WEBVTT

1
00:00:00.250 --> 00:00:01.090
<v Speaker 1>Thank you.

2
00:00:30.120 --> 00:00:31.949
<v Speaker 2>Welcome back to part two of our series about the

3
00:00:31.989 --> 00:00:35.229
<v Speaker 2>murder of Holly Staker and the wrongful conviction of Juan Rivera.

4
00:00:35.350 --> 00:00:38.149
<v Speaker 2>Let's dive right back into our discussion. So at this

5
00:00:38.189 --> 00:00:41.030
<v Speaker 2>particular trial, I think there was more uncertainty by the jury,

6
00:00:41.109 --> 00:00:43.259
<v Speaker 2>because they had to deliberate for a total of 36

7
00:00:43.259 --> 00:00:46.719
<v Speaker 2>hours over the course of four days, but in the end,

8
00:00:46.820 --> 00:00:50.439
<v Speaker 2>they did find Juan guilty, and he received another life sentence.

9
00:00:51.119 --> 00:00:53.700
<v Speaker 2>But the defense team still started fighting for him, and

10
00:00:53.740 --> 00:00:56.920
<v Speaker 2>because DNA profiling had not been a common thing back

11
00:00:57.140 --> 00:01:00.149
<v Speaker 2>in 1992, they finally decided to utilize it in the

12
00:01:00.189 --> 00:01:04.170
<v Speaker 2>mid-2000s by doing DNA testing on a semen sample that

13
00:01:04.189 --> 00:01:06.810
<v Speaker 2>had been left behind by the killer when Holly was raped,

14
00:01:07.469 --> 00:01:10.430
<v Speaker 2>and this excluded Juan as being the source of the semen.

15
00:01:10.469 --> 00:01:13.109
<v Speaker 2>The DNA did not match him, so his conviction was

16
00:01:13.150 --> 00:01:17.409
<v Speaker 2>vacated for the second time in August of 2006. So

17
00:01:17.450 --> 00:01:19.230
<v Speaker 2>you would be hoping that this would be strong enough

18
00:01:19.349 --> 00:01:21.609
<v Speaker 2>evidence that the state would finally say, yes, this is

19
00:01:21.629 --> 00:01:24.640
<v Speaker 2>the wrong guy. We're dropping the charges. But I know

20
00:01:24.659 --> 00:01:27.519
<v Speaker 2>we have used this term on previous episodes that we've discussed,

21
00:01:27.560 --> 00:01:31.659
<v Speaker 2>but I'm sure you recollect the term the unindicted co-ejaculator.

22
00:01:31.659 --> 00:01:37.019
<v Speaker 1>100%. That was exactly what I was thinking when you

23
00:01:37.060 --> 00:01:39.540
<v Speaker 1>brought up that the semen didn't match. I'm like, well,

24
00:01:40.099 --> 00:01:42.489
<v Speaker 1>that isn't a major impediment for them. They're just going

25
00:01:42.530 --> 00:01:45.359
<v Speaker 1>to say that he had a co-conspirator and that's the

26
00:01:45.420 --> 00:01:49.170
<v Speaker 1>individual whose semen was found, that Juan's semen just wasn't

27
00:01:49.230 --> 00:01:51.150
<v Speaker 1>found at the scene. Maybe he wore a condom and

28
00:01:51.189 --> 00:01:53.930
<v Speaker 1>took it with him. I'm sure they've got a million

29
00:01:53.989 --> 00:01:56.799
<v Speaker 1>reasons why that it still could be Juan.

30
00:01:57.829 --> 00:02:00.150
<v Speaker 2>Well, this is actually worse than you predicted, because they

31
00:02:00.170 --> 00:02:04.409
<v Speaker 2>did not use the co-conspirator-accomplice theory this time around. The

32
00:02:04.430 --> 00:02:08.050
<v Speaker 2>trial started in April of 2009, and the prosecuting attorney

33
00:02:08.090 --> 00:02:10.590
<v Speaker 2>was Mike Murmel, who was not the prosecutor at the

34
00:02:10.629 --> 00:02:13.159
<v Speaker 2>first two trials. So he had his work cut out

35
00:02:13.199 --> 00:02:15.639
<v Speaker 2>for this, trying to explain away the DNA evidence. But

36
00:02:15.719 --> 00:02:18.639
<v Speaker 2>once again, he claimed that, yes, Juan was still guilty,

37
00:02:18.800 --> 00:02:21.680
<v Speaker 2>and he raped Holly, but he did not ejaculate. But

38
00:02:21.780 --> 00:02:24.710
<v Speaker 2>earlier that evening, Holly had invited another man over to

39
00:02:24.750 --> 00:02:28.680
<v Speaker 2>the house to have, quote-unquote, consensual sex. And that's who

40
00:02:28.719 --> 00:02:31.189
<v Speaker 2>the semen belonged to, and that's who the DNA matched.

41
00:02:31.389 --> 00:02:34.590
<v Speaker 2>And as a reminder, Holly was 11 years old at

42
00:02:34.629 --> 00:02:35.090
<v Speaker 2>the time.

43
00:02:36.349 --> 00:02:42.409
<v Speaker 1>As soon as you said they didn't use the co-conspirator idea,

44
00:02:42.509 --> 00:02:44.439
<v Speaker 1>I knew that they were going to be bringing in

45
00:02:44.500 --> 00:02:49.080
<v Speaker 1>that Holly potentially had consensual sex with an unknown male,

46
00:02:49.580 --> 00:02:52.800
<v Speaker 1>and that that was how they would explain the semen,

47
00:02:53.219 --> 00:02:58.180
<v Speaker 1>which is absolutely disgusting. This is an 11-year-old child. to

48
00:02:58.219 --> 00:03:00.659
<v Speaker 1>think that she's going to be babysitting a five-year-old and

49
00:03:00.689 --> 00:03:03.189
<v Speaker 1>a two-year-old, or just at any point in the day

50
00:03:03.250 --> 00:03:07.330
<v Speaker 1>that she could have consensual sex with anybody. She is

51
00:03:07.449 --> 00:03:10.360
<v Speaker 1>a literal child. It's egregious.

52
00:03:11.219 --> 00:03:14.699
<v Speaker 2>It is, yeah. And obviously an 11-year-old cannot even consent,

53
00:03:14.780 --> 00:03:17.780
<v Speaker 2>but they're using the term consensual sex all throughout the trial.

54
00:03:18.259 --> 00:03:20.229
<v Speaker 2>But it just does so much bad damage to her

55
00:03:20.270 --> 00:03:22.569
<v Speaker 2>reputation because not only are you trying to say that

56
00:03:22.590 --> 00:03:25.250
<v Speaker 2>an 11-year-old is sexually active, but they're saying that she's

57
00:03:25.310 --> 00:03:29.169
<v Speaker 2>irresponsible enough to, like, invite another person over to a

58
00:03:29.229 --> 00:03:32.219
<v Speaker 2>house that she's babysitting and doing this with all these

59
00:03:32.280 --> 00:03:35.219
<v Speaker 2>two children beside her, which does not sound like it

60
00:03:35.259 --> 00:03:38.180
<v Speaker 2>fit Holly's character. So it's like we're going to the

61
00:03:38.219 --> 00:03:41.539
<v Speaker 2>extreme now where we're tainting a murder victim's reputation just

62
00:03:41.560 --> 00:03:44.039
<v Speaker 2>to get a conviction by totally making stuff up.

63
00:03:44.560 --> 00:03:47.620
<v Speaker 1>And so what? Like, they're trying to say that Some

64
00:03:47.699 --> 00:03:50.680
<v Speaker 1>guy came over and slept with Holly. We know she

65
00:03:50.719 --> 00:03:55.460
<v Speaker 1>can't consent, but they're using that term, consensual sex. That, what,

66
00:03:55.659 --> 00:03:58.520
<v Speaker 1>she invited him over? Just the timing? Well, the five-year-old

67
00:03:58.560 --> 00:04:02.409
<v Speaker 1>was out there playing? And then after this act happened,

68
00:04:02.870 --> 00:04:05.250
<v Speaker 1>it just so happened that Juan then came in and

69
00:04:05.289 --> 00:04:09.490
<v Speaker 1>decided to murder Holly, leaving no traces of his DNA behind?

70
00:04:10.599 --> 00:04:13.780
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, just makes no sense whatsoever. And conveniently, the two

71
00:04:13.860 --> 00:04:16.399
<v Speaker 2>children were not called upon to testify at the trial

72
00:04:16.459 --> 00:04:19.040
<v Speaker 2>because they are not going to corroborate this story that

73
00:04:19.180 --> 00:04:21.850
<v Speaker 2>anyone else visited the house that night in order to

74
00:04:21.889 --> 00:04:24.829
<v Speaker 2>have sex with Holly. So there they are just completely

75
00:04:24.870 --> 00:04:25.870
<v Speaker 2>changing their narrative.

76
00:04:26.569 --> 00:04:28.990
<v Speaker 1>So are they still trying to say that Juan raped

77
00:04:29.029 --> 00:04:29.889
<v Speaker 1>Holly at this point?

78
00:04:30.569 --> 00:04:32.180
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that he came back and raped her, but he

79
00:04:32.209 --> 00:04:35.439
<v Speaker 2>did not ejaculate. So because I'm sure there was probably

80
00:04:35.480 --> 00:04:38.319
<v Speaker 2>sign of trauma. that she had been sexually assaulted, so

81
00:04:38.339 --> 00:04:40.420
<v Speaker 2>they can't say that, oh, the semen was the result

82
00:04:40.459 --> 00:04:42.870
<v Speaker 2>of just consensual sex. So it's kind of like a

83
00:04:42.910 --> 00:04:45.810
<v Speaker 2>convenient thing where this unknown person comes in, just has

84
00:04:45.850 --> 00:04:48.250
<v Speaker 2>sex with her, leaves, and then Juan comes a short

85
00:04:48.290 --> 00:04:51.500
<v Speaker 2>time later and rapes her without leaving his DNA behind.

86
00:04:52.629 --> 00:04:54.889
<v Speaker 2>But I know that Mike Murmel was kind of using

87
00:04:54.930 --> 00:04:58.709
<v Speaker 2>gaslighting here, trying to downplay the significance of DNA, saying

88
00:04:58.730 --> 00:05:00.990
<v Speaker 2>it wasn't really all that important as evidence. This is

89
00:05:01.009 --> 00:05:03.629
<v Speaker 2>an actual quote that he said to the press, quote,

90
00:05:04.089 --> 00:05:06.209
<v Speaker 2>The example I like to give people is next time

91
00:05:06.250 --> 00:05:08.759
<v Speaker 2>you go to a motel room, bring a plastic bag

92
00:05:08.879 --> 00:05:11.379
<v Speaker 2>because the dirtiest thing in that room is the remote control.

93
00:05:11.860 --> 00:05:14.339
<v Speaker 2>Everybody has sex and rolls over and goes, I wonder

94
00:05:14.379 --> 00:05:17.040
<v Speaker 2>what's on. OK, so you can find DNA in the

95
00:05:17.100 --> 00:05:19.800
<v Speaker 2>form of sperm from 10 different people in that room

96
00:05:19.899 --> 00:05:22.519
<v Speaker 2>from that remote control or even on a person who

97
00:05:22.540 --> 00:05:24.879
<v Speaker 2>has touched it. And that woman gets murdered in that

98
00:05:24.939 --> 00:05:27.060
<v Speaker 2>room tonight and you're going to have a lot of DNA.

99
00:05:27.290 --> 00:05:30.009
<v Speaker 2>Is it all going to be forensically significant? End quote.

100
00:05:30.910 --> 00:05:31.990
<v Speaker 2>What is he talking about?

101
00:05:32.009 --> 00:05:35.569
<v Speaker 1>What is he talking about? And the thing is, yeah,

102
00:05:35.730 --> 00:05:38.970
<v Speaker 1>you might get like fragments of DNA if you're touching

103
00:05:39.009 --> 00:05:42.480
<v Speaker 1>a remote control that hasn't been cleaned at a hotel room. Yes,

104
00:05:42.540 --> 00:05:44.600
<v Speaker 1>lots of people do that. If you're going to a hotel,

105
00:05:44.699 --> 00:05:46.300
<v Speaker 1>one of the first things you should do is clean

106
00:05:46.319 --> 00:05:49.180
<v Speaker 1>that remote control. If you've got like, you know, Lysol

107
00:05:49.199 --> 00:05:52.399
<v Speaker 1>wipes or whatever, wipe that down. But there's a very

108
00:05:52.490 --> 00:05:56.610
<v Speaker 1>big difference between touching a surface and getting DNA on

109
00:05:56.649 --> 00:06:01.790
<v Speaker 1>your hand than getting DNA in your body cavities. That

110
00:06:01.850 --> 00:06:03.829
<v Speaker 1>is a lot harder to do. And I can't think

111
00:06:04.250 --> 00:06:07.370
<v Speaker 1>of a lot of examples aside from the case of

112
00:06:07.449 --> 00:06:12.920
<v Speaker 1>Robert Wan, where that was incredibly confusing how Robert ended

113
00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:16.310
<v Speaker 1>up with his DNA in his anus and he was

114
00:06:16.370 --> 00:06:20.629
<v Speaker 1>clearly murdered. So that is a confusing one where that

115
00:06:20.670 --> 00:06:23.209
<v Speaker 1>has been tried to have been explained away. But in

116
00:06:23.269 --> 00:06:26.420
<v Speaker 1>this case, the fact that the DNA is found inside

117
00:06:26.449 --> 00:06:29.319
<v Speaker 1>of Hall, that isn't something that you just go to

118
00:06:29.339 --> 00:06:31.560
<v Speaker 1>a hotel room, you're rolling around on a bed and

119
00:06:31.600 --> 00:06:33.779
<v Speaker 1>there's DNA and it ends up inside of you. That

120
00:06:33.839 --> 00:06:35.759
<v Speaker 1>is not how the human body works. No.

