Hi everyone. In our feed you've probably heard the podcast Wrongful Conviction, False Confessions, hosted by Laura and I Writer and Steve Drizzen, where they dive into the stories of innocent people who have been subject to tactics that elicit false confessions. As it turns out, these tactics are actually rooted in junk science, just like bite mark evidence, blood stained pattern analysis, and so many others that we have covered.
In this show, we want to make it clear that false confessions are another link in this chain of the junk science epidemic. For some of our more avid listeners, this will be something of a refresher for what you've already heard about how of wrongful convictions are based on false confessions. But in today's episode, we're going to unpack the story not of an individual case, but the story of how the junk science that's behind false confessions employed
in the interrogation room. Here's our show. It's a crisp fall morning and you're on your way to the first class of the day, psychology one on one. Just a few weeks ago, you started as a freshman at this small college in Massachusetts, and so far psych is your favorite class. You walk into your classroom and start taking off your jacket while your teacher makes some announcements. He says,
the psychology department is conducting an experiment. Participation is completely optional, but anyone who decides to participate will receive extra credit. You're already doing really well in this class, so the extra credit doesn't matter to you that much. But you're curious to see what a psychological experiment will be like, so you sign up. The next week, you show up to the room where the experiment will be conducted. When you get there, there's already another student waiting outside who
says she's also here for the experiment. It's not long before a professor comes out into the hall to greet you, and he's well, very professor looking. He wears a tweed jacket and his hair is slightly gray. The professor tells you in a very authoritative tone, to sit in front of the computer. He then motions for the other student to sit in the chair next to you. On the table in front of her, there's a piece of paper with letters printed on it. Then the professor takes his
seat across from you both. He says, welcome, thanks for joining us today. This experiment will test reaction times. One student will read from a list of letters well, the other will type out the letters that she calls out. It's actually a very simple experiment. He pauses for a moment, then looks you in the eye. Just one thing before we begin, be very careful not to hit the alt key. You see, it's right there next to the space bar.
The computer program we are using today is a little bit finicky, and hitting that alt key will cause the computerative crash, and if that happens, will lose all of our data, and we wouldn't want that to happen. It's not quite the experiment you were expecting, but it sounds like it will be, I guess kind of fun. You sit up straight, fingers hovering over the keyboard. The professor says, let's get ready and begin. The student next to you starts reading off letters B, A, J, B, T, S K.
The letters come quickly, but you keep up. You think of this as a game, and you want to win. Your laser focused on the task in front of you. But then the screen suddenly glitches and then it goes black. You sit there, frozen, staring at the blank screen. The professor running the experiment sees the confused look on your face and jumps up from his seat. He looks pissed. He walks over to your side of the table, looks at the blank screen and says, did you hit the
alt key? No? I didn't. I don't know why this happened. I'm going to ask you one more time. The professor says, did you hit the alt key? I said no, I really don't think I did. You're getting flustered, and the professor is clearly angry. What a strange reaction. He stands over you and picks up the keyboard and click some keys, and thing happens. You did hit the alt key. I know you did. He turns to the student who was reading the letters and asked her if she saw what happened.
She says, I hate to say it, but I did see you hit the alt key. The professor storms over to his seat and starts writing furiously on his pad of paper. You're confused, and you feel really bad, like you've messed up the whole experiment. You didn't mean to. You thought it was going well. But if the other students said you did it, I mean the computer did crash. You must have hit it by accident. The professor rips off the top page of his writing pad and pushes
it towards you. Sine this, he says. You read what the professor has scribbled down. It says, I hit the alt key and caused the computer program to crash. Data was lost. Uh. I really don't think I hit it, professor, you say. The professor is now fuming. He practically slams the pen down on the table in front of you. Sign it. The leader of this experiment will call you later today. You think this guy is pretty piste. I'll
just talk it through the organizer of the experiment. When he calls, you, pick up the pen and sign the paper. Just then, another student walks into the room. The professor says to her, we'll have to reschedule our appointment. As he leaves the room to get his appointment book, mumbling something angry to himself, the new student in the room raises her eyebrows at you. She whispers, Hey, what happened? She must have heard all of the yelling. I hit a key on the computer that I wasn't supposed to,
and I guess I crashed the computer, you say. The professor comes back, He books a new appointment with the girl who walks in. When she leaves, he sits down and takes a deep breath and says, it's okay. I didn't mean to get so upset. Show me exactly what happened when you hit the alt key. You put your hands on the keyboard, and you say, well, when I was going to hit the A button, I I hit the alt key with the side of my hand by accident. The professor writes down a note on a pad of paper,
then looks up. Okay, great, his demeanor totally changed. He suddenly common seems to be even cheery. That's the end of the experiment. Thank you so much for participating, and let me explain everything. He tells you that the experiment was really not for testing reaction times, but to study weather. Presenting someone with phony evidence and then accusing them can lead that person to admit to doing something that they
did not do. Turns out, everyone else that was in that room with you, the student reading out the letters, the one that later asked you what happened, they were all in on the experiment. The professor tells you that you did not in fact hit the old key, but you certainly aren't the only person to falsely admit that you did. The story you just heard is based on an experiment that was conducted by psychology professor Saulcasting at Williams College. Now. He did the experiment to better understand
why people confess the crimes they did not commit. You might be thinking, well, admitting to hitting an alt key sounds like a sort of low stake scenario. It's nothing like admitting to a rape or a murder, and that's precisely the point. In the low state scenario of Casson's experiment. It seems like there would be less of a reason
to lie. So the experiment actually underscores how a combination of applying pressure and false and culplatory evidence can cause someone to doubt themselves to the point of admitting to something they did not do, even in a low stress situation. So it logically follows that when the stakes are as high as being accused of something like rape or murder, the stress and vulnerability increases, as does the likelihood that
someone will falsely confess. Often when I tell people about course confessions, they say, I would never confess to something I didn't do. But if you were able to relate to the student in this experiment. If you could just imagine yourself second guessing your own actions in that scenario, then it's likely that you too are susceptible to the tactics that are often employed by law enforcement to obtain a confession, regardless of whether you are innocent or guilty.
I'm Josh Duben's civil rights and criminal defense attorney and innocence ambassador to the Innocence Project in New York. Today, on Wrongful Conviction Junk Science, we examine the psychology behind commerce confessions. Interrogation techniques that detectives use when questioning a suspect are in fact very efficient and extremely effective. They routinely result in getting people to confess the committing crimes, and that presents a really unique dilemma for detectives investigating
those crimes. They know that once they get someone in that windowless room of a police precinct, they will oftentimes be able to get them to confess, which means those detectives better have real evidence, not merely a gut feeling or a hunch, real proof tying a suspect to a crime before subjecting them to the crucible of an interrogation because while this process is great at getting guilty people to confess to crimes they committed, it is also great
for getting innocent people to confess the crimes they did not commit. When three dozen former Brooklyn Navy yard workers found themselves irreparably poisoned by the asbestos they used in the construction of the battleships that won World War Two, Perry Whites and Arthur Luxembourg literally putting everything on the line to successfully represent them. Since then, they have championed the rights of over fifty thousand regular Americans injured through
the negligence and malfeasance of mainly large corporations. Their ability to level the playing field against seemingly insurmountable odds has led them to litigate against opponents as diverse as Big Pharma all the way to those responsible for rendering the water of Flint, Michigan undrinkable. Whites and Luxembourg ticket personally when there's a miscarriage of justice anywhere, and therefore they feel a sense of responsibility to support Bronto conviction podcasts.
You can learn more about them by visiting Whites lux dot com. That's w e I t Z l u X dot Com. Course, confessions have been a part of our criminal justice system for a long time. Take, for example, the case of Stephen born in eighteen nineteen. Detectives found three big bones in Steven's backyard and Vermont. The police alleged that the bones belonged to his brother in law, who had gone missing and was presumed to have been murdered.
The police told Stephen, the only way you're going to avoid the death penalty is to confess and stand trial, and so Stephen confessed. He put his fate in the hands of a jury who declared him guilty of murdering his brother in law. Stephen was convicted and sentenced to death. Luckily for him, before his execution date, his brother in law was found alive and well hanging out in New Jersey, and those bones they found in Stephen's backyard turns out
there were animal bones all along. He was lucky to escape the gallows. And still, even after so many false confessions, just like Stephen Bournes, the confession of a suspect continues to be seen as the gold standard and evidence of a person's guilt. Jurors can never seem to wrap their heads around the fact that someone might confess to a crime they didn't commit, and the tactic for obtaining a
confession from a suspect only got better. In seven a detective named John Reid began to de still the methods and principles of interrogations into a scientific procedure designed to increase the likelihood that a suspect would confess. John Reid was a polygraph expert for the Chicago Police when he began to develop his nine step process, called the Read technique. He claimed that his technique could diagnose truth and deception. The Red technique spread throughout the country and is still
popular today. According to the Reading Associate's website, over half a million law enforcement and security officers have attended their training programs. And while John Reid's technique indeed increase the likelihood of securing a confession from crime suspects, not much had been done to understand whether these tactics produced confessions that were actually accurate and truthful. That is until Saul Casson began conducting his computer crash experiments at Williams College.
Dr Casson's experiment tested for some of the variables that are often used during the Red technique. The first variable is vulnerability. Casson made his test subjects feel vulnerable by putting them in the mildly stressful situation of having them type letters at a rapid pace. Another variable was false incriminating evidence. When students in the experiment were told that someone saw them hit the alt key, they were much
more likely to sign a confession. In fact, of the students who were asked to type at a fast pace and then we're told that someone saw them hit the alt key, a hundred percent of them confess. Although none of them actually hit the alt key, they all admitted to the crime when presented with false incriminating evidence. On top of that, six of students who were presented with
false incriminating evidence actually believed in their own guilt. This was measured by how many of the students said I hit the key when that third student, remember the one that enters the room for their quote unquote appointment, seemingly more neutral party comes into the room and says, hey,
what happened. Finally, thirty five percent of the students actually internalized their guilt to such a degree that they made up details about it by saying, for example, oh, I hit the alt key with the side of my hand. The fact is that none of these students had hit the alt key, yet under these controlled conditions, they confessed to something they didn't do. Inducing vulnerability and presenting false,
incriminating evidence are the cornerstones of the read technique. What Dr Casson's experiment shows is that interrogation techniques like John Reid's are a recipe for causing innocent people to admit to things that they did not do. You can flip a coin and be as accurate determining whether somebody is telling the truth or not as a trained police officer, and trained police officers are no more effective at that
than your average person. And in fact, there have been numerous psychological studies and nothing correlates to being able to do that to any degree of scientific validity. And that's really where the junk science of this technique comes in, because the reality is you can't tell whether or not somebody is lying by verbal and nonverbal behavior. So with
us today we have the amazing David Rudolph. David is a phenomenal, phenomenal criminal defense attorneys, civil rights attorney, criminal justice reform avage, and the list goes on and on. He is a friend of mine, a personal hero of mine, and many of you have probably seen him in the Netflix series The Staircase, which followed the trials of his
client Michael Peterson, who was accused of murdering his wife. Now, David has worked on countless wrongful conviction cases and cases in which people have found themselves sitting in an interrogation room getting broken down by detectives. And he is someone who has studied course confessions and really dug into how the psychological techniques used by these interrogators can result in a wrongful conviction. So, David, I want to dive right
into the read technique. What is it and how is it different than say, uh, standard police interview When you're trying to elicit information, what you're really doing is interviewing, not interrogating. You're asking open ended questions, You're you're following up on things, not for the purpose of confronting the person, but rather for the purpose of finding out what actually happened.
And that's not designed to get a confession. The re technique is simply a protocol for how to interrogate someone. And this is important who you already believe is guilty. Uh, you don't use the re technique in order to elicit information. You only use the re technique in order to secure
admissions and then ultimately a confession. Okay, so let's talk about that for a second, because you said something interesting, and that is that the interrogator will actually use this technique on the person they believe to be the guilty suspect. They might not have any physical evidence to prove that, but they have a hunch, or there's zeroing in on someone because of tunnel vision, whatever the case, maybe they think this is their guy, um, and they bring that
person in for questioning. And they're not simply trying to find out the truth, right, They're sole objective when they employed this technique is to get a confession. Absolutely, it's it's it's intuition plus arrogance. You know that. That's my recipe for how this all starts. You have a police officer who's done a hundred five hundred thousand investigations and they know who they like for the crime. You know, if it's a wife who's dead, they like the husband immediately.
If the husband has a mistress, well that that's the clincher. So there's all these sort of preconceptions and then the arrogance is that they know because they've done it so many times. And you know, part of what we ought to recognize here is that when you're doing that, you're obviously already thinking the person is guilty, and so confirmation bias is going to start leaking in. And this is especially true where and it's ironic, where there's not much
other evidence. Picture this situation. So there's a vicious crime, just an awful uproar in the community, and this police officer believes, legitimately believes that this other person is the purpose, but there's no evidence. The pressure to get that person to confess becomes enormous because if you don't, then there's no case. And so ironically enough, there's much more pressure to get a false confession when there's no evidence. So that means there's much more pressure to get a false
confession when the person is innocent. So David walk us through this technique. Let's say you have a husband suspected of killing his wife. Police ask him to come down to the station. What's the first thing that happens. What you do in the re technique is first you isolate the person. You put the person in an uncomfortable position. You shut them off from any support system, and you make them anxious so that they're more susceptible to the other techniques that are going to follow. And so the
person is feeling vulnerable. And when you feel vulnerable, you're much more likely to give in too pressure, particularly if you're all alone in a strange place, surrounded by imposing authority figures who have guns. I don't think there's very many people who wouldn't feel a bit of panic at
that situation, just psychological panic. So it's a whole notion of creating a situation where you are uncomfortable that you want to get out of, and then creating a situation where the only way out is to say what those
bullies want you to say. You know, I'm imagining the guy in our hypothetical who is probably just overcome with grief from having just lost his wife, and then the last place he wants to be is where he ends up, you know, in some dank room at a police station, and it's you know, got no windows, it's always got those uncomfortable chairs, and they leave them to cool as heels, right, and he sits there by himself for a while and then the detectives come in and the questions start and
tell our our listeners what techniques the interrogators used to sort of capitalize on his vulnerability. What you do during the interview phase is you ask a series of questions, some of which are called behavior provoking questions, and there are questions that are designed, at least in the officer's mind, to provoke responses that they can then use to determine
whether the person is telling the truth or not. So, you know, it might be questions like why would somebody be saying that you were at the crime scene if you really weren't, Or what do you think should happen to the person who did this? You know, when you ask a husband, why would your own friends be saying
that they think that you might have done this? And you're thinking to yourself, well, you know, maybe some of my friends saw that time when you know, my wife and I got into an argument over the car or whatever it is. And so you're just trying to come up with some explanation because the officers asking you for one, and you you minimize it because it wasn't a big deal, and so you talk about it and then all of a sudden that then becomes to take off point. Well,
that wasn't the only time that you had an argument, wasn't. No, it wasn't the only time we had an argument. Well, let's talk about some of the other times you had arguments. And the idea is that if you ask enough of these behavior inducing questions, you as a trained police officer looking at verbal and nonverbal cues, you know, hesitation, how their eyes are looking, that you can tell if they're
lying or not. A lot of us have this notion that investigators have this heightened ability to tell if someone is lying or not, and that's just not the case. We know that there's no science to back up that an officer can tell if you are or not telling the truth. But that doesn't help the person sitting in that interrogation chair. Any answer you give is subject to confirmation, bias, and interpretation. And that's why this whole thing is junk science.
There's no there's no logic to it, there's no there's no basis for it. It's simply, let me ask a couple of hard questions and see if the person is getting nervous or more nervous. Okay, so now the cop is certain, at least in in his or her mind, that the person in front of them committed the crime, even though there's no proof to back that hunch up. So what's the next step now? The goal is to get the confession, especially as I said earlier, when there's
no other evidence. So the tone of the whole conversation changes. It now turns sharp, and all of a sudden, the officer says, listen, you know we've been talking for a while, and I just have to tell you. We know you're guilty. The person says, well, no, I'm not, and and the officer says, well, don't don't bother lyne to me about it. So the person says, no, I didn't do it. Well, then can you explain why your d n A is
on the knife? The officer says, you know, maybe it was so horrible that you've blotted out of your memory. You know, maybe that's why you don't remember it. But but how do you explain that that DNA is on that knife? And there is no DNA on the knife? But the officer is now a lying to the person in order to induce the person to be sort of
incredulous about his own guilt or innocence. Uh, And and so there are cases where people actually become convinced people are innocent, become convinced that, yeah, maybe I actually did this, or yeah I did this, and the person knows they didn't. But yet if they're told that they did, at some point they become convinced that they must have done it. Why else would this person be saying that? And I think the most important point here is that a lot of people think that the police can't lie to them,
and and in fact, in most countries they can't. In the Great Britain, the cops cannot lie to you about the evidence. But our Supreme Court has said, oh no, it's fine for you to lie to a suspect about the evidence, because after all, he or she knows if he's innocent, that it can't be true. Well, that ignores
the psychology of it. The truth of the matter is that cops are allowed to lie during interrogations everywhere in the United States, because the United States Supreme Court has said that's not a violation of due process, and it's outrageous. Why should they be able to lie to you about something as serious as a crime and the evidence of a crime. I'm not aware of any other English speaking
country where that's okay. It's not okay in Canada, it's not okay in Great Britain, it's not okay in Australia or New Zealand. We are the only country I'm aware of where that's permissible. And that's a big, big problem that needs to be corrected. I mean, look, I try to put myself in these people's shoes all the time, and I think about what it would be like if an officer said to me that my friend claimed that I murdered someone when I didn't, and that there's DNA
evidence against me. I mean, I would feel just totally screwed, you know, scared alone. And you know, after these interrogators confront the suspect, they say we have this evidence. They might even tell them that they have witnesses that have identified them at the scene. They give all of this false, incriminating evidence. This is um constant psychological pressure being applied
to a suspect, and it is increasing their vulnerability. Okay, the suspect gets more and more scared, more upset, and the detective starts talking about the series consequences, and the suspect is starting to get convinced that, you know, they're going to go to prison for something they didn't do, so tell us what what typically happens next. What happens is the police go into minimization, moral justifications excuses for the potential behavior. So they say things like, well, you know,
we can understand how this might have happened. I mean, uh, you know, you may have been provoked, maybe this was in self defense. From from the minimization, they go to two other techniques, and I'll call them active encouragement and alternative theories. So active encouragement is they're trying to sort of say, you know, we're just trying to help you here. It's gonna look a lot better for you if you explain that this was just because your uncle made you do it. Then if the d A and the jury
thinks you did discuss, you're a monster. You're telling them that he's gonna do. You're gonna be charged based on this evidence, and now you're providing this lifeline if you will. I've had situations where people have been told, if you don't confess, you're going to get life. If you do confess, will treat you as a juvenile offender. So what's happening here is that the person is told you don't really
have any any good or attractive options. Right. They're often told, as you said, you're going to get life in prison or even the death sentence if you don't confess. And the interrogators tell them that confessing will at least get them the better of two horrible options. Right, You'll get life instead of the death penalty. It doesn't really leave the innocent person with much of a choice, does it.
To top it all off, Josh, if you're innocent, and all you wanna do is get out of that room, you know, you've now been in there for two hours, three hours, four hours, they haven't accepted any of your denials, and now you just wanted to stop. And what you think to yourself if you're innocent, is if I just agree with what they're saying, If I just agree with
what they're saying, this is gonna stop. And when I get out of here, you know, I can explain why this happened, and I and everyone's gonna understand that I'm innocent because that's what the evidence is going to show. Uh. And you know, it just becomes the path of least resistance. The other piece you need to understand is it's not just a person saying I'm guilty, because that's just the first step, right, because a jury has got to be able to believe it. The confession has to sound convincing.
You know. If all it was was the person said, yeah, I did it, I don't think a jury is going to give that a whole lot of weight. But when the person's confession includes details that only the perpetrator could know, well, the perpetrator and the police. Once it has those details, it becomes persuasive evidence. It's not just why would an innocent person confess? It's how would an innocent person know these things? And that's where the power comes in, you know.
It's the details about where the attack occurred, how it occurred, what weapon was used, how long it took, what time it occurred. All of these are fed into the person, you know, with leading questions. So do you remember it was about nine pm when you finally entered the house, you know, and when you went into the house, Uh, do you remember that the first place you went was
into the kitchen and and that's where you found the knife. Right, So there's all these leading questions that if you're innocent and you're trying to get out of there. You're accepting you don't even have to say it, You just say yeah or m hmm, and those then get incorporated into a written statement. Uh. And you've already gone so far as to say all this, so you figure what the hell out sign it, and then your life is over. So David, what can we do here? Um, the system
keeps on churning out false confessions? How do we get this to stop? Stop using this particular technique. It's an enormously effective technique to get guilty people to confess. We can all agree on that. The problem is, it's also an enormously effective technique to get innocent people to confess. I think certain law enforcement officials in this country might resist that because they'll think, well, if we don't use this, then we are losing this critical tool for getting suspects
to confess. And if we don't have this, then we're not going to be able to convict someone who committed a crime. But that's not really the case, right because there are other more reliable techniques out there. So tell us about some other ways that detectives can obtain a confession that doesn't employ or doesn't include employing the read technique.
In Great Britain, they use a completely different method and it's called the peace method p E A c E. And you don't try to force the conversation in any particular way. You're simply conducting a really thorough interrogation or interview that has been planned out in advance. You know exactly what you're gonna ask, you know what you want to talk about, you know what you want to ask questions about, you know what evidence there is, and so you can judge the validity of what the person is
saying by the actual evidence, not by false evidence. Uh. And it's a completely different technique, and it is not something that results in the kinds of false confessions that you see in the United States. If there's other evidence, uh, then you don't necessarily need the confession. You All you may need are some inconsistencies in the person's statement to sort of nail the case down. And if there is no other evidence, why would you try to get a
confession where the confession may very well not be accurate. Now, another part of the problem here that we touched on a bit is not just the false confession, but also how convincing it ends up being when it is presented to a jury. Is there any insight into what other countries do in that regard? You know, in the United States, a jury has to come back with either guilty or not guilty, and not guilty sort of implies innocence. Uh. In Scotland, UH, there's a verdict called not proven uh.
And I think the verdicts in in every country should be either proven or not proven, because if that was the verdict, the presumption of innocence becomes less um less important in a sense, because the focuses on did the state prove its case? Right, Because a journey might be thinking, shit, if I say not guilty, what I'm really saying is that the person absolutely didn't do it. And what I really want to say is that who knows the person may have done it, but the prosecution just didn't prove
their case. So if you include this other sort of line item or this notion that they have in Scotland not proven on the verdict form, it would actually be a way to protect the presumption of innocence exactly. I think that that that would go a long way towards focusing juror's attention on the actual question. These seem to be really big changes that are going to take a
lot of time and effort to accomplish. We like to be able to provide our listeners with some insight into what they can be doing to help change the system. So what would you tell our listeners they can be doing to help effectuate change, especially when it comes to wrongful um confessions or coerce confessions. Please go sit on juries, talk to talk to your fellow jurors, and and talk to your friends and neighbors and co workers about these issues.
When you hear somebody's confess uh to a crime, go and talk with other people and explain that it may not be what it seems, because that's how this changes. It changes from the bottom up, not from the top down. What I want for all of you to take away from today's episode is some practical advice out You might be thinking, I'll never be in this situation. This would never happen to me. I'm sure that most people that have ended up being interrogated by the police thought the
exact same thing. It's not gonna happen to me until it does. Unfortunately, your innocence is not a safeguard against being incarcerated. As we discussed in this episode, innocent people are often more likely to falsely confess than the actual perpetrator of a crime for a few reasons. First, they think that because they're innocent, they don't need a lawyer. They'll just go in there, speak to the cops, tell
them the truth, and that will be that. The problem is that interrogators who are following the red technique don't take the words you say at face value. Instead, they look behind the words and look for reasons why those words support your guilt. Remember, most of the time, they have decided that you were probably involved before you even get in that room. That is why you were being
interrogated in the first place. Another reason why many innocent people confess is because none of us are immune from the effects of the psychological warfare administered under conditions that are simply the perfect storm for vulnerability. And believe me, it happens to the toughest among us I have seen it.
It is simply too difficult to withstand that type of pressure until the day comes when we are able to enact the type of reform that David talked about, things like preventing law enforcement from lying to suspects about the existence of evidence tying them to the crime. The reality is that we all need to protect ourselves. Preventing false confessions starts with an understanding of the tactics investigators use.
You are now armed with that knowledge, and it should always end with if God forbid you ever find yourself being interrogated, is my name is Christopher Ochoa, John Restivo, Sante Triple Clementia Geary, and I want a lawyer, and you don't answer a single question after that. Next week we'll explore the junk signs of roadside drug testing with Greg glaud. Wrongful Conviction Junk Science is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts and association with Signal Company Number One.
Thanks to our executive producer Jason Flom and the team, it's Signal Company number One executive producer Kevin Wardis and senior producers Kara Cornhaber and Brit Spangler. Our music was composed by j Ralph. You can follow me on Instagram at dubin Dot. Josh followed the Wrongful Conviction podcast on Facebook and on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at wrong Conviction