At two a m. On June eighteenth, two thousand fourteen, Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holscloth finished up his shift. On his way home and his police cruiser, he pulled over fifty seven year old Jennie Ligands for a traffic violation at a busy intersection where surveillance footage shows a normal traffic stop. Around three hours later, Miss Ligand filed a complaint claiming that an officer forced her into oral sodomy.
Her mouth swap came up empty for Daniel's DNA, as did his uniform for hers, but this allegation inexplicably launched an investigation focused on at risk African American women that Daniel had made contact with, bringing forth twenty one alleged victims, including one man. Daniel became a rallying cry for everyone who doesn't want to see any cop of using their power or sexually assaulting women. It all seemed to fit a grim and growing narrative and a media circus that sued.
At first, and I'm embarrassed to admit this, I jump right on board, thinking good, they got him, But upon the persistent urging of his sister Jennifer, and admittedly through my own reluctant closer. Look, we now have a case that turns that abusive cob narrative right on its head.
In this amazing and alarming episode, we will speak with daniels sister, Jennifer holst claud biologist Erica Fusch, and will also take a phone call from an undisclosed correctional facility from former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holsclaw, who is currently serving a two hundred and sixty three year prison sentence in a maximum security prison under assumed name for crimes he did not commit. This is wrongful conviction. Welcome
back to wrongful Conviction. Today's episode is going to mess up your perceptions of everything, just as it did to me. It's a tragic miscarriage of justice, but it's also an insane journey to a very different lens than we've ever covered before. And today we're gonna be talking about the case of Daniel Holsclaw, wrongfully convicted, a former police officer
from Oklahoma City, and he's on the phone. So Daniel, I'm sorry you're here, but I'm glad you're on the phone on and my loved one, and letn't be able to have the opportunity and definitely stick once and well, we hope to be part of the solution. And with us in the studio, we have two extraordinary women. One is a biologist, Erika Fusch, welcome to the show. Thanks, And with her is one of the most persistent and
brave women I've come across, the sister of Daniel. Jennifer is here and without you, I can honestly say this wouldn't be happening. Thank you for giving us the time. No, your your courage is inspiring. And Daniel, same for you. Um. So let's talk about this crazy case. And this was
a national news story, international, I guess right. And at the time, and I'm really sorry to say this day, but at the time that I saw it come across my screen, I was like, oh, well, I mean, okay, they got this guy, you know, like because the narrative was always the same and and me, of all people should not have bought into it. But it was an inexorable barrage of information that was all one sided. Um, and Daniel, your sister, your amazing sister, you know, wouldn't
leave me alone. And at first I was like, can you leave me alone? And she was like, no, I can't. And I was like, but I want you to. And then once I got into it and I started talking to Eric, and I started talking to others, and I was like, oh my god, he's as innocent as could be. This is terrible. That's why we're here. You're on the forest for three years. And this whole thing happened in what years two thousand fourteen, which was a very fraught time.
So we say a lot of controversy around Ferguson and other um, which you know contin used to this day. Of course, there's a lot of stuff that still has to be worked out as it relates to the relationships between various police departments and the people they serve and protect. It was rough, you know, they're at what you centered far as the atmosphere in the environment at that time with the Ferguson deal. I mean, cops down days are
perceived as racist, corrupt, um, something wrong with them. It's not like back in the old days where God Cossar honored, you know, as a partiful job. You know, this this this guy is a good guy. That's some more long lines of being skeptical, you know, and so um. Again, the Ferguson deal, what happened then the Baltimore deal was going on there, So it was literally I as a
storm in that situation. I mean, I grew up, you know, obviously respecting anyone in a uniform, especially police officers, and you know, there are some bad apples. So of course when that stuff goes gets out on video, the public is going to react because it's it's a betrayal of a very serious level of trust. Which is not to say that the overwhelming majority of police officers aren't out there doing the good job, risking their lives and performing
a service that we all need. Um, you're ultimately convicted of false charges related to eight different cases, So they got it wrong eight times, and actually more than that when you think about it, because there were numerous charges on most of those cases anywhere or all of them. So yeah, they got it wrong eight times, whatever number. I mean, it's really that's scary, Jennifer, you want to jump in. Yeah, Yeah, it was definitely shocking to hear
these allegations, especially the first one. And the reason why I'm so passionate about it is because when this first happened, I wanted to know everything. I wanted to read all the transcripts. I wanted to watch anything that I can get my hand on to see could my brother have really have done this? And everything that I've looked into, everything that I've read and knowing Daniel, and not just because he's my brother, but just because the facts of everything that I put my hands on or that I
could touch, nothing pointed to Daniel's guilt. And that's what really got me. And I say this to this day. If there was anything that proved or showed anything, I would have back out and said, Daniel, you deserve every second being in prison forever doing this to a woman. And I haven't found one single thing that pointed me to say that Dane did any of the crimes that he has been convicted of. And so that's why I am very passionate about this and I will fight till
the day I die to get my brother out. So just started when Jenny Liggans she was a woman that Daniel pulled over. Right, And Jenny, you've obviously been so deep in this ever since it happened. You wanted to walk us through this because it's really weird. Right. The video evidence doesn't match the descriptions don't match like what happened. So Danielle got off of work about two AM. That was his normal shift. And it was proven in trial that when Dane would get off of work they looked
through his system. He would normally just turn off his laptop and head home. It was nothing that farest that he did that night that he pulled Jennie Liggins over on his way home not too far from the police department. He saw a car swerving tennant windows Limo at two a m. You can't see through those tennant windows, so it's not like Daniel targeted a woman driving. So he pulled over, questioned her. He asked her if he could search her car. He brought her to his police vehicle
and then he searched the car. He did say that he saw hydro code on bottles and then he did the whole search. Is there anything underneath your bra the class and shake and she did that looking for drugs, looking for drugs and any weapons. And everything that Daniel claimed had happened matched up to what Jennie Lincoln said. Besides the sexual assault, Jennie Ligganns claimed that when she was in the back of Daniel's vehicle that Dale made her perform oral sex right where he had pulled her over.
There's a security building that there's a grainy video on YouTube right now that you can see the traffic stop, and you can't see everything. You can see a police officer pulling her over. He had his lights on, he never turned his lights off. And it was right on a busy intersection off of fifty in Lincoln in Oklahoma City. And um, there was actually an off duty cop that does like a side job that is a security for that security building. So it's not like Daniel pulled this
person over on on a side street. It was a busy intersection and Daniel let her go. And the following morning is when she made the claims about the sexual assault. A little later that morning, actually, I think ye hours, which is a significant point, right because we have with us in the room, as I introduced you before, a respected biologist whose works in this field. Well, looking at this from the biologist, what was important for me to see is that Jennie Liggins made claims that were not
supported by the forensic evidence. She had a same kit done that morning and was interviewed by a female sex crimes detective and the same kit ultimately came back negative. There was no DNA from Daniel found around Janie's mouth and the swabs there, and during the trial the forensic analysts actually said unfortunately there was no DNA from Daniel,
which showed her bias. Janie Higgins had said that Daniel had placed his hands on the car and she had placed her hands in the patrol car, but fingerprint analysis and DNA was not found matching either of them on the car, so her descriptions did not match what was found with the forensic evidence. There was no forensic evidence supporting what she said happened, and later it was discovered
after the stop that Daniel did. When Janie talked with the sex crimes detective Detective Davis, Janie disclosed that she had been smoking pot earlier that day, and she described the police officers having blonde hair and being shorter. It just didn't match Daniel. I mean, she must have been high as a kite, because if Daniel's blonde, then you know, I'm the Prime Minister of Egypt, you know what I mean. Likes dark hair obviously and short. He's six too, So
none of this stuff makes any sense. How could you get that wrong? You get a lot of things right. You can't get blond to black hair wrong. And ultimately the detectives used Daniel's own police records specifically looking for African American women he had stopped who had criminal histories, and the detectives went and questioned over forty women fitting this profile and then got allegations from them to add to this initial allegation they had, So then they went fishing. Hello,
this is Detective Nave. I have received the tips on the phone when we talked quite clear, but like I said that the only time that I had that happened to be leave both VISTI to me it was the Black Office working with Extreme and I've been working in some cases and I received a tip that you may have been sexually assaulted by police officer. Because I've had to go to a lot of one they didn't come four, I've had to go find and only one race. That's
what infuriates me. Why did they only question one race? If they were really wanting to figure out if he's a serial rapist, why didn't the other races matter? You know? Why did they only question one? So that's very frustrating
for me. Yeah, it's disturbing because the lieutenant who was in charge of the investigation, and it says this during the trial, the lieutenant specifically looked back through six months of Daniel's police records and created a list of the African American women, specifically African American women quote who had a drug history, prostitution history, or a significant criminal history
whom Daniel had stopped. So people presumed Daniel was guilty of racism, when in fact, it was the detectives who we're targeting African American women at risk, African American women, encouraging them to make allegations against Daniel as they were railroading Daniel, right, and they would. They brought these women in and the videos are as troubling as the audience who was listening now probably thinks they are right. There's
one who's stuck in my head. I've forgotten her name, but who came in and said the seven times she was asked, did anything happen, and seven times she said no, And then eventually they got her to change her story. She then said that the only officer who had been inappropriate was a black police officer several years ago who exposed himself to her and then the detective kept on questioning, and ultimately this woman then claimed that Daniel had wanted
her to lift up her bra. He didn't say anything, but she just did it, and that was the whole allegation. He didn't even tell her. She just thought that she was supposed to. So that was glossed over by the detectives. I don't think that the detective reported that she actually accused a black police officer, just jumped instead right ahead to saying that Daniel had done something right. And the number were just summarily dismissed because they were so ridiculous
that they couldn't even take him to trial. There were eight people who made allegations against Daniel, and those allegations were weeded out right away, and so these were eight allegations made that never went to trial. And then the trial there were thirteen allegations. Five of them led to acquittals, and the eight that ended up causing convictions had numerous
problems in them. Like Jenny mentioned one of the women saying that it was a shorter police officer who was black, a shade darker than her own skin color, and you got the most number of few years for her allegations. Right, so you were mistaken for a short black guy. Um, and anyone who hasn't already seen pictures of Daniel take a look. I mean he was a linebacker and he's the six two, very bulky guy who's Asian. I mean, this is not confusing, right, this is this is nuts,
This is absolutely nuts. But with the sheer number of allegations seeming so overwhelming, it's kind of understandable how that could have continued to cast out on Daniel's innocence. After all, just because one allegation is doubtful does not disprove another, which is why we need to take a look at each allegation individually. I also want to be clear that we're not here to point at the alleged victims life
choices as evidence of credibility or lack thereof. Now, initially twenty one accusers came forward, but eight were eliminated immediately as false allegations against Daniel. For example, one of them alleged that Daniel had used his position as a police officers sexually assaulter after he had been put unadministrative leave. Others later admitted to lying, including Chinisee Barksdale. So he never touched you as this spell bad f and I just wanted to know like she wasn't only or anything.
You feel bad for him, I don't know, and you found out about her from one. Five of the remaining thirteen accusations resulted acquittal. For privacy protection, we will refer to each of these accusers as acquittal and a corresponding number. Acquittal one told investigators about an alleged assault made by an officer in an area that Daniel had never patrolled.
When investigators fed her details and a timeline to match Daniel's beat, she denied that story until getting arrested for unrelated drug charges, at which time she decided to agree to change her story to match the different location. Acquittal too claimed to have flashed Officer holst Law her reast, thinking that was what he wanted, even though he had not requested it. She denied any inappropriate contact. Then she told investigators about an alleged indecent exposure by a black
police officer. Acquittal three claimed that Daniel had raped her for twenty to thirty minutes and orally sodomized her through the unzipped fly of his pants. This alleged incident would have happened just hours before the Jenny Liggand's traffic stop. However, there was no match to her DNA either, as well as no evidence of body fluid on Daniel's lie. She also said that her attacker had ticketed her one year prior.
Daniel had never ticketed this woman. Acquittal four claimed that Daniel groped her breasts, but described the alleged groper as quote part Hispanic and having quote slightly gray hair. She also testified a court that lying and giving false social security numbers to the police is appropriate behavior. Lastly, Daniel friended and message with Acquittal five on Facebook after an incident involving an overdose on PCP in which Acquittal five disposed of the substance by eating a glass vial full
of it. In fact, Daniel escorted her life saving ambulance ride to the hospital. In her police interview, she claimed that while she was recovering from that incident, Daniel allegedly forced her into oral sodomy while she was handcuffed to her bed in a busy hospital. This is what she said on her way out of that interview. So this is good evidence, Well, you tell me, I think so, because I mean, even if he didn't like even right now,
a body lesson he yet right. So all five of these allegations ended an acquittal of the original twenty one accusers. Eight allegations resulted in convictions, and we're going to now one by one examine the facts of each case. Again, for protection of privacy, we refer to all as conviction and a corresponding number. You're already aware of. Conviction one.
Jenny Leggan's whom we covered earlier, conviction to alleged that Daniel had orally sodomized her near a public park, then transported her inside the public park by a closed school, and proceeded to rape her for five to ten minutes. This is how she described her attacker. Tell me your description of him, what mail commuscular? Muscular? So you think he's shorter than you? Okay, so I'll tell you follow it. What kind of car did he have? From electing on
what core Oklahoma City police car? Daniel also had made contact with her at some point near that old school in the public park, but when he did, his automatic vehicle locator or a v L a GPS device atracts the movements of police cars. Says that his car stopped for less than four minutes, not five to ten. He's also six two and half white, half Japanese, definitely not
shorter than five eleven, and definitely not black. Conviction three claimed that Daniel allowed her to drive under the influence while he followed her to her relative's house, at which point she alleged that he drove her to the end of the street and raped her. However, his a v L tells us that he never drove on that street. Further, the duration of the alleged rape changed from quote a long time to quote five to ten minutes, and then a trial to quote maybe about three minutes or so.
But when she and Daniel did have an interaction, his a v L still would only allow for a window of less than three minutes for a possible attack. Conviction four alleged that when Daniel raped and orally sodomized her in her room in a house, that she wiped flegm from that oral sodomy on a chair. The swab from the chair, however, revealed the DNA profile of a mail that was not Daniel. Conviction five claimed that her alleged attacker drove the older model Oklahoma City p D black
and white. However, Daniel drove the newer all black Cruiser. Conviction six. Testified that her attacker was a tan color like someone from India, not dark, but not pale. She also claimed that he made her expose herself. However, a witness claimed that she was handcuffed at the start of their encounter. For Conviction seven, there's no DNA evans to speak of, but she did change her story several times. At first, an officer allegedly fondled her breast over her clothing.
Then at a preliminary hearing, she claimed that the groping was skin to skin contact. At trial, it was back to her over the clothing allegation. Finally, the crux of the prosecution's case, Conviction eight, a seventeen year old girl who claimed that Daniel pat searched her, inserted a finger in her vagina, and proceeded to rape her through the unzipped fly of his buckled pants on her mother's porch. This is what she had told her mother about their encounter.
I left the really hot cop. He told me I had a couple of one, but he said, don't worry about it. Should really not me affect nobody fluid was
detected or observed on the fly of his pants. However, a microscopic trace amount of her DNA was found in his fly, along with DNA from at least two other individuals, including at least one unknown male, which goes to support the defenses theory that the presence of her DNA on his fly can be explained by secondary transfer transfer of DNA to objects or people through an intermediate The main evidence in the case was DNA found on the fly of Daniel's pants, but the DNA evidence on the fly
of the pants included no evidence of body fluid, and ultimately, Daniel was accused of raping one woman through the unzipped fly of those buckled pants, and there's no stains, no deposits on them at all, So that would make it very unlikely that there had been any kind of sexual assault to be able to give evidence. That's just a low quantity of DNA that matches most closely with indirect transfer of DNA. Is it possible for Daniel to have done these crimes and not left any trace of biological
evidence anywhere? I would say very unlikely. This is so troubling because the idea that Daniel or anyone could be convicted of eight different crimes with the absence of any real biological evidence. And it takes you, coming from Iowa, an outsider, to come in and do the work that the forensic people should have and could have very easily done in the first place. The mistakes, there's so many mistakes that we don't have time to cover it on
this show. I mean, I have a list of of them, right, And there's no way we could talk for hours that we wouldn't cover all of the mistakes that were made, both deliberate and sloppy mistakes, right, um so, But but back to you. When I looked at the news about the case, which is how I found out about it, it was mentioning how the prosecutors were so proud to have gotten convictions on eight women's allegations based on a little bit of DNA. The more I looked, I saw
there's no evidence of body fluids. And it turns out the forensic analysts just looked at the pants with the bright light and magnifying glass and saw there was no evidence of vaginal fluid or body fluid, and then went right to testing just the fly of the pants. She did not do any control tests on other places on Daniel's uniform pants and belts. The main problem I think at the Oklahoma City Police Department is the detectives and
then the prosecutors above them. They just did not understand that DNA can transfer innocently, and so as soon as they found a mixture of DNA on the fly of Daniel's pants, the police thought that meant he was guilty of sexual conduct and therefore guilty of sexual crimes. They wanted to then go out and find the female who matched the major contributor to that DNA mixture, assuming she
was a victim. So they had that mindset, that bias that developed into tunnel vision on Daniel right from the beginning of the investigation, and then went out and solicited allegations from women whom Daniel had stopped. And it's no surprise that some of the women did remember, yes, they were stopped by Daniel, because they had been contacted because
the police knew Daniel stopped them. Daniel's case would be like someone meeting with you in your office and then later they find a woman's DNA on the fly of your pants and the woman said, yes, I was at his office and they conclude that you're guilty just because
you had an interaction with someone. So if you shook hands this morning with somebody who you met on the street, and then you went into a friend whatever, and then they went and went to the bathroom afterwards, a little bit of your DNA touch DNA would be on somewhere on the wherever they apt on button, it would be there.
It could very well to be there, right, because we're always transferring to end, always shedding like we always It's like we leave it on every day, we leave it on the coffee cup, we leave it everywhere we go. When you were first taken in for questioning, did you request a lawyer. I didn't request the lawyer at the time.
I just wanted to do, uh, be professional. I wanted to hear my name in any department in law more than you where you go off and you want to go to the promotion, you want to go to any in special unit. Your is what's online and when people were about so I'm talking to my name. I don't know what you got kind of allegated you got. I'm
not my name. We'll track co operating, get out of there, right, but we see so many times when we see young kids picked up I please for questioning, and they don't even know they're supposed to ask for a lawyer right there in high school, or they're from there, from a background where they had no, you know, knowledge of how these things work. You were in law enforcement, right, so it seems to me logical that if you were concerned,
the first thing you would have done. Your college graduate, your whole families, your whole life has been law enforcement. You've got a degree in criminal justice. I mean that's where I go. Well, wait a minute, if if there was anything on your mind, the first thing you would have said is okay, I want to learn. I'm not talking to you guys now. And actually you went in the complete opposite direction from what I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong. You turned over your passwords, you turned
over the keys to your apartment. I mean, can you just elaborate on that, and why did you do those things? I'm basically properated the fullest anything that I answered, again, I wanted to be professional. Then uh ra and um, they asked, I answered, uh And that's kind of how in the sense that you were training academy. You know, you you're broken down and then you're raided up. And so you if you're asked a question, you're addressed. You're
gonna reply anything that they asked. Yeah, go ahead, please please do that. Go ahead and go with DNA test, and go ahead and go to my apartment, whatever you need to do to clear my name so I could get back and continue my job. But I thought I did really good at please do after this had become this insane media circus that that reached people all over the world. And now you go to trial and I'm
sure it was a crazy scene there. Just give us your perspective on how the trial went, how your defense team handled it, and what your expectations were a long period time. Then this has happened during the Thanksgiving break. So the biggest thing I want to try to address the audience is how big of anti media affects people's perception in their opinions. So when they used that national media into the aid of the office, I'm already pursumed
guilty for our step in that court room. So when Judge Henderson asked the jury members, are every in the court room, where's your right handed to you have seen this man? Or are ever heard of the name Daniel who I looked up the whole court room raise your hands. So imagine yourself being there finding for your life, and the whole courtroom already knows who you are based off the opinions of the media. And again, media has such of a fact on the outcome of cases because all
it shows it's highlights. They don't show the facts. They could edit and they can crop whatever they want to say what they want. And then the majority of the cases is the wrong narrative. It's false, it's not the right facts. So with that said, it was a huge burden overcome. So it's too guilty. Then you gotta prove yourself be interested. And on the top of that, you have a whole jury members that perception in their mind
it's already oh, he's already pursumed guilty. And then, like I said, going back to the big giving break, it's a long trial. So you have Jeff Henderson's cor uras is, don't talk to your significant others when you go back home. Come on, listen, reality, that's not gonna happen. You know, honey, what did you do today? Well, I was at the whole small trial, the biggest thing going on in Oklahoma. You know all national news Oklahoma. Of course you're gonna
talk about it. So it reinforces the people that are not even like court room that the husband and wife, Oh well, he's guilty, he's guilty. This he's just planted into the jury member's mind and they're hearing that. So it's reinforcing the presumption of guilt. So that's something I want to reinforce the people in my adi is to understand being in my position, how hard it is device for that, you know, And so we come back from Thanksgiving break and then only that you have the board
my lawyers. You know, we hired a DNA expert, and yet you know they end up finding you know, this DNA we have to wait till Erica comes along to find that that's that's not right. You know, I'll find it for my life. We hired, we spend hard working money for the DNA expert, and yet you're gonna stay oled me on that. Um. There's a lot of parts were in the trial. I felt like, you know, my Lord could have stepped up and objected or said something, And there was times of where I was mad. You
know what I'm getting I'm getting flustering. I'm trying to keep my composure because the jurors members are looking at me, but you know, I'm getting mad. And I remember one time I'm just like Scott, what are you injected? Like what are you doing? And we kind of got into bigger minies like calm down and calm down. Well, it's hard for me to calm down when you see these quote unquote victims that go on the stands, they're not
even addressing the questions. In the addition to that, you have Fleet Detective Davis and Gregory that are coaching them along had not in everything they want to say. Okay, yeah, that's where I continue on and they're looking at Davis and I'm looking at the geror members. Are you serious or you're not? Are you're not saying this? And so it was really frustrating, um the whole process. Uh, obviously, I was in total shock when the rider came down and it was just released that time, you know, not
possible would happen. My friend Josh Dubin conducted a study with help from a lot of other people that showed that jury members have a presumption of guilt that theaters on just because they see somebody in the defendant's box. In your case, it was probably a hundred percent of them assumed you must be guilty of something because it was impossible to find a jury that hadn't heard about the case. You couldn't have found one anywhere in America at that point in time, but at least of all
in Oklahoma. Um, so in your case, they you know, and and then being the amateur psychologist that I am, you know, when the jury is they're sitting there and then they're being presented with evidence that they're you know, they're they're not dumb people. So they're sitting there going this doesn't make sense, and that wasn't true, and this doesn't add up. And he's not a black guy, and he's not short, and he's not blond. And but on the other hand, I saw this thing on TV and yeah,
I mean it's it's it's a lot, a lot. I can jump here too, because what's really important is how
the DNA evidence contributed heavily to Daniel's conviction. Because the prosecutor actually said in his closing argument quote, the most important thing about the teenager whose DNA profile was found on the fly of Daniels pants is the fact, said the prosecutor, that DNA from the walls of her vagina was transferred in vaginal fluids on the outside and the inside, not of his pockets, not of his cuff, not where he sits, but at the exact location she says his
penis came in contact. The prosecutor lied to the jury telling them there was vaginal fluid. There was not, And we know from a juror's interview after the trial that the jury, at least this one juror thought there was vaginal fluid because he was interviewed on Crime Watch Daily and he said, well, I mean, I'm not a DNA expert. They told us that DNA was from the vaginal fluid of a seventeen year old. The DNA people are pretty boring, to be honest with you. End quote. Well, I mean,
I'm not the DNA expert. They told us it was a d N A from the vaginal fluid from a seventeen year old. DNA people are pretty boring to be honest with you. So we know at least one juror was misled by the prosecutor to believe there's vaginal fluid, and so of course they're going to end up convicting, not just for the teenagers allegations, but the jurors explained afterwards that this impacted their deliberations for all these allegations. Yeah,
and this is during closing arguments. Could you lawter have objected in the closing argument he still can, Yeah, and he should have. In fact, it should be a mistrial, and he didn't. They didn't infect that. That's crazy to a gross misstatement. Another problem in the trial is that the forensic analysts misrepresented the DNA evidence on the fly of Daniels pants. There was a mixture of DNA from
at least three people. There are four different stretches of fabrics too on the outside and too on the inside of the fly that were swabbed, and it turns out all of them had male DNA. And the reason this is significan can't is the prosecution ended up arguing that they claimed Daniel's DNA was not there, and so if he had just innocently transferred DNA matching the teenager accuser,
you would supposedly expect to find Daniel's DNA there. The forensic analysts ended up telling the jury there was no male DNA on the inside of the fly, and the prosecutor again and again would have her say that there's no DNA, so daniels danna is not there, and then argued to the jury that this meant it was very unlikely that you could have DNA transferring innocently, so the jury was misled into believing there was no male DNA. The forensic analysts also was wrong when she concluded daniels
DNA did not contribute. That was a major error. The DNA evidence did not allow that conclusion. There's such low level of DNA you can't tell from whom the DNA came. Daniel's DANNA could be there, but at low levels, so you don't detect altenetic regions. Anytime you have DANNA mis represented in a trial, it's bad because DNA weighs so
heavily in the minds of jurors. Daniel's attorney never even challenged these claims by the States forensic analysts that there was no male DANNA or that Daniel's DANNA wasn't there. So this is actually the perfect storm for a wrongful conviction. Right, you have the media frenzy reporting inaccuracies left and right, making up a narrative that sells advertising time or newspapers. You have a jury pool that then is hopelessly tainted.
You have bumbling and competent and biased investigators throughout this process. You have a defense attorney who is, I don't want to say incompetent, but was not up to the task. Because this is as serious as a case could be. We're talking about life in prison. I mean, I just did the math Daniels sentence. If you were to serve as sentence, keep be in prison until the year two thousand,
two hundred and seventy seven. Then you have a prosecutor who lied, forensic people who lied, or were misstated or inaccurate, whatever the word you want to choose. With all of that, the outcome was preordained. Did you have any hope that you would still be vindicated? Will always believing the judicial system. That's why I was the cop and so you know, I believe justice will deserved. I believe that I'll be aerated. Um.
I remember vividly there was a jew. Remember that she was a female that I would look and you know, acknowledge every time they came in the courtroom and left the courtroom. She would look at me, she would smile. And when the verdict was coming in and they walked into the courtroom, I saw males the mail jerm members
of material and then I saw her crying hysterically. And this is what I'm really freaking out and I'm shaking under you know what's going on and I'm a door to my lawyers and I'm like, well and she's trying, and certainly everyone's crying to remember and they that because you thought it was a guilty villain, why you cried, you know? And then when they read dog and American, they said out guilty. I mean, I was just a whole shock. I don't even remember when I did or
what happened. I just remember I think I just dropped my head, and you know, it's like, God, why you know what's going on? And it would oh, I know it wasn't dropped my head and something that I believed
the judices and judices will kill me. M We're here because we want to educate the public as to how these things can happen and how it could happen to someone you love, and to educate people who are going to be serving on juries at some point in their life that you know, whoever is listening, it could have been you in that jury box, and how would you have done? And I'm sure people are saying, well, I would never have convicted him, but the twelve people did.
And how could they get it so wrong? How could they look at at at things that are so clearly black and white, um, and go, yeah, I know it's false, but you know, and they had a complicated task. They're looking at things that they know are false, right, They're looking at testimony that they know is false from a
number of different people. At the same time, they're being presented with quote unquote evidence by people who they respect, prosecutors and forensic people, and so they're they're stuck in a conflict. But but as citizens and as everyone again potential jury members, your duty is too if there's doubt to acquit, you know, it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That's something we all learn in high school, right, beyond a reasonable doubt. Not maybe it could be I
don't know. It's a conflict. I'm mature, you know. And then there's that that that quote that I can never say enough times better that a hundred guilty men should go freedom, That one and is should suffer and that's sort of been turned on its head. But Daniel, here you are, You're stuck in a situation that would break I think most people. How do you do it? Day by day? How? I mean, how are you getting along on the inside? Being a Christian? I think there's a
plan for everything. And I used to hate hearing that as a cliche and just I was cornering you what things happened for a reason, And I used to hate that. But I think there's a greater purpose in God, and I think God has a plan for me. And you know, beat down in my heart, I know I'm only free. I know justice will be served as much as I believe in that system. And now I have a little bit of hope in there, and I believe it's going
to happen. And what that said, I can be here possible without any all my loved ones and supporters, so everyone that has come along the way, it's a blessing. It's a just an act of God right there. And um body never gave, never had a thought of giving up. So I know I'm gonna be free. I'm not gonna let this, you know, change who I am in that day when I'm free, you better bet your blood. And I'm I'm going to fight for all the wrongful connected people out there. If I have a platform I'm going
to fight from. I've been on build things that cop and now I'm a convict, and so I'm definitely gonna do my best to help everyone out there in the world that's in my position. Well, it's gonna be an honor to work with you. UM, So what happens next and how can people help? I suggest people if they want to learn more go to free Deil Holds Claude dot com, um my Facebook Jenny Holds Clause public so UM I post all the facts and information and give daily updates of what's going on with his case. Let
me just repeat that. So it's free Daniel Holds Claude dot com, which is free Daniel h O l t z c l a W dot com, or to go to Jenny Holts claud which is j N and y H O L t z c l a W on Facebook. Correct. Another thing I want to point on to um as
we have a petition going. We have over thirty five thousand signatures right now and you can find that on my Facebook or freed dot com for the link to actually sign the petition, and of course I'll be posting about it as well on my Instagram at It's Jason flom Um Erica, you look like you've got something to add. The main point for me was how I feel Daniel's case is a tragedy because our society's noblest desires to end racism and sexism and police brutality ended up convicting
an innocent man. So that is a tragedy where a good thing about our society wanting to care about victims of sexual assault lead people down this path to torture
an innocent man and send him to prison. At this point in the show, this is the point that I think, I always say is my favorite part of the show, where I get to thank each of you again for being here any holes Claws, Sister and freedom fighter and Erica Fuch biologists and dedicated activists to righting these wrongs, and of course you Daniel, and I'd like to uh
so again thank you all for being here. And then Daniel, I want to turn it over to you for this is a part of the show where I turned my microphone off and I get to just listen and you can just uh, you know, wrap it up in any way you want to talk about anything you want and make sure we didn't miss anything as well. So thank you, thank you again for for sharing and calling in from prison, and now turn over to you. All right, I'll just trying to be quick versus thank you for having pled time.
I loved ones and everyone's close to come on board and be able to speak my side instance, I appreciate it. Jason. Um just to add, you know real fast and case is so complex and that I want to really articulate this the media. And if someone asked me, well, why do you think you're rothly convicted Daniel, I'd probably say the honest with you is just the media. I think
the media plays a huge factor in people's perception. Like I said earlier in the show, Um, people watch today, you know TV shows where it's Law and Order, n C I C, n C I as you know, all the types of shows, and they believe, you know, the stuff happens in that's TV shows. Those are movies. That's not the reality of what happened, and that's the corpos. People believe that this defendant, that high profile on national television. Oh man, he must be guilty. Oh and then the
defense layer, oh man, he's grow up, defense laer. He's just trying to get paid. He's going to trying to get him off on a technicality. Well that's not the case, you know, So please just don't believe in to the media. Don't believe in that mass medium manipulation where they they're feeding you these one minute sections where they can end in a crop where they want to do and the majority of them are just goes to the net. The prosecute sided people believe the prosecutions are the good guys,
not all the cases. It's not that big care about all the care about its confectionary. So I just ask that you guys please look into the facts of the cases. Don't you know the famous quotas don't judge a book funds cover. You know you've seen this mass me if you know in this case going on, and you continue to see even National two, CNN, you know, Fox News, you have sixty second big time media outlets. Just don't
jump to the assumption that this person guilty. Look in the facts of the case and actually, you know, do your homework and uh that would you definitely does you know Tom out with your own opinion that don't don't believe what the media always try to portray. So I know it's about to hang up right now. But again, thank you everyone, all the loved one, all the fighters that came along and spirital that brought at right now because thanks to you guys, I love you guys. Thank
you so much for being area. I'm gonna continue to fight, uh never get up and on no one will be free. So I thank you everyone out there's been listening. Love you Daniel. Hi, Daniel, don't forget to give us a fantastic review wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps. And I'm a proud donor to the Innocence Project and I really hope you'll join me in supporting this very important cause and helping to prevent future wrongful convictions. Go to Innocence Project dot org to learn how to donate
and get involved. I'd like to thank our production team, Connor Hall and Kevin Wardis. The music on the show is by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction podcast Wrongful Conviction with Jason Flam is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company Number one one