121
00:06:36.600 --> 00:06:39.459
<v Speaker 2>Definitely not. And it doesn't explain why Juan's DNA is

122
00:06:39.480 --> 00:06:41.839
<v Speaker 2>not present anywhere, because if a whole bunch of people

123
00:06:41.860 --> 00:06:45.000
<v Speaker 2>can share their DNA all over the Engelbrecht's apartment, how

124
00:06:45.079 --> 00:06:47.529
<v Speaker 2>is Juan able to commit this crime without leaving any

125
00:06:47.550 --> 00:06:51.129
<v Speaker 2>of his DNA behind? So it gets even worse, because

126
00:06:51.170 --> 00:06:53.490
<v Speaker 2>it seemed like Murmel's strategy was not to try to

127
00:06:53.509 --> 00:06:55.709
<v Speaker 2>convince the jury that Juan did it, but try to

128
00:06:55.750 --> 00:06:59.209
<v Speaker 2>convince them that Holly was sexually active at the age

129
00:06:59.250 --> 00:07:03.290
<v Speaker 2>of 11, and he's pretty much performing character assassination, because

130
00:07:03.509 --> 00:07:06.449
<v Speaker 2>Holly actually had a twin sister named Heather, who was

131
00:07:06.490 --> 00:07:09.310
<v Speaker 2>called upon the stand to testify, and even though Heather

132
00:07:09.329 --> 00:07:12.110
<v Speaker 2>claimed that she did not believe Holly was sexually active,

133
00:07:12.589 --> 00:07:15.350
<v Speaker 2>Murmel made her recount an incident where she and Holly

134
00:07:15.370 --> 00:07:17.870
<v Speaker 2>were both sexually abused by one of their brother's friends

135
00:07:17.910 --> 00:07:20.290
<v Speaker 2>when they were eight years old, because he was trying

136
00:07:20.310 --> 00:07:22.449
<v Speaker 2>to plant the seeds that if she suffered this trauma,

137
00:07:22.480 --> 00:07:25.540
<v Speaker 2>maybe she's having sex with people at the age of 11.

138
00:07:25.540 --> 00:07:27.800
<v Speaker 2>And he also made Heather share how she and her

139
00:07:27.839 --> 00:07:30.500
<v Speaker 2>sister had once shown each other how to masturbate, just

140
00:07:30.540 --> 00:07:32.500
<v Speaker 2>to show that she had lots of knowledge of sex

141
00:07:32.540 --> 00:07:35.029
<v Speaker 2>at this age. So, like, this has nothing to do

142
00:07:35.069 --> 00:07:36.829
<v Speaker 2>with the case, but he just wants to try to

143
00:07:36.870 --> 00:07:39.069
<v Speaker 2>convince the jury that Holly was the type of person

144
00:07:39.089 --> 00:07:41.649
<v Speaker 2>who would have sex with someone else at that age.

145
00:07:42.449 --> 00:07:47.819
<v Speaker 1>He's legitimately slut-shaming a murder victim who is an 11-year-old child. And...

146
00:07:48.220 --> 00:07:52.189
<v Speaker 1>children will talk about such things. Little kids will play

147
00:07:52.259 --> 00:07:56.629
<v Speaker 1>doctor and they'll explore things that aren't really sexual. It's

148
00:07:56.910 --> 00:08:00.689
<v Speaker 1>just a matter of kids learning their bodies and trying

149
00:08:00.730 --> 00:08:03.810
<v Speaker 1>to figure out where they fit in the world and

150
00:08:04.550 --> 00:08:07.529
<v Speaker 1>that they're children but they will cosplay as adults for

151
00:08:07.550 --> 00:08:10.009
<v Speaker 1>a moment. I think most kids have played those types

152
00:08:10.069 --> 00:08:14.860
<v Speaker 1>of games or discussed things like masturbation. It's not To

153
00:08:14.920 --> 00:08:17.740
<v Speaker 1>say that, oh, because we're now going to build this

154
00:08:17.759 --> 00:08:21.120
<v Speaker 1>character profile of this victim that says that, yes, she

155
00:08:21.199 --> 00:08:23.660
<v Speaker 1>is the type of person that this would happen to

156
00:08:23.740 --> 00:08:26.699
<v Speaker 1>because she's going to be having sex with men. And

157
00:08:26.730 --> 00:08:31.930
<v Speaker 1>it is ridiculous. So ridiculous. And it's so harmful. I

158
00:08:31.970 --> 00:08:36.769
<v Speaker 1>can't imagine the consequences and the ramifications for the family

159
00:08:37.070 --> 00:08:42.720
<v Speaker 1>having to have your 11-year-old child painted as... being sexually

160
00:08:43.259 --> 00:08:47.899
<v Speaker 1>liberated at 11 when you literally cannot consent to sex.

161
00:08:48.159 --> 00:08:51.649
<v Speaker 1>It is just, it's wild to me what they're willing

162
00:08:51.730 --> 00:08:55.309
<v Speaker 1>to do and how they're willing to paint Holly just

163
00:08:55.389 --> 00:08:58.049
<v Speaker 1>so that they can have their way and have Juan

164
00:08:58.090 --> 00:08:58.769
<v Speaker 1>convicted again.

165
00:08:59.480 --> 00:09:02.340
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that's exactly what they're going to do. This is

166
00:09:02.360 --> 00:09:05.960
<v Speaker 2>the ultimate example of a wrongful conviction where they caused

167
00:09:06.019 --> 00:09:08.750
<v Speaker 2>a lot of trauma for the victim's family. And I

168
00:09:08.919 --> 00:09:11.730
<v Speaker 2>feel really bad for Heather because she had actually been

169
00:09:11.769 --> 00:09:15.049
<v Speaker 2>scheduled to babysit that night at the Engelbrecht's residence until

170
00:09:15.090 --> 00:09:17.590
<v Speaker 2>Holly took her place. So as you can imagine, she

171
00:09:17.610 --> 00:09:20.029
<v Speaker 2>felt a lot of survivor's guilt because she could have

172
00:09:20.049 --> 00:09:23.009
<v Speaker 2>been there that night and Holly wound up being killed instead.

173
00:09:23.649 --> 00:09:25.139
<v Speaker 2>And she went on to grow up and live a

174
00:09:25.200 --> 00:09:27.580
<v Speaker 2>rough life because Heather has gone on to have a

175
00:09:27.620 --> 00:09:29.600
<v Speaker 2>lot of troubles with the law and she's had some

176
00:09:29.639 --> 00:09:33.059
<v Speaker 2>addiction issues. And now here she is like 17 years

177
00:09:33.100 --> 00:09:35.740
<v Speaker 2>later being called upon to testify at a murder trial

178
00:09:35.759 --> 00:09:39.019
<v Speaker 2>for your sister and talk about your masturbation habits and

179
00:09:39.059 --> 00:09:42.700
<v Speaker 2>just be humiliated. So it's just so shameful and I

180
00:09:42.740 --> 00:09:45.279
<v Speaker 2>don't know how Mike Murmel could sleep at night doing

181
00:09:45.340 --> 00:09:47.580
<v Speaker 2>all this stuff just to get a win at a trial.

182
00:09:48.659 --> 00:09:51.320
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it's like he takes away the humanity of the

183
00:09:51.379 --> 00:09:55.590
<v Speaker 1>victim in order to get another notch on his belt

184
00:09:55.669 --> 00:10:00.220
<v Speaker 1>so that he can win, so that the statistics remain consistent. know,

185
00:10:00.240 --> 00:10:02.220
<v Speaker 1>whatever that they need to be in order for him

186
00:10:02.259 --> 00:10:05.240
<v Speaker 1>to keep his job. But when it becomes about winning

187
00:10:05.379 --> 00:10:10.070
<v Speaker 1>and not about finding justice for the victim, instead, you're

188
00:10:10.379 --> 00:10:15.490
<v Speaker 1>re-victimizing them posthumously in the way that you're characterizing Holly.

189
00:10:15.710 --> 00:10:19.600
<v Speaker 1>And you're traumatizing the family. It's so sad to think

190
00:10:19.639 --> 00:10:23.500
<v Speaker 1>that they had to endure this, and just the discussions.

191
00:10:23.740 --> 00:10:26.740
<v Speaker 1>It's just, it's gross that you should be talking about

192
00:10:26.779 --> 00:10:31.059
<v Speaker 1>an 11-year-old like this, characterizing an 11-year-old like this. It's

193
00:10:31.740 --> 00:10:35.159
<v Speaker 1>well beyond the bounds of, like, what should be acceptable

194
00:10:35.340 --> 00:10:38.549
<v Speaker 1>for any prosecutor. I don't care what your objective is,

195
00:10:38.610 --> 00:10:40.690
<v Speaker 1>if you feel that Juan did it or he didn't.

196
00:10:41.230 --> 00:10:44.350
<v Speaker 1>This is just, the victim shaming is on another level,

197
00:10:44.509 --> 00:10:47.789
<v Speaker 1>and The hurt and the pain that this causes would

198
00:10:47.830 --> 00:10:50.570
<v Speaker 1>be so much greater because you have a family that

199
00:10:50.610 --> 00:10:53.009
<v Speaker 1>is dealing with the loss of a child. It's hard

200
00:10:53.070 --> 00:10:56.460
<v Speaker 1>enough when it's an adult victim and there's victim shaming

201
00:10:56.529 --> 00:10:59.440
<v Speaker 1>or slut shaming attached to the case, but this is

202
00:10:59.600 --> 00:11:03.759
<v Speaker 1>completely different because you're painting this child to be something

203
00:11:03.779 --> 00:11:06.279
<v Speaker 1>that they are clearly not and it feels so unfair.

204
00:11:07.480 --> 00:11:10.990
<v Speaker 2>And it's particularly egregious because Murmel was not the prosecutor

205
00:11:11.070 --> 00:11:12.990
<v Speaker 2>at the first two trials. He was not the one

206
00:11:13.029 --> 00:11:15.009
<v Speaker 2>who charged Juan and sent him to prison in the

207
00:11:15.049 --> 00:11:17.429
<v Speaker 2>first place, so he could have easily said, this is

208
00:11:17.470 --> 00:11:20.120
<v Speaker 2>not my problem, I'm dropping the charges, I'm not taking

209
00:11:20.129 --> 00:11:22.639
<v Speaker 2>this to trial because I was not the one who

210
00:11:22.980 --> 00:11:24.740
<v Speaker 2>sent this innocent man to prison, but he made a

211
00:11:24.759 --> 00:11:27.159
<v Speaker 2>calculated choice. No, I want to get a win, so

212
00:11:27.179 --> 00:11:29.159
<v Speaker 2>I'm just going to use this as an opportunity to

213
00:11:29.259 --> 00:11:32.929
<v Speaker 2>shame the victim and her family. And, of course, they

214
00:11:32.950 --> 00:11:36.090
<v Speaker 2>tried to get some additional corroborating evidence against Juan, but

215
00:11:36.149 --> 00:11:39.730
<v Speaker 2>it turned out that the two jailhouse informants, Frank McDonald

216
00:11:39.889 --> 00:11:42.389
<v Speaker 2>and David Crespo, who had testified against him at the

217
00:11:42.409 --> 00:11:45.750
<v Speaker 2>previous trials, were now deceased. So they just read their

218
00:11:45.789 --> 00:11:48.210
<v Speaker 2>original statements out for the jury, but I know that

219
00:11:48.250 --> 00:11:51.309
<v Speaker 2>the defense objected, saying that, we cannot put these statements

220
00:11:51.409 --> 00:11:55.190
<v Speaker 2>up here without giving us the opportunity to cross-examine these

221
00:11:55.230 --> 00:11:58.799
<v Speaker 2>jailhouse informants and try to destroy their credibility. But lo

222
00:11:58.820 --> 00:12:02.340
<v Speaker 2>and behold, they produced another jailhouse informant. This time it

223
00:12:02.379 --> 00:12:05.360
<v Speaker 2>was Ed Martin, who was the guy who gave the

224
00:12:05.399 --> 00:12:08.240
<v Speaker 2>tip to the police back in 1992 that Juan had

225
00:12:08.299 --> 00:12:11.559
<v Speaker 2>made these incriminating statements about being at a party on

226
00:12:11.580 --> 00:12:14.039
<v Speaker 2>the night of the murder. But this time Martin told

227
00:12:14.080 --> 00:12:17.320
<v Speaker 2>an entirely different story, saying that Juan had flat out

228
00:12:17.360 --> 00:12:20.659
<v Speaker 2>confessed to Holly's murder and called her, quote-unquote, a a

229
00:12:20.700 --> 00:12:23.899
<v Speaker 2>little bitch and a tease who had deserved everything she got.

230
00:12:24.370 --> 00:12:26.950
<v Speaker 2>But of course, the defense argued, hmm, you didn't mention

231
00:12:26.970 --> 00:12:29.850
<v Speaker 2>this part of the story back in 1992 when you

232
00:12:30.309 --> 00:12:32.409
<v Speaker 2>originally came forward to the police. And now you're throwing

233
00:12:32.450 --> 00:12:35.309
<v Speaker 2>in all these new details 17 years after the fact.

