#240 Jason Flom with Stephanie Spurgeon

Ignoring other potential root causes and relying on the junk science of shaken baby syndrome, doctors opined that brain bleed and swelling were signs of child abuse, placing blame on the brand new childcare provider, Stephanie Spurgeon, and when Maria died seven days later, the charges were upgraded to murder, but with the lack of external injuries, the state changed its shaken baby theory, concocting a new narrative in which

Maria had been repeatedly struck against the soft surface. The defense failed to pivot to this new theory, instead presenting a shape can baby syndrome defense, and with the state's uncontested yet totally dubious soft impact theory. The jury found Stephanie guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter and sentenced her to fifteen years in prison. With the help of multiple innocence projects and a current candidate for state's attorney,

Stephanie was able to present the proper expert testimony. This proved the state's ludicrous soft impact theory, win a new trial, and ultimately be set free after nine long years. This

is wrongful conviction. Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction. Today's episode is well, I'm gonna be honest with you, it's terrifying because this is a story that is both unique and also somehow not uncommon, and it involves an innocent woman working at a daycare center who got caught up in the criminal legal system for no reason of her own making. I'm going to introduce our incredible guests today, because we have three, including the woman who lived through this nightmare herself,

Stephanie Spurgeon. First, I'm going to introduce are very distinguished group. Seth Miller is here. He's the executive director of the Innocence Project of Florida. Does incredible work day in and day out, pushing huge boulders uphills of justice. So Seth, thanks for being here. Thanks Jason, thrilled to be here and with him and with us. Is Alison Miller no relation. She is an attorney with Ripley wisen Hunt and is also currently running for the State's Attorney Office of Florida.

And I hope people will support her because we need people like you in positions like that. But for the time being, we're happy to have you right where you are and right here on the mike. So, Alison Mill are welcome to Ronval Conviction. Thank you so much for having me. And Stephanie, what can I say, I feel like the whole human race owes you a debt of gratitude for sharing your story and for just being the strong, courageous woman that you are, and I appreciate you being here.

So Stephanie to you. Also welcome to Ronfo Conviction. Thank you, Jason. It's my pleasure. And so Stephanie. This is a story that we've heard time and time again where somebody like yourself is doing you know, let's call it what it is, essential work. Where would we be as a society without daycare center? The working world would grind to a halt. And yet people like you too often end up in situations like the one we're talking about today. I mean,

it really makes my heart hurt. But let's please take us back before this incident happened in two thousand and eight. Can you tell us what your life was like back then. I was married for nineteen years, and I had two beautiful children. We had a beautiful life. We were a well knit family. We did a lot of family vacations. I was a license in home daycare provider for fifteen years. The parents that would come into my home, they became part of my family, their kids became part of my family.

We would celebrate holidays together, in different things. It was very fulfilling. I was able to work with children. I was able to be at home with my own children. I decided at one point to go into special needs children. So I took lots of children that came in who had speech issues or different disabilities, and I grew a real heart for these kids because not a lot of places would accept any special needs children. And then I decided to branch off a little bit further and start

taking teenage parent children. So Esther Harris was actually the very first team mom that I took. She was seventeen years old when I was introduced to her, Maria. And so not only are you taking care of other people's kids, you're doing it in your own home, opening your doors and your heart and taking care of kids who have issues that other people well might not want to open their home to or or their hearts, right. I mean, so this case, I'd like to say it happened a

long time ago, but it really didn't write. I mean, it would feel a little bit better if it was back before we had science evolved to a place that it was at in two thousand eight, which is when this tragedy occurred, of course. And I said tragedy, not crime. That's deliberate, because that's what it was. And so, Seth, do you want to set the stage for us of what happened on that awful day and how this became

a criminal matter. When I think about these cases when a child dies, a lot of times the folks involved in trying to figure out how that happened kind of go nutty. They aren't able to take sober views of what might have happened to that child. And that's what happened here in this case. Stephie Spurgeon was running in

a home daycare to home. It was better business. Bureau rated had generations worth of children who come through the daycare who really positive experiences, their families have positive experiences. And the child, Maria Harris, was our first day at the daycare, and yet on this day, this poor child was suffering from what was clearly a distress, a medical situation. When Maria's grandmother, Patricia came and picked her up that day,

