October 24, 2024 • 31 mins
On January 16, 2009, Linda Bonner found her husband Franklin duct-taped to a chair in their Chattanooga, TN home, with tape over his nose and mouth and signs of blunt force trauma. He was dead from suffocation. Police found fingerprints on the duct tape, but no matches were found. Nine years later, in 2019, 23-year-old Angel Bumpass was arrested after failing to appear in Kentucky court for a traffic ticket. Her fingerprints were taken upon her arrest and automatically searched against unidentified crime scene prints. Police said her fingerprints matched two partial prints on the duct tape from Franklin Bonner’s case. Even though she was only 13 years old at the time of the crime, Angel was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
To learn more and get involved, visit:
https://lavaforgood.com/podcast/398-wrongful-conviction-junk-science-fingerprint-evidence/
https://www.instagram.com/justiceforangel/?hl=en
https://www.tiktok.com/@thatsangelb
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26901702/
Wrongful Conviction is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good™ Podcasts.
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 (00:00):
Hi, It's Connor Hall, the producer for Wrongful Conviction. As
I mentioned previously, Jason and Kalia ah Lee are on
their honeymoon, so they're letting me fill in for a
few more episodes. And again I promise not to screw
it up. So here we go. On January sixteenth, two
thousand and nine, sixty eight year old Franklin Bonner was
(00:22):
found suffocated by duct tape with signs of blunt force trauma.
His Chattanooga, Tennessee home was ransacked, but no valuables appeared
to be missing. The duck tape held eleven fingerprints, but
no hits came up in the national database until nine
years later when they ran the Prince again and two
(00:44):
partial prints appeared to match twenty three year old Angel Bumpus,
who was thirteen years old at the time of the crime.
Despite a plausible explanation for the presence of her fingerprints
and an equally implausible theory of her guilt, she was
sent away for life in prison. And this is wrongful conviction.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Wrongful conviction has always given voice to innocent people in prison,
and now we're expanding that voice to you. Call us
at eight three three two o seven four six sixty six,
and tell us how these stories make you feel and
what you've done to help the cause, even if it's
something as simple as telling a friend or sharing on
social media, and you might just hear yourself in a
(01:31):
future episode call us eight three three two oh seven
four six sixty six.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction, where we have a story
that's just so ridiculous for so many reasons. Uh. You know,
first and foremost, how young the accused was at the
time of the crime. However, the details of the crime
make it even less plausible. And to help explain it all,
we welcome defense attorney Bill Massey, thank you, and of
(02:07):
course the still relatively young woman who endured this insanity
in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Angel Bumpus, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
You're welcome, thanks.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
For having me.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
So can you tell us a little bit about, you know,
growing up in Chattanooga.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
When I was in Chattanooga, I lived with my grandparents,
Chryl Bumpus and Bayliss Smith. And I mean, it's not
nothing exciting to tell. At that point in their life
when I was around, they were already well off into
their forties and fifties. My grandma, she stayed home all day,
could clean. My granddad went to work, came home. I
(02:43):
was a good student. I won a lot of awards
and different things. And like I was in eighth grade,
I believe so long ago even when it happened, Like
I didn't watch the news growing up as a kid,
so I didn't even know anything about it. Like the
knowledge I have is from when I got the discovery.
That's the knowledge that I have.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
And the crime in question occurred on January sixteenth, two
thousand and nine. The victim was a sixty eight year
old man named Franklin Bonner, who was known locally as
the lottery Man, alluding to the numbers game that he operated.
He was also alleged to sell some wheed on the side,
none of which should have gotten him killed, but being
known to have extra cash on hand may have played
(03:26):
a role.
Speaker 5 (03:27):
January sixteen, two thousand and nine, mister Bonner was in
his home. His wife came home and had lunch with him,
and then left back to work. When she came back
home a little after five in the afternoon, she found
him taped to the chair, duc taped and the chair
(03:47):
turned over. His head was completely encircled in duct tape.
She called the police. The police came, the man had suffocated.
They removed the tape from and they found fingerprints on
the inside the tape around the face, and there was
another on the tape beside the leg to the chair,
and they sent them off for identification, but there were
(04:11):
no hits.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
There were eleven fingerprints, some of them only partial. There
were also signs of blunt force trauma, but no implements
were cataloged or found.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
And the house had been ransacked, but strangely, very little
was missing. There was jewelry in his pocket and in
the home, as well as money and guns.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Perhaps something very specific was taken, but we're not sure what,
if anything. There were also no eyewitnesses to potential intruders,
so the police looked at the Bonner's landline for recent
callers and found a number associated with the Bumpuses.
Speaker 5 (04:47):
Carl Fields, I believe, was the lead investigator at the time,
and he said that he saw that call number, they
ran it and that it came back to Shirley Bumpus,
which is the grandmother of Angel. So he went over
there the next day to talk to the Bumpuses. And
he says that she told him she had gone over
(05:09):
to the Bonner home to buy some marijuana.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
It was no secret that the Bonners and Bumpuses knew
each other. According to Angel's grandfather, Bayliss, he had even
done odd jobs for the Bonners on occasions, so it
wasn't strange that their number appeared on the Bonners call log.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
When we got the discovery the AT and T call log,
it shows that my grandmother hadn't even called that day.
So that's just something that they just were saying.
Speaker 5 (05:35):
But that's what got them on to the Bumpus household.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
The previous district attorney, Neil Pinkson, he did not like
my grandmamma, like they had history. Like he was also
on the case of my uncle who was murdered. And
that's how I know, like how victims are getting treated
and how they were treating the victim of this case.
They don't treat my family how they were treating the victim.
So it's like my grandmother, she used to just be
(05:59):
very very vocal about stuff, and so her and Pinkson
they have a bad relationship. They was other suspects, but
they didn't pursue them.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
They ruled them out.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
I feel like I'm sensing there's a little facetiousness in there.
