Latest / Wrongful Conviction / #396 Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science - Footwear Comparison Evidence

Transcript

#396 Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science - Footwear Comparison Evidence · Wrongful Conviction

0:01
Speaker 1: Hey folks, Kate Judson here, I'm a lawyer and the
0:03
Speaker 1: executive director of the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences.
0:09
Speaker 1: We're back with another episode of Junk Science, a series
0:12
Speaker 1: we first released in twenty twenty. But these stories are
0:16
Speaker 1: just as relevant as ever. In this week's episode, Josh
0:19
Speaker 1: will dive into the story of Dale Johnson and the
0:22
Speaker 1: use of footwear analysis to wrongfully convict an innocent man.
0:26
Speaker 1: It's yet another example of a highly subjective analysis that
0:30
Speaker 1: is presented in court as objective fact. Just like other
0:34
Speaker 1: types of pattern matching evidence, in court, testifying experts may
0:39
Speaker 1: overstate the certainty of the evidence, overstate their conclusions, or
0:45
Speaker 1: exaggerate their reliability. In fact, when looking at hair comparison
0:51
Speaker 1: analyst testimony another type of flawed pattern matching, the FBI
0:56
Speaker 1: and others found that analysts overstated their conclusions more than
1:01
Speaker 1: ninety five percent of the time. There's no reason to
1:08
Speaker 1: believe that other types of pattern analysis are any different.
1:12
Speaker 1: So sometimes analysts overstate or exaggerate, and of course sometimes
1:17
Speaker 1: they're just playing wrong. Dale Johnson's case is an extreme
1:22
Speaker 1: example of this area of flawed analysis, but there are
1:25
Speaker 1: plenty more cases where footwear comparisons are used in a
1:29
Speaker 1: problematic way, and likely many more exonerations to come.
1:40
Speaker 2: It's a clear fall day in America's heartland. You sit
1:43
Speaker 2: in a chair outside your trailer, contently looking out over
1:47
Speaker 2: your farm. It's cool and the sun is setting behind
1:51
Speaker 2: the dense forest that surrounds your property. Everything seems just right.
1:57
Speaker 2: That evening, your stepdaughter in Net stops by with her boyfriend.
2:02
Speaker 2: You and your wife were pretty upset when Annette told
2:05
Speaker 2: you she was moving away from the farm and moving
2:07
Speaker 2: in with her boyfriend, Todd and his parents downtown. You
2:11
Speaker 2: don't want a Net to be caught up with someone
2:13
Speaker 2: from town. All those townies seem to care about his
2:16
Speaker 2: church and gossip. You want nothing to do with them,
2:20
Speaker 2: and they don't seem to want anything to do with you.
2:23
Speaker 2: But in Nette's already eighteen, she's an adult. You can't
2:27
Speaker 2: really control her. You try to act supportive, so you
2:31
Speaker 2: nod to Todd and help a Nette pack the last
2:33
Speaker 2: of her things into his trunk. You give her a
2:36
Speaker 2: hug before she gets into the car with him, and
2:39
Speaker 2: you watch as Todd pulls away to drive them back
2:42
Speaker 2: into town, and you're feeling a little helpless. The next
2:47
Speaker 2: day is pretty routine for you. You pick up loads
2:50
Speaker 2: of hay to bring to your barn. It's strenuous work.
2:54
Speaker 2: You work hard all day. You're exhausted, and you go
2:57
Speaker 2: to bed early. The next morning, the phone rings. It's
3:03
Speaker 2: Todd's mother. She says, are net in Todd with you? No,
3:08
Speaker 2: you say, I thought they were with you. Tod's mother
3:12
Speaker 2: becomes frantic. She says, the kids went for a walk
3:15
Speaker 2: around four pm yesterday and they never came home last night.
3:20
Speaker 2: But there's something else going on there. There's a hint
3:23
Speaker 2: of something, a tone of accusation in her voice, like
3:27
Speaker 2: she's somehow blaming you. You hang up and call the
3:31
Speaker 2: police immediately. You wait all day, hoping to hear something,
3:35
Speaker 2: but there's nothing. You're just waiting and waiting, and the
3:40
Speaker 2: police finally get back to you in the evening. They
3:43
Speaker 2: can't find them. One sleepless night bleeds into another, and
3:48
Speaker 2: then another and another. This is one terrible nightmare for
3:53
Speaker 2: you and your wife. Ten days go on like this.
3:58
Speaker 2: All you and your wife can do is it and worry.
4:02
Speaker 2: You're not eating, you're not sleeping, you don't know what
4:05
Speaker 2: to do with yourselves. It's raining outside when you finally
4:10
Speaker 2: get a call from an officer and you can hear
4:13
Speaker 2: it in the tone of their voice. This is not
4:15
Speaker 2: going to be good. The news I have for you
4:20
Speaker 2: is not going to be easy to hear. He says,
4:24
Speaker 2: we found Todd in a net in the Hawking River.
4:29
Speaker 2: Oh my god, you can't stand. Your body is trembling.
