00:00:05
Speaker 1: Hey, it's Connor Hall, senior producer for Wrongful Conviction with some more case updates and behind the scenes insights. And there's a case that began back in twenty fourteen. This is the summer after Trayvon Martin's killer was acquitted. And then you had Michael Brown and Ferguson Missouri, and simultaneously you had revelations about powerful men using their positions of power for sex. And in the midst of that June eighteenth, twenty fourteen, Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzklaw pulled over a swerving automobile and found some empty pill bottles. Now following that interaction came accusations of sexual assault, importantly that were not corroborated by a rape kit. Additionally, the accuser described a different officer, and rather than reviewing the surveillance footage of the stop that occurred not in a quiet cul de sac but rather at a busy intersection, investigators took this opportunity to go fishing for other allegations against Daniel Holt's claw from specifically African American women with pending criminal charges, and they found twenty one others with similar complaints but were they about Daniel. One thing was for certain. This slew of stories looked like evidence of a serial rapist in blue. But right off the bat, eight of those stories were disregarded. Then thirteen went to trial and only eight led to convictions. Perhaps this was an instance where so much smoke must have meant fire, because even in these cases we see victims describing officers who were definitely not Daniel, as well as scenarios where Daniel could not have been present or there was some other dubious detail. Now we believe many of these allegations are credible, but that Daniel Holt's Claw just became a patsy for a jurisdiction that appears to be plagued by sexual violence at the hands of police, while the accusers received leniency in their pending charges for going along with the narrative. Since our coverage in twenty nineteen, all thirteen of those that went to trial brought a civil suit against the city, the detectives, and Daniel, which all came to interesting conclusions, including depositions that exonerated Daniel, as well as a paltry settlement from the city for the accusers. While the suit against Daniel got dropped, and perhaps after you hear this new edit, as well as some of that deposition audio, it might become more clear as to why.

00:02:32
Speaker 2: At two am 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 Jannyliggins for a traffic violation at a busy intersection where surveillance footage shows a normal traffic stop. Around three hours later, Mims Liggans filed the complaint, claiming that an officer forced her into oralsodomy. Her mouth swab 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. 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 we're going to be talking about the case of Daniel Holsklaw, a former police officer from Oklahoma City, wrongfully convicted. He's on the phone. So Daniel, I'm sorry you're here, but I'm glad you're on the phone.

00:04:18
Speaker 3: I appreciate having.

00:04:19
Speaker 4: Me on and my loved one. Letn't be able to have the opportunity and definitely big one about.

00:04:25
Speaker 2: It, express my indet 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.

00:04:50
Speaker 5: Thank you for giving us the time.

00:04:52
Speaker 2: And this whole thing happened in twenty fourteen, which was a very fraught time, shall we say, a lot of traversy around Ferguson and other which you know continues to this day. Of course, the person to.

00:05:06
Speaker 4: What happened then, the Baltimore deal was going on there, so it was literally eye of the storm.

00:05:11
Speaker 2: It was rough, and this was a national news story, international, I guess right. And at the time, and I'm really sorry to say this, Daniel, but at the time that I saw 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.

00:05:44
Speaker 5: The reason why I'm so passionate about it is because when this first happened, it was definitely shocking to hear these allegations, especially the first one, and I wanted to know everything. I wanted to read all the transcript anything that I can get my hand on to see my brother have really done this, And everything that I've looked into, everything that I've read, not just because he's my brother, but just because the facts of everything that I put my hands on, nothing pointed to Daniel's guilt. If there was anything that proved or showed anything, I would back out and see, Daniel, you deserve every second being in prison forever doing this to a woman. And I haven't found one single thing that pointed me to say that Dale did any of the crimes that he has been convicted of.

00:06:27
Speaker 6: Daniel's case is a tragedy because our society's noblest desires to end racism and sexism and police brutality ended up convicting an innocent man and send into prison.

00:06:38
Speaker 5: And I will fight till the day I die to get my brother out.

00:06:41
Speaker 2: Nor Your courage is inspiring, and Daniel's saying for you. 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 matter. The descriptions don't match like what happened.