234
00:12:36.830 --> 00:12:42.090
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it's sort of like having somebody recall details of

235
00:12:42.129 --> 00:12:45.019
<v Speaker 1>a crime when they were two years old. years later

236
00:12:45.059 --> 00:12:47.759
<v Speaker 1>when they're eight. It's just not going to be reliable,

237
00:12:47.840 --> 00:12:50.120
<v Speaker 1>but it's questionable, and we've got to ask, what is

238
00:12:50.159 --> 00:12:52.919
<v Speaker 1>his motivation in sharing this? What is his objective?

239
00:12:53.860 --> 00:12:55.259
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean, I don't know if he got an

240
00:12:55.399 --> 00:12:57.850
<v Speaker 2>ear-shaved office sentence, but I have a feeling that the

241
00:12:57.889 --> 00:13:00.149
<v Speaker 2>police put a lot of pressure on him, saying, we

242
00:13:00.169 --> 00:13:03.009
<v Speaker 2>can't use the testimony from the previous jailhouse informant, so

243
00:13:03.049 --> 00:13:05.330
<v Speaker 2>please get on the stand and testify, instead that you

244
00:13:05.350 --> 00:13:09.539
<v Speaker 2>heard Juan make these incriminating statements. Well, believe it or not,

245
00:13:09.679 --> 00:13:13.059
<v Speaker 2>all this stuff actually worked on the jury because they

246
00:13:13.120 --> 00:13:16.440
<v Speaker 2>deliberated and once again found him guilty for the third

247
00:13:16.500 --> 00:13:19.019
<v Speaker 2>time of murder. and he was once again sentenced to

248
00:13:19.059 --> 00:13:21.620
<v Speaker 2>life imprisonment. And man, I would really like to be

249
00:13:21.639 --> 00:13:24.259
<v Speaker 2>in the jury's shoes during deliberations and wonder what they

250
00:13:24.289 --> 00:13:27.029
<v Speaker 2>talk about, because I said for the previous trials, I

251
00:13:27.049 --> 00:13:29.429
<v Speaker 2>can kind of put things in their shoes and say that, yeah,

252
00:13:29.470 --> 00:13:31.990
<v Speaker 2>back in the 1990s, they wouldn't have known much about

253
00:13:32.090 --> 00:13:35.320
<v Speaker 2>false confessions and would have assumed that Juan was guilty.

254
00:13:35.360 --> 00:13:38.659
<v Speaker 2>But by this point, you have DNA evidence that excludes Juan.

255
00:13:39.080 --> 00:13:41.970
<v Speaker 2>which essentially means they had deliberations and says, you know what?

256
00:13:42.039 --> 00:13:46.309
<v Speaker 2>That explanation about Holly having consensual sex at age 11

257
00:13:46.309 --> 00:13:48.429
<v Speaker 2>makes a lot of sense to me. Let's find him guilty.

258
00:13:48.450 --> 00:13:52.929
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it makes me wonder exactly who the jury was

259
00:13:52.970 --> 00:13:55.279
<v Speaker 1>made up of and if there were people that were

260
00:13:55.419 --> 00:13:59.399
<v Speaker 1>easily convinced that 11-year-olds are out there being more mature

261
00:13:59.460 --> 00:14:01.879
<v Speaker 1>than they used to be and they're out there having sex.

262
00:14:02.379 --> 00:14:06.970
<v Speaker 1>I'm wondering if this is held in... close to Chicago.

263
00:14:07.029 --> 00:14:09.230
<v Speaker 1>It's in Illinois. How big was the city that it

264
00:14:09.269 --> 00:14:09.730
<v Speaker 1>was held in?

265
00:14:10.289 --> 00:14:13.169
<v Speaker 2>Let me just double check. So it was held in Waukegan,

266
00:14:13.210 --> 00:14:16.340
<v Speaker 2>which is a fairly decent-sized city. It had a population

267
00:14:16.360 --> 00:14:18.120
<v Speaker 2>of around 89,000 at that time.

268
00:14:19.139 --> 00:14:20.059
<v Speaker 1>And what year was this?

269
00:14:21.639 --> 00:14:25.870
<v Speaker 2>This year, the deliberations for this trial would have been 2009.

270
00:14:25.870 --> 00:14:28.210
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, you would like to think that, okay, in a

271
00:14:28.250 --> 00:14:29.590
<v Speaker 1>town of 89,000 people, it's not like a town of 2,000 people.

272
00:14:32.610 --> 00:14:36.889
<v Speaker 1>And with access to information about false confessions, not to

273
00:14:36.909 --> 00:14:38.990
<v Speaker 1>the degree that we have now. I mean, I'm trying

274
00:14:39.029 --> 00:14:41.830
<v Speaker 1>to like put myself back at that time. And I'm

275
00:14:41.850 --> 00:14:44.850
<v Speaker 1>thinking when was the first time that I started really

276
00:14:44.889 --> 00:14:47.879
<v Speaker 1>listening to like disappeared and stuff. And it would have

277
00:14:47.889 --> 00:14:52.019
<v Speaker 1>been around this time. And so would my knowledge of

278
00:14:52.059 --> 00:14:55.639
<v Speaker 1>false confessions have been what it is today? Not even close.

279
00:14:56.200 --> 00:14:59.570
<v Speaker 1>So perhaps these people were well-versed in this, but it

280
00:14:59.639 --> 00:15:02.330
<v Speaker 1>makes me believe that they kind of had the mentality

281
00:15:02.370 --> 00:15:04.909
<v Speaker 1>that if they keep charging this guy, they believe that

282
00:15:04.990 --> 00:15:07.649
<v Speaker 1>he is guilty, so there must be something to that.

283
00:15:08.470 --> 00:15:10.190
<v Speaker 2>That's what I'm thinking, is that a lot of jurors

284
00:15:10.230 --> 00:15:13.149
<v Speaker 2>have preconceived mindsets saying that, well, if this person's standing

285
00:15:13.190 --> 00:15:15.269
<v Speaker 2>on trial in the first place, they must be guilty,

286
00:15:15.350 --> 00:15:18.129
<v Speaker 2>because the police and prosecutors, they're honest people who would

287
00:15:18.149 --> 00:15:21.720
<v Speaker 2>never make mistakes and railroad anyone, so... Even though this

288
00:15:21.759 --> 00:15:24.210
<v Speaker 2>does not sound convincing, the scenario they presented, if he

289
00:15:24.250 --> 00:15:26.870
<v Speaker 2>did confess and the police charged him, then he must

290
00:15:26.929 --> 00:15:29.309
<v Speaker 2>be guilty. So I'm guessing that was their mindset and

291
00:15:29.330 --> 00:15:33.110
<v Speaker 2>why they found him guilty for the third time. But

292
00:15:33.210 --> 00:15:36.009
<v Speaker 2>I imagine this was completely devastating for Juan and his

293
00:15:36.049 --> 00:15:38.190
<v Speaker 2>defense team because they figured this has to be the

294
00:15:38.370 --> 00:15:40.750
<v Speaker 2>one where he's finally cleared, but now he's getting sent

295
00:15:40.789 --> 00:15:42.730
<v Speaker 2>back to prison. But they were not going to give

296
00:15:42.830 --> 00:15:45.860
<v Speaker 2>up until they exonerated him. So they appealed his conviction

297
00:15:45.899 --> 00:15:49.299
<v Speaker 2>again with a 105-page brief, which had a ton of

298
00:15:49.370 --> 00:15:53.210
<v Speaker 2>legal arguments about how terrible this conviction was. And one

299
00:15:53.230 --> 00:15:56.110
<v Speaker 2>of the most interesting arguments they said is that all

300
00:15:56.149 --> 00:16:00.789
<v Speaker 2>the so-called evidence about Holly Staker's so-called sex life violated

301
00:16:00.830 --> 00:16:04.230
<v Speaker 2>the rape shield statute. Generally, this statute is invoked by

302
00:16:04.250 --> 00:16:07.460
<v Speaker 2>the prosecution in rape trials in order to prevent the

303
00:16:07.500 --> 00:16:11.230
<v Speaker 2>defense from introducing a victim's past sexual behavior again. into

304
00:16:11.350 --> 00:16:13.830
<v Speaker 2>evidence trying to say that, well, they slept around a lot,

305
00:16:13.870 --> 00:16:15.409
<v Speaker 2>they had a lot of sex, so she must be

306
00:16:15.450 --> 00:16:17.889
<v Speaker 2>lying about this having been rape. But this is one

307
00:16:17.909 --> 00:16:20.429
<v Speaker 2>of the only cases I've seen where the defense brought

308
00:16:20.480 --> 00:16:23.200
<v Speaker 2>up the rape shield statute, saying that bringing up this

309
00:16:23.320 --> 00:16:26.799
<v Speaker 2>alleged stuff that Holly did, like the masturbation and being

310
00:16:26.840 --> 00:16:30.240
<v Speaker 2>sexually abused, was totally irrelevant as evidence and may have

311
00:16:30.259 --> 00:16:32.529
<v Speaker 2>tainted the jury's mind, so therefore it should not have

312
00:16:32.549 --> 00:16:33.549
<v Speaker 2>been allowed at the trial.

313
00:16:34.610 --> 00:16:36.389
<v Speaker 1>It should not have been allowed at the trial, and

314
00:16:36.409 --> 00:16:38.990
<v Speaker 1>I don't believe that any of it is actually genuine.

315
00:16:39.389 --> 00:16:43.049
<v Speaker 1>Aside from, you know, little kids having discussions about sex

316
00:16:43.210 --> 00:16:45.730
<v Speaker 1>or about their bodies, I don't believe that Holly was

317
00:16:45.769 --> 00:16:48.889
<v Speaker 1>sexually active or that she had any type of sex,

318
00:16:48.950 --> 00:16:51.350
<v Speaker 1>which would not have been consensual, but I don't believe

319
00:16:51.389 --> 00:16:53.409
<v Speaker 1>it for a second, and none of this should have

320
00:16:53.429 --> 00:16:57.090
<v Speaker 1>been introduced, and it It feels like Mermel cared more

321
00:16:57.129 --> 00:17:00.539
<v Speaker 1>about winning than he did about finding justice. And I

322
00:17:00.549 --> 00:17:02.340
<v Speaker 1>don't know if that is the case, but that is

323
00:17:02.379 --> 00:17:04.759
<v Speaker 1>the way that it feels based on the way that

324
00:17:04.779 --> 00:17:08.000
<v Speaker 1>he treated Holly posthumously and her family.

325
00:17:08.990 --> 00:17:12.210
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, exactly. And thankfully, the Appellate Court of Illinois agreed

326
00:17:12.250 --> 00:17:16.150
<v Speaker 2>with this because this missed Murmel's arguments about the DNA

327
00:17:16.230 --> 00:17:19.279
<v Speaker 2>evidence belonging to someone who had consensual sex with Holly

328
00:17:19.619 --> 00:17:22.779
<v Speaker 2>and were very critical of the prosecution's case and their decision.

329
00:17:22.859 --> 00:17:26.880
<v Speaker 2>So in December of 2011, Juan's conviction was overturned for

330
00:17:26.920 --> 00:17:30.130
<v Speaker 2>the third time. And thankfully, this time around, they decided

331
00:17:30.210 --> 00:17:33.049
<v Speaker 2>to take the step of barring prosecutors from ever trying

332
00:17:33.190 --> 00:17:36.589
<v Speaker 2>one again under the double jeopardy statute, arguing that he

333
00:17:36.630 --> 00:17:38.670
<v Speaker 2>should not have even been brought to trial for the

334
00:17:38.710 --> 00:17:41.140
<v Speaker 2>third time in the first place because the evidence was

335
00:17:41.180 --> 00:17:43.420
<v Speaker 2>not strong enough. Because you just know the way that

336
00:17:43.440 --> 00:17:45.759
<v Speaker 2>the prosecution was arguing that they would have tried to

337
00:17:45.799 --> 00:17:48.059
<v Speaker 2>bring him to trial for the fourth time. But the

338
00:17:48.119 --> 00:17:50.660
<v Speaker 2>appellate court says, no, we're done with this nonsense. We're

339
00:17:50.700 --> 00:17:53.849
<v Speaker 2>letting him go. So in January of 2012, Juan was

340
00:17:53.930 --> 00:17:56.170
<v Speaker 2>finally released from prison, but by this point he had

341
00:17:56.190 --> 00:17:58.930
<v Speaker 2>served 19 years for a crime he had not committed.

342
00:17:59.869 --> 00:18:03.769
<v Speaker 1>And he's released from prison, but it's not as though

343
00:18:04.130 --> 00:18:08.539
<v Speaker 1>they're saying he's innocent. So there's a difference there, correct?

344
00:18:08.599 --> 00:18:10.900
<v Speaker 1>Like he can't then go and seek compensation?