Speaker 5 (06:15):
A man who was doing a federal sentence, Nicholas Cheating,
when he heard about the incident in Chattanooga. He was
trying to get a time cut by cooperating with police
in solving this homicide case and says, hey, I think
I know who's responsible for this, and that's how they
got hooked up with Mallory Vaughn. So the detective were
(06:38):
down I believe they were down there twice and talked
with him maybe three times. Never mentioned a young girl,
and the information that he gave was all on Mallory Vaughn.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
But it appears that investigators didn't find nicholas cheating statement
about Malory Vaughn credible. So this case went cold for
nine years, and in that time Angel grew up.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
I moved to Kentucky during my junior year, graduated in
high school. I was deciding if I was going to
go to college or not. I actually was supposed to
go to college in New York. I wanted to be
a fashion designer and I was going to just go
to New York and risk it or whatever. But I
ended up getting pregnant, and I stayed and I ended
(07:22):
up going to University of Louisville. I still didn't know
what I wanted to do with my life now being
a mother, and then eventually I became a single mother
of two kids. So I decided that I was just
going to go and get my nursing degree because my
aunt has her nursing degree. I have a couple of
cousins who have their nursing degree, and it just seemed
like the most stable.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
Career for me.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
And this is all still between like eighteen and twenty three,
and so that was pretty much my life when she.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Was about eighteen or nineteen years old. In twenty fourteen,
she got a traffic ticket.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
I didn't really know about it, so I didn't pay it,
and I had got a warrant from not showing up
to court. Like I didn't know that I could go
and redocate my case instead of turning myself in. I
didn't know that, but I went down there. I just
had to get built in. Ultimately, everything got dismissed in
tank care, but my fingerprints were inside of the system
(08:17):
from that.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
So your prints are in the system. In twenty fourteen,
does anyone know why they decided, you know, to run
the princes again through APHIS in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
If I remember from discovery that his granddaughter called and
wanted to see if they had any new evidence.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
APHIS, the automated Fingerprint Identification system marked angels prints as
a potential match for two partial prints. I'd like to
direct you to our coverage of fingerprint analysis on Junk Science.
It'll be linked in the episode description, where we discuss
how fingerprint analysis is subjective in nature, performed by flawed
(08:55):
human beings on prints that are pulled from non uniform services.
There is also disagreement among the analyst community as to
how many points of correlation need to line up between
two prints in order to be considered a match. Again,
Angel's prints were flagged as a potential match to two
partial prints by APHIS, But then it was an analyst
(09:18):
who said that this print pulled from a material as
elastic as duct tape, could be called a quote unquote match.
Speaker 5 (09:25):
Angel was pulled into this because of that fingerprint. That's
truly the only piece of evidence that they had on her.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Additionally, her grandfather said that he had done odd jobs
for the Bonners and He later testified that the duct
tape likely belonged to him, which is a plausible explanation,
but coming from a loved one, it's easily explained away. Nevertheless,
the fingerprint match that the partial print was enough for.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
An arrest warrant, and that was Juan of twenty eighteen.
They knocked on a door, opened the door, and I
mean and they were very hostile in their home and
their on their hips and stuff. They were asking me
who's inside of the house, and I'm like, it's just
me and my kids are sleeping. This was a Kentucky officer.
He was like, well, can I search your house? And
I thought maybe they were looking for someone, and so
(10:12):
I allowed them to come in. All of a sudden,
it's like teen officers and some detectives from Tennessee scattered
inside of my apartment. They're not telling me why they're here.
They're just telling me to get my kids somewhere if
somebody can come pick up my kids. And they're like, oh, yeah,
we have a warrant for you. So I just I
get my aunt to come and get my kids, and
(10:32):
I just leave with them. I was very naive about
the legal system and so I'm thinking this is a mistake,
whatever it is, and I'm just going to bond out
and be out in a couple of hours. So I
didn't think that I was going to be locked up
for thirteen days.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Angels age at the time of the crime thirteen and
then her age at the time of arrest twenty three
presented the state with a challenge. This was technically a
juvenile case, but she couldn't be booked into juvenile facility
at twenty three, so Angel had to wait in jail
until her case was bound over into adult court before
bonding out in preparation for trial. Meanwhile, it appears that
(11:11):
after nine years of ignoring Nicholas Cheating as someone who'd
say anything for a time cut, all of a sudden,
his word is seen as credible enough to arrest Mallory Vaughan, the.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Co defendant, asked for a speedy trial, and my attorneys
would not get our trials separated, like they would not
fight to get it separated for whatever reason.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
And so now you've got a co defendant. That's how old.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
I believe he's older than my mom.
Speaker 5 (11:38):
He was forty eight.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
Yeah, he's like double my age.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
So he was twenty eight when you were thirteen.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
Uh, And he says he didn't know Angel Boppas, and
Angel says she doesn't know him.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Yeah, it'd be really fucking weird if he knew her.
Speaker 5 (11:55):
Creepy, you know how they connected the two of.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
Them Facebook Facebook out on my profile he was friends
with a family member who was also older than me.
Speaker 5 (12:05):
Yeah, but it's a friend. Ten years later and I'm
back when this occurred.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
You're listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen to this
and all the Lava for Good podcasts one week early
and ad free by subscribing to Lava for Good Plus
on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 5 (12:36):
Their theory in this case was that Angel came home
from school, she went over to where Melory Vaughn stayed,
and that there were trails through the woods that led
to mister Botterer's home, and that they went down those
trails and committed this act. Now, there's no proof of
that whatsoever, anywhere from anywhere else other than them saying it.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
Yeah, this prosecutor is a very active.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
Imagination, definitely, because I lived across the highway, so even
if it was I would still have to cross the
busy highway to get there.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
So, in addition to dodging cars to cross a busy highway,
there was a narrow window in which this could have
even happened. Angel was at school until three pm, and
Linda Bonner found her husband at five pm.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
My attorney.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
They hired a private investigator and he actually determined that
I was at school. It shows that I wrote the boss,
I don't have any absence on that day the timeframe
I will have only had twenty minutes to commit the
crime and get back home.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Trial began at the end of September twenty nineteen, and
to support this implausible narrative involving a five foot tall,
eighty pound thirteen year old beating and duct taping an
adult man to a chair, they had to give her
an accomplice who was strong enough to do Franklin Bonner
and maneuver his body around. So Nicholas Cheating took the
(14:04):
stand to implicate Mallory Vaughan.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
Yeah, he just was saying the the co defendant, that
he picked him up and he had money and he
usually never has money, and he said that he told
him that he did it, and something about a lottery man.
Speaker 5 (14:20):
He should have be going to hit a lick on
the lottery man, and then he showed up the next
day with money, and of.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Course this twenty eight year old called up his trusted
thirteen year old partner in crime, who he found on Facebook,
to hit a lick on the lottery man. Cool story.
I guess Nicholas Cheating recognized how ridiculous that sounded, so
he denied ever hearing anything about Angel Bumpis, as in
her co defendant. He denied knowing her at all, and
(14:47):
perhaps in an attempt to make it seem more plausible,
the state alluded to other potential accomplices.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
The district attorneys, they just kept insinuating that the case
was in closed and insinuating that more people were going
to get arrested and more people were going to be
punished for the crime. And I don't want to bash anybody,
but the attorneys that I hired, they did not fight
for me. There were no objections. They weren't even paying attention,
(15:13):
Like one of the attorneys were just taxing the entire time.
