record the historial interrogations, but has exceptions for homicide, sex offenses,
drug cases, so this bill would get rid of those exceptions.
There is what's called the Police Deception Bill, which would
ban law enforcement from using deception and interrogation since you
(24:14):
know that's considered to be inherently coercive. And then there's
the Youth Interrogation Act, which would give sixteen seventeen year
olds kids younger than that a non way that will
right to council, meaning that they would have to speak
to an attorney first, for the attorney to explain to
them what their rights are before they could then decide
to waive them and speak to it to put law
(24:35):
enforcement without an attorney present. Keeping in mind that, you know,
kids often don't understand their rights. I certainly didn't understand mine,
you know, whenever I came to that portion of the
miranda warnings where it said anything you say can and will,
and we'll be used against you in the court of law.
I never understood what that meant. My mind went to
what I had saw on television different civil court contexts,
(24:57):
and I would think to myself, court, would what are
you talking about? You know, we're not We're not going
to court in Pennsylvania. That's in New York. In Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania is one of twelve states that does not compensate
people when they've been wrongfully convicted and exonerated. And in California,
where we're building support for the Commission on Prosecutor Conducts.
(25:20):
So the same law that we passed in New York
to an independent oversight board to review allegations of prosecutorium
this conduct, we're building support for that in California with
the hope of passing that build there as great as
it is to exonerate people, and really that's where my
heart is. I know that prevention is arguably more important
(25:41):
because you're you're impacting a lot more people, and it's
much better to prevent you know, well, it's obviously it's
much better to prevent wealthful convictions. You know, there was
devastating to me, my family. It costs another person their
their life, as we talked about earlier. So you know,
I need to make my pain count for something, right,
(26:02):
you know, And if I could at least help make
the system more accurate to prevent others from going through
what I went through, then at least I could take
some solace in that. It's you know, advocacy work is
my is my release, you know it. I don't want
to I'm not angry or a bitter person. I want
to enjoy my life as much as I can. I
(26:23):
can't do that if I'm angry or bitter. You know.
Another other thing is that I feel like I lost
so much as is, you know, sixteen years from me
seventeen or thirty two. So I've lost so much as is,
Why would I want to ineffect lose the rest of
my life? And you know, so the vehicle that allows
me to actualize that as I take this energy and
I channel into the advocacy work, you know, it does,
(26:46):
it does make a difference. And and I am doing
the work that I'm supposed to do in the world.
That's how it makes sense of what of what happens
to me.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
You know, Jeff, I can't tell you how well how
well said that lest comment was, because you know, in
life you don't understand why things happened to you, and
look at what you've done. Given the horrific circumstances as
to what occurred with you and what you've now done,
(27:16):
it would be very easy, very easy for you to
sort of say, leave me alone. I'm done. I want
to just sort of, you know, just I don't want
to deal with people. I don't want to be able
to do anything other than just sort of be glad
that I'm home. And if that were the way you
chose to do that, I couldn't faulter for that, given
what you've been through. But what you've done is taken
(27:39):
those circumstances of your life and the circumstances specific to
what occurred to you, and you've turned it around to
do something positive. And that, Sir, is something that I'm
thankful for in this Thanksgiving week, to know that someone
like yourself has taken a horrific, sir, circumstance and has
(28:01):
made something positive out of it, and that to me
is commendable.
Speaker 4 (28:10):
I'm just charge. You know, I'm trying to do the
best I can with difficult circumstances, and you know, I
do hope that you know, I inspire people that are
in the same position that I was in not not
to quit, you know, not not to give up, to
keep doing, and then even just a broader or lesson.
You know, I was a non traditional student in in
in in law school. I was forty five when I
(28:33):
when I entered entered law school. You know, I just
want to share with people that you know, it's never
it's never too late. I mean it was it was
a dream to be a lawyer. I mean I did
want to do that at the time that I was
around the time I was roughly convicted. I mean, it
wasn't to do innocence work. It was just to be
it was just to be a lawyer in general. But look,
(28:56):
I was able to still I was able to still
fulfill a dream, albeit to a more circuitous route. But
you know, it's better late. It's it's better late than never.
And you know, I'm a dream chaser, so I are
a that it's better. I believe it's better to work really,
really hard and try to turn your dream into a reality.
(29:16):
It's better to do that, even if you ultimately come
up short. It's better to do that than than to
not to not not try at all.
Speaker 2 (29:25):
Jeff before in the last couple of minutes we have here.
Can you just give people your website and your contact
information should they need to be able to just understand
what you've done, further to be able to perhaps make
a contribution to your foundation. What are those numbers?
Speaker 4 (29:41):
Absolutely? Yeah. So the website is www. Dotskovic dot dot org.
That's spelled d E s k O V I c U.
We're on social media as well, on Instagram, Dskovic Foundation.
We're on on Facebook, the Jeffrey desc Foundation, and of
course I have my personal page and Jeffrey Dskovic and
(30:04):
the public figure page. I use it as an information
dispensing tool, so people want to see what the latest
advocacy work is, that we're up to, upcoming speaking events,
other media appearances. You can certainly do that through following us. There.
There's a web form on the web on the website
(30:26):
you can email me. I answer emails. I mean, I
do answer when the communication platforms on the on social media.
Speaking of contributions, I mean I do want to share.
My dream is to one day have a chapter of
the foundation in each each state, ultimately each country. I
really see this as a worldwide issue in countries where
(30:51):
they don't care about people being exonerated and run for convictions.
It's not that the errors aren't occurring, it's that no
one's being exonerated, nobody's digging, nobody's working on the cases.
But of course that will be when we get the
public financial support to do that. We do have a
Crown funding page on the website Patreon, which is for
(31:12):
people that are willing to be recurring monthly donors. You know,
imagine if imagine twenty five thousand people were willing to
sacrifice three to five dollars a month on a recurring
monthly basis, you know, would that would give close to
a million dollars. We would be able to get additional attorneys, investigators, paralegals,
other essential personnel so that we could work on freeing
(31:34):
even more people. I mean, we have thirteen cases now,
we're at our limit. You know, it's actually a few
cases too many. But I don't want to just drop
the cases, but certainly to be able to work on,
you know, other cases beyond it, to work on bringing
even more innocent people home, we need to increase our
capacity for.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Sure standing Jeffrey, I can't thank you. We're going to
have you back on the show from time to time.
I really want to thank you for taking my emails
yesterday and and uh and be willing to come on
in and talk to our listeners in the Hudson Valley
about your story. And Jeff, I want to last, I
want to just leave you with this happy Thanksgiving.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
Oh. Thank you so much, you two, and for all
the listeners out there as well. I'd love to come
on from time to time.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
We'll have you all right, sir.
Speaker 4 (32:18):
Thank you