00:07:05
Speaker 5: So Danielle got off of work about two am, that was his normal shift. On his way home, not too far from the police department, he saw a car swerving, tenant windows limoed 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 and shake and she did that looking for drugs, looking for drugs and any weapons. And everything that Daniel claimed had happened matched up to what Jannie Liggan said. Besides the sexual assault, Jennie Liggans 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, and it was right on a busy intersection off of fiftieth in Lincoln in Oklahoma City. So it's not like Daniel pulled this person over on a side street. It was a busy intersection. There's a security 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 Daniel let her go. And the following morning is when she made the claims about the sexual assault.

00:08:25
Speaker 6: A little later that morning, actually, I think, yeah, few hours, which is.

00:08:29
Speaker 2: 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.

00:08:38
Speaker 6: What was important for me to see is that Jannie Liggins made claims that were not supported by the forensic evidence. She had a same kit done that morning and was interviewed by a female sex crimes detective and the same kit ultimately came back negative. There was no DNA from Daniel found around Janie's mouth and the swabs there. During the trial, the forensic analyst actually said unfortunately there was no DNA from Daniel, which showed her bias. Janie Wiggins had said that Daniel had placed his hands on the car and she had placed her hands on 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 Janie talked with the sex crimes detective Detective Davis, Janney 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.

00:09:46
Speaker 2: Right, so 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.

00:10:05
Speaker 6: And ultimately the detectives used Daniel's own police records, specifically looking for African American women he had stopped. He 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.

00:10:27
Speaker 2: So then they went fishing.

00:10:32
Speaker 7: Hello, this is detective days.

00:10:34
Speaker 3: I work in sex frunts and I've been working in some cases and I received a tip that you may have been sexually assaulted by a police officer.

00:10:44
Speaker 2: I just didn't think I've been clear on the phone.

00:10:46
Speaker 8: When we talked.

00:10:47
Speaker 9: Yea quite clear, But like I said, that's the only time that I had that happened to me. He exposed his stuff to me.

00:10:52
Speaker 5: That was a black officer.

00:10:54
Speaker 1: I've had to go to a.

00:10:54
Speaker 8: Lot of women.

00:10:56
Speaker 6: They didn't come forward.

00:10:57
Speaker 2: I've had to go find them.

00:10:59
Speaker 6: And Yeah, it's disturbing because the lieutenant who was in charge of the investigation specifically looked back through six months of Daniel's police records and created a list of the specifically African American women quote who had a drug history, prostitution history, or a significant criminal history whom Daniel had stopped.

00:11:17
Speaker 5: 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?

00:11:24
Speaker 6: 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.

00:11:39
Speaker 2: 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 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.

00:11:56
Speaker 6: 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. So 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.

00:12:23
Speaker 2: And the number were just summarily dismissed because they were so ridiculous that they couldn't even take him to trial.

00:12:28
Speaker 6: Yeah, there were eight people who made allegations against Daniel, and those allegations were weeded out right away that never went to trial. And then the trial, there were thirteen allegations. Five of them led to acquittals, and the eight that ended up causing convictions had numerous problems in them, like one of the women saying that it was a shorter police officer who was black, a shade darker than her own skin color, and thee got the most number, yes, two years for her allegations.

00:12:56
Speaker 2: 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 doubt 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 to sexually assault her after he had been put on administrative leave. Others later admitted to lying, including Shenise Barksdale.

00:14:00
Speaker 6: He never touched you.

00:14:02
Speaker 9: Why as just felt bad for her and I just wanted to know right she wasn't.

00:14:07
Speaker 8: Only you feel bad for who?

00:14:12
Speaker 3: And you found out about her from one the Facebook.

00:14:18
Speaker 2: 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 holes 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 in decent 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 Jennie 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 court 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.

00:16:15
Speaker 9: Think so, because I mean, even if he didn't like even right now about it, Letton, he filled in.

00:16:22
Speaker 2: And 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.

00:16:58
Speaker 4: Tell me your description him black man, muscular, muscular, So you think he's shorter than you.

00:17:06
Speaker 6: Yeah, okay, I'll tell you five eleven.

00:17:10
Speaker 4: What kind of car did he have?

00:17:12
Speaker 5: A black and white, black and white Corps, Oklahoma City Police Corps.

00:17:16
Speaker 2: 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 to 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 oral sodomy on a chair. The swab from the chair, however, revealed the DNA profile of a male 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 DNA evans to speak of, but she did change her story several times. At first, an officer allegedly fondled her breast over her clothing, Then at a preliminary hearing, she claimed that the groping was skinned to skin contact. 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.