The other attorneys. She wasn't prepared. She was trying to
write her closing statement, not listening. And then they didn't
get pictures of me when I was thirteen, so like,
it's literally a grown woman on trial, and I looked
very different from when I was thirteen.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Right, because the judge denied to admit your eighth grade
graduation picture into evidence.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
And that's because those attorneys stay in properly put in
the evidence in a timely manner.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
I really think that the jury was just confused.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Or maybe they weren't. When the charges are aggravated robbery
and felony murder with the specter of a larger group.
They just needed to prove that she had some involvement
in the actions that eventually led to mister Bonner's death.
So they met that low ball with this partial fingerprint
and without challenging if it even was her fingerprint. There
(16:06):
was a plausible explanation offered by Angel's grandfather. Unfortunately, defendant's
loved ones are typically easy to impeach or explain away.
Speaker 3 (16:15):
I knew that the district attorney had made their case,
and like, while we were waiting for deliberation, we went
to this bar. The attorneys they all got drinks and
they're like, oh, Angel, get a drink. And then like
the female she asked me, She's like, do you want
to get in the car and just go to Mexico.
And like, I don't know if she was joking or not,
(16:36):
but like in that moment, my heart dropped and I
just felt like I'll often to be found guilty. And
they also told me that if the co defendant was
found not guilty, then I will be found not guilty.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
So they read his verdict first and.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
It's not guilty, so I have a little bit of hope.
But then I get guilty. So I went to Silverdale
(17:12):
and then I went to Tennessee Prison for Women. I
got written up on my first day because I refused
medical things. And it's just like I guess back then,
I just wanted to hold on to whatever rights that
I did have, and I knew that I didn't have
to do anything medical because they couln't force medical stuff
on you even if you're a prisoner.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
And yeah, so they wrote me up.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
I went to segregation for forty days upon arrival, very
tough time. Couldn't use the phone, couldn't write letters, couldn't
do anything. Then I got out and I would just
call home a lot. Because it's also happened during COVID,
so there was no visits or anything.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
Like that, Now, how.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Old were your two little ones at the time.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
They had just turned five and four.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Jeezus, that really sucks.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
It was.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
It was very traumatic experience going to prison. Like I
literally don't know how people do that. I mean I
did it, but like I can see how people like
they go insane, they start using drugs and just all
of that, because that's all you see in prison is
drug use and just a lot of stuff. Guards doing stuff,
they shit in and it's sad. But I had a
(18:25):
lot of support, not only for my family, but from
millions of people all over the world.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Well, Angel was being prosecuted. A and E crime docuseries Accused,
Guilty or Innocent picked up on the story, and the
coverage garnered a great deal of support for Angel. Meanwhile,
the sentence she was given, considering all the strides that
had been made over the previous two decades around life
sentences for juveniles amounting to cruel and unusual punishment, it
(18:50):
appeared that Angel's situation might have been unconstitutional.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
Oh, you had sixty years because it was two felony,
so you automatically get a life sentence.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, But if they
believe themselves. This is a crime that was committed when
she was thirteen, and by twenty eighteen, the Supreme Court
had already ruled mandatory life sentences for juveniles unconstitutional.
Speaker 5 (19:14):
Well, there's been a case recently that laid out the
law here for Tennessee. It said, I mean, I know
the Eighth Amendment. You can't sen uce a juvenile to
life and not take into account the maturity that they
had at the time of the offense, or any of
their upbringing or anything like that. You can't foreclose the
future on a juvenile like that. And so they said,
(19:38):
you know, at twenty five years, then you've got to
be able to look and see if they've engaged in
rehabilitative efforts. But the parole board can make that decision, and.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
We know that parole boards are typically filled with political appointees,
so it's hard to know if we can count on
that protocol Either way. She was re sentenced the first
in a series of victories that happened, I believe, quicker
than any case we've ever covered. You know, that's not
to say that four years is somehow nothing. Just take
a second to think about the length of one month
(20:11):
or one year. I mean, would you accept being kidnapped
away from your life, your children, your loved ones for
any amount of time. So we can only be grateful
that this injustice was undone with the urgency that all
innocent people deserve.
Speaker 5 (20:26):
So Angela had hired me then to tried to get
her a new trial. The judge allowed me to come
into the case. We ordered transcripts, and prior council got
me their files and we went to work.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Bill was able to point out multiple errors in Angel's trial,
outlining ineffective assistance of council claims and constitutional violations. Judge
Tom Greenholtz noted that Angel's eighth grade yearbook photos should
not have been excluded from evidence, that her council failed
to not only admit it in a timely fashion, but
also failed to object to the ten years too late
(20:59):
Facebook between angels relative and Mallory Vaughan, as well as
to the specter of this larger group alleged to have
been involved with the crime, among so many others. Greenholts
finally ruled that the evidence was insufficient to establish that
a robbery had even been committed, and without the robbery,
there's no felony. Murder. They'd have to prove that she
did it, and the theory was literally that this eighty
(21:21):
pound thirteen year old could not have physically committed this
crime without extensive help.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
After the judge ruled in our favor, the next thing
we did was asked for a bond. The judge was
not going to approve the source of income until the
entire amount of premium was paid on the bond, which
was going to be the following week, and so we
had really been anticipating Angel getting out. I know she was,
(21:47):
and we were very disappointed. But about that time I
felt a tug on my jacket and I turned around
and it was the bonds lady and she said, Bill,
there is a gentleman in the back there wants to
talk with you. So I said, judge, would you excuse
me just a moment. She said sure. I went back
and he said I want to make her bond. Said, well, great,
(22:08):
why are you doing this? And he said, I'll follow
this case is that started, and I believe she is
probably not guilty. So I asked him some other questions
about his source of income and his business and raised
my hand and said, judge will have one more witness,
and he was kind enough to make that premium.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
No, I cried, I was really wanting to get out
and see my kids, and so I was just very grateful.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
That's got to be incredibly emotionally confusing. I mean, you
got this positive outcome with this generous gesture, but it's
only positive in the undoing of this evil right anyway,
You get home and you know, you probably squeeze those
kids so tight their heads nearly popped off.
Speaker 4 (22:50):
Yeah, it was.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
That was a little difficult too, with their day. Even now,
we are still going back and forth in court with
like custody and visits, and it's a lot that has
transpired in my wife. I still just have to deal
with the mace regardless.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
And even though Angel was out, this was not over yet.
