March 28, 2023 • 37 mins
Warning: This episode contains details of graphic violence and sexual assault against children.
Before he was drafted into the NBA, Chris Paul experienced a tragic loss: the murder of his grandfather Nathaniel Jones. Five teenagers were ultimately convicted, including brothers Rayshawn Banner and Nathaniel Cauthen. The key piece of physical evidence was a pair of size 9 Nike Air Force 1s found in the boys’ home. But with millions of Nike Air Force 1s sold, how unique was that shoeprint collected at the crime scene?
CSI On Trial is a co-production of iHeart Podcasts and School of Humans. It is a Curiosity Podcast based on the Curiosity Stream series CSI On Trial. You can watch all six episodes of the video series here if you sign up for Curiosity Stream.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
This episode contains details of graphic violence and sexual assault
against children. Please take care where and when you listen.
It's a November evening in two thousand and two, sixty
one year old Nathaniel Jones is found unconscious outside his
home in Winston Salem, North Carolina. He's on the floor
(00:34):
of his carport, bloodied and beaten up. His hands are
bound behind his back with black tape. There's also a
piece of tape over his mouth. A neighbor calls nine one.
Paramedics arrive an attempt to revive him, but mister Jones
is already gone. An autopsy later reveals that his heart
(00:55):
gave out from the stress of the attack. Jones's death
comes at a moment that was meant to be celebratory
for his family. Just the day before, his grandson, local
high school star athlete Chris Paul, had accepted a full
basketball scholarship to Wake Forest University. Yes, that's the same
(01:16):
Chris Paul who is now an All star point guard
in the NBA. Chris was really close to his grandfather,
who he and the rest of the family called Papa Chili.
The family and law enforcement begin looking for answers Jones's
wallet is missing. Detectives find blood on the concrete floor
(01:36):
of the carport and smeared across the driver's side door
of his car, indicating a struggle. On the hood of
the car, they find two partial shoe prints. Investigators think
the perpetrator may have stood on the car to unscrew
the bulb in the carport's light. An eyewitness tells police
(01:57):
he saw a Hispanic man running away from Jones's house
around the time of the crime. Four days later, according
to police reports, a woman named Arlene Tolliver calls a
detective she knows with a tip her fifteen year old son,
Jermal might know who is responsible. To the police, Jermal
(02:18):
initially denies any knowledge or involvement in the murder, but
after hours of interrogation, he says he knows what happened
and implicates his friends Christopher Bryant, Durrell Brayboy, and two
others named Ray Shawan and Nathaniel ray Shan Banner and
Nathaniel Cothon are brothers. When the police show up at
(02:41):
their door, ray Shan calls his mother, Teresa Ingram. He
called me at work. He said that Mamma, the police
is wanting to take us downtown and question us about
mister Jones. Rayshan refuses to comply, but his older brother
Nathaniel goes willingly. Since he had nothing to do with
the murder, he isn't concerned. But hours go by and
(03:03):
Nathaniel still isn't. I'm looking at my watch. Okay. Now
we're intil four and a half hours. Okay. So now
I go down to the station there and the detective
came out and he asked me, did I know Nathania
Jones And did I know he had been murdered? And
I say, I've seen it on the news, and he say, yeah,
(03:23):
your sons are dead. Smack in the middle of it.
Those were the words he used. Did smack in the
middle of it. Nathaniel requests and is denied a lie
detector test. Later, police pick up Teresa's other son, ray Sean.
All five boys, including Jamal Tolliver, spend about eleven hours
at the police station. They are interrogated multiple times, mostly
(03:47):
without an adult present. They say the detectives threaten them
with the death penalty, specifically lethal injection, for denying their
involvement in the crime. The boys also say that they're
told they can go home if they only confess. All
of them are teenager, fourteen, or fifteen years old. The
(04:08):
US Supreme Court prohibits the execution of anyone who committed
a crime at fifteen or younger, but lying to a
suspect of any age during an interrogation is legal in
most states. It's an accepted police tactic. After hours of
questioning and wanting to go home, all five agree to confess.
(04:29):
Here's part of what Nathaniel told investigators. The quality of
this audio isn't great, so it's a little hard to hear.
And then you said that everybody was beating him. I
believe that was the word out of your mouth. Correct?
And everybody who are you talking about when you said
everybody we love? With the rarestion and that's what was
(04:50):
the plan? Get some money? Yeah? Amnting with a pole? Yes,
So no, I might asking for you to guess. I'm
asking you what your answer is. Yes, that's what you
told me earlier. Correct. Is that's true? Yes? But the
boys tell conflicting stories. Then a sixth friend, picked up
(05:11):
by police and also interrogated, further implicates them, telling police
she drove them to Nathaniel Jones's house to commit the crime.
By the next morning, all five boys are charged with
first degree murder. Prosecutors have the confessions, but the boys
recant them, saying that they were coerced. Here's Rayshawn talking
(05:35):
about it years later. I just wanted to go She
thought that making up a lie was gonna get you
home center again. Rayshan and Nathaniel's mother, Teresa. The boys
have always said that, you know, Mama, they didn't do this.
They made us say that in our question that why
would you confess to something you didn't do? Because who
(05:58):
wanted to go home. The state doesn't have any physical evidence.
None of the twelve fingerprints found at the scene match
any of the five boys. Blood and fibers from the
scene don't match them either. Only the two partial footwear
impressions made by Nike air Force ones from the hood
(06:19):
of the car could possibly tie the boys to the
scene of the crime. Police find a pair of Nike
air Force Ones size nine that belonged to ray Shawn.
His shoe is believed by investigators to have created the
partial impression. It's one of the most popular sneakers sold
in the US, saying it was worn by a lot
(06:41):
of teens at the time is an understatement between the
footprint and the confessions. All five are found guilty, the
brothers sentenced to life in prison. Two decades pass, they're
now generally referred to as the Winston Salem Five, echoing
the case of the Central Park five New York City
(07:04):
teenagers fully convicted of assault and rape in the late
nineteen eighties because their confessions were also coerced. But now Ray,
Sean and Nathaniel are getting another chance. Did you kill
Nathaniel Jones? I'm Molly Herman and this is CSI on trial.
(07:27):
Two or three staines are really not enough to call
something an impact better from gunshot that's going to put
someone in prison the rest of her life. Thought that
making up a lie was gonna get you home sooner?
What is it about a bite mark that we make
a dentist, an expert in this area, who shot at you.
(07:48):
He said, I will sit in this jail and I
will rot before I take a pleaebark. The problem with
forensic science in the criminal legal system today is that
it's an awful lot of forensic and not an awful
lot of science. Episode five footwear analysis. The origins of
footprints being used as evidence in crimes started with a
(08:12):
very young victim. The earliest reference that I'm aware of
is a seventeen eighty six case that involved the murder
of a little girl, and this was over in Scotland.