4:34
Speaker 2: You try to restate what the officer just said. You're
4:37
Speaker 2: trying to wrap your head around what this means. You
4:40
Speaker 2: found their bodies, their dead bodies. The officer says, they
4:46
Speaker 2: didn't find their whole bodies, just their torsos. Their bodies
4:51
Speaker 2: have been dismembered. You're completely sick. Officers spend two days
5:02
Speaker 2: searching the cornfields between the railroad tracks and the river
5:05
Speaker 2: where the torsos were found. They find Todd in the
5:09
Speaker 2: net's limbs and heads buried in shallow graves. You and
5:13
Speaker 2: your wife drive into town to the police station, and
5:17
Speaker 2: you're taken aback by the attitudes of these cops. When
5:19
Speaker 2: you're separated from your wife and pulled into an interrogation room,
5:25
Speaker 2: officers tell you to take off your boots, your shirt,
5:28
Speaker 2: your pants. You sit shivering in your underwear for eight
5:32
Speaker 2: and a half hours and then a detective comes in.
5:36
Speaker 2: He sits down right next to you, puts his finger
5:40
Speaker 2: in your face and says, you did this. We know
5:44
Speaker 2: you did this. We found your bootprint down by the riverbank.
5:48
Speaker 2: Once we match that boot to the print that was
5:51
Speaker 2: left at that riverbank, it'll prove you were there. You
5:55
Speaker 2: killed your stepdaughter, and then you sick bastard, you cut
5:59
Speaker 2: off for arms, her legs, her head. You better confess,
6:04
Speaker 2: because I'll tell you right now it's going to get
6:06
Speaker 2: worse for you if you don't. You say, over and
6:11
Speaker 2: over and over again, what in the world are you
6:15
Speaker 2: talking about. I didn't murder a net I just came
6:19
Speaker 2: here to help you find out who did What is
6:22
Speaker 2: this all about. They don't have enough evidence to charge
6:25
Speaker 2: you for the murder of a net and Todd, so
6:27
Speaker 2: they have to let you go. They impound your car
6:31
Speaker 2: so it can be searched for evidence. It's dark and
6:34
Speaker 2: cold when they drive you home. They let you and
6:37
Speaker 2: your wife out of the car and you're still naked
6:40
Speaker 2: except for your underwear. You walk barefoot to your trailer.
6:44
Speaker 2: Your toes are totally dumb. By the time you get
6:47
Speaker 2: to the door. Downtown, rumors start to spread. People are
6:53
Speaker 2: saying this murder must have been some kind of cult ritual,
6:56
Speaker 2: that it must have been you who did it. The quiet,
6:59
Speaker 2: stern stepfather who never says much, never goes to church,
7:04
Speaker 2: keeps his family hidden away. Who knows what goes on
7:06
Speaker 2: at that farm. They didn't like you before, but now
7:10
Speaker 2: they're straight a hostile. They cross the street to get
7:13
Speaker 2: away from you when they see you coming. It takes
7:17
Speaker 2: them a year to build the case against you. Are
7:19
Speaker 2: they even looking at other suspects. The whispering of your
7:24
Speaker 2: name around town grows to a fever pitch. You can
7:27
Speaker 2: hear their accusations ring in your ears. Murderer, molester. You're
7:37
Speaker 2: eventually arrested in charge with the butchering murder of your
7:41
Speaker 2: stepdaughter and net and her boyfriend Todd. When you finally
7:46
Speaker 2: go to court, you do something very out of the ordinary.
7:49
Speaker 2: You waive the right to a jury trial. Finding twelve
7:53
Speaker 2: impartial people in Logan, Ohio really not going to happen.
7:58
Speaker 2: The newspapers, everyone around town, they all think you're guilty.
8:03
Speaker 2: Everyone just wants to feel safe again. They won't be
8:07
Speaker 2: satisfied until someone is convicted and they are sure that
8:12
Speaker 2: person is you instead of a jury. You put your
8:16
Speaker 2: fate in the hands of a three judge panel. A
8:19
Speaker 2: jury might not see it, but three judges they have to.
8:23
Speaker 2: It's their job to apply the facts to the law
8:26
Speaker 2: without any outside influence from the court of public opinion.
8:31
Speaker 2: Your lawyer calls to the stand and FBI analyst who
8:34
Speaker 2: says the plaster mold of what the prosecution claims is
8:37
Speaker 2: your bootprint at the riverbank is quote unquote unsuitable. The
8:42
Speaker 2: analyst says it lacks sufficient detail for meaningful comparison, and
8:46
Speaker 2: that it looks more like the footprint of someone who
8:48
Speaker 2: is walking barefoot. There is no way to claim your
8:52
Speaker 2: boots match that print, So you're optimistic. But then the
8:57
Speaker 2: prosecution calls an anthropology professor or to the stand. She
9:02
Speaker 2: says she studied footwear impressions of countless samples. Her delivery
9:06
Speaker 2: is slow and deliberate and really credible. She says, quote
9:12
Speaker 2: no person's footprints are the same as another. They're as
9:16
Speaker 2: unique as a fingerprint. I've analyzed the wear patterns on
9:20
Speaker 2: the inside of the defendant's boot, and I can say
9:23
Speaker 2: with certainty, scientific certainty, that the footprint found by the
9:27
Speaker 2: riverbank was made by the defendant. This sounds unbelievable, but
9:35
Speaker 2: you see the judges are nodding along. There's no wather
9:38
Speaker 2: buying this is there. After a very short deliberation, the
9:43
Speaker 2: judges apparently believe the testimony of the prosecution's anthropologists who
9:47
Speaker 2: put you right at the scene of the crime. They
9:50
Speaker 2: convict you, and you are sentenced to death. The story
9:57
Speaker 2: you just heard is based on the murders of Nette
10:00
Speaker 2: Cooper Johnston and Todd Schultz. Dale. Johnston was wrongfully convicted
10:06
Speaker 2: and sentenced to death in nineteen eighty four. He was
10:10
Speaker 2: exonerated in nineteen ninety, over twenty years after the murder.