But at least with the newly elected district Attorney, Cody Womp,
they were no longer fighting the same folks who had
followed through with this absurd prosecution.
Speaker 5 (23:19):
I talked with the prosecutors and they believed, I think
that Angel was not, in their view, the primary perpetrator
of this offense, and they thought because of the fingerprint
that she may have been present, but they wanted to
know who is responsible, and essentially tell them and we'll
(23:41):
move you to go home. And so I go to Angel,
who's always told me I don't know anything about this.
I didn't do this. But I go to her. She
swelled up and said, mister Massey, I do not know
what happened that day. I was not there. And so
at that point we had to explain how those fingerprints
(24:03):
got there, or at least neuter that evidence in some way.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
As I mentioned earlier, fingerprint analysis has come under scrutiny
on a few fronts, but most importantly, as in this case,
fingerprint analysts are often dealing with partial prints from non
uniform or uneven surfaces, and there's a disagreement in that
community about how many points of correlation between fingerprints constitute
a match. Is it twelve or twenty? I mean, raise
(24:30):
your hand. If you thought that it had to be
the whole thing, then you have to consider the surface.
Was it elastic? Did it been some aspect of the
print that you're trying to match. But even under the
most reliable conditions, you also must prove that the print
didn't enter the scene innocently. As Angel's grandfather contended a trial,
and so with this ongoing discussion around the reliability of fingerprints,
(24:50):
Bill found additional support for Angel's innocence.
Speaker 5 (24:53):
That's when I arranged for her to take this enhanced
polygraph that's available now to cycle physiological detection of deception examination.
I believe it said between ninety two and ninety seven
percent accurate, and the first one she took she did
great on. I gave it to the prosecutors, but they
wanted a law enforcement examination and I was told there
(25:18):
weren't enough questions asked on this examination. I said, the
polygraph strength is in the brevity of the questions. It's
a single issue polygraph. That's what makes it so reliable.
That's the reason the National Security Agency uses it, dea
Department of Defense uses it. But they wanted a law
(25:39):
enforcement polygraph. So we then went and found a second
polygraph expert who had a background with law enforcement, had
a wonderful resume, and he called me right after it
was over and he said, Bill, you've got to have
four points to show that you're not being deceptive. He said,
(26:00):
she had fourteen. This lady's telling the truth. I said, well,
you put that into your report. He said absolutely, So
we took that down then to Miss womp and when
she saw that, she had her people look at her
TBI experts look at the examination that was given, and
they verified that it was an accurate test, and that's
(26:22):
when they agreed to dismiss the charges.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
You know, when I was reading initially about this case,
my first impression was, at this point, it looks like
they were, you know, looking for some way to save
face for the office and you know as well as
do the right thing.
Speaker 5 (26:36):
Well, what did to give them that reason?
Speaker 1 (26:38):
So the district attorney joined you and Judge A Man
had done agreed. The charges were dismissed in August twenty
twenty three.
Speaker 5 (26:47):
Right, it was wonderful seeing the look on Angel's face
when that dismissal was announced. I hadn't seen that deep
of a smile in quite a while. You practice your
whole life hoping for a moment that good stuff.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
So, Angel, the kids, how old are they now?
Speaker 4 (27:05):
Ten and nine? It's their birthday night?
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Yep, ten and nine years. You've still got some formative
years left. But where are you all living now?
Speaker 4 (27:13):
I love back in Louisville, Kentucky.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
So I'm trying to co parent with their dad, like
I said earlier. That's just it's been very difficult and
a lot of stuff that happened wouldn't have happened if
I went to a prison. But I am back inside
of nursing school. I got a year and a half
and I'm going straight for the registered nurse and I
have my PSN inside of it. So I just got
a year and a half of that during that time.
(27:36):
Like I'm also a licensed as a titian, so I'm
kind of going to do something with like medical spot
after I get my degree.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
That's great. Anything else that you're working on, you know,
something you'd like to bring our attention to.
Speaker 3 (27:47):
Yeah, I have wrote a book because when I was
locked up, I used to journal like every day. I
got notebooks and notebooks of stuff that happened every single day.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
Like I remember people used to be like she's always writing.
What is she writing? Like is she trying to tell
on us?
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Because I would literally document everything that I saw, everything
that happened, like I had.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
I got all stacks of it.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
And I'm currently going back and forth for different publishers
just to like fully detail get out my story. And
I really hope that inspires people as people have wrote
me and told me that I have inspired them, and
I just want to get that bit of hope on
paper to people to have forever and I can just
finally close that chapter of my life and just to
(28:33):
move on.
Speaker 5 (28:34):
Would you send me an autographed copy?
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Yeah, well, we've linked her socials in the episode description,
so if anyone would like to reach out and you know,
potentially assist in the publishing process, please do so. And
with that we'll go to closing arguments, where I'm just
gonna thank you both for joining us today, and then
I'm going to lean back and lock it up as
they share their closing thoughts.
Speaker 5 (28:56):
BIP closing thoughts are while something like this that Angel
got the experience, both the bad and the good. It's
rare to see it, but it happens far more than
we see. It happens far more than we see. Sometimes
it's the wrong person, they weren't there, just like it
(29:19):
wasn't Angel's case. And sometimes it's just simply overcharging. We
applaud the work that the Edocence Project does and the
Wrongful Conviction Group. It's a labor of love, isn't it.
It's a labor of love.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Yeah, I just hope that one day the juvenile laws
will be better, especially for my case, because I personally
don't agree with anybody under eighteen spend it sixty years
in prison.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
I hope that one.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Day people can like relook into laws because I do
feel like crimes are not black and white, like it's
more stuff that goes into it. I've been around women
who are there because of a boyfriend, you know, and
just because they didn't want to say anything, then they
got twenty thirty years sitting. Can't get out because I
can't afford to get an appeal attorney or anything like that.
Speaker 4 (30:14):
And I just hope one.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Day more district attorneys and police officers get a little
more accountability so mistakes won't happen. Because anytime a mistake
this happened, you know, it was just they were just
doing their job, so nothing can be done about it.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Thank you for listening to Wrong for Conviction. You can
listen to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts
one week early and ed free by subscribing to Lava
for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I want to thank
our production team, Connor Hall and Kathleen Fink, as well
as my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis, and
Jeff Clibern. The music in this production was supplied by
(30:58):
three time OSCAR nominated composer Ralph Be sure to follow
us across all social media platforms at Lava for Good
and at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow me on
Instagram at it's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is a production
of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company
Number one
Hi, It's Connor Hall, the producer for Wrongful Conviction. As
I mentioned previously, Jason and Kalia ah Lee are on
their honeymoon, so they're letting me fill in for a
few more episodes. And again I promise not to screw
it up. So here we go. On January sixteenth, two
thousand and nine, sixty eight year old Franklin Bonner was
(00:22):
found suffocated by duct tape with signs of blunt force trauma.
His Chattanooga, Tennessee home was ransacked, but no valuables appeared
to be missing. The duck tape held eleven fingerprints, but
no hits came up in the national database until nine
years later when they ran the Prince again and two
(00:44):
partial prints appeared to match twenty three year old Angel Bumpus,
who was thirteen years old at the time of the crime.
Despite a plausible explanation for the presence of her fingerprints
and an equally implausible theory of her guilt, she was
sent away for life in prison. And this is wrongful conviction.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
Wrongful conviction has always given voice to innocent people in prison,
and now we're expanding that voice to you. Call us
at eight three three two o seven four six sixty six,
and tell us how these stories make you feel and
what you've done to help the cause, even if it's
something as simple as telling a friend or sharing on
social media, and you might just hear yourself in a
(01:31):
future episode call us eight three three two oh seven
four six sixty six.
Speaker 1 (01:45):
Welcome back to Wrongful Conviction, where we have a story
that's just so ridiculous for so many reasons. Uh. You know,
first and foremost, how young the accused was at the
time of the crime. However, the details of the crime
make it even less plausible. And to help explain it all,
we welcome defense attorney Bill Massey, thank you, and of
(02:07):
course the still relatively young woman who endured this insanity
in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Angel Bumpus, thank you for joining us.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
You're welcome, thanks.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
For having me.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
So can you tell us a little bit about, you know,
growing up in Chattanooga.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
When I was in Chattanooga, I lived with my grandparents,
Chryl Bumpus and Bayliss Smith. And I mean, it's not
nothing exciting to tell. At that point in their life
when I was around, they were already well off into
their forties and fifties. My grandma, she stayed home all day,
could clean. My granddad went to work, came home. I
(02:43):
was a good student. I won a lot of awards
and different things. And like I was in eighth grade,
I believe so long ago even when it happened, Like
I didn't watch the news growing up as a kid,
so I didn't even know anything about it. Like the
knowledge I have is from when I got the discovery.
That's the knowledge that I have.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
And the crime in question occurred on January sixteenth, two
thousand and nine. The victim was a sixty eight year
old man named Franklin Bonner, who was known locally as
the lottery Man, alluding to the numbers game that he operated.
He was also alleged to sell some wheed on the side,
none of which should have gotten him killed, but being
known to have extra cash on hand may have played
(03:26):
a role.
Speaker 5 (03:27):
January sixteen, two thousand and nine, mister Bonner was in
his home. His wife came home and had lunch with him,
and then left back to work. When she came back
home a little after five in the afternoon, she found
him taped to the chair, duc taped and the chair
(03:47):
turned over. His head was completely encircled in duct tape.
She called the police. The police came, the man had suffocated.
They removed the tape from and they found fingerprints on
the inside the tape around the face, and there was
another on the tape beside the leg to the chair,
and they sent them off for identification, but there were
(04:11):
no hits.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
There were eleven fingerprints, some of them only partial. There
were also signs of blunt force trauma, but no implements
were cataloged or found.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
And the house had been ransacked, but strangely, very little
was missing. There was jewelry in his pocket and in
the home, as well as money and guns.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Perhaps something very specific was taken, but we're not sure what,
if anything. There were also no eyewitnesses to potential intruders,
so the police looked at the Bonner's landline for recent
callers and found a number associated with the Bumpuses.
Speaker 5 (04:47):
Carl Fields, I believe, was the lead investigator at the time,
and he said that he saw that call number, they
ran it and that it came back to Shirley Bumpus,
which is the grandmother of Angel. So he went over
there the next day to talk to the Bumpuses. And
he says that she told him she had gone over
(05:09):
to the Bonner home to buy some marijuana.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
It was no secret that the Bonners and Bumpuses knew
each other. According to Angel's grandfather, Bayliss, he had even
done odd jobs for the Bonners on occasions, so it
wasn't strange that their number appeared on the Bonners call log.
Speaker 3 (05:26):
When we got the discovery the AT and T call log,
it shows that my grandmother hadn't even called that day.
So that's just something that they just were saying.
Speaker 5 (05:35):
But that's what got them on to the Bumpus household.
Speaker 3 (05:39):
The previous district attorney, Neil Pinkson, he did not like
my grandmamma, like they had history. Like he was also
on the case of my uncle who was murdered. And
that's how I know, like how victims are getting treated
and how they were treating the victim of this case.
They don't treat my family how they were treating the victim.
So it's like my grandmother, she used to just be
(05:59):
very very vocal about stuff, and so her and Pinkson
they have a bad relationship. They was other suspects, but
they didn't pursue them.
Speaker 5 (06:09):
They ruled them out.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
I feel like I'm sensing there's a little facetiousness in there.
Speaker 5 (06:15):
A man who was doing a federal sentence, Nicholas Cheating,
when he heard about the incident in Chattanooga. He was
trying to get a time cut by cooperating with police
in solving this homicide case and says, hey, I think
I know who's responsible for this, and that's how they
got hooked up with Mallory Vaughn. So the detective were
(06:38):
down I believe they were down there twice and talked
with him maybe three times. Never mentioned a young girl,
and the information that he gave was all on Mallory Vaughn.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
But it appears that investigators didn't find nicholas cheating statement
about Malory Vaughn credible. So this case went cold for
nine years, and in that time Angel grew up.
Speaker 3 (07:00):
I moved to Kentucky during my junior year, graduated in
high school. I was deciding if I was going to
go to college or not. I actually was supposed to
go to college in New York. I wanted to be
a fashion designer and I was going to just go
to New York and risk it or whatever. But I
ended up getting pregnant, and I stayed and I ended
(07:22):
up going to University of Louisville. I still didn't know
what I wanted to do with my life now being
a mother, and then eventually I became a single mother
of two kids. So I decided that I was just
going to go and get my nursing degree because my
aunt has her nursing degree. I have a couple of
cousins who have their nursing degree, and it just seemed
like the most stable.
Speaker 4 (07:43):
Career for me.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
And this is all still between like eighteen and twenty three,
and so that was pretty much my life when she.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Was about eighteen or nineteen years old. In twenty fourteen,
she got a traffic ticket.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
I didn't really know about it, so I didn't pay it,
and I had got a warrant from not showing up
to court. Like I didn't know that I could go
and redocate my case instead of turning myself in. I
didn't know that, but I went down there. I just
had to get built in. Ultimately, everything got dismissed in
tank care, but my fingerprints were inside of the system
(08:17):
from that.
Speaker 1 (08:17):
So your prints are in the system. In twenty fourteen,
does anyone know why they decided, you know, to run
the princes again through APHIS in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 3 (08:25):
If I remember from discovery that his granddaughter called and
wanted to see if they had any new evidence.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
APHIS, the automated Fingerprint Identification system marked angels prints as
a potential match for two partial prints. I'd like to
direct you to our coverage of fingerprint analysis on Junk Science.
It'll be linked in the episode description, where we discuss
how fingerprint analysis is subjective in nature, performed by flawed
(08:55):
human beings on prints that are pulled from non uniform services.
There is also disagreement among the analyst community as to
how many points of correlation need to line up between
two prints in order to be considered a match. Again,
Angel's prints were flagged as a potential match to two
partial prints by APHIS, But then it was an analyst
(09:18):
who said that this print pulled from a material as
elastic as duct tape, could be called a quote unquote match.
Speaker 5 (09:25):
Angel was pulled into this because of that fingerprint. That's
truly the only piece of evidence that they had on her.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Additionally, her grandfather said that he had done odd jobs
for the Bonners and He later testified that the duct
tape likely belonged to him, which is a plausible explanation,
but coming from a loved one, it's easily explained away. Nevertheless,
the fingerprint match that the partial print was enough for.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
An arrest warrant, and that was Juan of twenty eighteen.
They knocked on a door, opened the door, and I
mean and they were very hostile in their home and
their on their hips and stuff. They were asking me
who's inside of the house, and I'm like, it's just
me and my kids are sleeping. This was a Kentucky officer.
He was like, well, can I search your house? And
I thought maybe they were looking for someone, and so
(10:12):
I allowed them to come in. All of a sudden,
it's like teen officers and some detectives from Tennessee scattered
inside of my apartment. They're not telling me why they're here.
They're just telling me to get my kids somewhere if
somebody can come pick up my kids. And they're like, oh, yeah,
we have a warrant for you. So I just I
get my aunt to come and get my kids, and
(10:32):
I just leave with them. I was very naive about
the legal system and so I'm thinking this is a mistake,
whatever it is, and I'm just going to bond out
and be out in a couple of hours. So I
didn't think that I was going to be locked up
for thirteen days.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Angels age at the time of the crime thirteen and
then her age at the time of arrest twenty three
presented the state with a challenge. This was technically a
juvenile case, but she couldn't be booked into juvenile facility
at twenty three, so Angel had to wait in jail
until her case was bound over into adult court before
bonding out in preparation for trial. Meanwhile, it appears that
(11:11):
after nine years of ignoring Nicholas Cheating as someone who'd
say anything for a time cut, all of a sudden,
his word is seen as credible enough to arrest Mallory Vaughan, the.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
Co defendant, asked for a speedy trial, and my attorneys
would not get our trials separated, like they would not
fight to get it separated for whatever reason.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
And so now you've got a co defendant. That's how old.
Speaker 3 (11:35):
I believe he's older than my mom.
Speaker 5 (11:38):
He was forty eight.
Speaker 4 (11:39):
Yeah, he's like double my age.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
So he was twenty eight when you were thirteen.
Speaker 4 (11:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (11:45):
Uh, And he says he didn't know Angel Boppas, and
Angel says she doesn't know him.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
Yeah, it'd be really fucking weird if he knew her.
Speaker 5 (11:55):
Creepy, you know how they connected the two of.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
Them Facebook Facebook out on my profile he was friends
with a family member who was also older than me.
Speaker 5 (12:05):
Yeah, but it's a friend. Ten years later and I'm
back when this occurred.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
You're listening to Wrongful Conviction. You can listen to this
and all the Lava for Good podcasts one week early
and ad free by subscribing to Lava for Good Plus
on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 5 (12:36):
Their theory in this case was that Angel came home
from school, she went over to where Melory Vaughn stayed,
and that there were trails through the woods that led
to mister Botterer's home, and that they went down those
trails and committed this act. Now, there's no proof of
that whatsoever, anywhere from anywhere else other than them saying it.
Speaker 1 (13:02):
Yeah, this prosecutor is a very active.
Speaker 3 (13:05):
Imagination, definitely, because I lived across the highway, so even
if it was I would still have to cross the
busy highway to get there.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
So, in addition to dodging cars to cross a busy highway,
there was a narrow window in which this could have
even happened. Angel was at school until three pm, and
Linda Bonner found her husband at five pm.
Speaker 4 (13:27):
My attorney.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
They hired a private investigator and he actually determined that
I was at school. It shows that I wrote the boss,
I don't have any absence on that day the timeframe
I will have only had twenty minutes to commit the
crime and get back home.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
Trial began at the end of September twenty nineteen, and
to support this implausible narrative involving a five foot tall,
eighty pound thirteen year old beating and duct taping an
adult man to a chair, they had to give her
an accomplice who was strong enough to do Franklin Bonner
and maneuver his body around. So Nicholas Cheating took the
(14:04):
stand to implicate Mallory Vaughan.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
Yeah, he just was saying the the co defendant, that
he picked him up and he had money and he
usually never has money, and he said that he told
him that he did it, and something about a lottery man.
Speaker 5 (14:20):
He should have be going to hit a lick on
the lottery man, and then he showed up the next
day with money, and of.
Speaker 1 (14:26):
Course this twenty eight year old called up his trusted
thirteen year old partner in crime, who he found on Facebook,
to hit a lick on the lottery man. Cool story.
I guess Nicholas Cheating recognized how ridiculous that sounded, so
he denied ever hearing anything about Angel Bumpis, as in
her co defendant. He denied knowing her at all, and
(14:47):
perhaps in an attempt to make it seem more plausible,
the state alluded to other potential accomplices.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
The district attorneys, they just kept insinuating that the case
was in closed and insinuating that more people were going
to get arrested and more people were going to be
punished for the crime. And I don't want to bash anybody,
but the attorneys that I hired, they did not fight
for me. There were no objections. They weren't even paying attention,
(15:13):
Like one of the attorneys were just taxing the entire time.
The other attorneys. She wasn't prepared. She was trying to
write her closing statement, not listening. And then they didn't
get pictures of me when I was thirteen, so like,
it's literally a grown woman on trial, and I looked
very different from when I was thirteen.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
Right, because the judge denied to admit your eighth grade
graduation picture into evidence.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
And that's because those attorneys stay in properly put in
the evidence in a timely manner.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
I really think that the jury was just confused.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Or maybe they weren't. When the charges are aggravated robbery
and felony murder with the specter of a larger group.
They just needed to prove that she had some involvement
in the actions that eventually led to mister Bonner's death.
So they met that low ball with this partial fingerprint
and without challenging if it even was her fingerprint. There
(16:06):
was a plausible explanation offered by Angel's grandfather. Unfortunately, defendant's
loved ones are typically easy to impeach or explain away.
Speaker 3 (16:15):
I knew that the district attorney had made their case,
and like, while we were waiting for deliberation, we went
to this bar. The attorneys they all got drinks and
they're like, oh, Angel, get a drink. And then like
the female she asked me, She's like, do you want
to get in the car and just go to Mexico.
And like, I don't know if she was joking or not,
(16:36):
but like in that moment, my heart dropped and I
just felt like I'll often to be found guilty. And
they also told me that if the co defendant was
found not guilty, then I will be found not guilty.
Speaker 4 (16:48):
So they read his verdict first and.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
It's not guilty, so I have a little bit of hope.
But then I get guilty. So I went to Silverdale
(17:12):
and then I went to Tennessee Prison for Women. I
got written up on my first day because I refused
medical things. And it's just like I guess back then,
I just wanted to hold on to whatever rights that
I did have, and I knew that I didn't have
to do anything medical because they couln't force medical stuff
on you even if you're a prisoner.
Speaker 4 (17:34):
And yeah, so they wrote me up.
Speaker 3 (17:36):
I went to segregation for forty days upon arrival, very
tough time. Couldn't use the phone, couldn't write letters, couldn't
do anything. Then I got out and I would just
call home a lot. Because it's also happened during COVID,
so there was no visits or anything.
Speaker 4 (17:52):
Like that, Now, how.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
Old were your two little ones at the time.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
They had just turned five and four.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Jeezus, that really sucks.
Speaker 4 (18:01):
It was.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
It was very traumatic experience going to prison. Like I
literally don't know how people do that. I mean I
did it, but like I can see how people like
they go insane, they start using drugs and just all
of that, because that's all you see in prison is
drug use and just a lot of stuff. Guards doing stuff,
they shit in and it's sad. But I had a
(18:25):
lot of support, not only for my family, but from
millions of people all over the world.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
Well, Angel was being prosecuted. A and E crime docuseries Accused,
Guilty or Innocent picked up on the story, and the
coverage garnered a great deal of support for Angel. Meanwhile,
the sentence she was given, considering all the strides that
had been made over the previous two decades around life
sentences for juveniles amounting to cruel and unusual punishment, it
(18:50):
appeared that Angel's situation might have been unconstitutional.
Speaker 3 (18:55):
Oh, you had sixty years because it was two felony,
so you automatically get a life sentence.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, But if they
believe themselves. This is a crime that was committed when
she was thirteen, and by twenty eighteen, the Supreme Court
had already ruled mandatory life sentences for juveniles unconstitutional.
Speaker 5 (19:14):
Well, there's been a case recently that laid out the
law here for Tennessee. It said, I mean, I know
the Eighth Amendment. You can't sen uce a juvenile to
life and not take into account the maturity that they
had at the time of the offense, or any of
their upbringing or anything like that. You can't foreclose the
future on a juvenile like that. And so they said,
(19:38):
you know, at twenty five years, then you've got to
be able to look and see if they've engaged in
rehabilitative efforts. But the parole board can make that decision, and.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
We know that parole boards are typically filled with political appointees,
so it's hard to know if we can count on
that protocol Either way. She was re sentenced the first
in a series of victories that happened, I believe, quicker
than any case we've ever covered. You know, that's not
to say that four years is somehow nothing. Just take
a second to think about the length of one month
(20:11):
or one year. I mean, would you accept being kidnapped
away from your life, your children, your loved ones for
any amount of time. So we can only be grateful
that this injustice was undone with the urgency that all
innocent people deserve.
Speaker 5 (20:26):
So Angela had hired me then to tried to get
her a new trial. The judge allowed me to come
into the case. We ordered transcripts, and prior council got
me their files and we went to work.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Bill was able to point out multiple errors in Angel's trial,
outlining ineffective assistance of council claims and constitutional violations. Judge
Tom Greenholtz noted that Angel's eighth grade yearbook photos should
not have been excluded from evidence, that her council failed
to not only admit it in a timely fashion, but
also failed to object to the ten years too late
(20:59):
Facebook between angels relative and Mallory Vaughan, as well as
to the specter of this larger group alleged to have
been involved with the crime, among so many others. Greenholts
finally ruled that the evidence was insufficient to establish that
a robbery had even been committed, and without the robbery,
there's no felony. Murder. They'd have to prove that she
did it, and the theory was literally that this eighty
(21:21):
pound thirteen year old could not have physically committed this
crime without extensive help.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
After the judge ruled in our favor, the next thing
we did was asked for a bond. The judge was
not going to approve the source of income until the
entire amount of premium was paid on the bond, which
was going to be the following week, and so we
had really been anticipating Angel getting out. I know she was,
(21:47):
and we were very disappointed. But about that time I
felt a tug on my jacket and I turned around
and it was the bonds lady and she said, Bill,
there is a gentleman in the back there wants to
talk with you. So I said, judge, would you excuse
me just a moment. She said sure. I went back
and he said I want to make her bond. Said, well, great,
(22:08):
why are you doing this? And he said, I'll follow
this case is that started, and I believe she is
probably not guilty. So I asked him some other questions
about his source of income and his business and raised
my hand and said, judge will have one more witness,
and he was kind enough to make that premium.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
No, I cried, I was really wanting to get out
and see my kids, and so I was just very grateful.
Speaker 1 (22:30):
That's got to be incredibly emotionally confusing. I mean, you
got this positive outcome with this generous gesture, but it's
only positive in the undoing of this evil right anyway,
You get home and you know, you probably squeeze those
kids so tight their heads nearly popped off.
Speaker 4 (22:50):
Yeah, it was.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
That was a little difficult too, with their day. Even now,
we are still going back and forth in court with
like custody and visits, and it's a lot that has
transpired in my wife. I still just have to deal
with the mace regardless.
Speaker 1 (23:06):
And even though Angel was out, this was not over yet.
But at least with the newly elected district Attorney, Cody Womp,
they were no longer fighting the same folks who had
followed through with this absurd prosecution.
Speaker 5 (23:19):
I talked with the prosecutors and they believed, I think
that Angel was not, in their view, the primary perpetrator
of this offense, and they thought because of the fingerprint
that she may have been present, but they wanted to
know who is responsible, and essentially tell them and we'll
(23:41):
move you to go home. And so I go to Angel,
who's always told me I don't know anything about this.
I didn't do this. But I go to her. She
swelled up and said, mister Massey, I do not know
what happened that day. I was not there. And so
at that point we had to explain how those fingerprints
(24:03):
got there, or at least neuter that evidence in some way.
Speaker 1 (24:07):
As I mentioned earlier, fingerprint analysis has come under scrutiny
on a few fronts, but most importantly, as in this case,
fingerprint analysts are often dealing with partial prints from non
uniform or uneven surfaces, and there's a disagreement in that
community about how many points of correlation between fingerprints constitute
a match. Is it twelve or twenty? I mean, raise
(24:30):
your hand. If you thought that it had to be
the whole thing, then you have to consider the surface.
Was it elastic? Did it been some aspect of the
print that you're trying to match. But even under the
most reliable conditions, you also must prove that the print
didn't enter the scene innocently. As Angel's grandfather contended a trial,
and so with this ongoing discussion around the reliability of fingerprints,
(24:50):
Bill found additional support for Angel's innocence.
Speaker 5 (24:53):
That's when I arranged for her to take this enhanced
polygraph that's available now to cycle physiological detection of deception examination.
I believe it said between ninety two and ninety seven
percent accurate, and the first one she took she did
great on. I gave it to the prosecutors, but they
wanted a law enforcement examination and I was told there
(25:18):
weren't enough questions asked on this examination. I said, the
polygraph strength is in the brevity of the questions. It's
a single issue polygraph. That's what makes it so reliable.
That's the reason the National Security Agency uses it, dea
Department of Defense uses it. But they wanted a law
(25:39):
enforcement polygraph. So we then went and found a second
polygraph expert who had a background with law enforcement, had
a wonderful resume, and he called me right after it
was over and he said, Bill, you've got to have
four points to show that you're not being deceptive. He said,
(26:00):
she had fourteen. This lady's telling the truth. I said, well,
you put that into your report. He said absolutely, So
we took that down then to Miss womp and when
she saw that, she had her people look at her
TBI experts look at the examination that was given, and
they verified that it was an accurate test, and that's
(26:22):
when they agreed to dismiss the charges.
Speaker 1 (26:25):
You know, when I was reading initially about this case,
my first impression was, at this point, it looks like
they were, you know, looking for some way to save
face for the office and you know as well as
do the right thing.
Speaker 5 (26:36):
Well, what did to give them that reason?
Speaker 1 (26:38):
So the district attorney joined you and Judge A Man
had done agreed. The charges were dismissed in August twenty
twenty three.
Speaker 5 (26:47):
Right, it was wonderful seeing the look on Angel's face
when that dismissal was announced. I hadn't seen that deep
of a smile in quite a while. You practice your
whole life hoping for a moment that good stuff.
Speaker 1 (27:02):
So, Angel, the kids, how old are they now?
Speaker 4 (27:05):
Ten and nine? It's their birthday night?
Speaker 1 (27:07):
Yep, ten and nine years. You've still got some formative
years left. But where are you all living now?
Speaker 4 (27:13):
I love back in Louisville, Kentucky.
Speaker 3 (27:15):
So I'm trying to co parent with their dad, like
I said earlier. That's just it's been very difficult and
a lot of stuff that happened wouldn't have happened if
I went to a prison. But I am back inside
of nursing school. I got a year and a half
and I'm going straight for the registered nurse and I
have my PSN inside of it. So I just got
a year and a half of that during that time.
(27:36):
Like I'm also a licensed as a titian, so I'm
kind of going to do something with like medical spot
after I get my degree.
Speaker 1 (27:42):
That's great. Anything else that you're working on, you know,
something you'd like to bring our attention to.
Speaker 3 (27:47):
Yeah, I have wrote a book because when I was
locked up, I used to journal like every day. I
got notebooks and notebooks of stuff that happened every single day.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
Like I remember people used to be like she's always writing.
What is she writing? Like is she trying to tell
on us?
Speaker 3 (28:03):
Because I would literally document everything that I saw, everything
that happened, like I had.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
I got all stacks of it.
Speaker 3 (28:11):
And I'm currently going back and forth for different publishers
just to like fully detail get out my story. And
I really hope that inspires people as people have wrote
me and told me that I have inspired them, and
I just want to get that bit of hope on
paper to people to have forever and I can just
finally close that chapter of my life and just to
(28:33):
move on.
Speaker 5 (28:34):
Would you send me an autographed copy?
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Yeah, well, we've linked her socials in the episode description,
so if anyone would like to reach out and you know,
potentially assist in the publishing process, please do so. And
with that we'll go to closing arguments, where I'm just
gonna thank you both for joining us today, and then
I'm going to lean back and lock it up as
they share their closing thoughts.
Speaker 5 (28:56):
BIP closing thoughts are while something like this that Angel
got the experience, both the bad and the good. It's
rare to see it, but it happens far more than
we see. It happens far more than we see. Sometimes
it's the wrong person, they weren't there, just like it
(29:19):
wasn't Angel's case. And sometimes it's just simply overcharging. We
applaud the work that the Edocence Project does and the
Wrongful Conviction Group. It's a labor of love, isn't it.
It's a labor of love.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
Yeah, I just hope that one day the juvenile laws
will be better, especially for my case, because I personally
don't agree with anybody under eighteen spend it sixty years
in prison.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
I hope that one.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
Day people can like relook into laws because I do
feel like crimes are not black and white, like it's
more stuff that goes into it. I've been around women
who are there because of a boyfriend, you know, and
just because they didn't want to say anything, then they
got twenty thirty years sitting. Can't get out because I
can't afford to get an appeal attorney or anything like that.
Speaker 4 (30:14):
And I just hope one.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Day more district attorneys and police officers get a little
more accountability so mistakes won't happen. Because anytime a mistake
this happened, you know, it was just they were just
doing their job, so nothing can be done about it.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Thank you for listening to Wrong for Conviction. You can
listen to this and all the Lava for Good podcasts
one week early and ed free by subscribing to Lava
for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts. I want to thank
our production team, Connor Hall and Kathleen Fink, as well
as my fellow executive producers Jeff Kempler, Kevin Wartis, and
Jeff Clibern. The music in this production was supplied by
(30:58):
three time OSCAR nominated composer Ralph Be sure to follow
us across all social media platforms at Lava for Good
and at Wrongful Conviction. You can also follow me on
Instagram at it's Jason Flamm. Wrongful Conviction is a production
of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal Company
Number one
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
Popular Podcasts
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.
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.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.