This is John Bird. He's a forensic expert and has
analyzed countless shoeprints. The investigator noticed that when the suspect fled,
he left footwear impressions in mud live in the cottage
(08:35):
there and was able to cast those impressions later at
the funeral. He was able to take known impressions of
the people that showed up at the funeral of this girl,
and he ultimately compared those to the casted impressions from
the scene and was able to establish the identity of
the murderer. By the mid nineteen eighties, footwear evidence was
(08:55):
a powerful prosecutorial tool in criminal cases. In fact, the
unibomber Theodore Kazinski even wore shoes with smaller souls attached
to the bottom to trick investigators into thinking the person
they were looking for had smaller feet. John Bird explains
how it all works. So footwear analysis is the examination
(09:19):
of footwear evidence looking at a known impression to a
questioned impression and determine if they originated from the same source.
It originates, typically with the crime scene investigation unit that
they are collecting that evidence. Typically those impressions are either
visible or they have to be processed in order to
(09:39):
capture them. Whether that's done through lifting or photography is
dependent upon the type of impression. Meaning, if shoeprints or
footprints are found at a scene, they can take a
photo or lift it by applying materials to the print
to capture the impression. Then that can be sent to
a lab. That's the questioned impression. John talked about when
(10:02):
investigators obtain a shoe from a suspect, they call it
the known shoe. It's photographed and then processed, so the
nun shoe is the actual shoe itself. The known standard
is created from the nun shoe, and that process is
we typically powder the bottom of the shoe and then
(10:22):
transfer that powder from the bottom of the shoe onto
an adhesive contrasting surface. Then we can compare that standard
against the questioned image from the scene. During the analysis,
two types of evaluations are done. The first is called
a class characteristic. These are the characteristics that come from
the shoe from the manufacturer. Melissa Giggenback is a law
(10:46):
professor and director of the West Virginia Innocence Project. So
shoe's eyes tread designs, and then different shoes have different
molds that are made, and each of those molds might
have a specific characteristic, so those come from the manufacturing process.
These characteristics aren't unique enough to allow the identification of
(11:09):
a specific shoe, but they can narrow the field or
eliminate a shoe. One of the best examples of class
characteristics comes from the O. J. Simpson trial, When bloody
shoeprints were found at the scene, an FBI footwear analyst
determined they were made by a fancy Italian designed shoe,
(11:30):
a Bruno Magli Lorenzo model. The Exhibit three seventy five
are the two shoes, the Line or leone and the Lorenzo.
That size was an American size twelve. At the time,
only two hundred and ninety nine pairs had been sold
in the United States. At his criminal trial, Simpson, who
(11:52):
wore a size twelve, denied owning what he later described
as those ugly ass shoes, but during the civil case,
more than thirty newly discovered photos showing him wearing a
pair of Bruno Magli Lorenzos were shared with the journey.
Footwear evidence was a turning point in the case, and
(12:13):
Simpson was found responsible for the murders, at least in
the civil trial. In most cases, a class characteristic match
is only the first step toward making an identification, says
Melissa Giggenbach. If the shoeprint or the suspect shoe cannot
be eliminated, then they move on to what's called randomly
acquired characteristics. And these are things that happen to shoes
(12:36):
just for normal wear and tear. So walking around you
might step on a piece of glass, or cut the
sole of your shoe a gouge or a nick, or
maybe wear patterns. And so then they used that randomly
acquired characteristics as a way to try to make a
determination about whether the suspects shoe made the shoeprint at
(13:00):
the crime scene. These randomly acquired characteristics or RACK are
thought to be unique to an individual's shoe like a fingerprint.
According to the FBI, racks are powerful evidence that can
help identify a perpetrator. But if you listen to our
bite marks episode. You know that other forensic methods make
(13:22):
that unique as a fingerprint claim, and it doesn't hold
up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Using racks as evidence in
a murder trial almost cost this man his life. I've
been seventeen half years on death row plus eleven months
in county jail. Twice they read a death warrant on me.
(14:02):
I want you to meet Charles Fain. Are you today?
Oh marvelous, Everything's just great. I do have a few
memory problems in NSL all that time. You could call
Charles an optimist. He's free after spending eighteen years in prison,
over seventeen of those years on death row. He was
(14:24):
wrongfully convicted in the nineteen eighty two rape and murder
of nine year old Darylyn Johnson. She was walking to
school in the morning. Didn't make it to school, but
at that time there wasn't a reporting system where the
school would contact the parents. Rick Visser is an attorney
and former director of the Idaho Innocence Project. She didn't
(14:47):
come home from school and her mother thought, well, she's
playing with friends. Didn't make it for dinner. Mother was concerned,
made some calls and they couldn't find her. A search
party fanned out across Canyon County, Idaho. Three days later,
her body was found near a river. She'd been beaten
and raped. The cause of death was drowning. Investigators find
(15:12):
two types of physical evidence at the crime scene, some
hair and a footprint, but they didn't lead to a suspect.
Months later, a tip from a child about a car
spotted in the area at the time Darylyn went missing
led to Charles Fame. He had a similar car, a
prior conviction for robbing a laundromat, and his hair color
(15:34):
matched the hairs founded the crime scene. I'm going down
to police facing and talking about something. I went down
there and to start talking about just murdered this nine
year old girl and I give me some hair. Is
like the ask and left. There is no big deal
and done nothing. Charles takes a polygraph test and passes.
He explains that on the day Darylyn disappeared, he was
(15:55):
visiting his parents three hundred miles away in Oregone. Weeks later,
they called me back down, says Matches one found the victim.
He's arrested. The state's theory is that Charles drove three
hundred miles from Oregon to Idaho, committed the murder, and
then drove three hundred miles back to his parents house
(16:17):
without having been missed. Two jailhouse informants testified that Charles
confessed to them while he was awaiting trial. And then
there was the shoe print. The prosecution argues that a
shoe belonging to Charles matched the print found at the
crime scene. Attorney Rick Fisser, when Charles was a suspect,
(16:38):
they asked for a shoe, and initially he thought, now
it's not there, but something happened where the analyst concluded
that his shoe print was similar, and there is a
slight impression of a nail on the heel of the
one footprint, and therefore he could not be excluded that
(16:58):
nail impression on the shoe. That's an example of a rack,
a randomly acquired characteristic, as in, somewhere along the line,
Charles randomly stepped on a nail and it left a
mark or characteristic on the sole of his shoe. Charles
said he didn't even purchase those shoes until after the
crime had occurred. But this was the nineteen eighties, so
(17:20):
of course he'd paid cash. He didn't have a receipt
to prove it. A forensic examiner from the FBI testified
that the wear and tear on the impression corresponded exactly
to Charles's shoe, despite his alibi. The jury deliberated for
thirteen hours before finding Charles Fain guilty two death sentences
(17:43):
in a life without parole, one for kidnapping and one
for the murder in a life without parole for the
sexual assault. Let's go back to that rack. Can analysts
really identify a slight impression of a nail in a shoeprint?
Third year law student Eric Laski got firsthand experience working
(18:03):
with shoeprints when he was a forensic science undergraduate. Personally,
I have done casting of a shoeprint out of mud,
and let me tell you, it's not as detailed as
it is and the TV shows and to get individualizing
characteristic off a mold is very hin. Miss what you're
(18:29):
going to get. A twenty twenty study revealed that given
the same sets of footprints to examine, a significant number
of analysts came up with opposite conclusions. Some footwear analysts
set a print fully excluded a suspect, while others said
it was a full identification. Some analysts may identify a
(18:50):
spot in the print as a rack, while others simply
chalk it up to an imperfection introduced in the process
of making the print. So one examiner may think this
bump is a randomly acquired characteristic, and another examiner might not.
He may think this could be found day to day
on any other shoe. Any other person could have made that.
(19:14):
There is no objectivity of this right now. Even if
identifying a match was reliable and valid, a lot of
shoes could have created the same print. There have been
attempts to create databases or to calculate the statistical probabilities
around the frequency of racks, but the problem is there
(19:35):
are a lot of variables. Here's Melissa Giggenbach again, the
law professor we heard from earlier. It's annable to know
if a specific randomly acquired characteristic happens in other shoes.
For example, there might be a problem with the rubber
on a particular sole of a particular type of shoe,
(19:55):
and so the shoe cracks in exactly the same way
in every single shoe that was made by that manufacturer.
In that batch. You don't know that Charles Fain sat
on death row for years. Multiple execution dates were scheduled
and then postponed. His mother died while he was in prison.
(20:16):
He survived each day in part because he found religion
a behem a Christian. Five days after us arrested and
then a scientific breakthrough in DNA analysis offered new hope.
The hares founded the crime scene had the potential to
reveal information about the actual perpetrator. There was now a
(20:38):
way to test the hair for DNA that wasn't around
when Charles was arrested back in nineteen eighty three. Attorney
Rick Fisser in two thousand and one that both the
prosecutor and the Charles federal defense attorney agreed to do
the testing, went out to a lab in Canada. It
excluded Charles. Prosecutor's jaw dropped and they had a problem,
(21:02):
and they said, well, let's do it again. They sent
another hair off again it excluded him. Now the prosecutor's
next excuse was, well, we have to have a separate lab.
So a separate lab was chosen. Third hair excluded Charles.
Charles was three for three. Prosecutor made a motion for
another lab to do it, and the judge denied it,
said enough is enough. You need to decide within sixty
(21:25):
days to release or retry Charles Fain. Charles heard the
judge's decision like everyone else, as in my room reading
the Bible, and I had my tbond, but the volume
was now and I saw the picture on the television.
In two thousand and one, after eighteen years, Charles Faine
(21:45):
walked free. The DNA evidence also proved that Charles's shoe
couldn't have made the print at the crime scene, despite
what the FBI analysts testified. Even in the face of
irrefutable DNA evidence, the prosecutor and judge who sent Charles
to death row refused to acknowledge his innocence. But his
(22:08):
fate was about to intersect with one of America's leading
DNA experts, doctor Greg Himpekian. I'm a professor of biology
and criminal justice, have a DNA laboratory where we are.
I am co director of the Idaho Innocence Project at
Boise State University. In two thousand and four, Greg took
(22:28):
an interest in Charles's case. Over the years, he tested
DNA samples to see if he could figure out who
really raped and killed Darryln Johnson. Finally a breakthrough and
lo and behold, some of the hair owners relatives had
contributed to genealogy databases that were available to the police,
(22:51):
and they got a last name. They reopened the case.
They found a suspect. His name was David Dalrymple. He
lived on the route Darylyn took to school, and he
was already in prison serving twenty to life for kidnapping
and sexually abusing a different child after the murder of
(23:13):
Darryln Johnson, a crime that could have been prevented. No
surprise to many of the individuals already in prison serving
a life sentence for a sexual assault of a child.
Court order was needed to get his DNA and it
proved that David Darymple was the true perpetrator and the
(23:35):
only perpetrator of the kidnap, rape, and murderer of nine
year old Daryl and Johnson. At the time of Charles's release,
Idaho did not have a compensation statute, but the media
attention surrounding Dalrymple helped shift public opinion. Not only did
Charles receive over a million dollars, Idaho passed the Wrongful
(23:58):
Conviction Act, providing state compensation for others like him today.
Taking things one day at a time, little rougher times,
but I got through it. I bought me a house
and pick up and got me a pup. I've been
doing a lot of fishing since then. It was the
color of Charles's hair and the rack from his footprint
(24:21):
that got him locked up, and DNA testing that set
him free. But for Teresa Ingram, the mother you met
at the beginning of this episode, there's no DNA to
save the day. Her son's cases rely solely on two
partial footprints. When I talked to them leading up to
the trial, of course, they thought they were going to
(24:43):
be able to come from the jury came back in
a little of no Timeue, good gracious, I always he
wasn't even forty five minutes. Chris Paul is now an
(25:23):
NBA legend, but back in two thousand and two, he
was still in high school. In December, a little over
a month after his grandfather, Nathaniel Jones was murdered, Paul
scored sixty one points in one game, one point for
each year his grandfather was alive. It was a tribute
to a man. The whole community mourned, and it received
(25:45):
national attention. It was a high profile murder case. Around
this time, law enforcement and prosecutors are gathering evidence to
support their theory of the case that five teenagers attacked
Nathaniel Jones in his carboard, tied him up, and left
him to die of a heart attack. They had already
(26:06):
searched Teresa Ingram's home where her sons Rayshan and Nathaniel
both lived. They went in and they searched rooms, and
they was gathering up like shoes and pants and all
of this stuff. I told him it was okay, because,
of course I don't know. My sons didn't have anything
to do with this. Law enforcement had footprints from the
(26:27):
hood of Jones's car. They're looking for a matching shoe.
Rayshawn told detectives he was wearing Nike Air Force Ones
the night of the murder, and so they took a
bunch of shoes. I didn't know what the big thing
was about the Nike air Force Ones, but they got
so popular and I thought they were cute. An Eywan
oneed some so they had a lot of shoes. Police
(26:50):
seized four pairs of Nike shoes from the home. Months later,
in August two thousand and four, the brothers, now sixteen
and seventeen years old, are charged with first degree murder
and tried as adults. All five boys claim their confessions
were coerced. Their attorneys try to suppress the confessions. The
(27:13):
motion is denied. Then prosecutors offer a plea deal a
thing you said. No, they are ridden and told me
about this. I'll be eight amount of years when I
get out of here. No, no, no, I'm not taking
a plea bargain. I'm not saying I've done something and
I didn't do it. He said. I will sit in
this jail and I will rot before I take a
plea bargain. Rayshaw say, no, mamma, he said, I'm not
(27:37):
taking a plea bargain. So the trial moves forward with
just that one key piece of physical evidence tying the
brothers to the crime scene. Ray Shan size nine Nike
Air Force Ones. Forensic print analyst Joyce pet Scott takes
the stand first. She gives the jury her expert credentials.
(27:58):
This is a voice actor reading her testimony from the trial.
I've testified approximately eighty five times in fingerprints and approximately
thirty nine in footwear. Then Petska explains her process. I
received four different pairs of Nike Athletic shoes. I also
received fifty eight photographic frames, and I received thirty nine photographs.
(28:21):
She created a known standard from Ray Shaun's shoe to
compare with the questioned print or impression. I determined that
one of the impressions what could have been made. It
was consistent and designed size and war with the right shoe,
and one of the impressions was consistent and designed size
and wear with the left shoe. But during cross examination,
(28:43):
Petska concedes that both the model and size of the
shoe are very common, so popular. In fact, just days
before the murder, rap star Nelly released the hit single
air Force Ones. The year of the trial two thousand
and four, and estimated ten million pairs were sold. Given
the limited detail of the shoe impressions and their popularity,
(29:07):
Peska admits under oath that another pair of Nike air
Force Ones could have produced the impression. Melissa Gegenbach points
out that even if footwear analysts don't use conclusive language
and admit that the shoeprint could have been made by
hundreds if not thousands of other shoes. Their testimony as
experts still makes the jury believe that there is something
(29:29):
substantial linking the suspect to the scene. There's no standardization
of what makes a match versus what is a non match.
So you get a lot of testimony that says something like,
while I've looked at the shoeprint, and I've looked at
the shoe and there are some areas here of similarity,
what does that mean? There's no statistic that you can
(29:53):
apply to that. In closing arguments, the prosecution went even further,
repeatedly arguing ray Shawn's shoe was a match. It was
definitely the shoe that left the print, even though their
own expert conceded another shoe could have made it. The
damage was done. Ray Shaw and Nathaniel were found guilty
(30:16):
of first degree murder. As the brothers were sentenced to
life without the possibility of parole. Their mother, Teresa, was
in the courtroom. I've seen Rayshawn. Rayshawn just dropped his head.
Nathaniel just started crying. He stood up and he addressed
(30:38):
a family, Sorry for what has happened to your father,
is what he said. Then he addressed a jury and said,
y'all got all my stuff, all my clothes, my shoes,
y'all got everything down here, and y'all don't help anything
on it. Their friends, Christopher, Jermal and Durrell were released
(31:00):
in twenty seventeen for time served. They had ultimately been
convicted did of lesser charges, second degree murder. Durrell passed
away in two nineteen, but Rayshun and Nathaniel are still
in prison. They've been there eighteen years. They could have
been home by now if they'd agreed to the plea deal,
(31:22):
and I'm sure they probably have often thought about that.
They refuse to admit to the crime. They say they
did not do. England say they accepted the life they got.
Deal what one certainly can deal with it a lot
better than the other. Rayshan dealt with it better than
Nathaniel did. In twenty fourteen, Nathaniel wrote a suicide note
(31:45):
to his mother and brother in which he maintained his
innocence before trying to end his life. According to prison records,
it was his third attempt, but in twenty twenty the
family gets another chance. Since two thousand and seven, the
North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission has reviewed over three thousand cases,
(32:07):
resulting in fifteen exonerations. They agree to hear the case
of the Winston Salem five as part of their investigation.
The Innocence Commission reviews thousands of pages of police reports
and trial documents. They hear directly from Ray, Shaun, and Nathaniel.
Here's Nathaniel talking to the committee about the confession. He
(32:29):
says he was coerced to give as a teenager after
my mother left and they came back in. It's like
they use her gives me when they were like, well,
look just tell us anything and we can let you
go home as a fifteen year old kid. And my
mind is telling me, okay, I might as well gonna
say I did it because these people is not going
to let up. These people that is not going to
(32:50):
stop saying that I did something when I continuously tell
you I didn't do it. And the friend who said
she drove them to the scene of the crime, her
name is Jessica Black, and she came forward to recant
her testimony, saying her confession was also coerced, also scared
(33:11):
I was going to jail until like I gave them
the answer that they wanted they hear from an expert
witness in footwear who, like in the original trial, opened
up the possibility that another pair of air Force ones
could have left the Prince. This expert this week also
testified that it is possible that another pair of air
(33:36):
Force one size nine could have been the source of
the impressions on the hood of the car, but they
have to display the exact wear pattern characteristics, you know
the words. You couldn't go to the foot locker and
get a pair of air Force ones size nine that
(34:00):
have never been worn necessarily and match that up. On
March thirteenth, twenty twenty, five of the eight members of
the Commission concluded that there was sufficient evidence of factual
innocence to merit judicial review. Fast forward to April twenty
twenty two, Rayshan and Nathaniel's case goes before a three
(34:22):
judge panel who have the power to exonerate them, but
under North Carolina law, the exoneration panel is bound by
a high burden of proof clear and convincing evidence of innocence.
Footwear evidence again took center stage, with testimony clarifying that
Rayshan's air Force ones were very common and to claim
(34:45):
a match was very misleading. After twenty years, Teresa barely
dared to hope. I don't put all the eggs in
one basket and say, oh yeah, they're coming home. Because
at the end of the day, those three judges steve
gotta hell unanimous boot yeah. With the victim's grandson Chris
(35:07):
Paul being an NBA superstar, the media frenzy raised the stakes.
On April twenty eighth, twenty twenty two, the three judge
panel voted to deny their claim on the grounds that
revealing flaws in the case against them isn't the same
thing as proving innocence, so the fight goes on. The
(35:29):
criminal justice system is like a one way street built
only to work in one direction. Overturning a conviction is
nearly impossible. Nathaniel and Rayshon's attorney plans to continue to
fight for their innocence, and Teresa can only stay strong
for her boys. When I see them on the other
(35:51):
side of the prison bars and the walls, that's when
I will live. That's when I will be happy. Next
time on CSI on trial in Baby Syndrome, a pregnant
mother who ran a daycare out of her home is
wrongfully convicted of killing a child. She was trying to help.
(36:14):
I instantly picked her up, hold her, was patting her
on the back. She was not responding. That is when
the police came, the ambulance came, and then it accelerated
into a very nightmare day. CSI on Trial is a
(36:37):
co production of iHeart Podcasts and School of Humans, based
on the Curiosity stream series CSI on Trial, created by
Eleanor Grant and produced by the Biscuit Factory. You can
watch all six episodes of the video series right now
at curiosity stream dot com. This episode is hosted and
(36:58):
written by me Molly Hermann and researched by Katie Dunn
and myself. Our producer is Miranda has. Jessica Metzker is
the senior producer. Virginia Prescott, Jason English, Brandon Barr and L. C.
Crowley are the executive producers. Sound design in mix by
(37:18):
Miranda Hawkins. Voice acting by Miranda Hawkins. Special thanks to
John Higgins, Rob Burke, Rob Lyle, and Brandon Craigie. If
you're enjoying the show, leave a review in your favorite
podcast app. Check out the Curiosity Audio Network for podcasts
(37:38):
covering history, pop culture, true crime and more. School of
Humans
This episode contains details of graphic violence and sexual assault
against children. Please take care where and when you listen.
It's a November evening in two thousand and two, sixty
one year old Nathaniel Jones is found unconscious outside his
home in Winston Salem, North Carolina. He's on the floor
(00:34):
of his carport, bloodied and beaten up. His hands are
bound behind his back with black tape. There's also a
piece of tape over his mouth. A neighbor calls nine one.
Paramedics arrive an attempt to revive him, but mister Jones
is already gone. An autopsy later reveals that his heart
(00:55):
gave out from the stress of the attack. Jones's death
comes at a moment that was meant to be celebratory
for his family. Just the day before, his grandson, local
high school star athlete Chris Paul, had accepted a full
basketball scholarship to Wake Forest University. Yes, that's the same
(01:16):
Chris Paul who is now an All star point guard
in the NBA. Chris was really close to his grandfather,
who he and the rest of the family called Papa Chili.
The family and law enforcement begin looking for answers Jones's
wallet is missing. Detectives find blood on the concrete floor
(01:36):
of the carport and smeared across the driver's side door
of his car, indicating a struggle. On the hood of
the car, they find two partial shoe prints. Investigators think
the perpetrator may have stood on the car to unscrew
the bulb in the carport's light. An eyewitness tells police
(01:57):
he saw a Hispanic man running away from Jones's house
around the time of the crime. Four days later, according
to police reports, a woman named Arlene Tolliver calls a
detective she knows with a tip her fifteen year old son,
Jermal might know who is responsible. To the police, Jermal
(02:18):
initially denies any knowledge or involvement in the murder, but
after hours of interrogation, he says he knows what happened
and implicates his friends Christopher Bryant, Durrell Brayboy, and two
others named Ray Shawan and Nathaniel ray Shan Banner and
Nathaniel Cothon are brothers. When the police show up at
(02:41):
their door, ray Shan calls his mother, Teresa Ingram. He
called me at work. He said that Mamma, the police
is wanting to take us downtown and question us about
mister Jones. Rayshan refuses to comply, but his older brother
Nathaniel goes willingly. Since he had nothing to do with
the murder, he isn't concerned. But hours go by and
(03:03):
Nathaniel still isn't. I'm looking at my watch. Okay. Now
we're intil four and a half hours. Okay. So now
I go down to the station there and the detective
came out and he asked me, did I know Nathania
Jones And did I know he had been murdered? And
I say, I've seen it on the news, and he say, yeah,
(03:23):
your sons are dead. Smack in the middle of it.
Those were the words he used. Did smack in the
middle of it. Nathaniel requests and is denied a lie
detector test. Later, police pick up Teresa's other son, ray Sean.
All five boys, including Jamal Tolliver, spend about eleven hours
at the police station. They are interrogated multiple times, mostly
(03:47):
without an adult present. They say the detectives threaten them
with the death penalty, specifically lethal injection, for denying their
involvement in the crime. The boys also say that they're
told they can go home if they only confess. All
of them are teenager, fourteen, or fifteen years old. The
(04:08):
US Supreme Court prohibits the execution of anyone who committed
a crime at fifteen or younger, but lying to a
suspect of any age during an interrogation is legal in
most states. It's an accepted police tactic. After hours of
questioning and wanting to go home, all five agree to confess.
(04:29):
Here's part of what Nathaniel told investigators. The quality of
this audio isn't great, so it's a little hard to hear.
And then you said that everybody was beating him. I
believe that was the word out of your mouth. Correct?
And everybody who are you talking about when you said
everybody we love? With the rarestion and that's what was
(04:50):
the plan? Get some money? Yeah? Amnting with a pole? Yes,
So no, I might asking for you to guess. I'm
asking you what your answer is. Yes, that's what you
told me earlier. Correct. Is that's true? Yes? But the
boys tell conflicting stories. Then a sixth friend, picked up
(05:11):
by police and also interrogated, further implicates them, telling police
she drove them to Nathaniel Jones's house to commit the crime.
By the next morning, all five boys are charged with
first degree murder. Prosecutors have the confessions, but the boys
recant them, saying that they were coerced. Here's Rayshawn talking
(05:35):
about it years later. I just wanted to go She
thought that making up a lie was gonna get you
home center again. Rayshan and Nathaniel's mother, Teresa. The boys
have always said that, you know, Mama, they didn't do this.
They made us say that in our question that why
would you confess to something you didn't do? Because who
(05:58):
wanted to go home. The state doesn't have any physical evidence.
None of the twelve fingerprints found at the scene match
any of the five boys. Blood and fibers from the
scene don't match them either. Only the two partial footwear
impressions made by Nike air Force ones from the hood
(06:19):
of the car could possibly tie the boys to the
scene of the crime. Police find a pair of Nike
air Force Ones size nine that belonged to ray Shawn.
His shoe is believed by investigators to have created the
partial impression. It's one of the most popular sneakers sold
in the US, saying it was worn by a lot
(06:41):
of teens at the time is an understatement between the
footprint and the confessions. All five are found guilty, the
brothers sentenced to life in prison. Two decades pass, they're
now generally referred to as the Winston Salem Five, echoing
the case of the Central Park five New York City
(07:04):
teenagers fully convicted of assault and rape in the late
nineteen eighties because their confessions were also coerced. But now Ray,
Sean and Nathaniel are getting another chance. Did you kill
Nathaniel Jones? I'm Molly Herman and this is CSI on trial.
(07:27):
Two or three staines are really not enough to call
something an impact better from gunshot that's going to put
someone in prison the rest of her life. Thought that
making up a lie was gonna get you home sooner?
What is it about a bite mark that we make
a dentist, an expert in this area, who shot at you.
(07:48):
He said, I will sit in this jail and I
will rot before I take a pleaebark. The problem with
forensic science in the criminal legal system today is that
it's an awful lot of forensic and not an awful
lot of science. Episode five footwear analysis. The origins of
footprints being used as evidence in crimes started with a
(08:12):
very young victim. The earliest reference that I'm aware of
is a seventeen eighty six case that involved the murder
of a little girl, and this was over in Scotland.
This is John Bird. He's a forensic expert and has
analyzed countless shoeprints. The investigator noticed that when the suspect fled,
he left footwear impressions in mud live in the cottage
(08:35):
there and was able to cast those impressions later at
the funeral. He was able to take known impressions of
the people that showed up at the funeral of this girl,
and he ultimately compared those to the casted impressions from
the scene and was able to establish the identity of
the murderer. By the mid nineteen eighties, footwear evidence was
(08:55):
a powerful prosecutorial tool in criminal cases. In fact, the
unibomber Theodore Kazinski even wore shoes with smaller souls attached
to the bottom to trick investigators into thinking the person
they were looking for had smaller feet. John Bird explains
how it all works. So footwear analysis is the examination
(09:19):
of footwear evidence looking at a known impression to a
questioned impression and determine if they originated from the same source.
It originates, typically with the crime scene investigation unit that
they are collecting that evidence. Typically those impressions are either
visible or they have to be processed in order to
(09:39):
capture them. Whether that's done through lifting or photography is
dependent upon the type of impression. Meaning, if shoeprints or
footprints are found at a scene, they can take a
photo or lift it by applying materials to the print
to capture the impression. Then that can be sent to
a lab. That's the questioned impression. John talked about when
(10:02):
investigators obtain a shoe from a suspect, they call it
the known shoe. It's photographed and then processed, so the
nun shoe is the actual shoe itself. The known standard
is created from the nun shoe, and that process is
we typically powder the bottom of the shoe and then
(10:22):
transfer that powder from the bottom of the shoe onto
an adhesive contrasting surface. Then we can compare that standard
against the questioned image from the scene. During the analysis,
two types of evaluations are done. The first is called
a class characteristic. These are the characteristics that come from
the shoe from the manufacturer. Melissa Giggenback is a law
(10:46):
professor and director of the West Virginia Innocence Project. So
shoe's eyes tread designs, and then different shoes have different
molds that are made, and each of those molds might
have a specific characteristic, so those come from the manufacturing process.
These characteristics aren't unique enough to allow the identification of
(11:09):
a specific shoe, but they can narrow the field or
eliminate a shoe. One of the best examples of class
characteristics comes from the O. J. Simpson trial, When bloody
shoeprints were found at the scene, an FBI footwear analyst
determined they were made by a fancy Italian designed shoe,
(11:30):
a Bruno Magli Lorenzo model. The Exhibit three seventy five
are the two shoes, the Line or leone and the Lorenzo.
That size was an American size twelve. At the time,
only two hundred and ninety nine pairs had been sold
in the United States. At his criminal trial, Simpson, who
(11:52):
wore a size twelve, denied owning what he later described
as those ugly ass shoes, but during the civil case,
more than thirty newly discovered photos showing him wearing a
pair of Bruno Magli Lorenzos were shared with the journey.
Footwear evidence was a turning point in the case, and
(12:13):
Simpson was found responsible for the murders, at least in
the civil trial. In most cases, a class characteristic match
is only the first step toward making an identification, says
Melissa Giggenbach. If the shoeprint or the suspect shoe cannot
be eliminated, then they move on to what's called randomly
acquired characteristics. And these are things that happen to shoes
(12:36):
just for normal wear and tear. So walking around you
might step on a piece of glass, or cut the
sole of your shoe a gouge or a nick, or
maybe wear patterns. And so then they used that randomly
acquired characteristics as a way to try to make a
determination about whether the suspects shoe made the shoeprint at
(13:00):
the crime scene. These randomly acquired characteristics or RACK are
thought to be unique to an individual's shoe like a fingerprint.
According to the FBI, racks are powerful evidence that can
help identify a perpetrator. But if you listen to our
bite marks episode. You know that other forensic methods make
(13:22):
that unique as a fingerprint claim, and it doesn't hold
up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Using racks as evidence in
a murder trial almost cost this man his life. I've
been seventeen half years on death row plus eleven months
in county jail. Twice they read a death warrant on me.
(14:02):
I want you to meet Charles Fain. Are you today?
Oh marvelous, Everything's just great. I do have a few
memory problems in NSL all that time. You could call
Charles an optimist. He's free after spending eighteen years in prison,
over seventeen of those years on death row. He was
(14:24):
wrongfully convicted in the nineteen eighty two rape and murder
of nine year old Darylyn Johnson. She was walking to
school in the morning. Didn't make it to school, but
at that time there wasn't a reporting system where the
school would contact the parents. Rick Visser is an attorney
and former director of the Idaho Innocence Project. She didn't
(14:47):
come home from school and her mother thought, well, she's
playing with friends. Didn't make it for dinner. Mother was concerned,
made some calls and they couldn't find her. A search
party fanned out across Canyon County, Idaho. Three days later,
her body was found near a river. She'd been beaten
and raped. The cause of death was drowning. Investigators find
(15:12):
two types of physical evidence at the crime scene, some
hair and a footprint, but they didn't lead to a suspect.
Months later, a tip from a child about a car
spotted in the area at the time Darylyn went missing
led to Charles Fame. He had a similar car, a
prior conviction for robbing a laundromat, and his hair color
(15:34):
matched the hairs founded the crime scene. I'm going down
to police facing and talking about something. I went down
there and to start talking about just murdered this nine
year old girl and I give me some hair. Is
like the ask and left. There is no big deal
and done nothing. Charles takes a polygraph test and passes.
He explains that on the day Darylyn disappeared, he was
(15:55):
visiting his parents three hundred miles away in Oregone. Weeks later,
they called me back down, says Matches one found the victim.
He's arrested. The state's theory is that Charles drove three
hundred miles from Oregon to Idaho, committed the murder, and
then drove three hundred miles back to his parents house
(16:17):
without having been missed. Two jailhouse informants testified that Charles
confessed to them while he was awaiting trial. And then
there was the shoe print. The prosecution argues that a
shoe belonging to Charles matched the print found at the
crime scene. Attorney Rick Fisser, when Charles was a suspect,
(16:38):
they asked for a shoe, and initially he thought, now
it's not there, but something happened where the analyst concluded
that his shoe print was similar, and there is a
slight impression of a nail on the heel of the
one footprint, and therefore he could not be excluded that
(16:58):
nail impression on the shoe. That's an example of a rack,
a randomly acquired characteristic, as in, somewhere along the line,
Charles randomly stepped on a nail and it left a
mark or characteristic on the sole of his shoe. Charles
said he didn't even purchase those shoes until after the
crime had occurred. But this was the nineteen eighties, so
(17:20):
of course he'd paid cash. He didn't have a receipt
to prove it. A forensic examiner from the FBI testified
that the wear and tear on the impression corresponded exactly
to Charles's shoe, despite his alibi. The jury deliberated for
thirteen hours before finding Charles Fain guilty two death sentences
(17:43):
in a life without parole, one for kidnapping and one
for the murder in a life without parole for the
sexual assault. Let's go back to that rack. Can analysts
really identify a slight impression of a nail in a shoeprint?
Third year law student Eric Laski got firsthand experience working
(18:03):
with shoeprints when he was a forensic science undergraduate. Personally,
I have done casting of a shoeprint out of mud,
and let me tell you, it's not as detailed as
it is and the TV shows and to get individualizing
characteristic off a mold is very hin. Miss what you're
(18:29):
going to get. A twenty twenty study revealed that given
the same sets of footprints to examine, a significant number
of analysts came up with opposite conclusions. Some footwear analysts
set a print fully excluded a suspect, while others said
it was a full identification. Some analysts may identify a
(18:50):
spot in the print as a rack, while others simply
chalk it up to an imperfection introduced in the process
of making the print. So one examiner may think this
bump is a randomly acquired characteristic, and another examiner might not.
He may think this could be found day to day
on any other shoe. Any other person could have made that.
(19:14):
There is no objectivity of this right now. Even if
identifying a match was reliable and valid, a lot of
shoes could have created the same print. There have been
attempts to create databases or to calculate the statistical probabilities
around the frequency of racks, but the problem is there
(19:35):
are a lot of variables. Here's Melissa Giggenbach again, the
law professor we heard from earlier. It's annable to know
if a specific randomly acquired characteristic happens in other shoes.
For example, there might be a problem with the rubber
on a particular sole of a particular type of shoe,
(19:55):
and so the shoe cracks in exactly the same way
in every single shoe that was made by that manufacturer.
In that batch. You don't know that Charles Fain sat
on death row for years. Multiple execution dates were scheduled
and then postponed. His mother died while he was in prison.
(20:16):
He survived each day in part because he found religion
a behem a Christian. Five days after us arrested and
then a scientific breakthrough in DNA analysis offered new hope.
The hares founded the crime scene had the potential to
reveal information about the actual perpetrator. There was now a
(20:38):
way to test the hair for DNA that wasn't around
when Charles was arrested back in nineteen eighty three. Attorney
Rick Fisser in two thousand and one that both the
prosecutor and the Charles federal defense attorney agreed to do
the testing, went out to a lab in Canada. It
excluded Charles. Prosecutor's jaw dropped and they had a problem,
(21:02):
and they said, well, let's do it again. They sent
another hair off again it excluded him. Now the prosecutor's
next excuse was, well, we have to have a separate lab.
So a separate lab was chosen. Third hair excluded Charles.
Charles was three for three. Prosecutor made a motion for
another lab to do it, and the judge denied it,
said enough is enough. You need to decide within sixty
(21:25):
days to release or retry Charles Fain. Charles heard the
judge's decision like everyone else, as in my room reading
the Bible, and I had my tbond, but the volume
was now and I saw the picture on the television.
In two thousand and one, after eighteen years, Charles Faine
(21:45):
walked free. The DNA evidence also proved that Charles's shoe
couldn't have made the print at the crime scene, despite
what the FBI analysts testified. Even in the face of
irrefutable DNA evidence, the prosecutor and judge who sent Charles
to death row refused to acknowledge his innocence. But his
(22:08):
fate was about to intersect with one of America's leading
DNA experts, doctor Greg Himpekian. I'm a professor of biology
and criminal justice, have a DNA laboratory where we are.
I am co director of the Idaho Innocence Project at
Boise State University. In two thousand and four, Greg took
(22:28):
an interest in Charles's case. Over the years, he tested
DNA samples to see if he could figure out who
really raped and killed Darryln Johnson. Finally a breakthrough and
lo and behold, some of the hair owners relatives had
contributed to genealogy databases that were available to the police,
(22:51):
and they got a last name. They reopened the case.
They found a suspect. His name was David Dalrymple. He
lived on the route Darylyn took to school, and he
was already in prison serving twenty to life for kidnapping
and sexually abusing a different child after the murder of
(23:13):
Darryln Johnson, a crime that could have been prevented. No
surprise to many of the individuals already in prison serving
a life sentence for a sexual assault of a child.
Court order was needed to get his DNA and it
proved that David Darymple was the true perpetrator and the
(23:35):
only perpetrator of the kidnap, rape, and murderer of nine
year old Daryl and Johnson. At the time of Charles's release,
Idaho did not have a compensation statute, but the media
attention surrounding Dalrymple helped shift public opinion. Not only did
Charles receive over a million dollars, Idaho passed the Wrongful
(23:58):
Conviction Act, providing state compensation for others like him today.
Taking things one day at a time, little rougher times,
but I got through it. I bought me a house
and pick up and got me a pup. I've been
doing a lot of fishing since then. It was the
color of Charles's hair and the rack from his footprint
(24:21):
that got him locked up, and DNA testing that set
him free. But for Teresa Ingram, the mother you met
at the beginning of this episode, there's no DNA to
save the day. Her son's cases rely solely on two
partial footprints. When I talked to them leading up to
the trial, of course, they thought they were going to
(24:43):
be able to come from the jury came back in
a little of no Timeue, good gracious, I always he
wasn't even forty five minutes. Chris Paul is now an
(25:23):
NBA legend, but back in two thousand and two, he
was still in high school. In December, a little over
a month after his grandfather, Nathaniel Jones was murdered, Paul
scored sixty one points in one game, one point for
each year his grandfather was alive. It was a tribute
to a man. The whole community mourned, and it received
(25:45):
national attention. It was a high profile murder case. Around
this time, law enforcement and prosecutors are gathering evidence to
support their theory of the case that five teenagers attacked
Nathaniel Jones in his carboard, tied him up, and left
him to die of a heart attack. They had already
(26:06):
searched Teresa Ingram's home where her sons Rayshan and Nathaniel
both lived. They went in and they searched rooms, and
they was gathering up like shoes and pants and all
of this stuff. I told him it was okay, because,
of course I don't know. My sons didn't have anything
to do with this. Law enforcement had footprints from the
(26:27):
hood of Jones's car. They're looking for a matching shoe.
Rayshawn told detectives he was wearing Nike Air Force Ones
the night of the murder, and so they took a
bunch of shoes. I didn't know what the big thing
was about the Nike air Force Ones, but they got
so popular and I thought they were cute. An Eywan
oneed some so they had a lot of shoes. Police
(26:50):
seized four pairs of Nike shoes from the home. Months later,
in August two thousand and four, the brothers, now sixteen
and seventeen years old, are charged with first degree murder
and tried as adults. All five boys claim their confessions
were coerced. Their attorneys try to suppress the confessions. The
(27:13):
motion is denied. Then prosecutors offer a plea deal a
thing you said. No, they are ridden and told me
about this. I'll be eight amount of years when I
get out of here. No, no, no, I'm not taking
a plea bargain. I'm not saying I've done something and
I didn't do it. He said. I will sit in
this jail and I will rot before I take a
plea bargain. Rayshaw say, no, mamma, he said, I'm not
(27:37):
taking a plea bargain. So the trial moves forward with
just that one key piece of physical evidence tying the
brothers to the crime scene. Ray Shan size nine Nike
Air Force Ones. Forensic print analyst Joyce pet Scott takes
the stand first. She gives the jury her expert credentials.
(27:58):
This is a voice actor reading her testimony from the trial.
I've testified approximately eighty five times in fingerprints and approximately
thirty nine in footwear. Then Petska explains her process. I
received four different pairs of Nike Athletic shoes. I also
received fifty eight photographic frames, and I received thirty nine photographs.
(28:21):
She created a known standard from Ray Shaun's shoe to
compare with the questioned print or impression. I determined that
one of the impressions what could have been made. It
was consistent and designed size and war with the right shoe,
and one of the impressions was consistent and designed size
and wear with the left shoe. But during cross examination,
(28:43):
Petska concedes that both the model and size of the
shoe are very common, so popular. In fact, just days
before the murder, rap star Nelly released the hit single
air Force Ones. The year of the trial two thousand
and four, and estimated ten million pairs were sold. Given
the limited detail of the shoe impressions and their popularity,
(29:07):
Peska admits under oath that another pair of Nike air
Force Ones could have produced the impression. Melissa Gegenbach points
out that even if footwear analysts don't use conclusive language
and admit that the shoeprint could have been made by
hundreds if not thousands of other shoes. Their testimony as
experts still makes the jury believe that there is something
(29:29):
substantial linking the suspect to the scene. There's no standardization
of what makes a match versus what is a non match.
So you get a lot of testimony that says something like,
while I've looked at the shoeprint, and I've looked at
the shoe and there are some areas here of similarity,
what does that mean? There's no statistic that you can
(29:53):
apply to that. In closing arguments, the prosecution went even further,
repeatedly arguing ray Shawn's shoe was a match. It was
definitely the shoe that left the print, even though their
own expert conceded another shoe could have made it. The
damage was done. Ray Shaw and Nathaniel were found guilty
(30:16):
of first degree murder. As the brothers were sentenced to
life without the possibility of parole. Their mother, Teresa, was
in the courtroom. I've seen Rayshawn. Rayshawn just dropped his head.
Nathaniel just started crying. He stood up and he addressed
(30:38):
a family, Sorry for what has happened to your father,
is what he said. Then he addressed a jury and said,
y'all got all my stuff, all my clothes, my shoes,
y'all got everything down here, and y'all don't help anything
on it. Their friends, Christopher, Jermal and Durrell were released
(31:00):
in twenty seventeen for time served. They had ultimately been
convicted did of lesser charges, second degree murder. Durrell passed
away in two nineteen, but Rayshun and Nathaniel are still
in prison. They've been there eighteen years. They could have
been home by now if they'd agreed to the plea deal,
(31:22):
and I'm sure they probably have often thought about that.
They refuse to admit to the crime. They say they
did not do. England say they accepted the life they got.
Deal what one certainly can deal with it a lot
better than the other. Rayshan dealt with it better than
Nathaniel did. In twenty fourteen, Nathaniel wrote a suicide note
(31:45):
to his mother and brother in which he maintained his
innocence before trying to end his life. According to prison records,
it was his third attempt, but in twenty twenty the
family gets another chance. Since two thousand and seven, the
North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission has reviewed over three thousand cases,
(32:07):
resulting in fifteen exonerations. They agree to hear the case
of the Winston Salem five as part of their investigation.
The Innocence Commission reviews thousands of pages of police reports
and trial documents. They hear directly from Ray, Shaun, and Nathaniel.
Here's Nathaniel talking to the committee about the confession. He
(32:29):
says he was coerced to give as a teenager after
my mother left and they came back in. It's like
they use her gives me when they were like, well,
look just tell us anything and we can let you
go home as a fifteen year old kid. And my
mind is telling me, okay, I might as well gonna
say I did it because these people is not going
to let up. These people that is not going to
(32:50):
stop saying that I did something when I continuously tell
you I didn't do it. And the friend who said
she drove them to the scene of the crime, her
name is Jessica Black, and she came forward to recant
her testimony, saying her confession was also coerced, also scared
(33:11):
I was going to jail until like I gave them
the answer that they wanted they hear from an expert
witness in footwear who, like in the original trial, opened
up the possibility that another pair of air Force ones
could have left the Prince. This expert this week also
testified that it is possible that another pair of air
(33:36):
Force one size nine could have been the source of
the impressions on the hood of the car, but they
have to display the exact wear pattern characteristics, you know
the words. You couldn't go to the foot locker and
get a pair of air Force ones size nine that
(34:00):
have never been worn necessarily and match that up. On
March thirteenth, twenty twenty, five of the eight members of
the Commission concluded that there was sufficient evidence of factual
innocence to merit judicial review. Fast forward to April twenty
twenty two, Rayshan and Nathaniel's case goes before a three
(34:22):
judge panel who have the power to exonerate them, but
under North Carolina law, the exoneration panel is bound by
a high burden of proof clear and convincing evidence of innocence.
Footwear evidence again took center stage, with testimony clarifying that
Rayshan's air Force ones were very common and to claim
(34:45):
a match was very misleading. After twenty years, Teresa barely
dared to hope. I don't put all the eggs in
one basket and say, oh yeah, they're coming home. Because
at the end of the day, those three judges steve
gotta hell unanimous boot yeah. With the victim's grandson Chris
(35:07):
Paul being an NBA superstar, the media frenzy raised the stakes.
On April twenty eighth, twenty twenty two, the three judge
panel voted to deny their claim on the grounds that
revealing flaws in the case against them isn't the same
thing as proving innocence, so the fight goes on. The
(35:29):
criminal justice system is like a one way street built
only to work in one direction. Overturning a conviction is
nearly impossible. Nathaniel and Rayshon's attorney plans to continue to
fight for their innocence, and Teresa can only stay strong
for her boys. When I see them on the other
(35:51):
side of the prison bars and the walls, that's when
I will live. That's when I will be happy. Next
time on CSI on trial in Baby Syndrome, a pregnant
mother who ran a daycare out of her home is
wrongfully convicted of killing a child. She was trying to help.
(36:14):
I instantly picked her up, hold her, was patting her
on the back. She was not responding. That is when
the police came, the ambulance came, and then it accelerated
into a very nightmare day. CSI on Trial is a
(36:37):
co production of iHeart Podcasts and School of Humans, based
on the Curiosity stream series CSI on Trial, created by
Eleanor Grant and produced by the Biscuit Factory. You can
watch all six episodes of the video series right now
at curiosity stream dot com. This episode is hosted and
(36:58):
written by me Molly Hermann and researched by Katie Dunn
and myself. Our producer is Miranda has. Jessica Metzker is
the senior producer. Virginia Prescott, Jason English, Brandon Barr and L. C.
Crowley are the executive producers. Sound design in mix by
(37:18):
Miranda Hawkins. Voice acting by Miranda Hawkins. Special thanks to
John Higgins, Rob Burke, Rob Lyle, and Brandon Craigie. If
you're enjoying the show, leave a review in your favorite
podcast app. Check out the Curiosity Audio Network for podcasts
(37:38):
covering history, pop culture, true crime and more. School of
Humans
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.