10:16
Speaker 2: The true killer finally confessed, but even then the people
10:20
Speaker 2: in the town of Logan still chose to believe that
10:23
Speaker 2: Dale was guilty in one way or another. On today's episode,
10:27
Speaker 2: we're going to examine how a supposed footprint put an
10:30
Speaker 2: innocent man on death row. I'm Josh Dubin, civil rights
10:38
Speaker 2: and criminal defense attorney and Innocent ambassador to the Innocence
10:42
Speaker 2: Project in New York. Today, on Wrongful Conviction Junk Science,
10:46
Speaker 2: we examined footwear comparison evidence, even when done correctly, impression
10:52
Speaker 2: analysis of evidence like shoe prints and tire tracks as
10:55
Speaker 2: purely subjective. Many experts recognize its limitations, but one so
11:01
Speaker 2: called expert in particular push the limits of this forensic
11:05
Speaker 2: discipline to produce horrific outcomes. It turns out that Dale
11:09
Speaker 2: Johnson wasn't the only innocent person to be convicted of
11:12
Speaker 2: a crime based on faulty footwear comparison evidence.
11:23
Speaker 3: The Pacers Foundation is a proud supporter of this episode
11:26
Speaker 3: of wrongful conviction with Jason Flahm and of the Last
11:29
Speaker 3: Mile organization, which provides business and tech training to help
11:33
Speaker 3: incarcerated individuals successfully and permanently re enter the workforce. The
11:38
Speaker 3: Pacers Foundation is committed to improving the lives of Hoosiers
11:41
Speaker 3: across Indiana, supporting organizations dedicated primarily to helping young people
11:46
Speaker 3: and students. For more information on the work of the
11:49
Speaker 3: Pacers Foundation or the Last Mile Program, visit Pacersfoundation dot
11:54
Speaker 3: org or the Lastmile dot org.
12:05
Speaker 2: In nineteen seventy six, archaeologists made one of the most
12:08
Speaker 2: exciting discoveries of our time. They found footprints dating back
12:13
Speaker 2: three point seven million years immortalized in the volcanic ash
12:18
Speaker 2: in Tanzania, and they looked like human prints. Archaeologists were thrilled.
12:25
Speaker 2: They thought these footprints could shed some light on when
12:28
Speaker 2: human beings began walking upright on two feet. Luis Robbins
12:33
Speaker 2: was an anthropology professor at the University of North Carolina
12:36
Speaker 2: at Greensboro. She too was excited about these footprints and
12:41
Speaker 2: wanted to know exactly who left them behind. Louise had
12:45
Speaker 2: been conducting her own studies in footprint analysis. She started
12:50
Speaker 2: collecting footprints from people who were still alive. Five hundred
12:54
Speaker 2: people put ink onto their feet and then stood on
12:57
Speaker 2: a piece of paper. Based on those prince Louise tried
13:01
Speaker 2: to find characteristics and feet that were specific to age, sex, stature,
13:06
Speaker 2: and weight, using her own system of measurement. She would
13:10
Speaker 2: then compare those characteristics to the footprints found in the caves.
13:15
Speaker 2: Her conclusion, no two footprints are the same. In fact,
13:20
Speaker 2: she thought she could tell a great deal about a
13:22
Speaker 2: person just by looking at their footprint. Her methods were
13:26
Speaker 2: never tested by her peers, nor were they confirmed by
13:30
Speaker 2: other scientists, but Louise she thought she was onto something.
13:34
Speaker 2: She claimed to do something no one else could identify
13:38
Speaker 2: a person solely through their footprint, and so in nineteen
13:43
Speaker 2: seventy eight, when a team of scientists went to excavate
13:46
Speaker 2: the site in Tanzania where the prehistoric footprints were found.
13:50
Speaker 2: Louise went too. When she saw the prince, she claimed
13:54
Speaker 2: that one of them was left by a woman that
13:56
Speaker 2: was five and a half months pregnant. Now, other scientists
14:00
Speaker 2: on the expedition scratched their heads. It was hard enough
14:03
Speaker 2: to figure out if the prints that they were looking
14:05
Speaker 2: at were even human at all. No one had ever
14:08
Speaker 2: claimed to know the gender of the person that made
14:11
Speaker 2: the print, let alone of that person was carrying a child.
14:15
Speaker 2: Then Louise took a dangerous leap. She positioned herself as
14:20
Speaker 2: a forensic expert, authoring a book on footprints. She didn't
14:25
Speaker 2: write this book with her scientific peers in mind, but
14:28
Speaker 2: she wrote it for law enforcement and crime labs. Only
14:33
Speaker 2: five pages in this book were dedicated to the analysis
14:36
Speaker 2: of actual shoe prints, and yet, based on these five pages,
14:42
Speaker 2: Louise claimed that she was an expert in this area
14:45
Speaker 2: of forensic science. Lawyers began to hire her as an
14:49
Speaker 2: expert witness. They told judges that her work was on
14:52
Speaker 2: the cutting edge of forensic science. Critics of her work
14:56
Speaker 2: called it Cinderella analysis. After all, she usually he made
15:00
Speaker 2: sure that the shoe fit when she matched the suspects
15:03
Speaker 2: foot to the shoe Prince found at a crime scene.
15:07
Speaker 2: In the more than twenty cases for which she testified,
15:10
Speaker 2: twelve people, some of whom who have since been proven
15:14
Speaker 2: to be innocent, were sent to prison, including Dale Johnston,
15:19
Speaker 2: who was sentenced to death.
15:26
Speaker 4: Dale Johnson and his wife Sarah at the time, came
15:29
Speaker 4: down to Logan several days after the bodies had been discovered,
15:33
Speaker 4: and they came to the Logan police department. They wanted
15:38
Speaker 4: to be helpful to them, and Dale was immediately taken
15:41
Speaker 4: up to an interrogation room. His boots, his pants, his
15:47
Speaker 4: shirt were all confiscated. So he was sitting there in
15:51
Speaker 4: the chair in his underwear and they were bombarding him.
15:54
Speaker 4: You did it, didn't you? And we know you did it?
15:56
Speaker 4: Over and over and over again. He kept saying, no,
15:58
Speaker 4: I have nothing. I would just I came into town
16:02
Speaker 4: to try to help.
16:04
Speaker 2: Here today is Bill Osinski, a journalist who covered the
16:08
Speaker 2: Dale Johnson case for years and wrote a book about
16:11
Speaker 2: it called Guilty by Popular Demand. So Bill, tell us
16:15
Speaker 2: a little bit about yourself and how you started covering
16:17
Speaker 2: this case.
16:19
Speaker 4: For nearly forty years. I was a reporter. I worked
16:23
Speaker 4: for eleven different newspapers around the country. I worked for
16:26
Speaker 4: the Akron Beacon Journal at that time, which is nearly
16:29
Speaker 4: two hundred miles away from Logan, Ohio, where the murders
16:34
Speaker 4: took place. But in those days, the newspapers valued a
16:38
Speaker 4: major story and would make that kind of an investment
16:41
Speaker 4: in time and resources to cover a widely publicized case
16:46
Speaker 4: like that.
16:47
Speaker 2: So, Bill, you actually went to Logan, Ohio to cover
16:50
Speaker 2: Dale's trial? What was that like?
16:53
Speaker 4: I drove into Logan, which is about thirty five miles
16:57
Speaker 4: southeast of Columbus, Ohio. I've ever been there before, and
17:00
Speaker 4: I drove in on a January morning, and it was
17:03
Speaker 4: one of the coldest things I can remember. The temperatures
17:07
Speaker 4: were well below zero. And I went to the center
17:11
Speaker 4: of the little town and found the courthouse. And here,
17:15
Speaker 4: you know, eight o'clock on a weekday morning, there was
17:18
Speaker 4: a line outside the courthouse. People were standing in that
17:22
Speaker 4: below zero cold waiting for a chance to get in
17:26
Speaker 4: to hear all this salacious details of this horrific murder
17:31
Speaker 4: of a teenage couple who were found dismembered, parts of
17:37
Speaker 4: their bodies buried in a cornfield near the Hawking River
17:41
Speaker 4: in Logan, Ohio.
17:42
Speaker 2: Wow, this is a really brutal crime. I mean, you
17:45
Speaker 2: have body parts buried in fields. And the prosecutors claimed
17:50
Speaker 2: that Dale Johnson committed these murders and putting aside what
17:55
Speaker 2: his motive would have been. How did they claim he
17:58
Speaker 2: committed the murders.
18:00
Speaker 4: The prosecutor alleged in his scenario that Dale Johnston had
18:06
Speaker 4: kidnapped these two kids in downtown Logan, made a stop
18:10
Speaker 4: on his way home at a doctor's office and drove
18:13
Speaker 4: him onto his trailer, where they got into an argument
18:16
Speaker 4: about a little used car that the parents were supposed
18:20
Speaker 4: to have given a net but hadn't yet, And out
18:24
Speaker 4: of that argument, Dale went into a jealous fit and
18:29
Speaker 4: pulled out a gun which they never found, and shot
18:33
Speaker 4: his stepdaughter and a boyfriend, and then took them outside,
18:37
Speaker 4: apparently and butchered them, and then brought them back to
18:43
Speaker 4: downtown Logan where they had last been seen and put
18:47
Speaker 4: some body parts, heads and limbs in the cornfield. I mean,
18:53
Speaker 4: it just it made absolutely no sense. They had no
18:58
Speaker 4: evidence that he was actually back in town at night
19:02
Speaker 4: trying to bury these bodies, but that's what they elect.
19:05
Speaker 4: Dale was not a warm guy. I mean, you know,
19:10
Speaker 4: he was the outsider. He didn't have a high opinion
19:13
Speaker 4: of the locals. They didn't like him. You know, he
19:16
Speaker 4: was convenient guy for them to hang in on.
19:19
Speaker 2: So, Bill, did anyone think that Dale was innocent? I mean,
19:22
Speaker 2: what was your sense of the atmosphere surrounding the case.
19:28
Speaker 4: There was such an atmosphere of the case having been
19:31
Speaker 4: already tried in the court of public opinion before the
19:35
Speaker 4: trial even started. More than a year passed between the
19:38
Speaker 4: murderers and the trial, and obviously the only story coming
19:43
Speaker 4: out of the investigation was that Dale Johnson did it.
19:45
Speaker 4: So that, in fact, was why the defense waived a
19:49
Speaker 4: jury trial and asked for a three judge panel, because
19:52
Speaker 4: they knew that people in Hocking County were so predisposed
19:58
Speaker 4: to believe that Dale Johnson was the killer.
20:10
Speaker 2: Now, very little evidence was found at the scenes where
20:13
Speaker 2: these body parts were found, but we know investigators found
20:17
Speaker 2: some sort of print in the mud by the riverbank.
20:20
Speaker 2: And Dale goes down to the police station with his
20:24
Speaker 2: wife Sarah, and he thinks he's going there to help
20:27
Speaker 2: them find the killers, but they confiscate his boots, and
20:32
Speaker 2: of course those boots would be compared to the impression
20:35
Speaker 2: found at the scene. So tell us a little bit
20:37
Speaker 2: more about what happened.
20:39
Speaker 4: There were so many cops out there that, according to
20:41
Speaker 4: the testimony of a Ohio Bureau of Investigation agent, they
20:47
Speaker 4: totally ruined the crime scene as far as being able
20:50
Speaker 4: to collect any valid evidence. They were cops stomping all over. Well,
20:55
Speaker 4: what happened was the share of Hockeing County had an
21:00
Speaker 4: impression made of a depression in the riverbank, and they
21:04
Speaker 4: made it casting, and they sent it off to the FBI,
21:07
Speaker 4: and it was examined by a nationally known footprint expert
21:13
Speaker 4: at the FBI, and he was brought in to testify
21:16
Speaker 4: to his findings, and he testified that, well, all he
21:21
Speaker 4: could say that this casting was more likely a footprint
21:26
Speaker 4: than any kind of a shoeprint or bootprint. And however,
21:31
Speaker 4: he forwarded this plaster cast at his own volition to
21:35
Speaker 4: a woman anthropologist, Luis Robbins, for her examination. And she
21:43
Speaker 4: had a theory of how he could identify footprints from
21:49
Speaker 4: the ware patterns on the inside of someone's footwear. She
21:55
Speaker 4: had this Kakamami theory that by examining the interior of
22:00
Speaker 4: a footwear she could get wear impressions and use that
22:06
Speaker 4: to analyze a casting of a print from a shoe
22:10
Speaker 4: or a boot. And so she testified and triwed it. Well,
22:16
Speaker 4: you can't really say that Dale Johnson's boot fits this,
22:20
Speaker 4: but from the wear patterns that she observed from the
22:24
Speaker 4: interior of the boot, when you looked at it that way,
22:28
Speaker 4: then yes, this was made by Dale Johnson's boot. And
22:32
Speaker 4: you know, I had never heard of that before. It
22:34
Speaker 4: didn't make any sense to me. It was only later,
22:38
Speaker 4: after the damage was done, that it came out how
22:40
Speaker 4: irresponsible and unreliable and untrue. Her testimony was.
22:47
Speaker 2: So let me hit this straight. This is like, you know,
22:49
Speaker 2: kind of mind blowing here. Louise Robbins said that she
22:53
Speaker 2: could match the depression found by the riverbank to Dale
22:57
Speaker 2: based on war patterns made by his foot inside his boot.
23:02
Speaker 2: I mean, it just sounds ridiculous. I've never even heard
23:05
Speaker 2: of that before. This seems to go so far outside
23:09
Speaker 2: the bounds of any verifiable science. And you know, it's
23:13
Speaker 2: important for our listeners to keep in mind that with
23:16
Speaker 2: impression pattern matching methods, that's the type of science we're
23:21
Speaker 2: talking about, or alleged science that we're talking about with
23:24
Speaker 2: shoe prints and tires. There's a database that experts have
23:28
Speaker 2: and they refer to this database when they're matching a
23:31
Speaker 2: shoe or a tire to an impression at a scene.
23:35
Speaker 2: And tires and shoes are mass produced, so the same
23:39
Speaker 2: rubber mold is used to make them. But that just
23:42
Speaker 2: tells an expert what class that piece of evidence came from. So,
23:46
Speaker 2: for instance, they can say that this footwear impression was
23:51
Speaker 2: made by a size ten Nike Air Jordan. But the
23:55
Speaker 2: problem is a lot of people own a size ten
23:58
Speaker 2: Nike Air Jordan, so it's not enough to put somebody
24:01
Speaker 2: at the scene. So impression analysis really comes down to
24:05
Speaker 2: the individual characteristics in the specific shoe or shoes that
24:10
Speaker 2: belong to the accused, and we're talking about things like
24:14
Speaker 2: cracks in the sole of the shoe, comes stuck to
24:18
Speaker 2: the bottom of the heel, you know, characteristics that are
24:21
Speaker 2: often caused by routine wear and tear. But the problem
24:25
Speaker 2: is there is no standard regarding the number of unique
24:29
Speaker 2: characteristics that are needed to make a positive identification. And
24:34
Speaker 2: it sounds like from the mold they were working with
24:37
Speaker 2: in this case that the FBI analysts couldn't even tell
24:41
Speaker 2: if the impression was made by a bare foot or
24:43
Speaker 2: a shoe, let alone, what kind of a shoe? So
24:47
Speaker 2: that should tell you something about the quality of the
24:50
Speaker 2: impression they were working with. But Ms Robbins makes this
24:54
Speaker 2: huge leap, and it's really really hard to imagine that
24:58
Speaker 2: this could have been allowed in a courtroom when someone's
25:02
Speaker 2: freedom was on the line. And yet he or she
25:05
Speaker 2: is one of the prosecution's key witnesses when it came
25:08
Speaker 2: to analyzing the physical evidence of the scene. So how
25:12
Speaker 2: prominently did Miss Robbin's testimony play in the prosecution's closing arguments?
25:18
Speaker 4: Bill, Well, it was very prominent because it was the
25:22
Speaker 4: only piece of evidence that linked Dale Johnson to the
25:26
Speaker 4: murder scene. I thought it was a very weak link
25:30
Speaker 4: to begin with, but apparently it was strong enough for
25:34
Speaker 4: three judges. His closing line was, murder is the ultimate
25:41
Speaker 4: form of molestation, so you must be guilty of the
25:43
Speaker 4: murder too. He had, of course, been alleging without evidence,
25:48
Speaker 4: that Dale Johnson had inappropriate relationship with Annette.
25:52
Speaker 2: So after he's convicted and sentence, what happens next?
25:57
Speaker 4: Bill? He was sent immediately to death row. But you know,
26:01
Speaker 4: it was such a weird, hostile atmosphere in that town.
26:07
Speaker 4: I mean, I will never forget when it came time
26:10
Speaker 4: for the verdict, all the spectators had gathered on the
26:14
Speaker 4: lower level of the courthouse but listened to the verdict
26:16
Speaker 4: by radio, and I will never forget that when the
26:20
Speaker 4: guilty verdict was announced, there was this eerie cheering that
26:27
Speaker 4: came from below, you know, that filled up the courtroom.
26:30
Speaker 4: And these people wanted somebody to pay, and Dale Johnston
26:34
Speaker 4: happened to be the guy who they were able to
26:38
Speaker 4: hang it on.
26:39
Speaker 2: I mean, it seems Bill that they didn't even have
26:42
Speaker 2: anything other than a hunch that Dal Johnston did this.
26:46
Speaker 2: I mean, I it's hard to make sense of this.
26:49
Speaker 2: I mean, do you think that they did this on purpose?
26:52
Speaker 2: Do you think that they've set out to frame Dale Johnson?
26:56
Speaker 4: Well, I don't think anyone wants to accept that the
27:01
Speaker 4: prosecutors and police would knowingly fabricate an entire case against
27:08
Speaker 4: a murder defendant. And I know I came down to
27:12
Speaker 4: Logan with no preconceptions. I do remember, you know, having
27:17
Speaker 4: the belief that you know, the state wouldn't bring these
27:21
Speaker 4: charges unless they had something against this guy. And by
27:24
Speaker 4: the end, I said, where is the case I was
27:28
Speaker 4: shocked at the prosecutor's summary. I mean it, it was
27:33
Speaker 4: total high opera and total fantasy. Everything that was presented
27:41
Speaker 4: in that trial was a lie. I believe somewhere before
27:47
Speaker 4: I die, I'm going to learn the truth in this case,
27:49
Speaker 4: and it just so happens that I did.
28:03
Speaker 2: You know, it's interesting that oftentimes, when one of these
28:07
Speaker 2: disciplines of junk science is used in a case and
28:10
Speaker 2: the person is convicted, it's not the exposure of that
28:15
Speaker 2: junk science as being total bullshit that leads to the exoneration.
28:20
Speaker 2: It's often that DNA testing is used to prove that
28:24
Speaker 2: they have the wrong person. What's really interesting about this
28:28
Speaker 2: case is that Dale is eventually released from prison because
28:33
Speaker 2: his lawyers were able to prove that some of the
28:35
Speaker 2: evidence that was used the convictim was not admissible. And
28:38
Speaker 2: oddly enough, it wasn't the shoe evidence that was thrown out,
28:42
Speaker 2: but another witness's testimony. It turns out that a witness
28:46
Speaker 2: had been hypnotized by a detective and was persuaded to
28:52
Speaker 2: give this awful testimony against Dale at the trial, and
28:56
Speaker 2: testimony that he like forcefully put a net in and
29:00
Speaker 2: Todd into a car and that testimony was never supposed
29:04
Speaker 2: to be admitted in court, and that was what was
29:08
Speaker 2: deemed inadmissible, and Dale was let out because of that.
29:11
Speaker 2: And of course Louise Robbin's testimony about his you know,
29:15
Speaker 2: the inside wear patterns on his boots, you know, being
29:20
Speaker 2: definitive proof that the impression left on the riverbank was
29:24
Speaker 2: his that was left undisturbed. And everyone still believed he
29:27
Speaker 2: was guilty. But then someone else confessed to murdering and
29:31
Speaker 2: it and Todd so Bill tell us about that. Who
29:34
Speaker 2: actually committed this crime, A.
29:38
Speaker 4: Sorry little fellow named Chester mcnight was nicknamed Chester the
29:43
Speaker 4: Molester just because apparently because he was weird and was
29:48
Speaker 4: an habitual criminal, habitual drunk, even though he had a
29:53
Speaker 4: history of assaults against women. And Chester actually got married
29:58
Speaker 4: and it lasted a couple of weeks before she kicked
30:02
Speaker 4: him out and left. And it was in that atmosphere
30:05
Speaker 4: where Chester just went over the deep end and was
30:09
Speaker 4: drinking day in and day out. He was obviously depressed,
30:13
Speaker 4: the wife had left him, and he was just drinking incessantly.
30:18
Speaker 4: He came on that afternoon, early evening of October fourth,
30:23
Speaker 4: to Kenny Lynn Scott's house, a local drug dealer, you know,
30:27
Speaker 4: they were drinking buddies. Anyway, there was a kind of
30:30
Speaker 4: a makeshift party in Kenny's yard and Chester joined in,
30:35
Speaker 4: and here comes Todd and Annette. So they joined the
30:39
Speaker 4: party for a little while. I think they may have
30:41
Speaker 4: had a beer and Chester decided to hey, let's keep
30:46
Speaker 4: the party going. I've got some I've got some stuff.
30:49
Speaker 4: And so they start walking down the railroad tracks and
30:53
Speaker 4: according to Chester's account, he wanted to have a group
30:58
Speaker 4: sex with Annette, and she of course know and Todd
31:04
Speaker 4: tried to get her out of the situation, and that's
31:08
Speaker 4: when Chester pulled a gun and shot him, and that
31:11
Speaker 4: started screaming. She shot her. At that point, Chester and
31:16
Speaker 4: Kenny dragged the bodies down to the riverfront at the
31:20
Speaker 4: edge of the cornfield and dismembered them. And Kenny, maybe
31:24
Speaker 4: with help maybe not, got the bodies back into the
31:27
Speaker 4: cornfield and dug shallow holes and put the limbs and
31:30
Speaker 4: the heads into a kind of a bare spot in
31:33
Speaker 4: the middle of the cornfield that he knew about. And
31:36
Speaker 4: Kenny the next few nights he would go out to
31:39
Speaker 4: that railroad bridge and cry and moan and friends saying,
31:43
Speaker 4: what's wrong Kenny and he told them, Yo, you wouldn't understand.
31:47
Speaker 4: His neighbors knew what he was doing. His neighbors saw
31:49
Speaker 4: his behavior. His neighbors told the police that they should
31:53
Speaker 4: be investigating him, but they never did, and they did
31:56
Speaker 4: have a record then of this strange call made the
32:00
Speaker 4: night before the body parts were found. Kenny Linscott made
32:04
Speaker 4: the call and said, have you found the bodies yet?
32:07
Speaker 4: And nobody at that point knew that the kids were
32:10
Speaker 4: even dead or that there were bodies to be found,
32:14
Speaker 4: And that call was logged and it became the thing
32:18
Speaker 4: that led to Kenny and ultimately to Chester. And so
32:23
Speaker 4: I have a law enforcement source that helped me with this,
32:26
Speaker 4: and he told me that, you know, everybody knew Kenny
32:29
Speaker 4: was acting weird after the killings. And he said, well,
32:32
Speaker 4: let's go talk to Kenny. And the sheriff says, oh, no,
32:35
Speaker 4: we confined him, when then we need him. So at
32:38
Speaker 4: the very beginning, Lin Scott's name came up, but yet
32:41
Speaker 4: the police just dismissed him right out of hand.
32:45
Speaker 2: In reflecting on all this, I just want to go
32:47
Speaker 2: back to Luiz Robin's testimony about the shoeprint for a moment.
32:51
Speaker 2: I understand why jurors would be persuaded by her. She's
32:55
Speaker 2: got this anthropology degree, she's a professor. She comes across
33:00
Speaker 2: short convincingly. She went and studied these ancient footprints in Tanzania.
33:06
Speaker 2: That all makes sense. But the three judges hearing this,
33:11
Speaker 2: you know, the inside wear patterns on the boot and
33:14
Speaker 2: that being definitive proof that it was Dale Johnson's bootprint.
33:18
Speaker 2: I mean, what did they make of her testimony?
33:23
Speaker 4: I can tell you how strongly her testimony was accepted.
33:28
Speaker 4: Twenty five years later, you know, when the real truth
33:31
Speaker 4: came out. I interviewed two of the three judges on
33:35
Speaker 4: the case and they both said, well, we had doctor
33:40
Speaker 4: Robin's testimony before us, and that was very convincing. This
33:44
Speaker 4: was even after they learned the truth, after they learned
33:48
Speaker 4: that everything this woman said was a lie, they still
33:51
Speaker 4: wanted to believe in her. I have summed up this
33:55
Speaker 4: case as a total collapse of a local justice system,
34:03
Speaker 4: and I still believe that it left me with such
34:07
Speaker 4: a sense of outrage that this kind of thing can
34:12
Speaker 4: be done in our system of justice toom and I mean,
34:16
Speaker 4: you know it was it was not even close. But
34:19
Speaker 4: the lies that were told in that courtroom were enough
34:23
Speaker 4: to send an into some man to death row sitting
34:27
Speaker 4: there through the entire trial. Is they never they never
34:31
Speaker 4: presented a rational case, and the evidence that they did
34:35
Speaker 4: present was you know, challenged very successfully by the defense.
34:39
Speaker 4: I mean, what I learned is that someone with an
34:42
Speaker 4: academic position and the claim of scientific expertise is automatically
34:49
Speaker 4: granted some level of believability, even by judges and prosecutors
34:56
Speaker 4: and investigators. And they really accepted Louise robins testimony and
35:02
Speaker 4: as fact I called it in my book fantasy Forensics,
35:06
Speaker 4: and as events have proven, it was totally fabricated. I
35:11
Speaker 4: can only attribute it to the desire to get a conviction,
35:17
Speaker 4: any conviction. That people in that town were petrified. The
35:21
Speaker 4: judges knew it, They knew what would happen if they
35:24
Speaker 4: didn't get a conviction, and they knew that they wouldn't
35:26
Speaker 4: have another crack at Dale Johnson if they acquitted him.
35:29
Speaker 4: So they convicted him and just went back home.
35:39
Speaker 2: The use of doctor Robins as a forensic expert is
35:42
Speaker 2: an example of what can go horribly wrong when courts
35:45
Speaker 2: allow unverified signs into our courtrooms. She testified in twenty
35:50
Speaker 2: cases truly a hired gun by attorneys looking for a
35:54
Speaker 2: particular outcome. Her work was reviewed by a panel of
35:59
Speaker 2: one hundred and thirty five anthropologists, forensic scientists, lawyers, and
36:04
Speaker 2: legal scholars sponsored by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences,
36:09
Speaker 2: and they concluded that her methodology for identification had no
36:14
Speaker 2: basis in science, but the damage had already been done.
36:18
Speaker 2: Dale Johnson spent four years on death row for a
36:22
Speaker 2: double homicide that he didn't commit. But he was fortunate
36:26
Speaker 2: and that even though his trial left him impoverished, his
36:29
Speaker 2: attorneys stayed on his case pro bono and took on
36:33
Speaker 2: the appeals. The psychological trauma inflicted on those who were
36:37
Speaker 2: wrongfully convicted, especially for people who are innocent and sit
36:41
Speaker 2: on death row, is well documented. It isn't just the
36:45
Speaker 2: conviction that stays with the wrongfully convicted, it's the aftermath.
36:50
Speaker 2: Dale lost it all. He lost his stepdaughter, his property,
36:55
Speaker 2: his wife divorced him. It wasn't until well into his
36:59
Speaker 2: eighties earlier this year that Dale finally received some compensation
37:04
Speaker 2: for his time spent in prison. The Innocence Project provides
37:08
Speaker 2: support for therapy and social services for its clients who
37:11
Speaker 2: are forced to cope with the harms associated with their
37:14
Speaker 2: wrongful conviction. You can donate to the Innocence Project by
37:18
Speaker 2: visiting www. Dot Innocenceproject dot org, slash give. Next week,
37:31
Speaker 2: we'll explore the junk science of fingerprint evidence. Wrongful Conviction
37:37
Speaker 2: Junk Science is a production of Lava for Good Podcasts
37:40
Speaker 2: in association with Signal Company Number One. Thanks to our
37:44
Speaker 2: executive producer Jason Flam and the team at Signal Company
37:47
Speaker 2: Number One executive producer Kevin Wardis and senior producers Karen
37:52
Speaker 2: Kornhaber and Britz Spangler. Our music was composed by Jay Ralph.
37:56
Speaker 2: You can follow me on Instagram at dubin Josh. Follow
38:00
Speaker 2: the Wrongful Conviction podcast on Facebook and on Instagram at
38:04
Speaker 2: wrongful Conviction and on Twitter at wrong Conviction