345
00:18:11.900 --> 00:18:14.119
<v Speaker 2>Oh, he did. Like, he was able to seek compensation

346
00:18:14.160 --> 00:18:16.349
<v Speaker 2>later on. I mean, they didn't say he was innocent

347
00:18:16.369 --> 00:18:19.069
<v Speaker 2>at the time. The state was still holding the mentality, well,

348
00:18:19.109 --> 00:18:21.329
<v Speaker 2>we would take him to trial again. We think he's guilty,

349
00:18:21.390 --> 00:18:24.450
<v Speaker 2>but the appellate court won't let us. So he would

350
00:18:24.529 --> 00:18:26.690
<v Speaker 2>actually have to, like, file a lawsuit before he would

351
00:18:26.710 --> 00:18:30.609
<v Speaker 2>be declared factually innocent. So, like I said, they did

352
00:18:30.650 --> 00:18:33.950
<v Speaker 2>file a lawsuit, and given the overwhelming amount of evidence

353
00:18:33.990 --> 00:18:36.740
<v Speaker 2>that he had been the victim of a miscarriage of justice...

354
00:18:36.660 --> 00:18:39.559
<v Speaker 2>He was awarded a settlement of $ 20 million, and at

355
00:18:39.599 --> 00:18:42.380
<v Speaker 2>that point, it was the largest amount ever awarded for

356
00:18:42.400 --> 00:18:45.549
<v Speaker 2>a wrongful conviction in the history of the United States.

357
00:18:45.750 --> 00:18:47.549
<v Speaker 2>I think the record has since been broken, but at

358
00:18:47.589 --> 00:18:51.009
<v Speaker 2>the time, $ 20 million was a huge number. And here's

359
00:18:51.109 --> 00:18:53.269
<v Speaker 2>actually a happy part of this story, because while he

360
00:18:53.289 --> 00:18:56.740
<v Speaker 2>was in prison, Juan earned his barber's license and became

361
00:18:56.799 --> 00:18:59.539
<v Speaker 2>good friends with a guard who worked there named Bobby Madison,

362
00:18:59.579 --> 00:19:02.980
<v Speaker 2>who was the barbershop coordinator there. And they eventually used

363
00:19:03.019 --> 00:19:05.200
<v Speaker 2>some of the settlement money to open up a legacy

364
00:19:05.279 --> 00:19:08.720
<v Speaker 2>barber college in Rogers Park, Illinois. And Juan has also

365
00:19:08.819 --> 00:19:11.960
<v Speaker 2>used the money to pursue his own education and fund

366
00:19:12.019 --> 00:19:15.069
<v Speaker 2>his niece's education. So even though this guy had a

367
00:19:15.109 --> 00:19:17.950
<v Speaker 2>troubled childhood, he had a history of criminal activity, and

368
00:19:17.970 --> 00:19:21.069
<v Speaker 2>he had issues with mental illness and depression, it sounds

369
00:19:21.109 --> 00:19:23.230
<v Speaker 2>like he has been living a very good life since

370
00:19:23.269 --> 00:19:25.470
<v Speaker 2>his release from prison, and he has used this money

371
00:19:25.769 --> 00:19:26.970
<v Speaker 2>to do good for other people.

372
00:19:28.339 --> 00:19:32.000
<v Speaker 1>Wow, that is really inspiring. At least something good came

373
00:19:32.140 --> 00:19:35.589
<v Speaker 1>out of Juan being incarcerated, in that he had that

374
00:19:35.630 --> 00:19:39.349
<v Speaker 1>exposure to barber training, and he became passionate about that,

375
00:19:39.890 --> 00:19:43.930
<v Speaker 1>and then received the settlement that he deserved. I'm sorry, like,

376
00:19:43.990 --> 00:19:47.650
<v Speaker 1>if you're put behind bars, and you are an innocent person,

377
00:19:47.769 --> 00:19:50.660
<v Speaker 1>and you're dragged through the mud, your reputation is is destroyed,

378
00:19:50.680 --> 00:19:54.420
<v Speaker 1>you're exposed to Lord knows what in prison, and to

379
00:19:54.480 --> 00:19:57.650
<v Speaker 1>say that, like, oh, we just need to compensate them $ 50, 000

380
00:19:57.549 --> 00:20:00.670
<v Speaker 1>a year or whatever, that is wild. No, you need

381
00:20:00.690 --> 00:20:04.269
<v Speaker 1>to compensate them for all of that mental pain, struggle, like,

382
00:20:04.349 --> 00:20:08.890
<v Speaker 1>suffering and and anguish that something like a wrongful incarceration causes,

383
00:20:09.430 --> 00:20:12.990
<v Speaker 1>and how it can affect an entire family, multiple families,

384
00:20:13.210 --> 00:20:16.839
<v Speaker 1>and not just the individual who's wrongfully incarcerated. So it's

385
00:20:16.900 --> 00:20:20.539
<v Speaker 1>nice to hear that upon his release that Juan really

386
00:20:20.619 --> 00:20:23.720
<v Speaker 1>found a purpose and poured himself into that, not only

387
00:20:23.740 --> 00:20:25.869
<v Speaker 1>for himself, but he wanted to raise up his family

388
00:20:25.900 --> 00:20:29.069
<v Speaker 1>as well in funding his niece's education. So I love that.

389
00:20:29.990 --> 00:20:32.029
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that is a good part of this horrible story,

390
00:20:32.069 --> 00:20:35.089
<v Speaker 2>because I've seen other wrongful conviction cases where the exonerees

391
00:20:35.130 --> 00:20:38.109
<v Speaker 2>have a very difficult time adjusting to life on the outside,

392
00:20:38.509 --> 00:20:40.640
<v Speaker 2>but it looks like in this particular case, Juan was

393
00:20:40.700 --> 00:20:43.099
<v Speaker 2>able to use his settlement money in order to live

394
00:20:43.119 --> 00:20:45.720
<v Speaker 2>a good life now, and he seems to be doing

395
00:20:45.759 --> 00:20:49.819
<v Speaker 2>pretty well, even after going through this terrible ordeal. But

396
00:20:49.839 --> 00:20:52.589
<v Speaker 2>there's more crazy aspects to this story, because there would

397
00:20:52.609 --> 00:20:55.869
<v Speaker 2>be an attempt to try to find Holly Staker's real killer,

398
00:20:55.950 --> 00:20:58.089
<v Speaker 2>but there would be a number of more twists and turns.

399
00:20:59.319 --> 00:21:06.250
<v Speaker 2>Juan's defense attorneys learned that in 1994, one of Don

400
00:21:06.329 --> 00:21:10.309
<v Speaker 2>Engelbrook's neighbors wound up finding a wood-handled bread knife underneath

401
00:21:10.349 --> 00:21:14.039
<v Speaker 2>some bushes near the Engelbrook residence, and it was turned

402
00:21:14.079 --> 00:21:16.460
<v Speaker 2>over to the police, but by this point, Juan had

403
00:21:16.519 --> 00:21:19.140
<v Speaker 2>already been convicted, he was already serving time in prison,

404
00:21:19.599 --> 00:21:22.660
<v Speaker 2>so the knife pretty much disappeared. It was destroyed without

405
00:21:22.720 --> 00:21:26.009
<v Speaker 2>even attorneys being notified of his existence until many years later.

406
00:21:26.720 --> 00:21:29.460
<v Speaker 2>So I mentioned earlier that a broken straight-edge knife was

407
00:21:29.519 --> 00:21:32.480
<v Speaker 2>found in the yard near the Engelbrecht's residence, and in

408
00:21:32.529 --> 00:21:34.829
<v Speaker 2>his original statement, Juan had claimed that he broke the

409
00:21:34.849 --> 00:21:37.650
<v Speaker 2>knife during the stabbing and discarded it when he left,

410
00:21:37.769 --> 00:21:40.210
<v Speaker 2>so it was assumed that this broken knife was the

411
00:21:40.230 --> 00:21:44.369
<v Speaker 2>murder weapon. But the defense team would consult a forensic

412
00:21:44.470 --> 00:21:46.779
<v Speaker 2>expert who believed that the wounds on Holly's body were

413
00:21:46.819 --> 00:21:50.440
<v Speaker 2>more consistent with a serrated blade rather than a straight-edge blade,

414
00:21:50.579 --> 00:21:52.920
<v Speaker 2>and the bread knife found in the bushes did have

415
00:21:52.960 --> 00:21:55.700
<v Speaker 2>a serrated blade. So it seems likely they found the

416
00:21:55.759 --> 00:21:59.059
<v Speaker 2>real murder weapon, which could have contained the killer's DNA

417
00:21:59.119 --> 00:22:01.779
<v Speaker 2>or other evidence, but because they did not find it

418
00:22:01.799 --> 00:22:03.980
<v Speaker 2>until Juan was already in prison, it sounds like the

419
00:22:04.019 --> 00:22:05.880
<v Speaker 2>police conveniently made it disappear.

420
00:22:06.980 --> 00:22:09.339
<v Speaker 1>Well, that seems to also be par for the course

421
00:22:09.400 --> 00:22:12.680
<v Speaker 1>based on what we've heard thus far. And especially if

422
00:22:12.720 --> 00:22:15.400
<v Speaker 1>we're going to go along with the pattern of them

423
00:22:15.500 --> 00:22:19.769
<v Speaker 1>potentially planting evidence with the sneakers and the blood and

424
00:22:19.789 --> 00:22:24.730
<v Speaker 1>then to make the potential murder weapon disappear, I'm not surprised. Like,

425
00:22:24.769 --> 00:22:27.569
<v Speaker 1>we should be surprised. It should be shocking. But at

426
00:22:27.609 --> 00:22:29.930
<v Speaker 1>this point, it seems to be a pattern of behavior.

427
00:22:30.150 --> 00:22:34.250
<v Speaker 1>So it's really unfortunate because that could have exonerated Juan.

428
00:22:35.359 --> 00:22:38.160
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, exactly. Like if they had presented it in 1994,

429
00:22:38.140 --> 00:22:40.470
<v Speaker 2>he could have been released after only serving two years

430
00:22:40.630 --> 00:22:44.049
<v Speaker 2>rather than 19 years. But it gets even more crazy

431
00:22:44.089 --> 00:22:47.630
<v Speaker 2>because Juan's defense attorneys decided to enter the DNA evidence

432
00:22:47.670 --> 00:22:50.710
<v Speaker 2>from the murder scene into a national database and found

433
00:22:50.809 --> 00:22:53.109
<v Speaker 2>out that this DNA had been found at a murder

434
00:22:53.150 --> 00:22:56.130
<v Speaker 2>which took place while Juan was serving time in prison.

435
00:22:56.809 --> 00:23:01.190
<v Speaker 2>So in January of 2000, a 39-year-old Chicago resident named

436
00:23:01.210 --> 00:23:05.119
<v Speaker 2>Delwin Foxworth was brutally assaulted by three intruders who broke

437
00:23:05.150 --> 00:23:07.740
<v Speaker 2>into his home. They proceeded to tie him up at

438
00:23:07.779 --> 00:23:10.900
<v Speaker 2>gunpoint and demanded he hand over some money. and when

439
00:23:10.940 --> 00:23:14.000
<v Speaker 2>Foxworth refused to comply, they beat him with a two-by-four,

440
00:23:14.099 --> 00:23:17.119
<v Speaker 2>duct-taped him to a chair, poured gasoline on him, and

441
00:23:17.180 --> 00:23:20.789
<v Speaker 2>set him on fire before fleeing the scene. So Foxworth

442
00:23:21.130 --> 00:23:24.390
<v Speaker 2>miraculously initially survived. He managed to douse the flames on

443
00:23:24.430 --> 00:23:27.210
<v Speaker 2>his body and call for help, but he had burns

444
00:23:27.289 --> 00:23:30.730
<v Speaker 2>on over 80% of his body, and he had such

445
00:23:30.769 --> 00:23:32.789
<v Speaker 2>a devastating effect on him that he died in a

446
00:23:32.809 --> 00:23:36.369
<v Speaker 2>nursing facility two and a half years later. Because Foxworth

447
00:23:36.410 --> 00:23:38.950
<v Speaker 2>was burned so badly, he wasn't able to communicate much,

448
00:23:39.059 --> 00:23:41.279
<v Speaker 2>but He said that the person who bound him with

449
00:23:41.319 --> 00:23:44.309
<v Speaker 2>duct tape and poured the gasoline on him was nicknamed T,

450
00:23:44.710 --> 00:23:47.970
<v Speaker 2>but he was unable to provide any further examples. Well,

451
00:23:47.990 --> 00:23:50.450
<v Speaker 2>when the DNA from Holly Staker's murder scene from the

452
00:23:50.509 --> 00:23:53.190
<v Speaker 2>semen sample was entered in the database, it wound up

453
00:23:53.230 --> 00:23:56.529
<v Speaker 2>matching the DNA on some blood found on the 2x4,

454
00:23:56.839 --> 00:24:00.410
<v Speaker 2>which was used to beat Delwin Foxworth. And since Foxworth

455
00:24:00.450 --> 00:24:03.069
<v Speaker 2>himself was excluded as being the source of this DNA,

456
00:24:03.450 --> 00:24:06.630
<v Speaker 2>that meant that Holly Staker's real killer had to be

457
00:24:06.670 --> 00:24:09.599
<v Speaker 2>the source of the blood and was involved in Foxworth's murder,

458
00:24:09.980 --> 00:24:12.500
<v Speaker 2>so here he was hurting somebody else while an innocent

459
00:24:12.539 --> 00:24:14.859
<v Speaker 2>man was languishing in prison for his crime.

460
00:24:15.960 --> 00:24:18.680
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and I think that if you are the real killer,

461
00:24:18.920 --> 00:24:23.410
<v Speaker 1>how lucky must you feel at that point when you realize,

462
00:24:23.450 --> 00:24:25.609
<v Speaker 1>not only did I get away with this, but somebody

463
00:24:25.730 --> 00:24:29.349
<v Speaker 1>else is being punished, not Foxworth, Once, not twice, but

464
00:24:29.470 --> 00:24:32.650
<v Speaker 1>thrice for a crime that you committed. Like, you must

465
00:24:32.730 --> 00:24:34.069
<v Speaker 1>feel like you won the lottery.

466
00:24:35.049 --> 00:24:37.210
<v Speaker 2>Exactly. And here they are, like, taking advantage of this

467
00:24:37.269 --> 00:24:40.470
<v Speaker 2>opportunity to commit a particularly brutal crime, like beating someone

468
00:24:40.490 --> 00:24:43.930
<v Speaker 2>with a 2x4 and burning them alive by pouring gasoline

469
00:24:44.009 --> 00:24:47.089
<v Speaker 2>on them. So obviously it's a very dangerous person. It

470
00:24:47.109 --> 00:24:48.730
<v Speaker 2>would have not surprised me in the least if they

471
00:24:48.750 --> 00:24:50.779
<v Speaker 2>have gone on to commit other crimes as well that

472
00:24:50.799 --> 00:24:51.559
<v Speaker 2>they haven't been linked to.

473
00:24:52.450 --> 00:24:55.130
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and it makes me wonder, like, what is the

474
00:24:55.190 --> 00:25:00.000
<v Speaker 1>pattern of this offender? What is their victim profile? Being

475
00:25:00.039 --> 00:25:03.440
<v Speaker 1>able to tie a method to them or being able

476
00:25:03.559 --> 00:25:06.339
<v Speaker 1>to say, like, this is their pattern, it seems like

477
00:25:06.420 --> 00:25:09.769
<v Speaker 1>that isn't really a pattern. So is that by design?

478
00:25:10.349 --> 00:25:13.650
<v Speaker 1>Is it just I want to be an agent of chaos?

479
00:25:13.809 --> 00:25:15.869
<v Speaker 1>I don't want them to be able to track me?

480
00:25:16.589 --> 00:25:19.589
<v Speaker 1>Or is it just a curiosity in trying to find

481
00:25:19.650 --> 00:25:20.490
<v Speaker 1>what would be their M.O.

482
00:25:21.789 --> 00:25:23.450
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that's what's so weird to me, is that this

483
00:25:23.509 --> 00:25:26.349
<v Speaker 2>is quite a difference. Like, beating up a 39-year-old man

484
00:25:26.410 --> 00:25:29.119
<v Speaker 2>and setting him on fire is quite different from raping

485
00:25:29.460 --> 00:25:33.000
<v Speaker 2>an 11-year-old and stabbing her 27 times. So the MO

486
00:25:33.019 --> 00:25:35.519
<v Speaker 2>doesn't fit and makes me all the more curious about

487
00:25:35.559 --> 00:25:38.299
<v Speaker 2>who this person is. But here's where it gets even

488
00:25:38.339 --> 00:25:42.490
<v Speaker 2>more complicated, because the attack was witnessed by Foxworth's girlfriend,

489
00:25:42.529 --> 00:25:45.069
<v Speaker 2>who was tied up and forced to witness the scene,

490
00:25:45.549 --> 00:25:47.829
<v Speaker 2>even though she was left alive. And she said that

491
00:25:47.869 --> 00:25:51.269
<v Speaker 2>she personally didn't know any of the three attackers. But

492
00:25:51.309 --> 00:25:55.509
<v Speaker 2>in 2003, a suspect named Marvin Tyrone Williford was charged

493
00:25:55.549 --> 00:25:59.710
<v Speaker 2>with Foxworth's murder. Since Foxworth's girlfriend had witnessed the attack,

494
00:25:59.750 --> 00:26:03.109
<v Speaker 2>she identified Williford as one of the assailants. And according

495
00:26:03.150 --> 00:26:08.130
<v Speaker 2>to an informant, Foxworth had apparently owed Williford $ 20, 000 plus interest,

496
00:26:08.230 --> 00:26:10.730
<v Speaker 2>and he was unable to repay it. So when he

497
00:26:10.779 --> 00:26:13.019
<v Speaker 2>found out there was an arrest warrant on him, Williford

498
00:26:13.039 --> 00:26:16.220
<v Speaker 2>fled the state and was pulled over in South Carolina

499
00:26:16.319 --> 00:26:18.200
<v Speaker 2>in a rental car, which he had taken out in

500
00:26:18.240 --> 00:26:21.480
<v Speaker 2>someone else's name. And while he was in jail awaiting trial,

501
00:26:21.559 --> 00:26:24.420
<v Speaker 2>Williford supposedly handed a note to an inmate who was

502
00:26:24.460 --> 00:26:27.480
<v Speaker 2>being released, which had the name and address of Foxworth's

503
00:26:27.539 --> 00:26:31.440
<v Speaker 2>girlfriend and instructions to deliver her a message that, quote-unquote,

504
00:26:31.779 --> 00:26:35.230
<v Speaker 2>people were watching. So even though there was no physical

505
00:26:35.329 --> 00:26:39.109
<v Speaker 2>evidence linking Williford to the crime, the eyewitness identification was

506
00:26:39.150 --> 00:26:42.150
<v Speaker 2>enough to secure a conviction, and Williford was found guilty

507
00:26:42.190 --> 00:26:45.630
<v Speaker 2>of murder and received an 80-year prison sentence. But what's

508
00:26:45.670 --> 00:26:48.779
<v Speaker 2>kind of odd is that his two accomplices have never

509
00:26:48.819 --> 00:26:52.319
<v Speaker 2>been identified and found, and they did the DNA found

510
00:26:52.420 --> 00:26:55.740
<v Speaker 2>on the 2x4 and compared it to Williford, and it

511
00:26:55.799 --> 00:26:58.339
<v Speaker 2>did not match. So it means that at the very least,

512
00:26:58.420 --> 00:27:02.039
<v Speaker 2>Williford is not Holly Staker's real killer, but it's also

513
00:27:02.079 --> 00:27:04.460
<v Speaker 2>possible that one of his two accomplices who was with

514
00:27:04.500 --> 00:27:06.680
<v Speaker 2>him when he killed Foxworth probably is.

515
00:27:08.390 --> 00:27:11.829
<v Speaker 1>Well, that's interesting, isn't it? So that just opens the

516
00:27:11.869 --> 00:27:14.660
<v Speaker 1>door that you've got a bunch of these people who

517
00:27:15.279 --> 00:27:18.799
<v Speaker 1>are criminals and who are capable of doing the unthinkable

518
00:27:19.240 --> 00:27:24.619
<v Speaker 1>because we see different patterns, different motivations, right? Like with Holly,

519
00:27:24.680 --> 00:27:28.180
<v Speaker 1>it was clearly a sexually based motivation. There was nothing

520
00:27:28.220 --> 00:27:31.650
<v Speaker 1>taken except for that photograph. So it seems like the

521
00:27:31.690 --> 00:27:35.230
<v Speaker 1>objective was to go in, have sex with her, rape her,

522
00:27:35.250 --> 00:27:39.220
<v Speaker 1>and then murder her. And I don't know if the

523
00:27:39.240 --> 00:27:41.900
<v Speaker 1>objective was always to murder or if it just ended

524
00:27:41.960 --> 00:27:44.200
<v Speaker 1>up becoming that in the end. Maybe they went too

525
00:27:44.240 --> 00:27:47.119
<v Speaker 1>far with the strangulation. Of that, we can't be sure.

526
00:27:47.579 --> 00:27:49.789
<v Speaker 1>But then when we see this other guy burned alive,

527
00:27:49.829 --> 00:27:52.710
<v Speaker 1>it feels like the objective or the motivation there is

528
00:27:52.750 --> 00:27:55.849
<v Speaker 1>to either send a message or to get revenge because

529
00:27:55.950 --> 00:27:58.529
<v Speaker 1>money is owed. And it makes sense that it's almost

530
00:27:58.549 --> 00:28:03.259
<v Speaker 1>like this coalition of bad guys that are capable of horrible,

531
00:28:03.299 --> 00:28:04.039
<v Speaker 1>horrible things.

532
00:28:05.339 --> 00:28:06.980
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it might be a thing where it's like if

533
00:28:07.039 --> 00:28:10.000
<v Speaker 2>Williford was the instigator of the murder on Foxworth, he

534
00:28:10.039 --> 00:28:12.220
<v Speaker 2>just decided to bring one of his friends along with him,

535
00:28:12.460 --> 00:28:14.259
<v Speaker 2>and this guy just happened to be there when they

536
00:28:14.279 --> 00:28:16.809
<v Speaker 2>did this totally different murder, even though the murder of

537
00:28:16.869 --> 00:28:20.509
<v Speaker 2>Holly that was done years earlier was totally different. But

538
00:28:20.549 --> 00:28:23.750
<v Speaker 2>what's complicated is that Williford is also claiming that he

539
00:28:23.789 --> 00:28:27.349
<v Speaker 2>was wrongly convicted as well, because they pointed out a

540
00:28:27.390 --> 00:28:30.269
<v Speaker 2>number of issues with his conviction, because the primary evidence

541
00:28:30.309 --> 00:28:34.410
<v Speaker 2>against him was eyewitness testimony from Foxworth's girlfriend, but when

542
00:28:34.430 --> 00:28:37.589
<v Speaker 2>she testified in front of a grand jury in 2000

543
00:28:37.589 --> 00:28:40.569
<v Speaker 2>and was shown Williford's photo, she failed to identify him.

544
00:28:40.970 --> 00:28:44.410
<v Speaker 2>But after Foxworth died, the girlfriend was shown Williford's photo

545
00:28:44.470 --> 00:28:48.339
<v Speaker 2>again in 2003, and this time she identified him after

546
00:28:48.410 --> 00:28:51.660
<v Speaker 2>some hesitation. They also claim that Foxworth's DNA on the

547
00:28:52.000 --> 00:28:54.619
<v Speaker 2>2x4 duct tape and gas can does not match him,

548
00:28:54.759 --> 00:28:56.880
<v Speaker 2>and there is fingerprint evidence from the scene which does

549
00:28:56.920 --> 00:28:59.500
<v Speaker 2>not match him as well. And there's also a conflict

550
00:28:59.539 --> 00:29:02.960
<v Speaker 2>of interest because the informant who told the police that

551
00:29:03.119 --> 00:29:06.059
<v Speaker 2>Foxworth owed Williford money, it turned out that she was

552
00:29:06.099 --> 00:29:08.900
<v Speaker 2>having sex with the lead detective and also having sex

553
00:29:08.940 --> 00:29:12.000
<v Speaker 2>with Williford at the same time. And after Williford was convicted,

554
00:29:12.039 --> 00:29:15.079
<v Speaker 2>the detective supposedly told the woman, quote, that's what he

555
00:29:15.119 --> 00:29:16.619
<v Speaker 2>gets for having sex with my girl.

556
00:29:18.180 --> 00:29:22.039
<v Speaker 1>Okay, so this is a big cluster F indeed. And

557
00:29:22.059 --> 00:29:25.279
<v Speaker 1>I don't know, based on what we've seen so far

558
00:29:25.319 --> 00:29:30.250
<v Speaker 1>with law enforcement, if I'm going to trust that Williford

559
00:29:30.690 --> 00:29:34.670
<v Speaker 1>is indeed responsible. Because we've seen planted evidence and we've

560
00:29:34.710 --> 00:29:38.730
<v Speaker 1>seen just egregious things that have been discarded that should

561
00:29:38.750 --> 00:29:41.099
<v Speaker 1>have been looked at as evidence. So to think that

562
00:29:41.140 --> 00:29:44.150
<v Speaker 1>somebody could try to seek revenge against a person that

563
00:29:44.170 --> 00:29:48.309
<v Speaker 1>was potentially sleeping with their partner is and that person

564
00:29:48.440 --> 00:29:51.690
<v Speaker 1>is in law enforcement, it's gross, but it's not really

565
00:29:51.730 --> 00:29:54.430
<v Speaker 1>surprising me at this point. Does that mean that Williford

566
00:29:54.490 --> 00:29:55.500
<v Speaker 1>is a good guy?

567
00:29:55.809 --> 00:29:56.089
<v Speaker 2>No.

568
00:29:56.710 --> 00:29:59.329
<v Speaker 1>Does it mean that he isn't guilty? No, I don't

569
00:29:59.349 --> 00:30:01.230
<v Speaker 1>think it means that either. I just think that it

570
00:30:01.329 --> 00:30:04.069
<v Speaker 1>opens up the possibility that he too could have been

571
00:30:04.109 --> 00:30:04.730
<v Speaker 1>framed as well.

572
00:30:06.079 --> 00:30:08.359
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot more incriminating

573
00:30:08.440 --> 00:30:11.170
<v Speaker 2>evidence against Williford than there would have been Juan Rivera,

574
00:30:11.210 --> 00:30:13.369
<v Speaker 2>because I do find it suspicious that he was caught

575
00:30:13.450 --> 00:30:15.849
<v Speaker 2>fleeing the state in a rental car after there was

576
00:30:15.869 --> 00:30:18.349
<v Speaker 2>an arrest warrant. It's a very Scott Peterson type of

577
00:30:18.369 --> 00:30:20.490
<v Speaker 2>thing where he's saying that he's innocent, but he's trying

578
00:30:20.529 --> 00:30:22.730
<v Speaker 2>to flee and go into hiding when he's accused of

579
00:30:22.779 --> 00:30:26.220
<v Speaker 2>a crime. rather than sorting it out. And his attorneys

580
00:30:26.259 --> 00:30:29.519
<v Speaker 2>did attempt to appeal his conviction, but he was denied

581
00:30:29.559 --> 00:30:31.900
<v Speaker 2>an opportunity for a new trial because the court made

582
00:30:31.920 --> 00:30:34.609
<v Speaker 2>an argument that just because his DNA is not on

583
00:30:34.640 --> 00:30:37.069
<v Speaker 2>the 2x4, the duct tape, or the gas can doesn't

584
00:30:37.089 --> 00:30:39.329
<v Speaker 2>mean he's innocent. It just means he could have been

585
00:30:39.369 --> 00:30:42.269
<v Speaker 2>there and some of his accomplices handled all the evidence.

586
00:30:42.690 --> 00:30:45.089
<v Speaker 2>So the lack of DNA does not prove his innocence,

587
00:30:45.190 --> 00:30:48.250
<v Speaker 2>but at the same time, if Williford is guilty, he

588
00:30:48.309 --> 00:30:51.170
<v Speaker 2>is the only one who knows the identity of Holly

589
00:30:51.210 --> 00:30:54.210
<v Speaker 2>Staker's real killer, and he's not talking. I do find

590
00:30:54.250 --> 00:30:57.569
<v Speaker 2>it weird that even though they convicted Williford, no attempt

591
00:30:57.609 --> 00:30:59.549
<v Speaker 2>has been made to find the two other people who

592
00:30:59.569 --> 00:31:01.170
<v Speaker 2>were involved in Foxworth's murder.

593
00:31:02.069 --> 00:31:06.069
<v Speaker 1>If Williford is indeed responsible, and he probably is, but

594
00:31:06.390 --> 00:31:09.609
<v Speaker 1>if he is indeed responsible for Foxworth's murder, that is

595
00:31:09.670 --> 00:31:13.670
<v Speaker 1>a pretty grisly type of a murder. A certain type

596
00:31:13.710 --> 00:31:18.630
<v Speaker 1>of individual is able to carry out that degree of violence,

597
00:31:19.029 --> 00:31:22.099
<v Speaker 1>and it's somebody that you wouldn't think would be feeling

598
00:31:22.160 --> 00:31:24.720
<v Speaker 1>a whole lot of empathy for that victim. It's not

599
00:31:24.799 --> 00:31:26.720
<v Speaker 1>like it's a heat of the moment you stab somebody

600
00:31:26.799 --> 00:31:31.180
<v Speaker 1>or shoot somebody. This is, he was set on fire. It's, really,

601
00:31:31.220 --> 00:31:34.720
<v Speaker 1>really shocking. So do I think that somebody with that

602
00:31:34.829 --> 00:31:38.109
<v Speaker 1>personality profile is going to then tell us who Holly

603
00:31:38.130 --> 00:31:41.670
<v Speaker 1>Staker's killer is? I don't think so, unless there is

604
00:31:41.710 --> 00:31:44.869
<v Speaker 1>some great benefit for him to be derived by him.

605
00:31:44.890 --> 00:31:47.579
<v Speaker 1>I don't see him opening up his mouth and sharing

606
00:31:47.599 --> 00:31:50.730
<v Speaker 1>that information, because For one, if he is indeed the

607
00:31:50.750 --> 00:31:53.339
<v Speaker 1>type of criminal that we think that he is, then

608
00:31:53.640 --> 00:31:56.420
<v Speaker 1>being labeled a snitch isn't something that is a very

609
00:31:56.519 --> 00:31:59.380
<v Speaker 1>flattering label, and if you're in and out of jail,

610
00:31:59.839 --> 00:32:01.920
<v Speaker 1>you don't want to have that label on you. It

611
00:32:01.980 --> 00:32:05.920
<v Speaker 1>might be more important to maintain your reputation, as fearsome

612
00:32:05.960 --> 00:32:09.190
<v Speaker 1>as that might be, rather than being labeled as being

613
00:32:09.210 --> 00:32:12.230
<v Speaker 1>the guy that ratted somebody out. That isn't looked upon

614
00:32:12.269 --> 00:32:12.829
<v Speaker 1>too kindly.

615
00:32:13.970 --> 00:32:15.559
<v Speaker 2>That's what I'm thinking as well. I mean, he is

616
00:32:15.619 --> 00:32:18.259
<v Speaker 2>serving an 80-year sentence, so for him to talk, they

617
00:32:18.279 --> 00:32:20.740
<v Speaker 2>would have to offer him, like, a major deal, like,

618
00:32:20.880 --> 00:32:23.319
<v Speaker 2>release him out of prison right away so that he's

619
00:32:23.359 --> 00:32:25.359
<v Speaker 2>not caught in jail with the label as a snitch.

620
00:32:25.400 --> 00:32:27.710
<v Speaker 2>But at the same time, he's a really dangerous person,

621
00:32:28.029 --> 00:32:30.109
<v Speaker 2>so I think the police would be reluctant to let

622
00:32:30.150 --> 00:32:33.109
<v Speaker 2>him free, even if he did, like, give up his accomplices.

623
00:32:33.710 --> 00:32:35.410
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I find it odd a little bit that

624
00:32:35.490 --> 00:32:38.990
<v Speaker 2>Foxworth never positively identified Williford as an attacker while he

625
00:32:39.019 --> 00:32:41.420
<v Speaker 2>was alive, but he did say that his name was Tee,

626
00:32:42.079 --> 00:32:44.640
<v Speaker 2>And we know that Williford's middle name is Tyrone. So

627
00:32:44.680 --> 00:32:47.160
<v Speaker 2>maybe this is a case where Foxworth knew his street

628
00:32:47.220 --> 00:32:49.319
<v Speaker 2>name but did not know his real name. And that's

629
00:32:49.359 --> 00:32:52.039
<v Speaker 2>why he didn't give him up. But it is a

630
00:32:52.059 --> 00:32:56.160
<v Speaker 2>frustrating situation. And by chance, if Williford was innocent, then

631
00:32:56.200 --> 00:32:58.819
<v Speaker 2>this would be the wildest twist that two people have

632
00:32:58.859 --> 00:33:01.980
<v Speaker 2>been wrongly convicted of two separate crimes and the real

633
00:33:02.019 --> 00:33:04.009
<v Speaker 2>killer has got away with it both times and has

634
00:33:04.029 --> 00:33:05.200
<v Speaker 2>still never been identified.

635
00:33:06.380 --> 00:33:08.750
<v Speaker 1>I mean, if that is the case and he was

636
00:33:08.789 --> 00:33:12.430
<v Speaker 1>wrongfully convicted, that would just be a wild twist. And

637
00:33:12.809 --> 00:33:15.309
<v Speaker 1>it opens up the possibility that he could have been.

638
00:33:15.769 --> 00:33:18.049
<v Speaker 1>I just, I'm with you. I'm less likely to believe

639
00:33:18.089 --> 00:33:23.089
<v Speaker 1>that Williford is wrongfully incarcerated. And it just so happens

640
00:33:23.190 --> 00:33:26.430
<v Speaker 1>that he was having an affair potentially with a law

641
00:33:26.470 --> 00:33:31.170
<v Speaker 1>enforcement agent's girlfriend. And that those comments were made that

642
00:33:31.250 --> 00:33:33.029
<v Speaker 1>that's what he gets for, you know, hooking up with

643
00:33:33.069 --> 00:33:36.509
<v Speaker 1>my girl or whatever. And then it's easy for him

644
00:33:36.569 --> 00:33:39.190
<v Speaker 1>to cling to that and go, see, see, I'm not responsible.

645
00:33:39.579 --> 00:33:42.380
<v Speaker 1>They planted forensic evidence before with Juan. Look at the

646
00:33:42.420 --> 00:33:45.089
<v Speaker 1>blood on the sneakers, the sneakers that he couldn't have worn.

647
00:33:45.490 --> 00:33:47.809
<v Speaker 1>So to think that there is my DNA then on

648
00:33:47.829 --> 00:33:49.849
<v Speaker 1>the gas can and on the tape and all of

649
00:33:49.910 --> 00:33:52.349
<v Speaker 1>these things, well, that could have been planted. So it's

650
00:33:52.369 --> 00:33:54.910
<v Speaker 1>a good defense for Williford, but do I believe that

651
00:33:54.990 --> 00:33:57.339
<v Speaker 1>it's necessarily valid? Probably not.

652
00:33:58.109 --> 00:34:01.130
<v Speaker 2>Because I'm thinking, like, if Williford was the orchestrator of this, like,

653
00:34:01.150 --> 00:34:03.130
<v Speaker 2>he could have just brought his two accomplices and they

654
00:34:03.170 --> 00:34:05.309
<v Speaker 2>were the ones who handled the 2x4 and the gas

655
00:34:05.369 --> 00:34:08.230
<v Speaker 2>can while he just stood in the background. And given

656
00:34:08.250 --> 00:34:10.070
<v Speaker 2>what a bad guy Williford is, I could see him

657
00:34:10.110 --> 00:34:12.829
<v Speaker 2>hanging out with a friend who murdered an 11-year-old girl

658
00:34:12.889 --> 00:34:15.800
<v Speaker 2>and raped her, like, all these years later because these

659
00:34:15.860 --> 00:34:20.139
<v Speaker 2>scumbags keep company with each other. But even without Williford's cooperation,

660
00:34:20.360 --> 00:34:23.300
<v Speaker 2>I do think that Hawley's case is solvable via the

661
00:34:23.420 --> 00:34:26.679
<v Speaker 2>use of genetic genealogy, which was not available back when

662
00:34:26.719 --> 00:34:29.599
<v Speaker 2>the DNA testing was done in the mid-2000s. But I

663
00:34:29.659 --> 00:34:32.760
<v Speaker 2>haven't heard anything about the DNA evidence being entered into

664
00:34:32.880 --> 00:34:36.949
<v Speaker 2>any genealogical databases, even though genetic genealogy became a thing

665
00:34:37.070 --> 00:34:40.269
<v Speaker 2>eight years ago, back in 2018. And part of me

666
00:34:40.329 --> 00:34:42.710
<v Speaker 2>is thinking that this is such an embarrassment for law

667
00:34:42.730 --> 00:34:46.860
<v Speaker 2>enforcement in Illinois that maybe they're just avoiding it, saying that, Well,

668
00:34:46.880 --> 00:34:49.460
<v Speaker 2>we don't want to humiliate like the original police officers

669
00:34:49.519 --> 00:34:52.519
<v Speaker 2>or prosecutors by proving them wrong. So we're just not

670
00:34:52.539 --> 00:34:54.840
<v Speaker 2>going to enter this DNA into the database to try

671
00:34:54.860 --> 00:34:56.679
<v Speaker 2>to find the real killer and just leave them out

672
00:34:56.739 --> 00:34:59.780
<v Speaker 2>there to commit more crimes and harm more people, which

673
00:34:59.840 --> 00:35:02.170
<v Speaker 2>is a major shame because even though Juan Rivera has

674
00:35:02.190 --> 00:35:05.630
<v Speaker 2>been exonerated, Holly Staker has still never received justice.

675
00:35:06.190 --> 00:35:08.090
<v Speaker 1>And I feel like that is the problem with these

676
00:35:08.150 --> 00:35:11.949
<v Speaker 1>cases is it really depends upon the culture of law enforcement.

677
00:35:12.639 --> 00:35:15.460
<v Speaker 1>Or basically the culture from the top. What is the

678
00:35:15.579 --> 00:35:19.659
<v Speaker 1>impetus to move forward and find justice? Is there a

679
00:35:19.699 --> 00:35:23.679
<v Speaker 1>focus put on finding resolution for the family, finding out

680
00:35:23.800 --> 00:35:27.440
<v Speaker 1>who truly did this? Or is it more about what

681
00:35:27.519 --> 00:35:31.019
<v Speaker 1>is public perception of us? How will we be perceived?

682
00:35:31.510 --> 00:35:33.889
<v Speaker 1>If this information is put out there and it's proven

683
00:35:33.909 --> 00:35:36.610
<v Speaker 1>we find who did this, will it make us look

684
00:35:36.670 --> 00:35:38.900
<v Speaker 1>bad or will it make us look good? Will it

685
00:35:38.929 --> 00:35:41.400
<v Speaker 1>bring up bad memories of the past and potentially a

686
00:35:41.599 --> 00:35:45.360
<v Speaker 1>corrupt culture where there was a lot of tunnel vision

687
00:35:45.800 --> 00:35:49.300
<v Speaker 1>and cooking the books or planting evidence? If you're trying

688
00:35:49.340 --> 00:35:52.269
<v Speaker 1>to hide things, I can understand why you wouldn't want

689
00:35:52.309 --> 00:35:55.070
<v Speaker 1>to bring it to light. But oftentimes when so many

690
00:35:55.110 --> 00:35:57.059
<v Speaker 1>years have gone by, it's been a long time since 1992,

691
00:35:57.050 --> 00:36:02.880
<v Speaker 1>that the culture shifted and the employees have shifted so

692
00:36:02.940 --> 00:36:07.400
<v Speaker 1>much that there's a completely different outlook about trying to

693
00:36:07.480 --> 00:36:10.639
<v Speaker 1>solve these old cases. Because in the end, it only

694
00:36:10.699 --> 00:36:13.639
<v Speaker 1>makes you look good when you can provide that resolution

695
00:36:13.679 --> 00:36:17.510
<v Speaker 1>for the family, and you can potentially punish the person

696
00:36:17.530 --> 00:36:20.789
<v Speaker 1>who's responsible if they're still alive. And that's just the thing,

697
00:36:20.949 --> 00:36:24.889
<v Speaker 1>is you could have been dealing with somebody who's 40

698
00:36:24.889 --> 00:36:28.269
<v Speaker 1>years old at the time in 1992, and they might

699
00:36:28.309 --> 00:36:30.550
<v Speaker 1>be getting up there in age at this point. So

700
00:36:31.210 --> 00:36:35.630
<v Speaker 1>The clock really is ticking on this, and I agree

701
00:36:35.670 --> 00:36:38.409
<v Speaker 1>with you. I think it's solvable. They have semen. There's

702
00:36:38.449 --> 00:36:43.360
<v Speaker 1>really no reason why they shouldn't be exploring the possibilities here.

703
00:36:43.380 --> 00:36:47.980
<v Speaker 1>We've seen since we started podcasting, your Listverse article, basically

704
00:36:48.079 --> 00:36:51.010
<v Speaker 1>every single John and Jane Doe has been given their

705
00:36:51.050 --> 00:36:51.989
<v Speaker 1>name back, correct? Yes.

706
00:36:52.619 --> 00:36:54.559
<v Speaker 2>Yes, yes, because that was one where I wrote a

707
00:36:54.599 --> 00:36:58.880
<v Speaker 2>list about 10 unidentified decedents in 2013, and over the

708
00:36:58.940 --> 00:37:01.699
<v Speaker 2>course of the past decade, they have used genetic genealogy

709
00:37:01.760 --> 00:37:04.960
<v Speaker 2>to identify... each and every one of them. And another

710
00:37:05.000 --> 00:37:07.800
<v Speaker 2>prominent example of where they finally solved an old cold

711
00:37:07.840 --> 00:37:11.110
<v Speaker 2>case where there were major screw-ups was the Austin Yogurt

712
00:37:11.130 --> 00:37:13.909
<v Speaker 2>Shop murders, which happened last year where they used genetic

713
00:37:13.969 --> 00:37:18.849
<v Speaker 2>genealogy to posthumously identify a suspect named Robert Eugene Brashers

714
00:37:19.030 --> 00:37:21.500
<v Speaker 2>as the real killer. And this was a case where

715
00:37:21.519 --> 00:37:25.059
<v Speaker 2>they originally charged four innocent men with the crime after

716
00:37:25.119 --> 00:37:27.719
<v Speaker 2>two of them made a false confession. And it turned

717
00:37:27.760 --> 00:37:31.099
<v Speaker 2>out that Brashers was a full-fledged serial killer who murdered

718
00:37:31.199 --> 00:37:33.960
<v Speaker 2>a number of different victims in different states before he

719
00:37:34.000 --> 00:37:37.409
<v Speaker 2>shot himself during a standoff with police. And I think

720
00:37:37.429 --> 00:37:39.809
<v Speaker 2>they only finally decided to do proper testing on the

721
00:37:39.849 --> 00:37:43.050
<v Speaker 2>DNA when the old guard was long retired, when they

722
00:37:43.090 --> 00:37:46.170
<v Speaker 2>had new, younger, fresh people in power who said, I

723
00:37:46.190 --> 00:37:48.030
<v Speaker 2>don't care about what happened in the past, I just

724
00:37:48.070 --> 00:37:50.750
<v Speaker 2>want to solve this and find out who really committed

725
00:37:50.789 --> 00:37:53.889
<v Speaker 2>this crime. And that could be why when they finally

726
00:37:53.949 --> 00:37:57.690
<v Speaker 2>solve Holly Staker's case, maybe some ambitious young person will decide,

727
00:37:58.050 --> 00:38:00.800
<v Speaker 2>let's test the DNA and find out who actually did this.

728
00:38:01.300 --> 00:38:04.420
<v Speaker 2>Because they did a documentary series on the Austin Yogurt

729
00:38:04.460 --> 00:38:07.380
<v Speaker 2>Shop murders on HBO Max and recently released a new

730
00:38:07.500 --> 00:38:10.360
<v Speaker 2>episode about the resolution in that case. And they interview

731
00:38:10.440 --> 00:38:12.980
<v Speaker 2>one of the original detectives who made the original arrest.

732
00:38:13.380 --> 00:38:15.630
<v Speaker 2>And he's still claiming that the four people he arrested

733
00:38:15.670 --> 00:38:18.130
<v Speaker 2>were guilty and that, oh, they must have committed the

734
00:38:18.190 --> 00:38:21.449
<v Speaker 2>crime with rashers as their accomplice. So they were still there.

735
00:38:21.909 --> 00:38:23.809
<v Speaker 2>even though the DNA does not match. But it just

736
00:38:23.829 --> 00:38:26.449
<v Speaker 2>shows that a lot of these old school cops just

737
00:38:26.489 --> 00:38:28.820
<v Speaker 2>cannot admit when they made a mistake and it takes

738
00:38:28.860 --> 00:38:31.300
<v Speaker 2>the younger people to finally do the right thing.

739
00:38:33.000 --> 00:38:37.719
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I feel like in those cases, it's like a

740
00:38:37.780 --> 00:38:41.579
<v Speaker 1>sunk cost fallacy in that they believe, the law enforcement

741
00:38:41.659 --> 00:38:44.639
<v Speaker 1>agents potentially believe that like, I put all this time

742
00:38:44.699 --> 00:38:49.750
<v Speaker 1>and energy and my reputation into this. And to examine

743
00:38:49.789 --> 00:38:53.010
<v Speaker 1>the possibility that I could have been wrong and what

744
00:38:53.050 --> 00:38:58.860
<v Speaker 1>that feels to me reputationally and personally when your, almost

745
00:38:58.880 --> 00:39:02.130
<v Speaker 1>your entire sense of self has become integrated with with

746
00:39:02.190 --> 00:39:05.170
<v Speaker 1>this idea that these people were the right people, that

747
00:39:05.210 --> 00:39:08.429
<v Speaker 1>you got it right. And so anything that counters that,

748
00:39:08.489 --> 00:39:10.980
<v Speaker 1>it almost shakes the sense of identity of certain law

749
00:39:11.000 --> 00:39:15.260
<v Speaker 1>enforcement officers who are very invested in these cases that

750
00:39:15.739 --> 00:39:20.019
<v Speaker 1>they investigated many, many, many years ago that were workshop murders.

751
00:39:20.579 --> 00:39:22.590
<v Speaker 1>When you have young people like that who are murdered

752
00:39:22.650 --> 00:39:26.869
<v Speaker 1>and multiple people, it's so shocking to a community. So

753
00:39:26.909 --> 00:39:28.730
<v Speaker 1>it is very important and it's going to leave a

754
00:39:28.769 --> 00:39:31.739
<v Speaker 1>mark on law enforcement officers so to contend with the

755
00:39:31.820 --> 00:39:35.480
<v Speaker 1>idea that like I got this wrong I potentially could

756
00:39:35.500 --> 00:39:38.139
<v Speaker 1>have got this wrong in so many years what I

757
00:39:38.179 --> 00:39:43.300
<v Speaker 1>believed was incorrect is a lot so I understand where

758
00:39:43.389 --> 00:39:46.929
<v Speaker 1>law enforcement officers are coming from when they brutally cling

759
00:39:47.309 --> 00:39:50.880
<v Speaker 1>to the incorrect conclusion and It might not be like

760
00:39:51.139 --> 00:39:53.130
<v Speaker 1>what is ideal, but I can understand it.

761
00:39:53.900 --> 00:39:55.900
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and I think that's probably the same thing with

762
00:39:55.960 --> 00:39:58.400
<v Speaker 2>the Holly Stakers, where the people who put Juan Rivera

763
00:39:58.440 --> 00:40:01.059
<v Speaker 2>in prison are probably convincing themselves that they got the

764
00:40:01.099 --> 00:40:03.559
<v Speaker 2>right person all along, because it's hard to grasp for

765
00:40:03.579 --> 00:40:06.239
<v Speaker 2>the possibility that you put an innocent person in prison

766
00:40:06.260 --> 00:40:08.530
<v Speaker 2>for a long time. and let a real killer get

767
00:40:08.570 --> 00:40:10.769
<v Speaker 2>away with it, because it's the same thing with Robert

768
00:40:10.889 --> 00:40:13.489
<v Speaker 2>Eugene Brashers. He went on to kill a lot of

769
00:40:13.550 --> 00:40:16.309
<v Speaker 2>other people after he got away with the yogurt shop murders,

770
00:40:16.349 --> 00:40:18.739
<v Speaker 2>and it's the same thing with Holly Steger's killer. We

771
00:40:18.780 --> 00:40:21.679
<v Speaker 2>know that he was complicit in at least one more murder,

772
00:40:21.880 --> 00:40:24.039
<v Speaker 2>and if they do identify him, it would not surprise

773
00:40:24.079 --> 00:40:25.980
<v Speaker 2>me in the least if they find out that he

774
00:40:26.000 --> 00:40:28.159
<v Speaker 2>was like a full-fledged serial killer who has a whole

775
00:40:28.199 --> 00:40:31.280
<v Speaker 2>bunch of victims. So one final tragic note I wanted

776
00:40:31.300 --> 00:40:34.519
<v Speaker 2>to mention is that when Juan Rivera's conviction was overturned,

777
00:40:34.539 --> 00:40:38.139
<v Speaker 2>they interviewed Holly's twin sister Heather, and she still believed

778
00:40:38.239 --> 00:40:40.880
<v Speaker 2>that Juan was guilty and said to the media, why

779
00:40:40.920 --> 00:40:43.110
<v Speaker 2>would he confess to this crime if he didn't do it?

780
00:40:43.239 --> 00:40:45.260
<v Speaker 2>But in her case, I can't really blame her for

781
00:40:45.300 --> 00:40:48.630
<v Speaker 2>saying that because obviously the Staker family has been lied

782
00:40:48.670 --> 00:40:51.389
<v Speaker 2>to a long time by law enforcement and prosecutors and

783
00:40:51.429 --> 00:40:53.639
<v Speaker 2>probably still hold the belief that They were trying to

784
00:40:53.679 --> 00:40:55.539
<v Speaker 2>do the right thing. They were trying to get justice

785
00:40:55.559 --> 00:40:58.340
<v Speaker 2>for Holly. I don't know if Heather still believes Juan

786
00:40:58.360 --> 00:41:00.769
<v Speaker 2>was guilty all these years later, but I do find

787
00:41:00.809 --> 00:41:03.570
<v Speaker 2>that's a common theme in wrongful conviction cases where the

788
00:41:03.949 --> 00:41:07.690
<v Speaker 2>victim's family, even after the innocent person is exonerated, they

789
00:41:07.710 --> 00:41:10.230
<v Speaker 2>will still cling to the belief that the right person

790
00:41:10.269 --> 00:41:12.880
<v Speaker 2>was caught all along because I guess it's better than

791
00:41:12.909 --> 00:41:14.820
<v Speaker 2>facing the truth that the real killer is still out

792
00:41:14.860 --> 00:41:17.099
<v Speaker 2>there and no one in law enforcement is doing anything

793
00:41:17.119 --> 00:41:17.900
<v Speaker 2>to try to find them.

794
00:41:18.710 --> 00:41:21.929
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, we see this in all different fields. We see

795
00:41:21.969 --> 00:41:25.250
<v Speaker 1>it in science, too. When new evidence is brought for

796
00:41:25.289 --> 00:41:27.969
<v Speaker 1>a new theory, there's a lot of deniers out there,

797
00:41:28.010 --> 00:41:31.239
<v Speaker 1>and they'll deny, deny, deny until it becomes untenable, and

798
00:41:31.510 --> 00:41:35.239
<v Speaker 1>the evidence is so overwhelming that they have to concede

799
00:41:35.300 --> 00:41:37.920
<v Speaker 1>and say, okay, I guess that is the new conclusion.

800
00:41:38.440 --> 00:41:41.519
<v Speaker 1>It's just when things are very personal to us, and

801
00:41:41.860 --> 00:41:45.329
<v Speaker 1>what could be more personal than Holly Staker's family? and

802
00:41:45.369 --> 00:41:47.809
<v Speaker 1>the way that they felt about her murder, about the

803
00:41:47.849 --> 00:41:50.780
<v Speaker 1>treatment of Holly, about all of these different trials, and

804
00:41:50.840 --> 00:41:53.519
<v Speaker 1>about the fact that they keep bringing Juan to trial.

805
00:41:54.059 --> 00:41:55.800
<v Speaker 1>I would think even the family has to think that

806
00:41:55.840 --> 00:41:58.559
<v Speaker 1>they have to believe that this is the right person.

807
00:41:59.159 --> 00:42:03.539
<v Speaker 1>And it's more convenient to have somebody to blame, to

808
00:42:03.579 --> 00:42:06.360
<v Speaker 1>have a face to say, this is the monster that

809
00:42:06.420 --> 00:42:09.889
<v Speaker 1>did this to Holly, rather than, what if they got

810
00:42:09.929 --> 00:42:12.730
<v Speaker 1>it wrong and the monster is still out there? That

811
00:42:12.949 --> 00:42:16.769
<v Speaker 1>is a worse conclusion. So I can also understand where

812
00:42:16.789 --> 00:42:20.349
<v Speaker 1>the family's coming from in not wanting to potentially face

813
00:42:20.389 --> 00:42:24.139
<v Speaker 1>the idea that Juan is not the right person. All

814
00:42:24.159 --> 00:42:27.559
<v Speaker 1>of this evidence is kind of junk evidence. And they

815
00:42:27.659 --> 00:42:30.340
<v Speaker 1>ignored all of these things to kind of cook the books,

816
00:42:30.460 --> 00:42:33.889
<v Speaker 1>like the knife. the planting of the shoes with the

817
00:42:33.949 --> 00:42:37.909
<v Speaker 1>blood on them, and then also with the ankle monitor.

818
00:42:38.389 --> 00:42:41.110
<v Speaker 1>There's so many different things that line up here. And

819
00:42:41.289 --> 00:42:44.329
<v Speaker 1>also the false confession, the 26 hours. I feel like

820
00:42:44.349 --> 00:42:47.820
<v Speaker 1>that is cruel and unusual punishment, especially when we're dealing

821
00:42:47.860 --> 00:42:51.920
<v Speaker 1>with somebody who has diminished mental capacity. He is just

822
00:42:52.179 --> 00:42:54.800
<v Speaker 1>under what would have been the average. Like, I think

823
00:42:54.820 --> 00:42:57.780
<v Speaker 1>the median is like 100, but 80 to 120 is

824
00:42:57.840 --> 00:43:01.349
<v Speaker 1>in the average range. He's 79. And it felt like

825
00:43:01.369 --> 00:43:04.760
<v Speaker 1>they were taking advantage of that. So my heart breaks

826
00:43:04.800 --> 00:43:08.699
<v Speaker 1>for the family because it feels like law enforcement really

827
00:43:08.739 --> 00:43:11.800
<v Speaker 1>did sell them that Juan was the guy. And for

828
00:43:11.840 --> 00:43:14.099
<v Speaker 1>them to be attached to it is not, like you said,

829
00:43:14.119 --> 00:43:18.269
<v Speaker 1>it's not atypical for families in cases where there's wrongful convictions.

830
00:43:19.329 --> 00:43:21.469
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and that's a sad thing. So I hope they've

831
00:43:21.510 --> 00:43:23.670
<v Speaker 2>come to peace with the fact, especially since they found

832
00:43:23.730 --> 00:43:26.550
<v Speaker 2>DNA from the killer in another murder that took place

833
00:43:26.570 --> 00:43:28.719
<v Speaker 2>while Juan was in prison. But it is just so

834
00:43:28.780 --> 00:43:31.179
<v Speaker 2>sad that the Saker family has had to go over

835
00:43:31.179 --> 00:43:35.159
<v Speaker 2>30 years now without receiving justice of any kind. So yeah,

836
00:43:35.219 --> 00:43:36.619
<v Speaker 2>I remember when I did this one on The Trail

837
00:43:36.639 --> 00:43:39.119
<v Speaker 2>Went Cold, I found the whole situation infuriating that I

838
00:43:39.239 --> 00:43:42.070
<v Speaker 2>even used a bit of profanity to describe Mike Mermel.

839
00:43:42.489 --> 00:43:45.090
<v Speaker 2>And I remember someone posting on Facebook once, Oh my God,

840
00:43:45.150 --> 00:43:47.869
<v Speaker 2>Robin Warder swore! But now that you've heard the details

841
00:43:47.929 --> 00:43:49.710
<v Speaker 2>of the case, I'm sure you can understand why.

842
00:43:49.730 --> 00:43:52.030
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, like this is a case where if you

843
00:43:52.070 --> 00:43:53.929
<v Speaker 1>were going to drop an F-bomb, like this would be

844
00:43:53.969 --> 00:43:57.429
<v Speaker 1>the case to do it on. And, I mean, Mermal.

845
00:43:57.570 --> 00:43:59.389
<v Speaker 1>That doesn't even sound like a real name.

846
00:43:59.409 --> 00:44:03.510
<v Speaker 2>I know. Sounds like a wormy, like, slimy type of person.

847
00:44:03.550 --> 00:44:07.389
<v Speaker 2>It kind of fits his personality. So, yeah, that about

848
00:44:07.409 --> 00:44:09.300
<v Speaker 2>brings an end to our discussion about the murder of

849
00:44:09.320 --> 00:44:11.880
<v Speaker 2>Holly Staker. And would you say that this is probably

850
00:44:11.980 --> 00:44:14.599
<v Speaker 2>one of the most egregious wrongful convictions you've ever seen?

851
00:44:15.679 --> 00:44:20.300
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely. I feel like the evidence here was thin. They really,

852
00:44:20.500 --> 00:44:23.159
<v Speaker 1>they had nothing. When it comes down to what they had,

853
00:44:23.659 --> 00:44:26.639
<v Speaker 1>is they had a false confession that was derived after

854
00:44:26.659 --> 00:44:31.110
<v Speaker 1>these inhumane conditions were presented. We don't know if food

855
00:44:31.230 --> 00:44:34.070
<v Speaker 1>and drink were provided or bathroom breaks, but I do

856
00:44:34.110 --> 00:44:36.750
<v Speaker 1>feel like it violates the Geneva Convention. I do not

857
00:44:36.809 --> 00:44:39.829
<v Speaker 1>think that any human being should ever have to endure

858
00:44:40.070 --> 00:44:43.449
<v Speaker 1>what Juan endured. And it just comes down to why

859
00:44:43.510 --> 00:44:46.659
<v Speaker 1>people will make a false confession or why they will

860
00:44:46.699 --> 00:44:49.460
<v Speaker 1>say these things. And Ashley would always talk about the

861
00:44:49.519 --> 00:44:52.039
<v Speaker 1>Reed technique and how it was a wonderful way to

862
00:44:52.099 --> 00:44:55.840
<v Speaker 1>elicit confessions from the guilty, but it's also a wonderful

863
00:44:55.880 --> 00:44:59.929
<v Speaker 1>way to elicit confessions from the innocent. That is the problem.

864
00:45:00.090 --> 00:45:02.530
<v Speaker 1>And so we don't know if they were using the

865
00:45:02.570 --> 00:45:04.429
<v Speaker 1>Reed technique here, but it would have been the time

866
00:45:04.469 --> 00:45:07.369
<v Speaker 1>period where that would have been a very popular approach.

867
00:45:08.090 --> 00:45:11.150
<v Speaker 1>And so, I just feel like Juan was very unprotected,

868
00:45:11.210 --> 00:45:13.329
<v Speaker 1>that they had decided that he was the guy and

869
00:45:13.369 --> 00:45:16.949
<v Speaker 1>that this was convenient. They needed somebody and he was

870
00:45:16.969 --> 00:45:18.590
<v Speaker 1>going to say that he did it. And so they

871
00:45:18.610 --> 00:45:21.530
<v Speaker 1>fed him details. They focused on him, took their focus

872
00:45:21.570 --> 00:45:24.210
<v Speaker 1>away from who the real killer was. And whether or

873
00:45:24.269 --> 00:45:27.670
<v Speaker 1>not law enforcement truly believed that Juan was guilty or

874
00:45:27.730 --> 00:45:30.130
<v Speaker 1>not is up for debate. I can't say. I haven't

875
00:45:30.190 --> 00:45:32.309
<v Speaker 1>spoken to any of them. I don't know if they

876
00:45:32.329 --> 00:45:35.090
<v Speaker 1>were invested because they needed protection. to have an answer

877
00:45:35.150 --> 00:45:37.929
<v Speaker 1>because of political pressure or if they truly believed that

878
00:45:37.949 --> 00:45:40.230
<v Speaker 1>he was the guy and maybe they believed the false

879
00:45:40.269 --> 00:45:43.610
<v Speaker 1>confessions weren't a thing. I just can't know, but this

880
00:45:43.650 --> 00:45:45.929
<v Speaker 1>has got to be one of the most frustrating cases

881
00:45:45.969 --> 00:45:47.199
<v Speaker 1>that I think I've ever heard.

882
00:45:48.219 --> 00:45:51.280
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, exactly. Like we talked about wrongful convictions are bad enough,

883
00:45:51.320 --> 00:45:54.099
<v Speaker 2>but ones in which you cause additional trauma to the

884
00:45:54.139 --> 00:45:56.900
<v Speaker 2>victim's family are even more egregious. And the fact that

885
00:45:56.920 --> 00:46:00.130
<v Speaker 2>they tried to taint Holly Staker's reputation by trying to

886
00:46:00.190 --> 00:46:03.360
<v Speaker 2>like paint her as sexually active and promiscuous is, at

887
00:46:03.409 --> 00:46:05.389
<v Speaker 2>the age of 11, just to get a conviction on

888
00:46:05.449 --> 00:46:07.789
<v Speaker 2>an innocent man is one of the more disgusting things

889
00:46:07.829 --> 00:46:10.110
<v Speaker 2>I've ever seen in one of the cases we've covered.

890
00:46:11.409 --> 00:46:13.369
<v Speaker 2>So that about brings an end to our discussion about

891
00:46:13.389 --> 00:46:15.989
<v Speaker 2>the murder of Holly Staker and the wrongful conviction of

892
00:46:16.030 --> 00:46:18.369
<v Speaker 2>Juan Rivera. Thank you so much for your continued support,

893
00:46:18.429 --> 00:46:20.530
<v Speaker 2>and we'll be back next week to talk about another case.

894
00:46:22.010 --> 00:46:23.489
<v Speaker 3>Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit

895
00:46:23.550 --> 00:46:24.969
<v Speaker 3>about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?

896
00:46:25.789 --> 00:46:27.829
<v Speaker 2>Yes, the Trail Went Cold Patreon has been around for

897
00:46:27.869 --> 00:46:31.230
<v Speaker 2>three years now, and we offer the standard paychecks bonus

898
00:46:31.250 --> 00:46:34.570
<v Speaker 2>features like early ad-free episodes, and I also send out

899
00:46:34.829 --> 00:46:38.030
<v Speaker 2>stickers and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs

900
00:46:38.110 --> 00:46:41.190
<v Speaker 2>up with us on Patreon. If you join our $ 5 tier,

901
00:46:41.530 --> 00:46:45.170
<v Speaker 2>Tier 2, we also offer monthly bonus episodes in which

902
00:46:45.329 --> 00:46:48.269
<v Speaker 2>I talk about cases which are not featured on the

903
00:46:48.349 --> 00:46:51.429
<v Speaker 2>Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon.

904
00:46:51.880 --> 00:46:54.320
<v Speaker 2>And if you join our highest tier, Tier 3, the

905
00:46:54.320 --> 00:46:57.619
<v Speaker 2>$ 10 tier, one of the features we offer is an

906
00:46:57.840 --> 00:47:02.079
<v Speaker 2>audio commentary track over classic episodes of Unsolved Mysteries, where

907
00:47:02.099 --> 00:47:05.019
<v Speaker 2>you can download an audio file and then boot up

908
00:47:05.039 --> 00:47:08.500
<v Speaker 2>the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or YouTube

909
00:47:09.019 --> 00:47:12.179
<v Speaker 2>and play it with my audio commentary playing in the background,

910
00:47:12.219 --> 00:47:15.159
<v Speaker 2>where I just provide trivia and factoids about the cases

911
00:47:15.239 --> 00:47:18.949
<v Speaker 2>featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very first episode

912
00:47:18.969 --> 00:47:21.670
<v Speaker 2>that I did a commentary track over was the episode

913
00:47:21.710 --> 00:47:24.349
<v Speaker 2>featuring this case. So if you want to download a

914
00:47:24.389 --> 00:47:27.469
<v Speaker 2>commentary track in which I make more smart-ass remarks about

915
00:47:27.530 --> 00:47:30.650
<v Speaker 2>Jewel Kaler, then be sure to join Tier 3.

916
00:47:30.650 --> 00:47:32.150
<v Speaker 3>So I want to let you know a little bit

917
00:47:32.210 --> 00:47:35.289
<v Speaker 3>about the Jewels and Ashley Patreon. So there's early ad-free

918
00:47:35.329 --> 00:47:38.250
<v Speaker 3>episodes of The Path Went Chilly. We've got our Path

919
00:47:38.289 --> 00:47:41.050
<v Speaker 3>Went Chilly minis, which are always over an hour. So

920
00:47:41.070 --> 00:47:43.210
<v Speaker 3>they're not very mini, but they're just too short to

921
00:47:43.250 --> 00:47:46.090
<v Speaker 3>turn into a series. And we're really enjoying doing those.

922
00:47:46.760 --> 00:47:48.900
<v Speaker 3>We hope you'll check out those Patreons. We'll link them

923
00:47:49.019 --> 00:47:49.780
<v Speaker 3>in the show notes.

924
00:47:50.420 --> 00:47:52.400
<v Speaker 2>So I want to thank you all for listening. And

925
00:47:52.460 --> 00:47:54.780
<v Speaker 2>any chance you have to share us on social media

926
00:47:54.820 --> 00:47:57.840
<v Speaker 2>with a friend or to rate and review is greatly appreciated.

927
00:47:57.960 --> 00:48:01.539
<v Speaker 2>You can email us at thepathwentchili at gmail.com. You can

928
00:48:01.579 --> 00:48:04.800
<v Speaker 2>reach us on Twitter at thepathwentchili. So until next time,

929
00:48:04.840 --> 00:48:07.559
<v Speaker 2>be sure to bundle up because cold trails and chilly

930
00:48:07.619 --> 00:48:09.119
<v Speaker 2>paths call for warm clothing.

931
00:48:09.320 --> 00:48:12.429
<v Speaker 3>Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy.