At two a m.
On June eighteenth, twenty fourteen, Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holsclaw finished up his shift. On his way home in his police cruiser, he pulled over fifty seven year old Janny Liggins for a traffic violation at a busy intersection where surveillance footage shows a normal traffic stop. Around three hours later, Miss Wiggins 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 abusing their power or sexually assaulting women. It all seemed to fit a grim and growing narrative, and.
A media circus ensued.
At first, and I'm embarrassed to admit this, I jumped 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 cop narrative right on its head.
In this amazing and alarming episode, we will speak with Daniel's sister, Jennifer Holsklaw biologist Erika Feusch, and will also take a phone call from an undisclosed correctional facility from former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holsklaw, 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 through through a very different lens than.
We've ever covered before.
And today we're going to be talking about the case of Daniel Holsklaw, 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.
I appreciate you guys having me on and my loved one and be able to have out the opportunity and definitely think and express.
My NiTi well, we hope to be part of the solution. And with us in the studio, we have two extraordinary women. One is a biologist, Erica Fusch, welcome.
To the show, Thank you, Jason.
And with her is one of the most persistent and brave women I've come across, the sister of Daniel. Jennifer's here and without you, I can honestly say this wouldn't be happening.
Thank you for giving us the time.
Nor your courage is inspiring. And Daniel's same for you. 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 had 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 me, of all people should not have bought into it. But it was an inexorable
barrage of information that was all one sided. 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 force for three years. And this whole thing happened in what year, twenty fourteen, which was a very fraught time. So we say a lot of controversy around Ferguson and other which you know 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 the what you centered far as the atmosphere and the environment at that time with the Ferguson deal, I mean, cops down days are perceived as racist, corrupt, something's wrong with them. It's not like back in the old days where God costs were honored, you know, as a priceful job. You know this, this this guy is a good guy. That's some more
along the lines of being skeptical. You know, and so again the Ferguson deal, what happened then the Baltimore deal was going on there, so it was literally by as a storm and that situation.
I mean, I grew up, you know, obviously respecting anyone in a uniform, but 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. But 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. You were 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 anyway, 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 am so passionate about is because when this first happened, I wanted to know everything.
I wanted to read, all the transcripts.
I wanted to watch anything that 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 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 back out and see, Dane, 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 Dale 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 this started when Janny Liggins. She was a woman that Daniel pulled over. Right, And Jenny, you've obviously been so deep in this ever since it happened. You want 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 and trial that when Dale 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 farius that he did that night that he pulled Jannie Liggins over on his way home not too far from the police department. He saw a car swerving. Tenant windows limo tint at two am, you can't see through those tenant windows, So it's not like Daniel targeted a woman driving, so he pulled over, questioned her.
He had 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 codon bottles and then he did a whole search. Is there anything underneath your bra The class been 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 Jannie Leggan said. Besides the sexual assault, Jennie Liggins 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 to 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 fiftieth in Lincoln in Oklahoma City. And there was actually an off duty cop that does like a side shop that is a security for that security building. So it's not like Daniel pulled this person over 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, yeah, free 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 Jannie Liggans 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 analyst actually said unfortunately there was no
DNA from Daniel, which showed her bias. Janie Niggins 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 this stop that Daniel did. When Jannie talked with the sex crimes detective Detective Davis, Jannie disclosed that she had been smoking pot earlier that day, and she described the police officer as having blonde hair and being shorter.
It just didn't match right 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. Like, he has dark hair obviously, and Shorty's six to two, So none of this stuff makes any sense. How could you get that wrong. You get a lot of things wrong. You can't get blonde 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 days.
I have received a tiptive being clear on the thumb when we talked.
Oyah, quite clear.
But like I said, that's the only time that.
I had that happened to me.
Both they said to me that was.
A black office.
I work in sext fronts and I've been working in some cases and I received a tip that you may have been sexually assaulted by a police officer.
Because I've had to go to a lot of women they didn't come forward, 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?
Right, 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 were targeting African American women at risk African American women, encouraging them to make allegations against Daniel as they were railroading Daniel, right.
And they brought these women in and the videos are as troubling as the audience who's 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'd 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's 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 a 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 leone got the most number of YEW years for her allegations.
Right, so you were mistaken for a short, black guy. And anyone who hasn't already seen pictures of Daniel take a look. I mean he as a linebacker and he's the six to two, very bulky guy who's Asian.
I mean, this is not.
Confusing, right, 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 victim's 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 officer as sexually assault her after he had been put on administrative leave. Others later admitted to lying including Shenise Barksdale.
So he never touched you.
I've never seen why.
I just felt bad for her, and I just wanted to know like she wasn't the only victim or anything you feel bad for whom I.
Don't know about the fifty cents and you found out about her from one Facebook. Five of the remaining thirteen accusations resulted in acquittal. For privacy protection, we will refer to each of these accusers as quote 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 two claimed to have flashed Officer holst Law her breasts, 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 Janny Liggans traffic stop. However, there was no match to her DNA either, as well
as no evidence of body fluid on Daniel's fly. 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 breast, but described the alleged groper as quote part Hispanic and having quote slightly gray hair. She also testified in quote that lying and giving false social security numbers to the police.
Is appropriate behavior.
Lastly, Daniel friended a 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 oralsodomy 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, no about.
Eleven, he fit yea.
So all five of these allegations ended in acquittal of the original twenty one accusers. Eight allegations resulted in convictions, and we are 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 Leggins, whom we
covered earlier. Conviction two, 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.
He's black man, muscular, muscular, So you think he's shorter than you?
Yeah, okay, I'll tell you.
Even what kind of car did he have?
A black and white black and white cor Oklahoma City Police Corps.
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 AVL, a GPS device attracts 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 AVL 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 AVL 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 phlegm from that oralsodomy 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 PD 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 Dan 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 skinned 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.
She said, it's really hot.
Cop he told me I had a couple of one, but said, don't worry about it. She's really nicely affecting.
No body fluid was detected or observed on the fly of his pants. However, a microscopic trace amount of her DNA was found on his fly, along with DNA from at least two other individuals, including at least one unknown male, which goes to support the defensive 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 intermediary.
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. 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 ninety five 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. So, 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. 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 or 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, a touch DNA would be on somewhere on the wherever they und after on button, it would be there.
It could very well be there, right because.
We're always transferring together, 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 taking in for questioning, did you request a lawyer.
I didn't request a lawyer at the time. I just wanted to do a professional I wanted.
To clear my name on you in an any department in law.
Or your replications before you go off of and you want to go to a promotion, you want to go to any special unit. Your replication is what's online and when people here about you. And so I'm talking clear my name. I don't know what you got kind of allegation you as before me, I'm talking clear my name. I'll try to cooperate and get.
Out of there, right.
But we see so many times when we see young kids picked up by police 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 they're from a background where they had no 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. You're a college graduate, your whole family's, 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 there was anything on your mind, the first thing you would have said is okay, I want to lawyer. I'm not stocking 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 basically cooperated as fools anything, As I answered again, I wanted to be professional. I didn't raiseel I didn't. They asked. I answered, And that's kind of how in the sense that you were training academy. You know, you're broken down and then you're rated up, and so if you're asked the question, you're dressed, you're going to reply anything that they asked. Yeah, go ahead, please please do that. Go ahead and go with the 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'd really good at it.
Please do after this had become this insane media circus 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.
Trial was a long period time and this has happened during the Thanksgiving break. So the biggest thing I want to try to address to the audience is how big of an attack media affects people's perception in their opinions. So when they use that national media into the aid of the office, I'm already presumed guilty before I step in that courtroom. So when Judge Henderson asked the jury members, are everyone in the court room, brings your right handed to you have seen this man or ever heard of
the name Daniel. I looked up the whole courtroom raise your hand. So imagine yourself being there finding for your life, and the whole court room already knows who you are based off the opinions of the media. And again media has such as a fact on the outcome of cases because all it shows is highlights. They don't show the facts. They could edit and they could crop whatever they want to say what they want. And the majorty 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 you guilty. Then you got to prove yourself innocent. And on top of that you have a whole duram members of that perception in their mind is already oh, he's already presumed guilty. And then, like I said, going back to the bank giving break, it's a long trial. So you have Jess Henderson's quarterners is don't talk to your sipnificant others when you go back home. Come on, let's in reality, that's not going to happen.
You know, honey, what did you do today? Well, I was at the Hole small trial, the biggest thing going on in Oklahoma. You know, all national news Oklahoma. Of course you're going to talk about it. And so it reinforces the people that are not even the court room, the husband and wife, Oh well, he's guilty. He's guilty of this. He's just playing it into the jury member's minds and they're hearing that. So it's reinforcing the presumption
of guilt. So that's something I want to reinforce the people in the audience to understand, be in my position, how hard it is to fight for that, you know. And so we come back from Thanksgiving break and then only that you have to board my lawyers. You know, we hire a DNA expert, and yet you know they didn't finding you on this DNA. We have to wait till Eric comes along to find that that stuff's not right.
You know, I'll find it for my life. We hired, we spent hard working money for the DNA expert, and yet you're gonna say kill me on that. There's a lot of parts were in the trial. I felt like, you know, my lawyer could have stepped up and objected or said something. And there was times where I was mad. You know, I'm getting I'm getting frusterted. 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 injecting? Like what are you doing? And we kind of got into Bigger Mintie's like calm down, I'll calm down. Well, it's hard for me to calm down when you see these quote unquote victims that go on the stands, we're not even addressing the questions. In addition to that, you have leet Detective Davis and Gregory that are coaching them along
head nodding 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 jurior members are you serious.
Or you're not?
Are you not seeing this? And so it was really frustrating the whole process. Uh, obviously I was in total sock when the murder came down, and it was just, you know, something that didn't ever possible would happened.
My friend Josh Dubin conducted a study with a help from a lot of other people that showed that jury members have a presumption of guilt that teeters on eighty percent just because they see somebody in the defendant's box. In your case, it was probably one 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 least of all in Oklahoma.
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, well, 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 blonde. 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 It's really important is how the DNA evidence contributed heavily to Daniel's conviction, because the prosecutor actually said in his closing the 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 to 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. So the prosecutor lied to the jury telling them there was vaginal fluid that was 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 Crimewatch Daily and he said, well, I mean, I'm not a DNA expert. They told us the 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 NA expert. They told us it was the DNA from the vaginal fluid from a seventeen year old. The DNA people are pretty boring, to be honest with you.
So we know at least one der 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 teenager's allegations, but the jurors explained afterwards that this impacted their deliberations for all these allegations.
Yeah, and this was during closing arguments. Could you later have objected in the closing argument?
He still can. Yeah, and he should have. But in fact it should be a mistrial.
And he did it.
Yeah, they didn't effect that. Yeah, 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 Daniel's pants. There was a mixture of DNA from at least three people. There were four different stretches of fabrics, two on the outside and two on the inside of the fly that were swabbed, and it turns out all of them had
male DNA. And the reason this is signific 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 DNA 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 analyst also was wrong when she concluded Daniel's 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. DNA could be there, but at low levels, so you don't detect au genetic regions. So anytime you have DNA misrepresented 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 DNA or that Daniel's DNA 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 Daniel's sentence. If he were to serve a sentence, he'd be in prison until the year twenty 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.
Well, I always believe in the judicial system. That's why I was the cop, and so you know, I believe justice will be served. I believe that I'll because honerator. I remember vividly there was a dream member that she was a female that I was looking, you know, acknowledge. Every time they came in the courtroom, I 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 a males, the male cheir members and material eye and then I saw her crying hysterically, and I'm this is when I'm really.
Freaking out and I'm shaking under you know what's going on? And I'm looking over to my lawyers and I'm like, well, more than what's going on, you know, And she's crying hysterically. Everyone's crying and remembers that.
You thought it was a guilty villain.
Why you cried, you know? And then when they read docs and Americans, I'm guilty.
I mean, I was listening a total shock.
I don't even remember what I in or what happened. I just remember I think I just dropped my head and you know, like Jod, why you know what was going on? And it would oh, I know it's not dropped my head, and uh, something that I believe in justice would kill me.
Mm hm.
We're here because we want to educate the public as to how these things could 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's 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 twelve people did.
And how could they get it so wrong? How could they look at things that are so clearly black and white 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 stuck in a conflict. But as citizens and as everyone again potential jury remembers, your duty is to 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 not sure, you know.
And then there's that quote that I can never say enough times better that one hundred guilty men should go free than that one is and 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 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, be down in my heart, I know I'm on me 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 with that said, I can be here, if possible, without any of all my loved ones and supporters. So everyone that has come along the way. It's a blessing. It's just the act of God right there and finding never gave up, never had a thought of giving up. So I know I'm gonna be free. I'm not gonna let this, you know, change you who I am in that day when I'm free, you better bet your blood. And I'm gonna fight for all the wrongful convicted people
out there. If I have a platform I'm gonna fight from. I've been on built days at the cop and now I'm Aconvic 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. So what happens next and how can people help?
I suggest people, if they want to learn more, go to free Daniel holds Claw dot com. My Facebook Jenny holds Claw is public, so I post all the facts and information and give daily updates of what's going.
On with his case.
Let me just reread that.
So it's free Daniel Holtz Claw dot com, which is free Daniel h O l t z c l a W dot com, or or go to Jenny Hols Claud which is j N N Y h o Ltzclaw on Facebook.
Correct.
Another thing I want to point on too is we have a petition going. We have over thirty five thousand signatures right now, and you can find that on my Facebook or freading holds cloud 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 flam 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 it innocent man. So that is a tragedy where a good thing about our society wanting to care about victims of sexual assault led people down this path to torture an innocent man and send into 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, Claus sister and freedom fighter, and Erica Fush biologist 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 the part of the show where I turned my microphone off and I get to just listen and you can just you know, wrap it up in any way you want and talk about anything you want and make sure we didn't miss anything as well. So thank you, thank you again for sharing and calling in from prison, and now turn over to you.
All right, I'll just try to be quick out versus thank you for having us. I'm my loved ones and everyone close to come on board and be able to speak my side instance, I appreciate it. Jason just to add, you know, a real fast and Jase is so complex and that I want to really articulate is the media. And if someone asked me, well, why do you think you're wroughly convicted Daniel, I'd probably say, to be 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, people Watch Today. You know TV shows where it's Law and Order, n c C and c I S. You know all those types of shows, and they believe you know the stuff happens in the courtor Well, that's TV shows. Those are movies. That's not the reality of what happens. And atual courtrooms. People believe that this defendant, the high profile on national television, Oh man, he must be guilty. Oh and then the defense lawyer,
oh man, he's grow up. Defense lawyer. He's just trying to get paid. Here's just going to try to get him off on a technicality. Well that's not the case, you know, So please just don't believe into the media. Don't believe in that mass medium and manipulation where they they're feeding you these one.
Minute sections where they can edit.
And crop and wherever they want to do, and the majority of them are just loosen.
The prosecute decided. People believe the prosecutions are the good guys about all the cases.
It's not that they care about. All they care about is fectionary.
So I just asked that you guys please look into the facts.
Of the cases.
Don't you know the famous quotas don't judge a book Bud's cover. You know you've seen this mass media, you know, case going on in your communion scene in the national news CNN.
You know Box News have sixty seconds remaining.
Big time media outlets just don't jump to the assumption that this person guilty looking in the facts of the case and actually, you know, do your homework and that would definitely does you know, come out with your own opinion and don't don't believe what the media. I always try to protrude.
So I know it's about to hang up right now. But again, thank you everyone and all the.
Loved ones, with all the fighters that came along.
It's a spiracle that where I'm at right now.
It's big to you, guys.
I love you guys.
Thank you so much for being there.
Here we have thirty seconds remaining.
I'm gonna continue to fight. Uh never give up, and no one will be So thank you everyone out there and been listening.
I love 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 Wartis. The music in 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 and association with Signal Company Number one