Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to part two of our series about the
Speaker 2: murder of Holly Staker and the wrongful conviction of Juan Rivera.
Speaker 2: Let's dive right back into our discussion. So at this
Speaker 2: particular trial, I think there was more uncertainty by the jury,
Speaker 2: because they had to deliberate for a total of 36
Speaker 2: hours over the course of four days, but in the end,
Speaker 2: they did find Juan guilty, and he received another life sentence.
Speaker 2: But the defense team still started fighting for him, and
Speaker 2: because DNA profiling had not been a common thing back
Speaker 2: in 1992, they finally decided to utilize it in the
Speaker 2: mid-2000s by doing DNA testing on a semen sample that
Speaker 2: had been left behind by the killer when Holly was raped,
Speaker 2: and this excluded Juan as being the source of the semen.
Speaker 2: The DNA did not match him, so his conviction was
Speaker 2: vacated for the second time in August of 2006. So
Speaker 2: you would be hoping that this would be strong enough
Speaker 2: evidence that the state would finally say, yes, this is
Speaker 2: the wrong guy. We're dropping the charges. But I know
Speaker 2: we have used this term on previous episodes that we've discussed,
Speaker 2: but I'm sure you recollect the term the unindicted co-ejaculator.
Speaker 1: 100%. That was exactly what I was thinking when you
Speaker 1: brought up that the semen didn't match. I'm like, well,
Speaker 1: that isn't a major impediment for them. They're just going
Speaker 1: to say that he had a co-conspirator and that's the
Speaker 1: individual whose semen was found, that Juan's semen just wasn't
Speaker 1: found at the scene. Maybe he wore a condom and
Speaker 1: took it with him. I'm sure they've got a million
Speaker 1: reasons why that it still could be Juan.
Speaker 2: Well, this is actually worse than you predicted, because they
Speaker 2: did not use the co-conspirator-accomplice theory this time around. The
Speaker 2: trial started in April of 2009, and the prosecuting attorney
Speaker 2: was Mike Murmel, who was not the prosecutor at the
Speaker 2: first two trials. So he had his work cut out
Speaker 2: for this, trying to explain away the DNA evidence. But
Speaker 2: once again, he claimed that, yes, Juan was still guilty,
Speaker 2: and he raped Holly, but he did not ejaculate. But
Speaker 2: earlier that evening, Holly had invited another man over to
Speaker 2: the house to have, quote-unquote, consensual sex. And that's who
Speaker 2: the semen belonged to, and that's who the DNA matched.
Speaker 2: And as a reminder, Holly was 11 years old at
Speaker 2: the time.
Speaker 1: As soon as you said they didn't use the co-conspirator idea,
Speaker 1: I knew that they were going to be bringing in
Speaker 1: that Holly potentially had consensual sex with an unknown male,
Speaker 1: and that that was how they would explain the semen,
Speaker 1: which is absolutely disgusting. This is an 11-year-old child. to
Speaker 1: think that she's going to be babysitting a five-year-old and
Speaker 1: a two-year-old, or just at any point in the day
Speaker 1: that she could have consensual sex with anybody. She is
Speaker 1: a literal child. It's egregious.
Speaker 2: It is, yeah. And obviously an 11-year-old cannot even consent,
Speaker 2: but they're using the term consensual sex all throughout the trial.
Speaker 2: But it just does so much bad damage to her
Speaker 2: reputation because not only are you trying to say that
Speaker 2: an 11-year-old is sexually active, but they're saying that she's
Speaker 2: irresponsible enough to, like, invite another person over to a
Speaker 2: house that she's babysitting and doing this with all these
Speaker 2: two children beside her, which does not sound like it
Speaker 2: fit Holly's character. So it's like we're going to the
Speaker 2: extreme now where we're tainting a murder victim's reputation just
Speaker 2: to get a conviction by totally making stuff up.
Speaker 1: And so what? Like, they're trying to say that Some
Speaker 1: guy came over and slept with Holly. We know she
Speaker 1: can't consent, but they're using that term, consensual sex. That, what,
Speaker 1: she invited him over? Just the timing? Well, the five-year-old
Speaker 1: was out there playing? And then after this act happened,
Speaker 1: it just so happened that Juan then came in and
Speaker 1: decided to murder Holly, leaving no traces of his DNA behind?
Speaker 2: Yeah, just makes no sense whatsoever. And conveniently, the two
Speaker 2: children were not called upon to testify at the trial
Speaker 2: because they are not going to corroborate this story that
Speaker 2: anyone else visited the house that night in order to
Speaker 2: have sex with Holly. So there they are just completely
Speaker 2: changing their narrative.
Speaker 1: So are they still trying to say that Juan raped
Speaker 1: Holly at this point?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that he came back and raped her, but he
Speaker 2: did not ejaculate. So because I'm sure there was probably
Speaker 2: sign of trauma. that she had been sexually assaulted, so
Speaker 2: they can't say that, oh, the semen was the result
Speaker 2: of just consensual sex. So it's kind of like a
Speaker 2: convenient thing where this unknown person comes in, just has
Speaker 2: sex with her, leaves, and then Juan comes a short
Speaker 2: time later and rapes her without leaving his DNA behind.
Speaker 2: But I know that Mike Murmel was kind of using
Speaker 2: gaslighting here, trying to downplay the significance of DNA, saying
Speaker 2: it wasn't really all that important as evidence. This is
Speaker 2: an actual quote that he said to the press, quote,
Speaker 2: The example I like to give people is next time
Speaker 2: you go to a motel room, bring a plastic bag
Speaker 2: because the dirtiest thing in that room is the remote control.
Speaker 2: Everybody has sex and rolls over and goes, I wonder
Speaker 2: what's on. OK, so you can find DNA in the
Speaker 2: form of sperm from 10 different people in that room
Speaker 2: from that remote control or even on a person who
Speaker 2: has touched it. And that woman gets murdered in that
Speaker 2: room tonight and you're going to have a lot of DNA.
Speaker 2: Is it all going to be forensically significant? End quote.
Speaker 2: What is he talking about?
Speaker 1: What is he talking about? And the thing is, yeah,
Speaker 1: you might get like fragments of DNA if you're touching
Speaker 1: a remote control that hasn't been cleaned at a hotel room. Yes,
Speaker 1: lots of people do that. If you're going to a hotel,
Speaker 1: one of the first things you should do is clean
Speaker 1: that remote control. If you've got like, you know, Lysol
Speaker 1: wipes or whatever, wipe that down. But there's a very
Speaker 1: big difference between touching a surface and getting DNA on
Speaker 1: your hand than getting DNA in your body cavities. That
Speaker 1: is a lot harder to do. And I can't think
Speaker 1: of a lot of examples aside from the case of
Speaker 1: Robert Wan, where that was incredibly confusing how Robert ended
Speaker 1: up with his DNA in his anus and he was
Speaker 1: clearly murdered. So that is a confusing one where that
Speaker 1: has been tried to have been explained away. But in
Speaker 1: this case, the fact that the DNA is found inside
Speaker 1: of Hall, that isn't something that you just go to
Speaker 1: a hotel room, you're rolling around on a bed and
Speaker 1: there's DNA and it ends up inside of you. That
Speaker 1: is not how the human body works. No.