Maria had been sleeping. So I reached into the pack and play and I picked her up, and she kind of stirred in my arms, and I passed her to Patricia, and she stirred in Patricia's arms, and then Patricia took her and placed her in the car and drove her home. Thirty minutes later is when we got the phone call. Maria, I guess was deteriorating as she was sleeping, and I was unaware that there was any issue because I simply thought she was asleep. At the end of the day,

the child was growing up. The child was crying and was clearly kind of lifeless in a lot of ways, and called nine one one. It took a child to the hospital. And when we're on the way to the hospital. They tested the child's blood sugar and the child had high four hundreds of blood sugar. And I don't know if any of y'all have diabetes or test your blood sugar regularly, but that is four to five times the

normal level. So this child is in major distress. What they do when they get this child to the hospital is they realize after doing a number of tests on the child that the child suffering from a brain lead a subdural hematoma, and the child has brain swelling and

that has led to the child having retinal hemorrhages. And instead of treating the child for what looked like a diabetic situation, a diabetic distress because the child had the subdural hematona, because the child had the brain swelling and the retinal hemorrhages, the doctors immediately assumed that this was an abusive situation because they thought that this was the three ingredients, the triad as they call it, caused by taking baby syndrome or what is more commonly known now

is abusive head trauma. So that had a chance to try to treat this child to maybe ameliorate or even prevent and a bigger problem or death, to treat this metabolic, this diabetic situation, but instead they assumed it was abuse. And we're often running taking a medical situation and elevating it to the crime, and unfortunately child died seven days later.

The idea that this might have been prevented if they just simply focused on the problem at hand rather than turning this into wild accusations of child abuse makes my blood boil. I mean, and I think it's worth mentioning. As we've covered extensively on our show Junk Science and other episodes of Wrongful Conviction as well, just a general overview of the theory of shaking baby syndrome or SPS. Now.

It was initially introduced as a hypothesis by British pediatric neurosurgeon Dr Norman guth Kelch, who was trying to explain a cause for an explicable child deaths in which a child or baby, toddler whatever had presented subdual hematoma otherwise known as bleeding in the brain retinal hemorrhage, so you know bleeding in the eye is in brain swelling or cerebral a demon Now. Dr cuth Kelch hypothesized that perhaps a typical method of scolding a child in Great Britain

at the time, giving the child a good shake. Maybe that was the cause for unintended or unexplained child deaths in which this triad of medical findings occurred. He never was able to prove this, He just hypothesized it and

caution parents against the practice. Understandably, however, since that hypothesis, the criminal legal system just sort of random up with this idea, right leaping to the conclusion that any child presenting those symptoms, especially if there was any other bruisings, had been fatally abused like sort of one size fits all, which is ridiculous, and that the person less responsible for

the child therefore must have been the culprit. And I think we as people understanding the inner workings of the human mind, when bad things happen, we want to be able to say there's someone or something responsible for that bad thing happening. And so where there was a legitimate science maybe at the inception, this idea has been horribly bastardized to get convictions involving Usually the depth of infants are toddlers, and Stephanie's case is a perfect example of that.

Where there is legitimate scientific evidence that this child was in medical distress that went ignored by medical professionals because it was easier to say, oh, this child must have

been harmed. Yeah, And it's worth noting that in recent years, as doctors and larger and larger numbers have been challenging the notion of shaking baby syndrome, they've identified get this, over eighty different pre existing conditions that can cause what they call the triad of findings that were historically just attributed to shaking baby syndrome almost automatically. Right. So the science is there, but I mean, I wish I could say when the criminal legal system is going to catch up.

It's entirely possible that it never will because science, let's face, it looks forward, while the legal system only looks backward at precedent, sort of the opposite. And so Stephanie, if you could take us back to when you were arrested, what all happened before the trial. My first arrest was August August twenty two, maybe two thousand and eight. I was arrested on aggravated child abuse. I went to Nells County Jail. I was housed in a solitaire cell because,

of course, my face was on the news. And I was able to bond out the next day. I think it's important to say my bond was fifty thou dollars, and my parents got an attorney for me, which was fifty thousand dollars, So right away we're in the hole. I came home and was unable to have a daycare of course, so I had no income, so that became an issue immediately. Maria passed away seven days later. I was re arrested six weeks later, on November eighth, two

thousand eight, on capital felony murder. I just taken my son to his bus stop in the morning, and when I came back home, I put up in the driveway, like three squad cars surrounded me, and everybody come racing out, screamed and yelling, and put me in cuffs and put me in the back of the cruiser and took me back to County Jail. When they brought me in from booking that day, they brought me straight to a solitaire cell in the lobby area, and I could look out

and see my face on the news. And as I'm looking at my face on the news, I'm looking at the other inmates that are in there getting processed in and they're all looking back at me and that solitaire cell. So it was a very scary situation. There was a grand jury hearing, and the attorney that I had that was he wouldn't try a capital case, so we had to hire another firm and they cost us a hundred thousand. I ended up getting indicted and then we moved for

a bond hearing. My bond hearing was successful, except it was three hundred and fifty thousand dollars with an angle monitor and no contact with any child in the age of twelve. I thought there was no way that my family was ever going to be able to come up with those kind of funds because we had already spent

so much. They did come up with it. They fundraised, they drained all of their savings, accounts, everything, and one night, on January two thousand and nine, after I think eighty nine days in a solitaire cell, I was released at two am, so I was able to come home and wake both of my kids up. My daughter and I ended up sitting on the front porch and a rocking chair and watch the sunrise together. It was very hard to sleep because I kept thinking I was going to

wake up and be back in there. The nightmare I would be there again. This episode is underwritten by a i G, a leading global insurance company, and by Accenture, a global professional services company with leading capabilities in digital, cloud and security. Working to reform the criminal justice system is a key pillar of the ai G pro Bono program, which provides free legal services and other support to many nonprofit organizations and individuals most in need as part of

Accenture's commitment to racial and civil justice. Accenture's Legal Access Program provides pro bono legal services in partnership with more than forty organizations, bringing meaningful change to people and communities worldwide. There were signals even before the trial that the state was going to move away from a shaking baby syndrome diagnosis.

The real issue in this case is that we had these presentations in the brain and the skull, and the doctors were used to saying so this could only be abused, it's shaking baby syndrome. The problem is these things are normally associated with signs of abuse external injuries, and this child did not have a scratch or bruise or not even a single mark on her, and so the doctors are trying to figure out, well, how can we make this abuse and explain away the fact that there's no

visual injuries on this child? And this is how what they call the child abuse pediatrician I'm using air quotes. She came up with the theory that, well, the reason there's no injuries that are apparent on the outside is because this child was slam repeatedly on a soft surface like a crib mattress. So this case is nutty, right, because you don't see it very often that the state changes their theory sort of midstream, right, So then they

came up with this soft impact theory. But the crazy thing is it seemed like her attorneys were defending a different theory than the one that the state was trying to convict her on. Am I mistaken about that? That's exactly right. The defensetourney was very focused on shaking BNY syndrome.

And when I deposed this attorney in post conviction, I asked them about cases that he had done previously, and what I found out was that he had done a series of shaking baby syndrome cases where he got favorable results for his clients. So he had his pat experts and a formula for how he would approach these cases. But he simply failed to learn his own case well enough to know that he could not simply employ the same formula that he employed in other cases where shaken

baby syndrome was a theory. Because not all cases are the same, they're not creating equal In this case, the state had already abandoned the shaken baby syndrome theory for this soft impact theory. And so we're pressing along. In a case they get to buy a mechanical expert. They do the thing that a lot of people don't do. They get the right expert. They prepared that expert, but

they prepared them for the wrong theory. And there was this striking moment in the trial where after the defense attorney sits down, he thinks he's done a great job with the biomechanical expert. And the first question the state asked the expert when they get up is who told you that this was a shaking baby syndrome case. It

was a devastating moment in the trial. And of course he could have put his expert back up, got them to prepare all the calculations, and he failed to do that because he just didn't even understand his own case. The State of Florida, in their prosecution of Stephanie, relied

on one particular pediatrician that they frequently rely on. It's so hard because these doctors and experts come in to court couched with credibility and reliability, and especially in areas like Vanilla's and Pasco County where we've used the same experts forever, it's hard helping whoever the fact finder is, jurors or judges to understand this is a misapplication of science. And so you get doctors that come in and they use words that we as average folks don't understand, and

it sounds like, well, it must be true. And then at the end it's with the conclusion that this child died as a result of intentionally inflicted abusive trauma. Yeah, so the deck is truly stacked against even someone like Stephanie. Right, she gets swept under this title wave of nonsense that comes from preconceived biases and notions and things. Right, because someone sees her in the defendive chair, they automatically assumed somebody who was there must have done something to be there. Right,

there's that you have to overcome. Then, as you said, there's all the medical stuff. A guy gets up there and reads his credentials sounds very impressive, and then spouting these theories that most jurors are not equipped to understand or unpack, so they think they're doing the right thing. And I have empathy for them too for making these mistakes. And Stephanie, you've lived through this, so I want to

get back to you. What was this like from your perspective as a mom nineteen years married, you know, upstanding citizen to say the least, Well, Jason, I was absolutely devastating, to say the least. Kept waiting for the truth to prevail. I knew that I didn't hurt Maria, so I knew that something would eventually come to surface that would show what had happened. It was terrifying, terrifying for me, It was terrifying for my children. It was terrifying from my

then husband. It was awful, and in the end, it destroyed our whole family. I got a divorce, went to prison, and my kids grew up without their mom. How old were the kids when this happened. My son was twelve and my daughter was seventeen. So Stephanie, when the jury went out. Can you tell us what you were thinking at that time? Did you think that finally this wrong would be righted and this nightmare would come to an end.

I just kept thinking that eventually they would realize that there's no way that I did this, That nobody hurt Maria. There had to have been something else. The jury deliberated for twenty one and a half hours before they came back with an acquittal of capital failony murder but a guilty charge and manslaughter. I heard a horrible noise from behind me, and it was my son crying out. It was surreal. It just felt like I was in a fog.

I remember mouthing I love you to my family before they helped being out of court room and put me back in that solitaire. So I got to prison. I was absolutely terrified and had to learn very quickly how to adapt in a maximum security prison. You have to always pay attention to what's going around you, and you have to kind of learn how to bob and weave between people. You didn't want to draw any attention to yourself.

It's a very scary place, and not only is it scary from the other inmates, but not all the officers are on the up and up. The officers are also very scary. So I got to prison, and naturally I was quite angry, and I knew that if I didn't do something with my anger, I was just going to go down a dark path. So I threw myself into learning about my own case, and I got certified and became a law clerk, which of course is how I met a man of Bromfield. We were co workers in

the law library. We both left the maximum security prison and we found ourselves at a faith and character based war camp and that was a much safer environment, albeit did not have a c so it was extremely excruciatingly odd, but I traded the heat for the safety, and I worked with Amanda in the law library and we did every think we could for other people in there, meanwhile, both learning each other's case as well as our own case. And that's how I survived. Yeah. I don't know where.

I don't know where they fake people like you that find this sort of otherworldly strength, spirit, courage, whatever you want to call it. But I'm just glad you did, and I'm glad that Amanda Broomfield did as well. I mean, she just recently joined us here on wrongful convictions, and yeah, I'm so freaking glad that you both found the strength to pull through and be here. Well, I had a

good support system, Jason. I had wonderful parents and my brother and my children, and they made sure I had all of my needs because you know, in prison they don't give you shampoo and deodorant and things like that. You have to buy these things. Thankfully, I had an amazing support system that are still my support system. And you know, it was very touching because not only did I have a support system for my family, but my

clients and the childcare. All of my daycare babies that I've raised grew up and sent me checks while I was in prison to help pay for whatever I needed in there. So these daycare babies that I raised were taking care of being while I was in prison. Well that's full circle, isn't it. I Mean, it's a little bit of light in a miserable dark place and speaks to your character as well. So, Seth Alison, how did this then eventually make its way to your desks? And

how did the process finally right itself? You know what's unique I think about this case is that it got to us so much earlier than a lot of other cases. I've gotten guys out of prison who have spent thirty or thirty five or over forty years in prison, and once you find out about that one thirty years on the line, it's very hard to rectify that. It's a reclamation project that sometimes it's beset with procedural problems that

doesn't really allow you to turn it around. But here we were able to get in on the initial post conviction motion, where you have all of the potential claims available to you have no procedural problems. And so we only did that because Stephanie wrote to us almost immediately after her initial appeal was denied. And what was interesting

is that she had written to us. I was litigating another case with Kate Judson, and we come to find out that this other person's case, Amanda Brownfield and Stephanie we're friends in prison, and that's kind of how Stephanie got hooked up with us. I remember being in the car driving home from a different prison visit talking to Kate about Stephanie's application and saying, Hey, you want to do another one, and that was kind of like, yeah, let's get it this case has some crazy issues in it.

So what became clear to us is what we've already talked about. The lawyer didn't use the bio mechanical engineer that he had at his disposal to rebut the state's soft impactory how this supposed abuse happened. What happens is that juries are looking for an answer, and the prosecution gave them an answer. It's incumbent upon the defense to rebut that if you don't, your client's going to be convicted. And so what happened here is that not only did they not give them an answer, they put up another

expert who agreed that this was from violent trauma. So the defense expert agreed is from violent trauma, and they never went into any of them lying medical issues that were very clear that existed. So that was kind of what we focus. Can we get the biomic an engineer to look at the studies through the calculations to prove that slamming on a soft surface can't cause these injuries?

And can we talk to pediatric endochronologist, pediatric genesist, forensic pathologists or clinical pathologists, a new radiologist to look at all of this material in the case. To help us understand whether this could even be trauma and if it wasn't, trauma could come from another underlying medical issue, particularly issue

of related diabetes. And when we were able to do that, what we found out is that we had an expert, a biomechanical expert, who was able to say with supreme confidence that this slamming on a soft service could not have scientifically caused this child's injuries, because he did the pre eminent study of just this type of scenario, and it proven that a human of Stephanie's size can't create enough force to cause those injuries in that child's brain

without also causing massive external injuries of course there were none, and so scientifically that they couldn't do that. Our experts together showed that this was a situation where the child had a blood clot in their brain. The blood clot in their brain caused spillover bleeding into the brain because blood couldn't get out of the brain back to the other parts of the body, and that caused swelling in the brain, which caused the retinal hemorrhages which caused this

child's disease. And all of this was caused by thicking of the blood due to a diabetic situation. And so we had this evidence now, but the key was to show that the trial council violated Stephanie's constitutional right to council and effective assistance of that council by not bringing about all of this information, all of which would prove that there was no crime here and that this child died from a tragic a medical situation that was just undiagnosed.

So that's what we did. What was it like, Stephanie, when all of a sudden You've got sort of the dream team, right, I mean the Florida Innocence Project. Those of us who worked in the Innocence moviment know that the Florida innescens Project is held in the highest regard. So when you got the letter or a call or whatever it was saying that they were going to represent you, what was that like, Well, it was a phone call from Seth at the Florida Innocence Project and he patched

through Kay Judson. At that time, she was with the Innocence Project of Wisconsin now with the Center for Integrity and Forensic Science. And I also had Josh Teffer, who is with the Exoneration Project out of Chicago, so it was unbelievable to know that not only did I managed to get one innocence project, but I managed to get

three projects all working. And I guess I just kind of like threw up my hands and was just like, finally, finally, like I knew there had to be something there, and finally somebody founded, right, all of a sudden, you've got the literal dream team on your side, And Alison, can you take us through how you got involved in what eventually led to Stephanie's freedom. I love this. This, This is my favorite part of the story. So Seth with Kate and Josh did that lengthy post conviction hearing in

front of Judge Burgess, which he denied. They appealed, and the Second District Court of Appeal overturned that denial of the post conviction motion, finding Stephanie's original trial lawyers to be ineffective. Seth and I have worked on a number of different cases or just sort of floated in the same circles myself at the trial court level and set more in the post conviction world. I couldn't remember when

Stephanie's case was overturned. Set and I having this meeting of the minds where he was like, you know, myself and Kate and Josh obviously still want to be involved, but we need somebody who does trial work. And I was like, well, I would love to be involved. And so that's when I got appointed. Was like, okay, we're back for a new trial. And instead of the State of Florida saying we concede, the state indicated it intended

to retry Stephanie. And so we were like, bring it, y'all are prosecuting an innocent woman and we're going to embarrass you. Was the mentality that we had. It was all new prosecutors, all new defense attorneys, and we were

gearing up for a battle. Frankly, to make a very long story short, the state would not agree to not go forward, but to bring an end to this for everyone, the Harris family, Spurgeon family, the state was willing to accept what we call an Alfred please, where a defendant pleads guilty but it's still exerting his or her innocence, saying I'm pleading guilty but because I believe it's in my best interest to do so, not because I'm legally admitting to doing what I'm accused of, and I think

we all felt like because of all the shortcomings in the criminal justice system as they exist, the over reliance on this pediatrician who doesn't seem to understand science. I couldn't tell Stephanie there was no chance that a jury would convict her. Yet Stephanie wanted her life back, she wanted her family back, she wanted to be able to put her toes in the ocean, and so for everyone's sake, she agreed to enter this Alfred plea and bring resolution

to the case. So, look, no one could fall at you, Stephanie for making the decision that you made. People make it all the time. I can find a lot of falls in the state for dangling that sword over your head again. So when did you come home, Stephanie? And can you tell us what it was like walking out into the fresh air? Give us as much as you can. Well, it was definitely hot. I had an entourage of people out there along with Netflix. We're doing a series, so

everybody was filming. I got in the car and the first thing that did was hand me a cell phone. I didn't know what to do with it. I think they were just so excited to finally give me some piece of technology, and I went to wall Laws. My kids had always told me about Watlas, and when I walked in, it was just so overwhelming, all the lights

and all the things to look at. And I know that probably sounds so silly, but when you've been trapped inside for so long, and I must look like I was from outer space because my eyes are staring at the lights, I'm sure my mouth was open. It was interesting. I allowed Netflix to come home with me and film me coming in, and that was a really difficult thing to allow them to film me and my most weakest,

vulnerable moment of happy tears. That I did allow it because I wanted to help bring more knowledge when the series finally does air, amen to that, and I think we all who work in this field for those happy moments. So, Stephanie, you, on top of all the other unspeakable treatment that you had to endure, you also, as you mentioned, had to spend a king's ransom, you know, to try to defend yourself,

just a thousands of dollars. And you aren't a rich person going into this, So you now have a bigger support system, right over a hundred thousand people who are listening to your voice. Now. I'm sure many of them would like to do something to help you if they could. Is there some way for people to donate, or is there anything else that you could think of that they might be able to do. I have a go fund me and I would appreciate anything that anybody could do

to help me get back on my feet. I've been home a year now and I really haven't been able to build up a whole lot, so I would appreciate that. Thank you. Jason, Yes, and we will link to that in a bio of our episodes. So please take a moment right now, if you're listening and you have something you can spare, please go to the link in the bio and donate, and we're going to join you in doing that and trying to help make this next period

of your life a little bit less difficult. And listen if you're sitting at home wondering how we can help to prevent these wrongful convictions from happening in the future, besides serving on juries and voting like we talked about, don't eight to Allison Miller's campaign. We're gonna again have the link in the bio. But Alison, what is the way if people just want to write it down right now, and we're going to get a bunch of hopefully money flowing your way and help fix this system that wrongthly

convicted Stephanie Spurgeon, Amanda Broomfield and so many others. Well, that would be amazing. My website is Miller for State Attorney dot com. You can get involved and you can donate securely and easily through my website. I'm on pretty much every social media platform. So now we turned to my favorite part of the show, and everyone who's a regular listener knows what to expect, and by that I mean closing arguments, and for anyone who's new to this,

closing arguments works very simply. First, I once again think our incredible guests today, Alison Miller, attorney and candidate for State's Attorney in the State of Florida, Seth Miller, executive director of the Florida Innocence Project and personal hero of mine, and stephinitely expurge in my new personal hero. And what happens next is I turned my microphone off and leave each of yours on so that you can share any final thoughts that we hadn't may be covered yet, or

anything else you want to say. And I'm just going to kick back in my chair. Let's start with Seth and Allison and then just hand the mic off to Stephanie and she'll take us out. So one of the things that I think about coming out of these cases working on others now is how these things keep happening. We talked about it here, and I wonder what we can do to prevent them from happening in the future, and how we can end what is like a cottage industry of medical fabrication, and so that to me is

the next step of this. We should continue to get people out of prison who are innocent, who put in prison for accidents or for things that have medical causes that weren't even crimes at all. This is the leading cause of rumful conviction and women. We have to also think about how we can prevent it in the first place, and there has to be a change in the medical community.

If medical doctors are still being trained everyday medical school to make the same mistakes that the medical doctors in this case in other cases have made, and to me, that's the next stage of how do we prevent this and really just eradicate this fabrication from the criminal legal system. Jason, I want to echo what you said, is that Seth and Stephanie especially our personal heroes of mine as well, and Stephanie is part of the reason why I am

running for state attorney. If people like us don't do this type of work, then nothing will ever change. People have to be more involved in their local down bound elections, whether it's called the district attorney or the state attorney. We have to take ownership in what prosecution looks like in our jurisdictions or this sort of thing will continue

to perpetuate. And so if elected State Attorney, I don't intend to prosecute child abuse cases based exclusively on the testimony of Dr Sally Smith already enlisted people like Seth and Kate understanding we're going to have to continue prosecuting child abuse. Of course, everyone wants child abuse prosecuted, but we need to do it with reliable forensic evidence. And we have seen repeatedly in this jurisdiction at they least that this pediatrician is a danger and everyone frankly seems

willing to ignore it. Stephanie closing arguments, well, I would like to start by thanking Allison. I appreciate your confidence in me coming into this. I also, of course have to thank Seth the Florida Innocence Project, Kate Judson from the Center of Integrity and Forensic Sciences, Josh Teffer from the Exoneration Project, all of their staff, the experts, and all the law students, because it took an army to

bring me home. And I'd also like to thank all the people who donate and support organizations like this, because if it wasn't for your support, people like me would still be trapped behind those person eights. I'd like to urge law enforcement and medical staff to not assume abuse when they see a triad of injuries, to not race in emotionally charged and being more diligent. I hope that my story brings awareness to shaking baby syndrome and abuse

and head trauma. I appreciate you allowing me to share my story for the first time today. Thank you Jason. Thank you for listening to Wrongful Conviction. I'd like to thank our production team Connor Hall, Justin Golden, Jeff Clyburne, and Kevin Wardis. With research by Lila Robinson. The music in this production was supplied by three time OSCAR nominated composer Jay Ralph. Be sure to follow us on Instagram at Wrongful Conviction, on Facebook at Wrongful Conviction Podcast, and

on Twitter at wrong Conviction. As it is at Lava for Good on all three platforms, You can also follow me on both TikTok and Instagram at It's Jason flam Raval. Conviction is the production of Lava for Good podcasts in association with Signal Company Number one