Bite Marks

you faithfully discharge the duties of our office. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. From Tenderfoot TV and I Heart Radio, this is sworn. I'm your host, Philip Holloway. You know the term the c S I fact he changed everything. Everybody believed that what you saw on TV was for real. You don't use forty two lasers of the crime scene

leasures cost about five. So that was preposterous, right, and nothing gets done today n c S. Another show, My wife watches out that a crow pecks out someone's hypohol and then carries it off. And when they found the eyeball. They found a fingerprint on the eyeball. Preposterous at best. It's not like that. See, they get lost in the fact that it was just TV show. They started having to explain to the juries, do you believe things that you see? Oh yeah, if it's on TV, it's it's no,

that's not how it is. M That was Chris Robinson, a forensic consultant I've worked with on many of my cases. In this episode, we're going to look at that c s I effect he was talking about, and we're going to hear the story of another man who was locked up for twenty three years in a case that involved police corruption and junk science. Before we hear about Bill,

I wanted to talk with my colleague, Ashley Merchant. She's a lawyer I've worked with many times in the past, and I know that she's had to educate herself on forensic science, particularly bad forensic science, and how it's used

in our legal system. Junk science is very difficult to deal with when the government offers something and they put a fancy name on it, like the you know, FBI or the crime Lab, and you know, they bring in all these these fancy acronyms and stuff juries just eat it up hook line and saying are a lot of defense attorneys aren't very good at shedding light on the junkiness factor of it, because you know, we're lawyers. Like I've never shot a gun. You know, I don't understand ballistics,

but I had to go learn it. How to go learn blood spatter, how to go learn DNA, how to learn about fingerprints. I had a case probably fifteen years ago with a handwriting expert, and then you know, a couple of years later, boom, handwriting experts are it's junk science and it's not admissible. We have this evidence that the state presents handwriting for example, blood spatter for example, and we're arguing, as defense lawyers, this is crazy. This

is a junk you know. And then finally, years down the road, you get exoneration and the exonerations are linked to this junk science, and finally, retrospectively the government saying, oh, you know what, you're right, that handwriting stuff was, that was crazy, but the people are still in jail. As

defense lawyers, I think we don't challenge it enough. I think that we don't question already enough because it's science we believe that the government is doing the right thing and doing their job, which to me as a defense lawyer, scary because if I don't question the blood spatter, why would I expect the jury to question the bloods better. So you see a lot of times in trials where the defense lawyer has no question for the blood spatter expert.

It's like they just rubber stamp this stuff just because some scientists in a lab says that it is. They don't really question it, and juries don't question it, and defense lawyers don't question it. And I understand why because we're Hamstrong. We're not scientists. We're not given funding for experts. I mean, half the time we're still trying to get paid, you know, let alone asking our clients family for ten grand for an expert to fly in who's got a pH d and d n A. They barely have the

money for their defense. We don't challenge that evidence, but I think we need to. Jurors want actual physical touch evidence, evidence they can put their hands on, they can see. You see a huge pull for the prosecution and to get this type of science, you know, junk science, whatever it is, to try and admit that it's fallible because it's a scientist determining if it's a fingerprint match, you know, where the next scientists might not determine it's a fingerprint match.

We do have standards. We do have certain standards that have to be met. We have Fry and Dowberd. Those are the standards in federal court. Anytime you're gonna admit a certain type of evidence, it's got to meet a certain level of scientific or reliability. One of those things that it has to be subject to peer review. Other scientists have to be able to go and check your work. That's a huge one. In state court in Georgia, for example, we have a standard called Harper standard, which is lower.

It's ironic to me and I always use my husband as an example. He was a civil litigator before he joined my law firm, and now he does criminal difference with me. He did, you know, a lot of these massive litigations that had all these fancy scientists and things. He did as Best Jos litigation, a lot of it. When he came on as criminal defense, He's like, when you're taking someone's life, it's a lower standard for admitting evidence.

It's harder to get evidence in there's higher standard of reliability to get evidence in a civil case we're you're shooting over money than it is in a criminal case where someone can go to jail. It's insane people, I mean, they just they want guilty people to be locked up. People are scared of letting guilty people out. And a lot of times the state argues, need, we can't meet the Fried standard, it can't be verified, but we need

this evidence. I mean, I hear that argument all the time from the state, but I really need this evidence, so the judge lets it in. I think that you should have a higher standard when you're dealing with people's lives first, as you're dealing with people's money. Just makes common sense to me. One man who had that c s I effect work against him is our next Exonoye Bill Richards. Our system in California here is probably one of the biggest prison systems in the world. We have

more people in prison here than most countries. It's hell on every level, especially for somebody who live normal life and working man. You know, honest person. I mean, my criminal career consisted of a couple of traffic tickets spread over twenty years of speeding on the freeway. But everything is terrible, and Menico was terrible. Now in my late sixties with advanced cancer because they didn't treat me in prison, had years I knew I had it, didn't even tell me,

and now it's too late. I mean, I can't think of anything that isn't terrible. I don't know how to describe it. I could go on for a week and never scratched the surface. It is so abnormal for human being to put under those conditions. My name is William Richards. I'm an exnerie. I served twenty three years for rum. I didn't commit, and I have been out for a post of three now at my age and just trying to live on my retirement and put a life together. I came home and I found my wife dead. She

had been murdered. I called the police three times, actually because I was a little bit upset, as you can imagine, and they would take a long time getting there. First top on the crime scene was just a patrolman. Everything man said was proven to be all I not only that night, but everything he says any time. He's a strange felt But he turned around in the sidewalk. He's Columbo he's got the guy right here. He said, my

actions are strange. Well, as you come home and find your wife killed like I did, what are your actions supposed to be? So he decided I was guilty, he told the detective. They decided that by the time they got to the crime scene, they never investigated, They never collected DNA fingerprints or anything from the crime scene, and

just proceeded to start a case against me. Every top understand lied a sign of evidence, destroyed exculpatory evidence when the process of digging it up now for civil actions. But they just set on a course to get the easy suspects, and that was it. I was just profiled, and the husband is always guilty. At the time she died, that were forty six miles away in another city, in another county, and I was in a building with thirty people.

It was a secure bullet the traffic for troll and was allowed to testify the time at death based on his vast experience with their bodies, which of course we've now proven his alfuls. Real doctors said their injuries on my wife as are two hours old prior to death, determined she had been dead for several hours. Who I

got home. Police have total control over the cranching and in the corners investigator whose job the crime scene is the body, did not have an opportunity to examine the body and collect the information that would have made it

easy to determine time of death. The two doctors who did look at the case independently for the defense had to look at poor feel stuff, you know, things like photographs of injuries and said, well, injuries over two hours prior to death, But they didn't get the body temperatures and things like that that would probably be taking I think it's a huge mistake for the police in Bill's case to have handled the crime scene the way they did, But I also know that as a defense lawyer, I

have to build a case off of reports and photographs long after the alleged crime has been committed. I spoke with Chris Robinson, the forensic consultant you heard at the beginning of the episode, about what kinds of things he looks at in the files that he gets and the reliability of the forensics that he works with. My name is Christopher Robbins, and I'm a forensic consultant. I generally examine reports, evidence, documents, photographs, and I report my findings

back to the attorneys who have hired me. I'm certified there as of crime scene reconstruction, ballistics and fires analysis, gunshot wounds, blood spatter analysis, shooting reconstruction. See the beautiful thing with what I do? Now, they give me the entire case file and they say, read this, here's the statements. Tell us is our client li? Is he telling the truth?

Do you think it's validated by what you see? And then I'll report that I'm working a case where an individual supposedly shot at his mother down the hallway, and she's given all these statements. She said she heard the bullet go by your ear. No, you didn't hear the bullet go by your hear because it's a forty five, so it's not breaking the sound beard. And then the holes in the wall are not lined up with her heads. I'm saying, you didn't hear the bullet go by your head.

The fast of the bullet, the sound way just begin to spread out perpendicular to the bullet as it moves through the air. A slower bullet, they moved with the bullets, so the bullet had to almost touch your leg being you feel it. Now you hear the concussion from the gun. You know you're jerking is a hundred sixty death was slow like a chainsaw, an airliner right beside your head. Now, I'm already thinking, ma'am, I don't like your story because

you're telling me what you believe you heard. And that's fine. I'm not calling your liar. I'm just saying, that's why I like the evidence. The evidence doesn't lie. It's simple. When you look at the evidence, you pull trajectory rides through the holes of the shot, you triangulate back the path of the bullets, how the gun injects, the cartridge cases, and when you put all these things together, I'm giving the statement and I'm saying, no, ma'am, see, it can't

happen this way because this is the evidence. One of the things Amelia brought up in the last episode was how for six science needs to change and evolve with new technology. Blood spatter is very expeclative. You have three or four people look at the same blood spatter and they'll give you a different variation of what they see. You have to be careful because at a crime scene where there's massive amounts of blood spatter, you have transverse things,

you have cast off stains. You have high velocity meaning velocity, low velocity which you might call medium, I might looking good. I think it's more like a low velocity. I do get into that a lot where they'll call in their expert and I'll go up against them, and it's just the jury has to listen to us and they make the decision. The biggest problem is when the forensics is

not tested by an outside source. One of the things I admire about Chris, and one of the reasons I've used him in my own cases, is that he doesn't necessarily draw his own unreasonable conclusions, but he lets the evidence speak for itself. I mean, I can give my opinion what I believe happened, how I believe it happened. I can't speak to someone's intentions. The gun accidentally went off. Okay, First of all, I'm gonna look at the gun and I'm gonna say, this gun is functioning as it was

designed to function. This gun is perfect. Did you actually mean to squeeze this trigger with three pounds, five pounds, eight pounds, I said, Once we get the ten or twelve pounds, which is a double action trigger, pull a heavy trigger pull, which means you have to pull the trigger all the way to the rear. I'm gonna look at you and go you didn't accidentally pull with twelve pounds. Now, when you have a gun, it's a two or three pound trigger pool. What were the circumstances. I took my

gun down off the counter. You came in and grabbed the gun, and then what's your instinct. I'm gonna pull away from you. So if you grab the gun and pull towards you and I pull away from you, we start to divide that way to the trigger pull. I better look at your body though. You better have gunpowder all over your clothing. You better have stiff knowing your skin because she better be within three feet and they better have powder all over you for you to reach

out and grab that gun. When he's brought in to testify, his role is to satisfy the jury's desire for that physical, hands on type of evidence. Sometimes that can even mean putting on something of a show for the jury. When you go in there and I'm rolling around on the floor in front of the jury, they're amazed. I'm always told when I come in, the jury perks up I'm talking about guns. I'm not talking about d NA where god forbid, you're talking about wanting the quadri and the

low sign. They get glaze over when I talk about guns. Everybody's seen again a bullet my cartridge case. They really get up. And then I get off the stand and they say, show us how this happened. And I'm rolling around the floor where I get out the dummy. These people go, what is this guy doing? Now? I tell people you play to the strengths. If you can do a recreation, I say, you want me to get a Then the jury starts to think, now I understand, this

is how it happened. Photograph is great, pictures worth a thousand words, But a recreation in front of the court, it's it's amazing. I've seen Chris work. I've seen him in court. I've seen him out of court. I've seen him test firing unloaded firearms. I've seen him wrestling with dummies in a courtroom. It's a strong visual. It grabs the jury's attention and it keeps them interested. In any time.

As a lawyer, you get the opportunity to educate a jury and keep their attention and have them learn something that they did not know about before. I'm going to take advantage of that opportunity. I found my wife at midnight, so I've been up since about seven that morning, and they let me go five or six and next afternoon, so I've been up thirty some hours without sleep, probably twenty some hours without food, and under intense interrogation, you know,

trying to get me to confess. I came down again trying to help them. I thought they would actually start looking for the real killer, which of course was my mistake because they didn't. So I was actually in the police station for another fifteen hours of intense interrogation, which is not what I came down there for. Then they just finally said, well, if you want admit you did it, you're under arrest. I always thought, okay, what if I did admitted I've been at all. It was such a

stupid thing to say. That's why you get so many false confessions. I can tell you happens. Been through these things, I could see why people just give up the crack of the same thing you watch, it's only your own I listened to tape. There's an edit tape that they claimed this was interrogation, but of course, there's only thirty hours of interrogation. They have a two hour tape. But even on that I hear myself giving them things that I didn't want to say because I didn't remember or

didn't think they were true. But I assureman have said I did anything wrong. The first lawyer was very good, but he was a public defender. I had considerable equity in my land and stuff. I could have hired a big name lawyer. I had one lined up, and that's when I found out that froze my assets. They had not arrested me the first night, which surprised everybody that they did a few weeks later. But in that period

of time they filed papers to freeze my assets. Oh, I had a good name attorney, he would have walked up and they're told the court, look, there's no evidence, let him go. And it makes all the difference in the world. Now we have such a fast amount of advience of innocence, and we have DNA, we have hair, we have all signs of things that proved I'm not the killer. But when you sit there and trial and you had no investigation and so forth to help you, it's kind of a one side it's system like the

other auxonorees this season. I asked Bill what he thought the biggest factor was in the jury finding him guilty this time. It was something all of our forensic experts have brought up time and again, fight evidence. There's a bite on her hand that I saw at the funeral. Because at the time I believe that these strengths of sciences are real, I've now learned that they're mostly jumped. The jury was told this is mine, and it turns out that when they did computer comparisons after conviction, none

of that was true. And that was the only thing that really changed in the last trial was fite evidence. That's pretty damning when you come in here and to throwing all his garbage at the wall. Oh, he had arguments every couple as argument. They beat you up with all this stuff that kids anybody shaft they make it must sound much worse. But when you sit there and say, look, there's a bite on her body from the fight and

it's his, how could they let me go? I wanted to know more about bite mark science, or as it's more formally known, forensic odontology. This is dr Adam Freeman. I'm a forensic odontologist located out of Westport, Connecticut, and I am the current chair of the Odontology Section of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. My office Westport, Connecticut is very close to New York City, where about a forty five minute drive, and in the aftermath of nine eleven,

we lost several patients. As part of that process, it became very apparent that there was not enough people involved at a very granular level that really knew forensics. So my example would be there were some dentists that had done some identification work, but really no formal education in the totality of forensics, and they typically were the leaders of these operations. And I'm one of those people that I don't like to be a little bit educated in something.

If I'm gonna do something, I really want to be the guy or one of the guys that knows the most about it. So there really are three areas that brensic Good ontology are used in criminal cases. One and probably the one that I am most proud of in our field is dental identification. Often people are found dead and they need to be scientifically identified, and very often

teeth are used as that identification. Also as an outshoot of that is where there's a mass disaster like Hurricane Katrino or nine eleven or Hurricane I, where dentists are called in to do identifications on lots of people, you are giving back a person the dignity of dying with a name. Another area is bite mark identify accation, and that is much more controversial today, and I have testified

in several of those cases. And then there's dental age estimation, which is becoming much more controversial because of the way it's being applied versus the way I believe it was originally designed to be applied. Bite mark identification of a perpetrator has at its space several hypotheses. The first one is that teeth are unique to an individual. Only a individual has teeth of a certain shape, size, and arrangement. That hypothesis has never been proven. The second hypothesis is

skin can accurately record a bite. That also has never been proven. The scientific research currently doesn't even suggest that experts can even identify with some real liability what a bite mark looks like. As an example of that, myself and a colleague of mine, dr Ian Pretty out of Manchester England. We sent every board certified forensic dennis a hundred different cases where there were several photographs and said, is this a bite mark? Very similar to what happens

when I'm presented a case. When I'm presented a case, typically law enforcement will send some images of a suspected injury that they think might be a bite mark, and my job is to opine as to whether or not that injury is or is not a bite mark. What we did is we did that same sort of experiment and there was widespread disagreement as to whether or not an injury that they were looking at was in fact

a bite mark. So the ground science that predisposes us the ability to do this bite mark work isn't there. Yet the work continues to be done. There are those who have to me, I believe that this is possible, And my response typically is when issues of life and liberty are at state, your belief as to whether or not something can be done is not important. It's whether or not you can scientifically support your opinions. And the

science is not there for bite marks. It is my opinion that bite marks shouldn't be used in courts of law at all until we produce some science that suggests that forensico and ontologists can agree generally on what a bite mark is. I think actually, in Bill Richards case, and looking at that bite mark, I'm not sure that that's even a bite mark. Dr Freeman has seen the evidence in Bill's case firsthand, so I asked him for

his professional opinion on the evidence left on Bill's wife's hand. So, in that particular case, what you're looking at is there's a very diffuse bruise of the bite mark, or what I would call the patterned injury. I didn't see anything on the other side of the hand. For a bite to happen, tissue has to be crushed between the upper and lower teeth to leave a bruise. And that's really

one of the problems with bite marks. When somebody has bitten, how you bruise versus how I bruise could be very different, the type of skin you have, the coloration of your skin. All of the listeners here, I'm sure have had situations where they bump into something and they bruise and other people don't. And then clearly when you look at the injury on Mrs Richard's hand, it's a very wide bruise

teeth are very narrow. That surely isn't individual teeth you're looking at, and I surely would have swabbed it for DNA and suggested it be swabbed for salivary amilais that injury surely does not belong in a criminal court. I think that the place that bite marks have, and probably the strongest piece we have for them, is that if you see something that looks like a suspected bite mark, what a good friends to go to ontologists should do is instruct the police in the medical examiner's office to

swab that area for both DNA and salivary emilies. So salivary amilies is an enzyme that is in human saliva, so that would show that it is human and secondly DNA. That is a great purpose for human bite marks. I don't think a lot of the people who did bite mark cases early on went into it with some malicious attitude. I think that they went into it thinking they were

doing what was cutting edge science. Where I find it reprehensible is that when science has presented itself showing that what they believed isn't in fact true, they typically don't accept the science itself. What they do is they say, well, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I absolutely believe that it is morally wrong to use questionable forensics in criminal trials where there's issues of life and liberty, and it should not be done by anybody

until the science supports it. And when people fight so hard to keep a modality that has not been scientifically supported, it makes me question their motives. I also question those motives, and I wonder why someone would be more interested in validating a belief than in finding the actual truth. But I think this happens more than people know. I can understand that people feel pride in their work, and on

some level they might not want it question. But like Dr Freeman said, when it comes to something as precious as one's life or their liberty, someone's personal ego just should not get in the way. Yeah, first trial was deadlocked, I think offishally they say six to six. Second one was declared to mistrial because the judge was talking to somebody connected with one of the jurors. And then it

went to a bird trial which was also deadlocked. And the last trial, even with the bite evidence, came back deadlocked, but the judge was used to accept it and ordered them to find the British. She said, I'm going to keep you here and see you do. I've had so many she would have to let me go. One of the jurors come in and wanted to talk to my team, basically to say she had been bullied in the jury room, but the same judge trial judge wouldn't let us talk

to her. Given that he had so many trials, I was curious as to what kinds of deals might have been offered to build behind the scenes. They offered deals mostly after the first draw they took a real beating. They started offering the time served. Actually, by that time I've been in less than two years. So they said, did two year low deal, low term man sladder. But I couldn't do that. I didn't do this, you know. I took my gamble and fought it all the way.

As a defense attorney, it's in my interest to get the best outcome possible for my clients, and sometimes that means making a deal. In fact, the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved through some type of negotiated agreement. I completely understand Bill's hesitation here to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. I see people every day who were asked to make compromises, and sometimes they're

compromises that people just can't make. Bill Richards was convicted of first degree murder and served twenty three years of a life sentence. You go in there, You've got to learn a hole new language, a whole new packing order thin and there's such strange conditions. You have all the different gangs, and you have all the different factions in each game. You have to adapt, you have to you have to survive, and that's not easy. I kind of described it like being in the bottom of a well.

You're looking up at this You know you're innocent, you know what their sayings lie, but you can't get any representation. NET would stand up and present this. Got a description be jumping out of airplane a lot of parachute. You know you're gonna die, but you just keep lapping around. Anyway, My assets were gone. I've lost everything I had. In the prison. They put me to work a couple of times in shops for the number of years where I

was teaching the staff. I was teaching the other inmates how to do all these things, designing and building things for them. They had all these things that need to be done, and nobody had a crew how to do it. You know, I had to over twenty years background and uh I was teaching them how to do all these things, how to build things, how to design is under structural strength,

how power would have to run, and so on. You'd make thirty two cents an hour, and they take back made fourteen tents an hour, and that doesn't go real far because prices in the canteen, you know, the prison stores are expensive. I was very angry for a long time, but eventually I think you just rejectedn't go on. You can't stay angry for twenty five years. They'll burn you out. If you do, You're gonna be one miserable person. I'm

very very unhappy, but that anger. Anger is a reactionary emotion, and you just can't maintain that for so many years. Bill was exonerated and eventually released in two thousand sixteen. Unlike our other exonorees, his case was so personal. He lost everything, including his wife. So I asked him if at the very least they caught the person who murdered his wife. No, because personally, I don't believe the police ever looked. I know they didn't look. It's all comes

back to the police. They decided the first night I was the guy they told the friends of people who worked under them, and that was it. Everything just went down, Like I feel like falling out of an airplane. You're going to die. It's gone down because everybody is working against you. Before we wrap up forensic science, I wanted to bring back Justin Brooks from the California Innocence Project.

He sees cases like bills all the time. We've got an innocence organization in Holland, and when I go over there, there's so much more scrutiny given there's so many more resources, and they still have wrongful convictions. So all we can do is is minimize the number of wrongful convictions. And the best way to minimize it is through education and training. Like one of the things that's always made me crazy is it. See, the defense has a lot more trouble

getting scientific resources than the government has. So when a defense attorney wants to get testing done, wants access to the labs, wants to get the same kind of ability to develop evidence as the government has, they don't have the same resources there's just a lot of pseudo science out there. But the problem is a lot of times these jurors treat all these sciences the same, if you

have an expert saying it's a science. We've seen the same thing in the area of arson that in the past a lot of the arson experts were actually just board firemen who loves C. S I and had a lot of time on their hands. So you have a bunch of people who are sitting in prison on bad fire science. So I think we have a real problem with expertise in these areas and jurors when they hear this stuff, they're convicting because an expert stands up and says,

in my expert opinion, this person is guilty. Here's why you get convictions. One of the things that's important to me in my work and in this show is making sure that we cover everything from as many sides as possible. I've seen the work of Chris Robinson and Tracy Sergeant in action, but I also know that many people have been wrongfully convicted because of forensic science, or perhaps more accurately, because of the misapplication of science or of junk science.

I think all of the forensic professionals we spoke to were right when they said that forensic science should just be one of many tools in an investigative toolbox. It's important to keep in mind, if you're ever sitting on a jury, or if you're just hearing about a trial in the news, that science is not perfect, and that includes forensic science. There's often more to the story than

what one piece of information might suggest. Having people like Chris or Dr Freeman testifying a courtroom about what their discipline can and cannot do is bidely important to getting to the true facts of a case. I know how important it is to explain all aspects of a case to a jury, and the best way I've seen that done, especially in cases involving science, is to bring in experts. These experts can explain this stuff in a way that it's not so complicated and so that a juror who

is not a scientist can understand the subject matter. As forensic science progresses and changes, expert witnesses are becoming increasingly vital as a part of a complete and fair trial. In my opinion, funds for experts should be available to all people, just as the right to counsel is available to all people and all stages of the criminal process,

and that includes a trial. I also want to reiterate what Amelia and Dr Freeman both said that one of the most important aspects of any science is for the disciplines to evolve as new research comes in. We are in an incredible age of technology where more and more information is available than ever before. As we've become more and more dependent on science, it is vitally important that we use science responsibly and that we do so accurately.

A big part of my job is staying up to date with new laws and changes in the legal system. Scientists are no different. A big part of their job is to make sure they are current with the latest science. Everyone in the criminal justice system, lawyers, police officers, judges, medical examiners, forensic chemists, all these people owe it to defendants on trial to be as accurate as possible. As Dr Freeman said, a mere belief that something might work

is not enough. You must base it on science, especially when life and liberty are on the line. And the next episode will focus on a particular problem that all of the Axonorees we've spoken to have brought up. Interrogation techniques and false confessions next time on Sworn. This is a study published just a few years ago out of Canada.

With the power of suggestion, they convinced ordinary people that as a teenager they committed a crime and the police actually came to an investigate, and you know, oftentimes these people are trying to figure this out, and you know, my mother told you this, It must have happened. I mean, did I plan Forrafiti somewhere? And what was I with my best friend when we did? And they pretty much talked themselves into constructing something that never happened. Sworn is

a production of Tenderfoot TV and I Heart Radio. Our lead producer is Christina Dana. Executive producers are Payne Lindsay and Donald Albright for Tenderfoot TV, Matt Frederick and Alex Williams for I Heart Radio, and myself Philip Holloway. Additional product by Trevor Young, Mason Lindsay, Mike Rooney, Jamie Albright and Halle Beadall Original music and sound designed by Makeup and Vanity Set. Our theme song is Blood in the Water by Layup. Show art and design is by Trevor Eisler.

Editing by Christina Dana. Mixing and mastering by Mike Rooney and Cooper Skinner. Special thanks to the team at I Heart Radio from U t a or In Rosenbound and Grace Royer, Ryan Nord and Matthew Papa from the Nord Group Back Media and Marketing and Station sixteen. I'd also like to extend a very personal and special thanks to all of our contributors and guests who have helped to

make all of these episodes possible. You can find Sworn on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram at Sworn podcast and follow me your host, Philip Holloway on Twitter at phil Holloway e s Q. Our webs is sworn podcast dot com, and you can check out other Tenderfoot TV podcasts at www dot tenderfoot dot tv. If you have questions or comments, you can email us at Sworn at tenderfoot dot tv or leave us a voicemail at four zero four for one zero zero four f one. As always, thanks for

listening through all of that. How were you able to maintain your innocence in sort of your sense that this could be fixed? Yeah? I don't you know. I've seen other guys perfectly on this. I've seen other people in a situation like mine is hunt themselves or something. It's like that wasn't me. I wasn't doing that. Other people just endure and sit there for a decade after decade in prison innocence like I did. I'm just a stubb ambastard. I would give up yourself