Speaker 2: Definitely not. And it doesn't explain why Juan's DNA is
Speaker 2: not present anywhere, because if a whole bunch of people
Speaker 2: can share their DNA all over the Engelbrecht's apartment, how
Speaker 2: is Juan able to commit this crime without leaving any
Speaker 2: of his DNA behind? So it gets even worse, because
Speaker 2: it seemed like Murmel's strategy was not to try to
Speaker 2: convince the jury that Juan did it, but try to
Speaker 2: convince them that Holly was sexually active at the age
Speaker 2: of 11, and he's pretty much performing character assassination, because
Speaker 2: Holly actually had a twin sister named Heather, who was
Speaker 2: called upon the stand to testify, and even though Heather
Speaker 2: claimed that she did not believe Holly was sexually active,
Speaker 2: Murmel made her recount an incident where she and Holly
Speaker 2: were both sexually abused by one of their brother's friends
Speaker 2: when they were eight years old, because he was trying
Speaker 2: to plant the seeds that if she suffered this trauma,
Speaker 2: maybe she's having sex with people at the age of 11.
Speaker 2: And he also made Heather share how she and her
Speaker 2: sister had once shown each other how to masturbate, just
Speaker 2: to show that she had lots of knowledge of sex
Speaker 2: at this age. So, like, this has nothing to do
Speaker 2: with the case, but he just wants to try to
Speaker 2: convince the jury that Holly was the type of person
Speaker 2: who would have sex with someone else at that age.
Speaker 1: He's legitimately slut-shaming a murder victim who is an 11-year-old child. And...
Speaker 1: children will talk about such things. Little kids will play
Speaker 1: doctor and they'll explore things that aren't really sexual. It's
Speaker 1: just a matter of kids learning their bodies and trying
Speaker 1: to figure out where they fit in the world and
Speaker 1: that they're children but they will cosplay as adults for
Speaker 1: a moment. I think most kids have played those types
Speaker 1: of games or discussed things like masturbation. It's not To
Speaker 1: say that, oh, because we're now going to build this
Speaker 1: character profile of this victim that says that, yes, she
Speaker 1: is the type of person that this would happen to
Speaker 1: because she's going to be having sex with men. And
Speaker 1: it is ridiculous. So ridiculous. And it's so harmful. I
Speaker 1: can't imagine the consequences and the ramifications for the family
Speaker 1: having to have your 11-year-old child painted as... being sexually
Speaker 1: liberated at 11 when you literally cannot consent to sex.
Speaker 1: It is just, it's wild to me what they're willing
Speaker 1: to do and how they're willing to paint Holly just
Speaker 1: so that they can have their way and have Juan
Speaker 1: convicted again.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's exactly what they're going to do. This is
Speaker 2: the ultimate example of a wrongful conviction where they caused
Speaker 2: a lot of trauma for the victim's family. And I
Speaker 2: feel really bad for Heather because she had actually been
Speaker 2: scheduled to babysit that night at the Engelbrecht's residence until
Speaker 2: Holly took her place. So as you can imagine, she
Speaker 2: felt a lot of survivor's guilt because she could have
Speaker 2: been there that night and Holly wound up being killed instead.
Speaker 2: And she went on to grow up and live a
Speaker 2: rough life because Heather has gone on to have a
Speaker 2: lot of troubles with the law and she's had some
Speaker 2: addiction issues. And now here she is like 17 years
Speaker 2: later being called upon to testify at a murder trial
Speaker 2: for your sister and talk about your masturbation habits and
Speaker 2: just be humiliated. So it's just so shameful and I
Speaker 2: don't know how Mike Murmel could sleep at night doing
Speaker 2: all this stuff just to get a win at a trial.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like he takes away the humanity of the
Speaker 1: victim in order to get another notch on his belt
Speaker 1: so that he can win, so that the statistics remain consistent. know,
Speaker 1: whatever that they need to be in order for him
Speaker 1: to keep his job. But when it becomes about winning
Speaker 1: and not about finding justice for the victim, instead, you're
Speaker 1: re-victimizing them posthumously in the way that you're characterizing Holly.
Speaker 1: And you're traumatizing the family. It's so sad to think
Speaker 1: that they had to endure this, and just the discussions.
Speaker 1: It's just, it's gross that you should be talking about
Speaker 1: an 11-year-old like this, characterizing an 11-year-old like this. It's
Speaker 1: well beyond the bounds of, like, what should be acceptable
Speaker 1: for any prosecutor. I don't care what your objective is,
Speaker 1: if you feel that Juan did it or he didn't.
Speaker 1: This is just, the victim shaming is on another level,
Speaker 1: and The hurt and the pain that this causes would
Speaker 1: be so much greater because you have a family that
Speaker 1: is dealing with the loss of a child. It's hard
Speaker 1: enough when it's an adult victim and there's victim shaming
Speaker 1: or slut shaming attached to the case, but this is
Speaker 1: completely different because you're painting this child to be something
Speaker 1: that they are clearly not and it feels so unfair.
Speaker 2: And it's particularly egregious because Murmel was not the prosecutor
Speaker 2: at the first two trials. He was not the one
Speaker 2: who charged Juan and sent him to prison in the
Speaker 2: first place, so he could have easily said, this is
Speaker 2: not my problem, I'm dropping the charges, I'm not taking
Speaker 2: this to trial because I was not the one who
Speaker 2: sent this innocent man to prison, but he made a
Speaker 2: calculated choice. No, I want to get a win, so
Speaker 2: I'm just going to use this as an opportunity to
Speaker 2: shame the victim and her family. And, of course, they
Speaker 2: tried to get some additional corroborating evidence against Juan, but
Speaker 2: it turned out that the two jailhouse informants, Frank McDonald
Speaker 2: and David Crespo, who had testified against him at the
Speaker 2: previous trials, were now deceased. So they just read their
Speaker 2: original statements out for the jury, but I know that
Speaker 2: the defense objected, saying that, we cannot put these statements
Speaker 2: up here without giving us the opportunity to cross-examine these
Speaker 2: jailhouse informants and try to destroy their credibility. But lo
Speaker 2: and behold, they produced another jailhouse informant. This time it
Speaker 2: was Ed Martin, who was the guy who gave the
Speaker 2: tip to the police back in 1992 that Juan had
Speaker 2: made these incriminating statements about being at a party on
Speaker 2: the night of the murder. But this time Martin told
Speaker 2: an entirely different story, saying that Juan had flat out
Speaker 2: confessed to Holly's murder and called her, quote-unquote, a a
Speaker 2: little bitch and a tease who had deserved everything she got.
Speaker 2: But of course, the defense argued, hmm, you didn't mention
Speaker 2: this part of the story back in 1992 when you
Speaker 2: originally came forward to the police. And now you're throwing
Speaker 2: in all these new details 17 years after the fact.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's sort of like having somebody recall details of
Speaker 1: a crime when they were two years old. years later
Speaker 1: when they're eight. It's just not going to be reliable,
Speaker 1: but it's questionable, and we've got to ask, what is
Speaker 1: his motivation in sharing this? What is his objective?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I don't know if he got an
Speaker 2: ear-shaved office sentence, but I have a feeling that the
Speaker 2: police put a lot of pressure on him, saying, we
Speaker 2: can't use the testimony from the previous jailhouse informant, so
Speaker 2: please get on the stand and testify, instead that you
Speaker 2: heard Juan make these incriminating statements. Well, believe it or not,
Speaker 2: all this stuff actually worked on the jury because they
Speaker 2: deliberated and once again found him guilty for the third
Speaker 2: time of murder. and he was once again sentenced to
Speaker 2: life imprisonment. And man, I would really like to be
Speaker 2: in the jury's shoes during deliberations and wonder what they
Speaker 2: talk about, because I said for the previous trials, I
Speaker 2: can kind of put things in their shoes and say that, yeah,
Speaker 2: back in the 1990s, they wouldn't have known much about
Speaker 2: false confessions and would have assumed that Juan was guilty.
Speaker 2: But by this point, you have DNA evidence that excludes Juan.
Speaker 2: which essentially means they had deliberations and says, you know what?
Speaker 2: That explanation about Holly having consensual sex at age 11
Speaker 2: makes a lot of sense to me. Let's find him guilty.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it makes me wonder exactly who the jury was
Speaker 1: made up of and if there were people that were
Speaker 1: easily convinced that 11-year-olds are out there being more mature
Speaker 1: than they used to be and they're out there having sex.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering if this is held in... close to Chicago.
Speaker 1: It's in Illinois. How big was the city that it
Speaker 1: was held in?
Speaker 2: Let me just double check. So it was held in Waukegan,
Speaker 2: which is a fairly decent-sized city. It had a population
Speaker 2: of around 89,000 at that time.
Speaker 1: And what year was this?
Speaker 2: This year, the deliberations for this trial would have been 2009.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you would like to think that, okay, in a
Speaker 1: town of 89,000 people, it's not like a town of 2,000 people.
Speaker 1: And with access to information about false confessions, not to
Speaker 1: the degree that we have now. I mean, I'm trying
Speaker 1: to like put myself back at that time. And I'm
Speaker 1: thinking when was the first time that I started really
Speaker 1: listening to like disappeared and stuff. And it would have
Speaker 1: been around this time. And so would my knowledge of
Speaker 1: false confessions have been what it is today? Not even close.
Speaker 1: So perhaps these people were well-versed in this, but it
Speaker 1: makes me believe that they kind of had the mentality
Speaker 1: that if they keep charging this guy, they believe that
Speaker 1: he is guilty, so there must be something to that.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm thinking, is that a lot of jurors
Speaker 2: have preconceived mindsets saying that, well, if this person's standing
Speaker 2: on trial in the first place, they must be guilty,
Speaker 2: because the police and prosecutors, they're honest people who would
Speaker 2: never make mistakes and railroad anyone, so... Even though this
Speaker 2: does not sound convincing, the scenario they presented, if he
Speaker 2: did confess and the police charged him, then he must
Speaker 2: be guilty. So I'm guessing that was their mindset and
Speaker 2: why they found him guilty for the third time. But
Speaker 2: I imagine this was completely devastating for Juan and his
Speaker 2: defense team because they figured this has to be the
Speaker 2: one where he's finally cleared, but now he's getting sent
Speaker 2: back to prison. But they were not going to give
Speaker 2: up until they exonerated him. So they appealed his conviction
Speaker 2: again with a 105-page brief, which had a ton of
Speaker 2: legal arguments about how terrible this conviction was. And one
Speaker 2: of the most interesting arguments they said is that all
Speaker 2: the so-called evidence about Holly Staker's so-called sex life violated
Speaker 2: the rape shield statute. Generally, this statute is invoked by
Speaker 2: the prosecution in rape trials in order to prevent the
Speaker 2: defense from introducing a victim's past sexual behavior again. into
Speaker 2: evidence trying to say that, well, they slept around a lot,
Speaker 2: they had a lot of sex, so she must be
Speaker 2: lying about this having been rape. But this is one
Speaker 2: of the only cases I've seen where the defense brought
Speaker 2: up the rape shield statute, saying that bringing up this
Speaker 2: alleged stuff that Holly did, like the masturbation and being
Speaker 2: sexually abused, was totally irrelevant as evidence and may have
Speaker 2: tainted the jury's mind, so therefore it should not have
Speaker 2: been allowed at the trial.
Speaker 1: It should not have been allowed at the trial, and
Speaker 1: I don't believe that any of it is actually genuine.
Speaker 1: Aside from, you know, little kids having discussions about sex
Speaker 1: or about their bodies, I don't believe that Holly was
Speaker 1: sexually active or that she had any type of sex,
Speaker 1: which would not have been consensual, but I don't believe
Speaker 1: it for a second, and none of this should have
Speaker 1: been introduced, and it It feels like Mermel cared more
Speaker 1: about winning than he did about finding justice. And I
Speaker 1: don't know if that is the case, but that is
Speaker 1: the way that it feels based on the way that
Speaker 1: he treated Holly posthumously and her family.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. And thankfully, the Appellate Court of Illinois agreed
Speaker 2: with this because this missed Murmel's arguments about the DNA
Speaker 2: evidence belonging to someone who had consensual sex with Holly
Speaker 2: and were very critical of the prosecution's case and their decision.
Speaker 2: So in December of 2011, Juan's conviction was overturned for
Speaker 2: the third time. And thankfully, this time around, they decided
Speaker 2: to take the step of barring prosecutors from ever trying
Speaker 2: one again under the double jeopardy statute, arguing that he
Speaker 2: should not have even been brought to trial for the
Speaker 2: third time in the first place because the evidence was
Speaker 2: not strong enough. Because you just know the way that
Speaker 2: the prosecution was arguing that they would have tried to
Speaker 2: bring him to trial for the fourth time. But the
Speaker 2: appellate court says, no, we're done with this nonsense. We're
Speaker 2: letting him go. So in January of 2012, Juan was
Speaker 2: finally released from prison, but by this point he had
Speaker 2: served 19 years for a crime he had not committed.
Speaker 1: And he's released from prison, but it's not as though
Speaker 1: they're saying he's innocent. So there's a difference there, correct?
Speaker 1: Like he can't then go and seek compensation?