00:19:20
Speaker 4: She said, I met this really hot cop.

00:19:23
Speaker 10: He told me I had a couple of.

00:19:24
Speaker 4: Want but he said, don't worry about it. She really nicely affect them.

00:19:33
Speaker 2: 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 defense's 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.

00:20:02
Speaker 6: The main evidence in the case was DNA found on the fly of Daniel's pants, but the DNA evidence on the fly of the pants included no evidence of body fluid, and ultimately Daniel was accused of raping one woman through the unzipped fly of those buckled pants and there's no stains, no deposits on them at all, So that would make it very unlikely that there had been any kind of sexual assault to be able to give evidence. That's just a low quantity of DNA that matches most closely with indirect transfer of DNA.

00:20:34
Speaker 2: Is it possible for Daniel to have done these crimes and not left any trace of biological evidence anywhere?

00:20:40
Speaker 6: I would say very unlikely.

00:20:42
Speaker 2: 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, But back to you.

00:21:22
Speaker 6: 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 of her 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.

00:23:01
Speaker 2: 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 unzipped or on buttons, it would be there.

00:23:19
Speaker 6: It could very well be there, right because.

00:23:21
Speaker 2: We're always transferring to DNA, always shedding. It's like we'd leave it on every day, We leave it on the coffee cup, we leave it everywhere we go. When you were first taken in for questioning, did you request a lawyer.

00:23:50
Speaker 4: I didn't request a.

00:23:51
Speaker 8: Lawyer at the time. I just wanted to a professional. I wanted to clear my name. Any in an any.

00:23:58
Speaker 4: Department in law enforcement, your repiga where you.

00:24:01
Speaker 8: Go on with and you want to go to their promotion. You want to go to any in special unit. You're remigi when's on the line and when people hear about you. And so I'm talking about my name. I don't know what you going to allegate you guys before me. I'm talking to my name.

00:24:14
Speaker 4: I trug co operate and get out of there.

00:24:17
Speaker 8: Right.

00:24:17
Speaker 2: But we see so many times when we see young kids picked up by a police for questioning and they don't even know they're supposed to ask for a lawyer. Right they're 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, college graduate, 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.

00:24:52
Speaker 4: I basically cooperated the pools. Anything asked, I answered Again. I wanted to be professional. I didn't rage. Now I didn't phrase my police they asked, I answered. And that's kind of how in the sense that you were training the academy, you know, you're broken down and then you're raised up, and so if you're asked the question you're addressed, you're going to reply anything that they asked. Yeah, go ahead, please please do that. Go ahead and go with DNA test, and go ahead and go to my apartment, whatever you need to do to clear my name so I could get back and continue my job. I thought I did really good at please.

00:25:27
Speaker 2: Do after this had become this insane media circus that reached people all over the world. Now you go to trial, and I'm sure it was a crazy scene there.

00:25:40
Speaker 4: Trial was a long period of time that this has happened during the Thanksgiving break. So the biggest thing I want to try to address to the audience is help media affects people's perception in their opinions. So when they used that national media into the aid of the d eighth Office. I'm already presumed guilty before I stepped in that courtroom. So when Judge Henderson, after the jury members are everyone in the courtroom, praise your right hand if you have seen this man or ever heard of the name day. I looked at the whole courtroom raised their hand.

00:26:10
Speaker 2: 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.

00:26:35
Speaker 4: Again, media has such as a fact on the outcome of the cases. Because all I showed is highlights. They don't show the fact. They could edit and they could crop whatever they want to say what they want, and the mature of the cases is the Roman narrative. It's all not the right fact.

00:26:53
Speaker 2: You know, when the jury is sitting there. You know, they're not dumb people. So they're sitting the to going well, this doesn't make sense, and that wasn't true, and this doesn't 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.

00:27:05
Speaker 4: It was a huge burden overcome. So it's you guilty, then you got to prove yourself innocent. And then, like I said, going back to the Thanksgiving break, you have Jess Henderson's quarterors is don't talk to your significant others when you go back home. Will come on listen. In reality, that's not going to happen. You know, honey, what do you do today? Well, I was at the whole small trial, the biggest thing going on in Oklahoma. Of course you're going to talk about it. So the people that are not in even the court room that the husband and wife is reinforcing the presumption of guilt. And then only that you have before my lawyers. You know, we hire a DNA expert, and yet you're going to.

00:27:40
Speaker 6: Fail me on that the forensic analyst misrepresented the DNA evidence on the fly of Daniel's pants. There was a mixture of DNA from at least three people. There are 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 significant 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.

00:28:39
Speaker 4: We have to wait till Eric to comes along to find that that's not right.

00:28:44
Speaker 6: 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 Daniels DNA wasn't there.

00:29:00
Speaker 4: Hearts were in the trial. I felt like, you know, my work could have set up an objecte or said something.

00:29:06
Speaker 6: What's really important is how the DNA evidence contributed heavily to Daniel's conviction, because the prosecutor actually said in his closing argument quote, the most important thing about the teenager whose DNA profile was found on the fly of Daniels pants is the fact, said the prosecutor, that DNA from the walls of her vagina was transferred 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.

00:30:00
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I'm not a d NA expert.

00:30:02
Speaker 9: I told us it was the DNA from the vaginal fluid from a seventeen year old.

00:30:07
Speaker 6: So we know at least Wonder 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. That jurors explained afterwards that this impacted their deliberations for all these allegations.

00:30:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, and this was during closing arguments. Could you later have objected in the closing argument? He still can. Yeah, and he should have. In fact, it should be a mistrial.

00:30:31
Speaker 5: And he didn't.

00:30:32
Speaker 2: Yeah, they didn't object to that. That's crazy to a gross misstatement.

00:30:35
Speaker 4: There was times when I was that and I remember one time I'm just like Scott, what do you injecting? Like what are you doing? And we kind of got into bigger many like calm down and calm down. Well, it's hard for me to calm down when you see the quote unquote victims that go on the stands and not even addressing the questions, and in addition to that, you have lead detective Davis and Greg Ray that are coaching them along and nodding everything they want to say. Okay, yuh, that's where I continue on and they're looking at datements and I'm looking at the jury members. Are you serious? Are you not seeing this?

00:31:07
Speaker 2: 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 you 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. Right, with all of that the outcome was preordained. Did you have any hope that you would still be vindicated?

00:32:05
Speaker 4: Well, I always leading the judicial system, That's why with the cop and so it was really frustrating. Obviously I was in toul shock when the murdy came down.

00:32:15
Speaker 3: I remember vividly there was a DURM member that she was a female that I would look and 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.

00:32:29
Speaker 1: Was coming in and.

00:32:30
Speaker 4: They walked into the courtroom, I saw even males, the.

00:32:34
Speaker 7: Male GERM members, and cheery eyed. And then I saw her crying hysterically. And this is when I'm really freaking out and I'm shaking.

00:32:43
Speaker 3: Up there, you know, what's going on? And on adord to.

00:32:45
Speaker 4: My lawyers and I'm like, well, what's going on? You know, and she's crying hysterically, everyone's crying, the GERM members. That does make sense because if he thought it was a guilty villain white crying, you know.

00:33:00
Speaker 7: And then when they ran dogs American you know, y me. I mean, I was an old No, I don't even remember what I and I even remember I think I just drop.

00:33:11
Speaker 4: My head and you know, like God, why it was something about it every.

00:33:17
Speaker 8: Thought possible would happen.

00:33:31
Speaker 2: 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 at 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 instance 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.

00:35:06
Speaker 4: I used to hate here and that and think's happened for a reason, And I used to hate that, But I think there's a greater purpose from God, and I think God has a plan for me. You know, be down in my heart, I know I'm going to be free. But that said, I can be here without any all my loved ones and supporters, so everyone that had come along the way, it's a blessing. It's just an act of God right there, and finding never gave up, never had a thought of giving up. And that day when I'm free, you better bet your blood and I'm going to fight for all the wrongful convicted people out there.

00:35:40
Speaker 2: Well, it's going to be an honor to work with you. So what happens next and how can people help?

00:35:49
Speaker 5: I suggest people if they want to learn more, go to free d Holds claw dot com, my Facebook, Jenny holtzklaw is public. I post all the facts and information and give daily updates of what's going on his case. 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 dot com for the link to actually sign the petition.

00:36:12
Speaker 1: We will have Jennifer's Facebook as well as the petition linked in the episode description. Now, all thirteen accusers that had taken Daniel to trial went on to sue the city, the detectives, and Daniel, and then the lead up to a potential civil trial against the city. There were depositions conviction one that's Jenny Liggins. There was the grainy traffic video. She also described a blonde officer in her initial statement there was no DNA from Daniel in a rape kit. And then this is what happened when asked about Daniel in her deposition, do you recall.

00:36:46
Speaker 9: Listening to audio recording interviews of Daniel Holtz call who I'm.

00:36:51
Speaker 2: Sorry, No, I couldn't. I can't remember.

00:36:54
Speaker 1: Doesn't remember the man who allegedly assaulted her and whom she sent to prison because she did experience a very real assault, but it was never Daniel. That conviction accounts for twenty one years of his sentence. Conviction two originally described her attacker as shorter than five to eleven and black, which obviously is not Daniel, who was six' two and ethnically Half, european Half, japanese and she confirmed That daniel was not her attacker during her. Deposition how do you recognize that person from?

00:37:27
Speaker 7: Court do you recognize that person from any other time in your?

00:37:30
Speaker 8: Life?

00:37:31
Speaker 1: NO i have never seen him before.

00:37:34
Speaker 2: Trial that's What i'll bally see who accused of riping?

00:37:39
Speaker 1: Meat that conviction accounts for sixty two years Of daniel. Sentence conviction three was the one that was dispelled by the squad car's. Geolocator he'd never driven on that block where she alleged the attack took. Place that's thirty more years For. Daniel conviction four had this to, say about the first time she made a statement To Detective. Davis she was coming down off crack in.

00:38:02
Speaker 2: Jail she hasn't be, quitness like send to, that get stopped or. Whatever at, FIRST i.

00:38:08
Speaker 1: Was kind of. Angry i'm angry like that When i'm coming down so and you're in jail somewhere you don't want to.

00:38:13
Speaker 9: Be, yeah Then i'm looking for a ticket out SO i can get high.

00:38:16
Speaker 1: Again Sel so she traded a story to get high again another twenty. Years For daniel conviction, five her story changed over, time including what kind of car her attacker. Drove it also appears that she decided to cooperate following other pending. Charges that conviction meant another forty six. Years For Daniel conviction, six described her attacker as ten like maybe From, india so once again not Describing, daniel and the charges stemmed from an allegation that he had made her expose herself and fondled her bare. Breasts during her, deposition she confirmed That daniel never touched.

00:38:54
Speaker 2: Her how many times Did Hultz claw touch you? Inappropriately she didn't touch. Me he never touched.

00:39:01
Speaker 10: You no next to the or the third of the last, line says Hol squaud didn't Ask Plaintiff barnes if there was anything under her, breast and Final Planeiff barnes is naked.

00:39:11
Speaker 8: Breast do you see?

00:39:12
Speaker 9: That is?

00:39:13
Speaker 2: Ready, YES i see, it.

00:39:14
Speaker 10: Sir isn't that different than what you testified?

00:39:16
Speaker 2: Today what do you mean is that?

00:39:18
Speaker 10: Different didn't you say Hols claud didn't touch.

00:39:20
Speaker 2: You he didn't touch, Me so this is a. Mistake he did not touch, me.

00:39:28
Speaker 10: Okay and if you go back To defend's exhibit number, eleven count, one five lines from the bottom of count one DIRECTING tb to expose her breast and then touching her bare breast with his hand without her, consent that's also a.

00:39:41
Speaker 2: Mistake he didn't touch, me.

00:39:45
Speaker 10: Okay and you understand that Mister holsclaud was convicted of sexual battery on that count as a result of your.

00:39:54
Speaker 1: Testimony, yes eighteen more years For. Daniel conviction seven onces again had a differing description of her, attacker who was taller Than, daniel not the same, haircut and then there were inconsistencies between her story and. Reality another sixteen years For, daniel and finally conviction, eight probably the most consequential of all the. Convictions the victim WHOSE dna was found On daniel's fly with a mix of several other, profiles including an unknown male, profile and during her, deposition she recalled when the Prosecutor Galen geiger made the same misrepresentation about THE dna evidence to her that he eventually made in his closing.

00:40:34
Speaker 9: Argument, WELL i was and the witness room or whatever that room is, called before they have the witnesses waiting to go testifile is there And Galen geiger came to me and he told, ME i believe. You out of all the other, WOMEN i believe. You AND i said, Why and he, said because we were looking for a match OF dna that we found inside his police pants and it was. You we found your vaginal fluid on inside and outside his belief.

00:41:02
Speaker 8: Pants and what did you. SAY i don't THINK i.

00:41:05
Speaker 9: Said anything anything.

00:41:07
Speaker 4: Else he.

00:41:08
Speaker 9: Said he encouraged me to testify because it would help the other women IF i, testified BECAUSE i was the only one with physical.

00:41:19
Speaker 1: Evidence so not only does this recollection reveal that the prosecutor may have really only believed In conviction eight's, allegation but that belief may have stemmed from a misunderstanding of THE dna, evidence and then the eventual misrepresentation of that evidence to the jury granted credence to all the other. Accusations despite the inconsistencies and sometimes wholly unbelievable, statements the final conviction meant another fifty years For. Daniel, interestingly after these, depositions the states settled with the accusers for what we understand to be very small sums under like ten grand. Piece why would they have accepted so little if they had strong, cases strong enough for the state to, settle yet weak enough to accept so. Little perhaps both the accusers and the state know what this, was and maybe the state chose to settle as to not put these witnesses back on the. Record if they intended on, winning they destroy their own witnesses Against, daniel Giving daniel's team more ammo for post. Conviction they'd expose how the sausage was, made how these people were, lying maybe not about their, experiences but about who was. Guilty. Now soon after this settlement was, reached civil proceedings began Against, daniel but soon came to a halt When daniel's team shared their briefs and the accusers dropped the suit Against. Daniel altogether looks like they didn't have a prayer Against. Daniel so now post conviction litigation. Continues if anyone has information about this, case please reach out to any Holtz. Claw Her facebook is linked in the episode description along with the. Petition and with that we'll go To daniel's closing thoughts as they were originally.

00:43:08
Speaker 3: Recorded all, Right i'll just try to be quick out.

00:43:13
Speaker 4: Versus thank you for having letting us come on board and be able to speak my side And manu SENSE i appreciate. It jason just to, add you, know real. Fast and someone asked, me, well why do you think you're roughly Convicted, Daniels i'd probably say the.

00:43:27
Speaker 8: MEDIA i think the media plays.

00:43:28
Speaker 4: A huge factor in people's. Reception LIKE i said earlier in the, show people WATCH tv shows where it's law and order in THE. Ipss you, know THAT'S tv. Show that's not the reality of what, happens and that's support. Rooms people believe that this, defendant this high profile on national. Television oh, man he must be. Guilty the defense, warrier oh, man he's grew up in bed War he's trying to get paint. Here he's going to try to get them off on a, Technicality well that's not the. Case please just don't believe in to the, media don't believe in that mass medium and nihilation where they get edit and crop and wherever they want to. Do and the majority of them are just aiding the prosecutions, side and people believe the prosecutions are the good guys with all they care about is the. Fictionary SO i just ask that you, guys please just don't jump to the assumption that this person is. Guilty looking in the facts of the case and, actually you, know do your, homework come out with your own, opinion and don't don't believe with the, MEDIA i always trying to. Portray SO i know it's fun to hang up right. Now but, again thank you everyone and all the loved with all the floers that came along as a. Spiracle that Where i'm at right now is thanks to. You i'm a continia to, fight never give, up AND i know one want to be. Free so thank you everyone out there that's.

00:44:39
Speaker 6: LISTENING i love, Guys thank, you love, You Daniel Hie, daniel.

00:44:49
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening To Wrongful. Conviction you can listen to this and all The lava for good podcasts one week early and ad free by subscribing To lava For good plus On Apple. PODCASTS i want to thank our production, Team Connor hall And Kathleen, fink as well as my fellow executive Producers Jeff, Kempler Kevin, wartis And Jeff. Cleiber the music in this production was supplied by three TIME oscar nominated Composer Jay. Rouse be sure to follow us across all social media platforms At lava For good and At Wrongful. Conviction you can also follow me On instagram At It's Jason. Flamm Wrongful conviction is a production Of lava For Good podcasts in association With Signal Company Number.

00:45:25
Speaker 1: One we have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are. Accurate the views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those Of lava For good