Speaker 2: Oh, he did. Like, he was able to seek compensation
Speaker 2: later on. I mean, they didn't say he was innocent
Speaker 2: at the time. The state was still holding the mentality, well,
Speaker 2: we would take him to trial again. We think he's guilty,
Speaker 2: but the appellate court won't let us. So he would
Speaker 2: actually have to, like, file a lawsuit before he would
Speaker 2: be declared factually innocent. So, like I said, they did
Speaker 2: file a lawsuit, and given the overwhelming amount of evidence
Speaker 2: that he had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice...
Speaker 2: He was awarded a settlement of $ 20 million, and at
Speaker 2: that point, it was the largest amount ever awarded for
Speaker 2: a wrongful conviction in the history of the United States.
Speaker 2: I think the record has since been broken, but at
Speaker 2: the time, $ 20 million was a huge number. And here's
Speaker 2: actually a happy part of this story, because while he
Speaker 2: was in prison, Juan earned his barber's license and became
Speaker 2: good friends with a guard who worked there named Bobby Madison,
Speaker 2: who was the barbershop coordinator there. And they eventually used
Speaker 2: some of the settlement money to open up a legacy
Speaker 2: barber college in Rogers Park, Illinois. And Juan has also
Speaker 2: used the money to pursue his own education and fund
Speaker 2: his niece's education. So even though this guy had a
Speaker 2: troubled childhood, he had a history of criminal activity, and
Speaker 2: he had issues with mental illness and depression, it sounds
Speaker 2: like he has been living a very good life since
Speaker 2: his release from prison, and he has used this money
Speaker 2: to do good for other people.
Speaker 1: Wow, that is really inspiring. At least something good came
Speaker 1: out of Juan being incarcerated, in that he had that
Speaker 1: exposure to barber training, and he became passionate about that,
Speaker 1: and then received the settlement that he deserved. I'm sorry, like,
Speaker 1: if you're put behind bars, and you are an innocent person,
Speaker 1: and you're dragged through the mud, your reputation is is destroyed,
Speaker 1: you're exposed to Lord knows what in prison, and to
Speaker 1: say that, like, oh, we just need to compensate them $ 50, 000
Speaker 1: a year or whatever, that is wild. No, you need
Speaker 1: to compensate them for all of that mental pain, struggle, like,
Speaker 1: suffering and and anguish that something like a wrongful incarceration causes,
Speaker 1: and how it can affect an entire family, multiple families,
Speaker 1: and not just the individual who's wrongfully incarcerated. So it's
Speaker 1: nice to hear that upon his release that Juan really
Speaker 1: found a purpose and poured himself into that, not only
Speaker 1: for himself, but he wanted to raise up his family
Speaker 1: as well in funding his niece's education. So I love that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is a good part of this horrible story,
Speaker 2: because I've seen other wrongful conviction cases where the exonerees
Speaker 2: have a very difficult time adjusting to life on the outside,
Speaker 2: but it looks like in this particular case, Juan was
Speaker 2: able to use his settlement money in order to live
Speaker 2: a good life now, and he seems to be doing
Speaker 2: pretty well, even after going through this terrible ordeal. But
Speaker 2: there's more crazy aspects to this story, because there would
Speaker 2: be an attempt to try to find Holly Staker's real killer,
Speaker 2: but there would be a number of more twists and turns.
Speaker 2: Juan's defense attorneys learned that in 1994, one of Don
Speaker 2: Engelbrook's neighbors wound up finding a wood-handled bread knife underneath
Speaker 2: some bushes near the Engelbrook residence, and it was turned
Speaker 2: over to the police, but by this point, Juan had
Speaker 2: already been convicted, he was already serving time in prison,
Speaker 2: so the knife pretty much disappeared. It was destroyed without
Speaker 2: even attorneys being notified of his existence until many years later.
Speaker 2: So I mentioned earlier that a broken straight-edge knife was
Speaker 2: found in the yard near the Engelbrecht's residence, and in
Speaker 2: his original statement, Juan had claimed that he broke the
Speaker 2: knife during the stabbing and discarded it when he left,
Speaker 2: so it was assumed that this broken knife was the
Speaker 2: murder weapon. But the defense team would consult a forensic
Speaker 2: expert who believed that the wounds on Holly's body were
Speaker 2: more consistent with a serrated blade rather than a straight-edge blade,
Speaker 2: and the bread knife found in the bushes did have
Speaker 2: a serrated blade. So it seems likely they found the
Speaker 2: real murder weapon, which could have contained the killer's DNA
Speaker 2: or other evidence, but because they did not find it
Speaker 2: until Juan was already in prison, it sounds like the
Speaker 2: police conveniently made it disappear.
Speaker 1: Well, that seems to also be par for the course
Speaker 1: based on what we've heard thus far. And especially if
Speaker 1: we're going to go along with the pattern of them
Speaker 1: potentially planting evidence with the sneakers and the blood and
Speaker 1: then to make the potential murder weapon disappear, I'm not surprised. Like,
Speaker 1: we should be surprised. It should be shocking. But at
Speaker 1: this point, it seems to be a pattern of behavior.
Speaker 1: So it's really unfortunate because that could have exonerated Juan.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. Like if they had presented it in 1994,
Speaker 2: he could have been released after only serving two years
Speaker 2: rather than 19 years. But it gets even more crazy
Speaker 2: because Juan's defense attorneys decided to enter the DNA evidence
Speaker 2: from the murder scene into a national database and found
Speaker 2: out that this DNA had been found at a murder
Speaker 2: which took place while Juan was serving time in prison.
Speaker 2: So in January of 2000, a 39-year-old Chicago resident named
Speaker 2: Delwin Foxworth was brutally assaulted by three intruders who broke
Speaker 2: into his home. They proceeded to tie him up at
Speaker 2: gunpoint and demanded he hand over some money. and when
Speaker 2: Foxworth refused to comply, they beat him with a two-by-four,
Speaker 2: duct-taped him to a chair, poured gasoline on him, and
Speaker 2: set him on fire before fleeing the scene. So Foxworth
Speaker 2: miraculously initially survived. He managed to douse the flames on
Speaker 2: his body and call for help, but he had burns
Speaker 2: on over 80% of his body, and he had such
Speaker 2: a devastating effect on him that he died in a
Speaker 2: nursing facility two and a half years later. Because Foxworth
Speaker 2: was burned so badly, he wasn't able to communicate much,
Speaker 2: but He said that the person who bound him with
Speaker 2: duct tape and poured the gasoline on him was nicknamed T,
Speaker 2: but he was unable to provide any further examples. Well,
Speaker 2: when the DNA from Holly Staker's murder scene from the
Speaker 2: semen sample was entered in the database, it wound up
Speaker 2: matching the DNA on some blood found on the 2x4,
Speaker 2: which was used to beat Delwin Foxworth. And since Foxworth
Speaker 2: himself was excluded as being the source of this DNA,
Speaker 2: that meant that Holly Staker's real killer had to be
Speaker 2: the source of the blood and was involved in Foxworth's murder,
Speaker 2: so here he was hurting somebody else while an innocent
Speaker 2: man was languishing in prison for his crime.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I think that if you are the real killer,
Speaker 1: how lucky must you feel at that point when you realize,
Speaker 1: not only did I get away with this, but somebody
Speaker 1: else is being punished, not Foxworth, Once, not twice, but
Speaker 1: thrice for a crime that you committed. Like, you must
Speaker 1: feel like you won the lottery.
Speaker 2: Exactly. And here they are, like, taking advantage of this
Speaker 2: opportunity to commit a particularly brutal crime, like beating someone
Speaker 2: with a 2x4 and burning them alive by pouring gasoline
Speaker 2: on them. So obviously it's a very dangerous person. It
Speaker 2: would have not surprised me in the least if they
Speaker 2: have gone on to commit other crimes as well that
Speaker 2: they haven't been linked to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it makes me wonder, like, what is the
Speaker 1: pattern of this offender? What is their victim profile? Being
Speaker 1: able to tie a method to them or being able
Speaker 1: to say, like, this is their pattern, it seems like
Speaker 1: that isn't really a pattern. So is that by design?
Speaker 1: Is it just I want to be an agent of chaos?
Speaker 1: I don't want them to be able to track me?
Speaker 1: Or is it just a curiosity in trying to find
Speaker 1: what would be their M.O.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what's so weird to me, is that this
Speaker 2: is quite a difference. Like, beating up a 39-year-old man
Speaker 2: and setting him on fire is quite different from raping
Speaker 2: an 11-year-old and stabbing her 27 times. So the MO
Speaker 2: doesn't fit and makes me all the more curious about
Speaker 2: who this person is. But here's where it gets even
Speaker 2: more complicated, because the attack was witnessed by Foxworth's girlfriend,
Speaker 2: who was tied up and forced to witness the scene,
Speaker 2: even though she was left alive. And she said that
Speaker 2: she personally didn't know any of the three attackers. But
Speaker 2: in 2003, a suspect named Marvin Tyrone Williford was charged
Speaker 2: with Foxworth's murder. Since Foxworth's girlfriend had witnessed the attack,
Speaker 2: she identified Williford as one of the assailants. And according
Speaker 2: to an informant, Foxworth had apparently owed Williford $ 20, 000 plus interest,
Speaker 2: and he was unable to repay it. So when he
Speaker 2: found out there was an arrest warrant on him, Williford
Speaker 2: fled the state and was pulled over in South Carolina
Speaker 2: in a rental car, which he had taken out in
Speaker 2: someone else's name. And while he was in jail awaiting trial,
Speaker 2: Williford supposedly handed a note to an inmate who was
Speaker 2: being released, which had the name and address of Foxworth's
Speaker 2: girlfriend and instructions to deliver her a message that, quote-unquote,
Speaker 2: people were watching. So even though there was no physical
Speaker 2: evidence linking Williford to the crime, the eyewitness identification was
Speaker 2: enough to secure a conviction, and Williford was found guilty
Speaker 2: of murder and received an 80-year prison sentence. But what's
Speaker 2: kind of odd is that his two accomplices have never
Speaker 2: been identified and found, and they did the DNA found
Speaker 2: on the 2x4 and compared it to Williford, and it
Speaker 2: did not match. So it means that at the very least,
Speaker 2: Williford is not Holly Staker's real killer, but it's also
Speaker 2: possible that one of his two accomplices who was with
Speaker 2: him when he killed Foxworth probably is.
Speaker 1: Well, that's interesting, isn't it? So that just opens the
Speaker 1: door that you've got a bunch of these people who
Speaker 1: are criminals and who are capable of doing the unthinkable
Speaker 1: because we see different patterns, different motivations, right? Like with Holly,
Speaker 1: it was clearly a sexually based motivation. There was nothing
Speaker 1: taken except for that photograph. So it seems like the
Speaker 1: objective was to go in, have sex with her, rape her,
Speaker 1: and then murder her. And I don't know if the
Speaker 1: objective was always to murder or if it just ended
Speaker 1: up becoming that in the end. Maybe they went too
Speaker 1: far with the strangulation. Of that, we can't be sure.
Speaker 1: But then when we see this other guy burned alive,
Speaker 1: it feels like the objective or the motivation there is
Speaker 1: to either send a message or to get revenge because
Speaker 1: money is owed. And it makes sense that it's almost
Speaker 1: like this coalition of bad guys that are capable of horrible,
Speaker 1: horrible things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it might be a thing where it's like if
Speaker 2: Williford was the instigator of the murder on Foxworth, he
Speaker 2: just decided to bring one of his friends along with him,
Speaker 2: and this guy just happened to be there when they
Speaker 2: did this totally different murder, even though the murder of
Speaker 2: Holly that was done years earlier was totally different. But
Speaker 2: what's complicated is that Williford is also claiming that he
Speaker 2: was wrongly convicted as well, because they pointed out a
Speaker 2: number of issues with his conviction, because the primary evidence
Speaker 2: against him was eyewitness testimony from Foxworth's girlfriend, but when
Speaker 2: she testified in front of a grand jury in 2000
Speaker 2: and was shown Williford's photo, she failed to identify him.
Speaker 2: But after Foxworth died, the girlfriend was shown Williford's photo
Speaker 2: again in 2003, and this time she identified him after
Speaker 2: some hesitation. They also claim that Foxworth's DNA on the
Speaker 2: 2x4 duct tape and gas can does not match him,
Speaker 2: and there is fingerprint evidence from the scene which does
Speaker 2: not match him as well. And there's also a conflict
Speaker 2: of interest because the informant who told the police that
Speaker 2: Foxworth owed Williford money, it turned out that she was
Speaker 2: having sex with the lead detective and also having sex
Speaker 2: with Williford at the same time. And after Williford was convicted,
Speaker 2: the detective supposedly told the woman, quote, that's what he
Speaker 2: gets for having sex with my girl.
Speaker 1: Okay, so this is a big cluster F indeed. And
Speaker 1: I don't know, based on what we've seen so far
Speaker 1: with law enforcement, if I'm going to trust that Williford
Speaker 1: is indeed responsible. Because we've seen planted evidence and we've
Speaker 1: seen just egregious things that have been discarded that should
Speaker 1: have been looked at as evidence. So to think that
Speaker 1: somebody could try to seek revenge against a person that
Speaker 1: was potentially sleeping with their partner is and that person
Speaker 1: is in law enforcement, it's gross, but it's not really
Speaker 1: surprising me at this point. Does that mean that Williford
Speaker 1: is a good guy?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Does it mean that he isn't guilty? No, I don't
Speaker 1: think it means that either. I just think that it
Speaker 1: opens up the possibility that he too could have been
Speaker 1: framed as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot more incriminating
Speaker 2: evidence against Williford than there would have been Juan Rivera,
Speaker 2: because I do find it suspicious that he was caught
Speaker 2: fleeing the state in a rental car after there was
Speaker 2: an arrest warrant. It's a very Scott Peterson type of
Speaker 2: thing where he's saying that he's innocent, but he's trying
Speaker 2: to flee and go into hiding when he's accused of
Speaker 2: a crime. rather than sorting it out. And his attorneys
Speaker 2: did attempt to appeal his conviction, but he was denied
Speaker 2: an opportunity for a new trial because the court made
Speaker 2: an argument that just because his DNA is not on
Speaker 2: the 2x4, the duct tape, or the gas can doesn't
Speaker 2: mean he's innocent. It just means he could have been
Speaker 2: there and some of his accomplices handled all the evidence.
Speaker 2: So the lack of DNA does not prove his innocence,
Speaker 2: but at the same time, if Williford is guilty, he
Speaker 2: is the only one who knows the identity of Holly
Speaker 2: Staker's real killer, and he's not talking. I do find
Speaker 2: it weird that even though they convicted Williford, no attempt
Speaker 2: has been made to find the two other people who
Speaker 2: were involved in Foxworth's murder.
Speaker 1: If Williford is indeed responsible, and he probably is, but
Speaker 1: if he is indeed responsible for Foxworth's murder, that is
Speaker 1: a pretty grisly type of a murder. A certain type
Speaker 1: of individual is able to carry out that degree of violence,
Speaker 1: and it's somebody that you wouldn't think would be feeling
Speaker 1: a whole lot of empathy for that victim. It's not
Speaker 1: like it's a heat of the moment you stab somebody
Speaker 1: or shoot somebody. This is, he was set on fire. It's, really,
Speaker 1: really shocking. So do I think that somebody with that
Speaker 1: personality profile is going to then tell us who Holly
Speaker 1: Staker's killer is? I don't think so, unless there is
Speaker 1: some great benefit for him to be derived by him.
Speaker 1: I don't see him opening up his mouth and sharing
Speaker 1: that information, because For one, if he is indeed the
Speaker 1: type of criminal that we think that he is, then
Speaker 1: being labeled a snitch isn't something that is a very
Speaker 1: flattering label, and if you're in and out of jail,
Speaker 1: you don't want to have that label on you. It
Speaker 1: might be more important to maintain your reputation, as fearsome
Speaker 1: as that might be, rather than being labeled as being
Speaker 1: the guy that ratted somebody out. That isn't looked upon
Speaker 1: too kindly.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm thinking as well. I mean, he is
Speaker 2: serving an 80-year sentence, so for him to talk, they
Speaker 2: would have to offer him, like, a major deal, like,
Speaker 2: release him out of prison right away so that he's
Speaker 2: not caught in jail with the label as a snitch.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, he's a really dangerous person,
Speaker 2: so I think the police would be reluctant to let
Speaker 2: him free, even if he did, like, give up his accomplices.
Speaker 2: I mean, I find it odd a little bit that
Speaker 2: Foxworth never positively identified Williford as an attacker while he
Speaker 2: was alive, but he did say that his name was Tee,
Speaker 2: And we know that Williford's middle name is Tyrone. So
Speaker 2: maybe this is a case where Foxworth knew his street
Speaker 2: name but did not know his real name. And that's
Speaker 2: why he didn't give him up. But it is a
Speaker 2: frustrating situation. And by chance, if Williford was innocent, then
Speaker 2: this would be the wildest twist that two people have
Speaker 2: been wrongly convicted of two separate crimes and the real
Speaker 2: killer has got away with it both times and has
Speaker 2: still never been identified.
Speaker 1: I mean, if that is the case and he was
Speaker 1: wrongfully convicted, that would just be a wild twist. And
Speaker 1: it opens up the possibility that he could have been.
Speaker 1: I just, I'm with you. I'm less likely to believe
Speaker 1: that Williford is wrongfully incarcerated. And it just so happens
Speaker 1: that he was having an affair potentially with a law
Speaker 1: enforcement agent's girlfriend. And that those comments were made that
Speaker 1: that's what he gets for, you know, hooking up with
Speaker 1: my girl or whatever. And then it's easy for him
Speaker 1: to cling to that and go, see, see, I'm not responsible.
Speaker 1: They planted forensic evidence before with Juan. Look at the
Speaker 1: blood on the sneakers, the sneakers that he couldn't have worn.
Speaker 1: So to think that there is my DNA then on
Speaker 1: the gas can and on the tape and all of
Speaker 1: these things, well, that could have been planted. So it's
Speaker 1: a good defense for Williford, but do I believe that
Speaker 1: it's necessarily valid? Probably not.
Speaker 2: Because I'm thinking, like, if Williford was the orchestrator of this, like,
Speaker 2: he could have just brought his two accomplices and they
Speaker 2: were the ones who handled the 2x4 and the gas
Speaker 2: can while he just stood in the background. And given
Speaker 2: what a bad guy Williford is, I could see him
Speaker 2: hanging out with a friend who murdered an 11-year-old girl
Speaker 2: and raped her, like, all these years later because these
Speaker 2: scumbags keep company with each other. But even without Williford's cooperation,
Speaker 2: I do think that Hawley's case is solvable via the
Speaker 2: use of genetic genealogy, which was not available back when
Speaker 2: the DNA testing was done in the mid-2000s. But I
Speaker 2: haven't heard anything about the DNA evidence being entered into
Speaker 2: any genealogical databases, even though genetic genealogy became a thing
Speaker 2: eight years ago, back in 2018. And part of me
Speaker 2: is thinking that this is such an embarrassment for law
Speaker 2: enforcement in Illinois that maybe they're just avoiding it, saying that, Well,
Speaker 2: we don't want to humiliate like the original police officers
Speaker 2: or prosecutors by proving them wrong. So we're just not
Speaker 2: going to enter this DNA into the database to try
Speaker 2: to find the real killer and just leave them out
Speaker 2: there to commit more crimes and harm more people, which
Speaker 2: is a major shame because even though Juan Rivera has
Speaker 2: been exonerated, Holly Staker has still never received justice.
Speaker 1: And I feel like that is the problem with these
Speaker 1: cases is it really depends upon the culture of law enforcement.
Speaker 1: Or basically the culture from the top. What is the
Speaker 1: impetus to move forward and find justice? Is there a
Speaker 1: focus put on finding resolution for the family, finding out
Speaker 1: who truly did this? Or is it more about what
Speaker 1: is public perception of us? How will we be perceived?
Speaker 1: If this information is put out there and it's proven
Speaker 1: we find who did this, will it make us look
Speaker 1: bad or will it make us look good? Will it
Speaker 1: bring up bad memories of the past and potentially a
Speaker 1: corrupt culture where there was a lot of tunnel vision
Speaker 1: and cooking the books or planting evidence? If you're trying
Speaker 1: to hide things, I can understand why you wouldn't want
Speaker 1: to bring it to light. But oftentimes when so many
Speaker 1: years have gone by, it's been a long time since 1992,
Speaker 1: that the culture shifted and the employees have shifted so
Speaker 1: much that there's a completely different outlook about trying to
Speaker 1: solve these old cases. Because in the end, it only
Speaker 1: makes you look good when you can provide that resolution
Speaker 1: for the family, and you can potentially punish the person
Speaker 1: who's responsible if they're still alive. And that's just the thing,
Speaker 1: is you could have been dealing with somebody who's 40
Speaker 1: years old at the time in 1992, and they might
Speaker 1: be getting up there in age at this point. So
Speaker 1: The clock really is ticking on this, and I agree
Speaker 1: with you. I think it's solvable. They have semen. There's
Speaker 1: really no reason why they shouldn't be exploring the possibilities here.
Speaker 1: We've seen since we started podcasting, your Listverse article, basically
Speaker 1: every single John and Jane Doe has been given their
Speaker 1: name back, correct? Yes.
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, because that was one where I wrote a
Speaker 2: list about 10 unidentified decedents in 2013, and over the
Speaker 2: course of the past decade, they have used genetic genealogy
Speaker 2: to identify... each and every one of them. And another
Speaker 2: prominent example of where they finally solved an old cold
Speaker 2: case where there were major screw-ups was the Austin Yogurt
Speaker 2: Shop murders, which happened last year where they used genetic
Speaker 2: genealogy to posthumously identify a suspect named Robert Eugene Brashers
Speaker 2: as the real killer. And this was a case where
Speaker 2: they originally charged four innocent men with the crime after
Speaker 2: two of them made a false confession. And it turned
Speaker 2: out that Brashers was a full-fledged serial killer who murdered
Speaker 2: a number of different victims in different states before he
Speaker 2: shot himself during a standoff with police. And I think
Speaker 2: they only finally decided to do proper testing on the
Speaker 2: DNA when the old guard was long retired, when they
Speaker 2: had new, younger, fresh people in power who said, I
Speaker 2: don't care about what happened in the past, I just
Speaker 2: want to solve this and find out who really committed
Speaker 2: this crime. And that could be why when they finally
Speaker 2: solve Holly Staker's case, maybe some ambitious young person will decide,
Speaker 2: let's test the DNA and find out who actually did this.
Speaker 2: Because they did a documentary series on the Austin Yogurt
Speaker 2: Shop murders on HBO Max and recently released a new
Speaker 2: episode about the resolution in that case. And they interview
Speaker 2: one of the original detectives who made the original arrest.
Speaker 2: And he's still claiming that the four people he arrested
Speaker 2: were guilty and that, oh, they must have committed the
Speaker 2: crime with rashers as their accomplice. So they were still there.
Speaker 2: even though the DNA does not match. But it just
Speaker 2: shows that a lot of these old school cops just
Speaker 2: cannot admit when they made a mistake and it takes
Speaker 2: the younger people to finally do the right thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I feel like in those cases, it's like a
Speaker 1: sunk cost fallacy in that they believe, the law enforcement
Speaker 1: agents potentially believe that like, I put all this time
Speaker 1: and energy and my reputation into this. And to examine
Speaker 1: the possibility that I could have been wrong and what
Speaker 1: that feels to me reputationally and personally when your, almost
Speaker 1: your entire sense of self has become integrated with with
Speaker 1: this idea that these people were the right people, that
Speaker 1: you got it right. And so anything that counters that,
Speaker 1: it almost shakes the sense of identity of certain law
Speaker 1: enforcement officers who are very invested in these cases that
Speaker 1: they investigated many, many, many years ago that were workshop murders.
Speaker 1: When you have young people like that who are murdered
Speaker 1: and multiple people, it's so shocking to a community. So
Speaker 1: it is very important and it's going to leave a
Speaker 1: mark on law enforcement officers so to contend with the
Speaker 1: idea that like I got this wrong I potentially could
Speaker 1: have got this wrong in so many years what I
Speaker 1: believed was incorrect is a lot so I understand where
Speaker 1: law enforcement officers are coming from when they brutally cling
Speaker 1: to the incorrect conclusion and It might not be like
Speaker 1: what is ideal, but I can understand it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that's probably the same thing with
Speaker 2: the Holly Stakers, where the people who put Juan Rivera
Speaker 2: in prison are probably convincing themselves that they got the
Speaker 2: right person all along, because it's hard to grasp for
Speaker 2: the possibility that you put an innocent person in prison
Speaker 2: for a long time. and let a real killer get
Speaker 2: away with it, because it's the same thing with Robert
Speaker 2: Eugene Brashers. He went on to kill a lot of
Speaker 2: other people after he got away with the yogurt shop murders,
Speaker 2: and it's the same thing with Holly Steger's killer. We
Speaker 2: know that he was complicit in at least one more murder,
Speaker 2: and if they do identify him, it would not surprise
Speaker 2: me in the least if they find out that he
Speaker 2: was like a full-fledged serial killer who has a whole
Speaker 2: bunch of victims. So one final tragic note I wanted
Speaker 2: to mention is that when Juan Rivera's conviction was overturned,
Speaker 2: they interviewed Holly's twin sister Heather, and she still believed
Speaker 2: that Juan was guilty and said to the media, why
Speaker 2: would he confess to this crime if he didn't do it?
Speaker 2: But in her case, I can't really blame her for
Speaker 2: saying that because obviously the Staker family has been lied
Speaker 2: to a long time by law enforcement and prosecutors and
Speaker 2: probably still hold the belief that They were trying to
Speaker 2: do the right thing. They were trying to get justice
Speaker 2: for Holly. I don't know if Heather still believes Juan
Speaker 2: was guilty all these years later, but I do find
Speaker 2: that's a common theme in wrongful conviction cases where the
Speaker 2: victim's family, even after the innocent person is exonerated, they
Speaker 2: will still cling to the belief that the right person
Speaker 2: was caught all along because I guess it's better than
Speaker 2: facing the truth that the real killer is still out
Speaker 2: there and no one in law enforcement is doing anything
Speaker 2: to try to find them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we see this in all different fields. We see
Speaker 1: it in science, too. When new evidence is brought for
Speaker 1: a new theory, there's a lot of deniers out there,
Speaker 1: and they'll deny, deny, deny until it becomes untenable, and
Speaker 1: the evidence is so overwhelming that they have to concede
Speaker 1: and say, okay, I guess that is the new conclusion.
Speaker 1: It's just when things are very personal to us, and
Speaker 1: what could be more personal than Holly Staker's family? and
Speaker 1: the way that they felt about her murder, about the
Speaker 1: treatment of Holly, about all of these different trials, and
Speaker 1: about the fact that they keep bringing Juan to trial.
Speaker 1: I would think even the family has to think that
Speaker 1: they have to believe that this is the right person.
Speaker 1: And it's more convenient to have somebody to blame, to
Speaker 1: have a face to say, this is the monster that
Speaker 1: did this to Holly, rather than, what if they got
Speaker 1: it wrong and the monster is still out there? That
Speaker 1: is a worse conclusion. So I can also understand where
Speaker 1: the family's coming from in not wanting to potentially face
Speaker 1: the idea that Juan is not the right person. All
Speaker 1: of this evidence is kind of junk evidence. And they
Speaker 1: ignored all of these things to kind of cook the books,
Speaker 1: like the knife. the planting of the shoes with the
Speaker 1: blood on them, and then also with the ankle monitor.
Speaker 1: There's so many different things that line up here. And
Speaker 1: also the false confession, the 26 hours. I feel like
Speaker 1: that is cruel and unusual punishment, especially when we're dealing
Speaker 1: with somebody who has diminished mental capacity. He is just
Speaker 1: under what would have been the average. Like, I think
Speaker 1: the median is like 100, but 80 to 120 is
Speaker 1: in the average range. He's 79. And it felt like
Speaker 1: they were taking advantage of that. So my heart breaks
Speaker 1: for the family because it feels like law enforcement really
Speaker 1: did sell them that Juan was the guy. And for
Speaker 1: them to be attached to it is not, like you said,
Speaker 1: it's not atypical for families in cases where there's wrongful convictions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's a sad thing. So I hope they've
Speaker 2: come to peace with the fact, especially since they found
Speaker 2: DNA from the killer in another murder that took place
Speaker 2: while Juan was in prison. But it is just so
Speaker 2: sad that the Saker family has had to go over
Speaker 2: 30 years now without receiving justice of any kind. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I remember when I did this one on The Trail
Speaker 2: Went Cold, I found the whole situation infuriating that I
Speaker 2: even used a bit of profanity to describe Mike Mermel.
Speaker 2: And I remember someone posting on Facebook once, Oh my God,
Speaker 2: Robin Warder swore! But now that you've heard the details
Speaker 2: of the case, I'm sure you can understand why.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, like this is a case where if you
Speaker 1: were going to drop an F-bomb, like this would be
Speaker 1: the case to do it on. And, I mean, Mermal.
Speaker 1: That doesn't even sound like a real name.
Speaker 2: I know. Sounds like a wormy, like, slimy type of person.
Speaker 2: It kind of fits his personality. So, yeah, that about
Speaker 2: brings an end to our discussion about the murder of
Speaker 2: Holly Staker. And would you say that this is probably
Speaker 2: one of the most egregious wrongful convictions you've ever seen?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I feel like the evidence here was thin. They really,
Speaker 1: they had nothing. When it comes down to what they had,
Speaker 1: is they had a false confession that was derived after
Speaker 1: these inhumane conditions were presented. We don't know if food
Speaker 1: and drink were provided or bathroom breaks, but I do
Speaker 1: feel like it violates the Geneva Convention. I do not
Speaker 1: think that any human being should ever have to endure
Speaker 1: what Juan endured. And it just comes down to why
Speaker 1: people will make a false confession or why they will
Speaker 1: say these things. And Ashley would always talk about the
Speaker 1: Reed technique and how it was a wonderful way to
Speaker 1: elicit confessions from the guilty, but it's also a wonderful
Speaker 1: way to elicit confessions from the innocent. That is the problem.
Speaker 1: And so we don't know if they were using the
Speaker 1: Reed technique here, but it would have been the time
Speaker 1: period where that would have been a very popular approach.
Speaker 1: And so, I just feel like Juan was very unprotected,
Speaker 1: that they had decided that he was the guy and
Speaker 1: that this was convenient. They needed somebody and he was
Speaker 1: going to say that he did it. And so they
Speaker 1: fed him details. They focused on him, took their focus
Speaker 1: away from who the real killer was. And whether or
Speaker 1: not law enforcement truly believed that Juan was guilty or
Speaker 1: not is up for debate. I can't say. I haven't
Speaker 1: spoken to any of them. I don't know if they
Speaker 1: were invested because they needed protection. to have an answer
Speaker 1: because of political pressure or if they truly believed that
Speaker 1: he was the guy and maybe they believed the false
Speaker 1: confessions weren't a thing. I just can't know, but this
Speaker 1: has got to be one of the most frustrating cases
Speaker 1: that I think I've ever heard.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. Like we talked about wrongful convictions are bad enough,
Speaker 2: but ones in which you cause additional trauma to the
Speaker 2: victim's family are even more egregious. And the fact that
Speaker 2: they tried to taint Holly Staker's reputation by trying to
Speaker 2: like paint her as sexually active and promiscuous is, at
Speaker 2: the age of 11, just to get a conviction on
Speaker 2: an innocent man is one of the more disgusting things
Speaker 2: I've ever seen in one of the cases we've covered.
Speaker 2: So that about brings an end to our discussion about
Speaker 2: the murder of Holly Staker and the wrongful conviction of
Speaker 2: Juan Rivera. Thank you so much for your continued support,
Speaker 2: and we'll be back next week to talk about another case.
Speaker 3: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
Speaker 3: about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?
Speaker 2: Yes, the Trail Went Cold Patreon has been around for
Speaker 2: three years now, and we offer the standard paychecks bonus
Speaker 2: features like early ad-free episodes, and I also send out
Speaker 2: stickers and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs
Speaker 2: up with us on Patreon. If you join our $ 5 tier,
Speaker 2: Tier 2, we also offer monthly bonus episodes in which
Speaker 2: I talk about cases which are not featured on the
Speaker 2: Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon.
Speaker 2: And if you join our highest tier, Tier 3, the
Speaker 2: $ 10 tier, one of the features we offer is an
Speaker 2: audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsolved Mysteries, where
Speaker 2: you can download an audio file and then boot up
Speaker 2: the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or YouTube
Speaker 2: and play it with my audio commentary playing in the background,
Speaker 2: where I just provide trivia and factoids about the cases
Speaker 2: featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very first episode
Speaker 2: that I did a commentary track over was the episode
Speaker 2: featuring this case. So if you want to download a
Speaker 2: commentary track in which I make more smart-ass remarks about
Speaker 2: Jewel Kaler, then be sure to join Tier 3.
Speaker 3: So I want to let you know a little bit
Speaker 3: about the Jewels and Ashley Patreon. So there's early ad-free
Speaker 3: episodes of The Path Went Chilly. We've got our Path
Speaker 3: Went Chilly minis, which are always over an hour. So
Speaker 3: they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
Speaker 3: turn into a series. And we're really enjoying doing those.
Speaker 3: We hope you'll check out those Patreons. We'll link them
Speaker 3: in the show notes.
Speaker 2: So I want to thank you all for listening. And
Speaker 2: any chance you have to share us on social media
Speaker 2: with a friend or to rate and review is greatly appreciated.
Speaker 2: You can email us at thepathwentchili at gmail.com. You can
Speaker 2: reach us on Twitter at thepathwentchili. So until next time,
Speaker 2: be sure to bundle up because cold trails and chilly
Speaker 2: paths call for warm clothing.
Speaker 3: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy.