October 9, 2023 • 38 mins
Even when done correctly, impression analysis of evidence, like shoe prints and tire tracks, is purely subjective. Many experts recognize its limitations. But one so-called “expert” in particular pushed the limits of this forensic discipline to produce horrific outcomes.
Josh Dubin speaks with Bill Osinski, journalist and author of “Guilty By Popular Demand.”
Kate Judson, Executive Director of the Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences, updates Josh Dubin's Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science.
To learn more and get involved, please visit:
https://cifsjustice.org/donate/
https://www.wrongfulconvictionpodcast.com/junk-science
Wrongful Conviction: Junk Science is a production of Lava for Good™ Podcasts in association with Signal Co. No1.
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 (00:01):
Hey folks, Kate Judson here, I'm a lawyer and the
executive director of the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences.
We're back with another episode of Junk Science, a series
we first released in twenty twenty. But these stories are
just as relevant as ever. In this week's episode, Josh
will dive into the story of Dale Johnson and the
(00:22):
use of footwear analysis to wrongfully convict an innocent man.
It's yet another example of a highly subjective analysis that
is presented in court as objective fact. Just like other
types of pattern matching evidence, in court, testifying experts may
overstate the certainty of the evidence, overstate their conclusions, or
(00:45):
exaggerate their reliability. In fact, when looking at hair comparison
analyst testimony another type of flawed pattern matching, the FBI
and others found that analysts overstated their conclusions more than
ninety five percent of the time. There's no reason to
(01:08):
believe that other types of pattern analysis are any different.
So sometimes analysts overstate or exaggerate, and of course sometimes
they're just playing wrong. Dale Johnson's case is an extreme
example of this area of flawed analysis, but there are
plenty more cases where footwear comparisons are used in a
(01:29):
problematic way, and likely many more exonerations to come.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
It's a clear fall day in America's heartland. You sit
in a chair outside your trailer, contently looking out over
your farm. It's cool and the sun is setting behind
the dense forest that surrounds your property. Everything seems just right.
That evening, your stepdaughter in Net stops by with her boyfriend.
(02:02):
You and your wife were pretty upset when Annette told
you she was moving away from the farm and moving
in with her boyfriend, Todd and his parents downtown. You
don't want a Net to be caught up with someone
from town. All those townies seem to care about his
church and gossip. You want nothing to do with them,
and they don't seem to want anything to do with you.
(02:23):
But in Nette's already eighteen, she's an adult. You can't
really control her. You try to act supportive, so you
nod to Todd and help a Nette pack the last
of her things into his trunk. You give her a
hug before she gets into the car with him, and
you watch as Todd pulls away to drive them back
into town, and you're feeling a little helpless. The next
(02:47):
day is pretty routine for you. You pick up loads
of hay to bring to your barn. It's strenuous work.
You work hard all day. You're exhausted, and you go
to bed early. The next morning, the phone rings. It's
Todd's mother. She says, are ant in Todd with you?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
No?
Speaker 2 (03:08):
You say, I thought they were with you. Todd's mother
becomes frantic. She says, the kids went for a walk
around four pm yesterday and they never came home last night.
But there's something else going on there. There's a hint
of something, a tone of accusation in her voice, like
she's somehow blaming you. You hang up and call the
(03:31):
police immediately. You wait all day, hoping to hear something,
but there's nothing. You're just waiting and waiting, and the
police finally get back to you in the evening. They
can't find them. One sleepless night bleeds into another, and
then another and another. This is one terrible nightmare for
(03:53):
you and your wife. Ten days go on like this.
All you and your wife can do is it and worry.
You're not eating, you're not sleeping, you don't know what
to do with yourselves. It's raining outside when you finally
get a call from an officer and you can hear
it in the tone of their voice. This is not
(04:15):
going to be good. The news I have for you
is not going to be easy to hear. He says,
we found Todd in a net in the Hawking River.
Oh my god, you can't stand. Your body is trembling.
You try to restate what the officer just said. You're
(04:37):
trying to wrap your head around what this means. You
found their bodies, their dead bodies. The officer says, they
didn't find their whole bodies, just their torsos. Their bodies
have been dismembered. You're completely sick. Officers spend two days
(05:02):
searching the cornfields between the railroad tracks and the river
where the torsos were found. They find Todd in the
net's limbs and heads buried in shallow graves. You and
your wife drive into town to the police station, and
you're taken aback by the attitudes of these cops. When
you're separated from your wife and pulled into an interrogation room,
(05:25):
officers tell you to take off your boots, your shirt,
your pants. You sit shivering in your underwear for eight
and a half hours and then a detective comes in.
He sits down right next to you, puts his finger
in your face and says, you did this. We know
you did this. We found your bootprint down by the riverbank.
(05:48):
Once we match that boot to the print that was
left at that riverbank, it'll prove you were there. You
killed your stepdaughter, and then you sick bastard, you cut
off for arms, her legs, her head. You better confess,
because I'll tell you right now it's going to get
worse for you if you don't. You say, over and
(06:11):
over and over again, what in the world are you
talking about. I didn't murder a net I just came
here to help you find out who did What is
this all about. They don't have enough evidence to charge
you for the murder of a net and Todd, so
they have to let you go. They impound your car
(06:31):
so it can be searched for evidence. It's dark and
cold when they drive you home. They let you and
your wife out of the car and you're still naked
except for your underwear. You walk barefoot to your trailer.
Your toes are totally dumb. By the time you get
to the door. Downtown, rumors start to spread. People are
(06:53):
saying this murder must have been some kind of cult ritual,
that it must have been you who did it. The quiet,
stern stepfather who never says much, never goes to church,
keeps his family hidden away. Who knows what goes on
at that farm. They didn't like you before, but now
they're straight a hostile. They cross the street to get
(07:13):
away from you when they see you coming. It takes
them a year to build the case against you. Are
they even looking at other suspects. The whispering of your
name around town grows to a fever pitch. You can
hear their accusations ring in your ears. Murderer, molest you're
(07:37):
eventually arrested in charge with the butchering murder of your
stepdaughter and net and her boyfriend Todd. When you finally
go to court, you do something very out of the ordinary.
You waive the right to a jury trial. Finding twelve
impartial people in Logan, Ohio really not going to happen.
(07:58):
The newspapers, everyone around town, they all think you're guilty.
Everyone just wants to feel safe again. They won't be
satisfied until someone is convicted and they are sure that
person is you instead of a jury. You put your
fate in the hands of a three judge panel. A
(08:19):
jury might not see it, but three judges they have to.
It's their job to apply the facts to the law
without any outside influence from the court of public opinion.
Your lawyer calls to the stand and FBI analyst who
says the plaster mold of what the prosecution claims is
your bootprint at the riverbank is quote unquote unsuitable. The
(08:42):
analyst says it lacks sufficient detail for meaningful comparison, and
that it looks more like the footprint of someone who
is walking barefoot. There is no way to claim your
boots match that print, So you're optimistic. But then the
prosecution calls an anthropology professor or to the stand. She
says she studied footwear impressions of countless samples. Her delivery
(09:06):
is slow and deliberate and really credible. She says, quote
no person's footprints are the same as another. They're as
unique as a fingerprint. I've analyzed the wear patterns on
the inside of the defendant's boot, and I can say
with certainty, scientific certainty, that the footprint found by the
(09:27):
riverbank was made by the defendant. This sounds unbelievable, but
you see the judges are nodding along. There's no wather
buying this is there. After a very short deliberation, the
judges apparently believe the testimony of the prosecution's anthropologists who
put you right at the scene of the crime. They
(09:50):
convict you, and you are sentenced to death. The story
you just heard is based on the murders of Nette
Cooper Johnston and Todd Schultz.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
Dale.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Johnston was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death in nineteen
eighty four. He was exonerated in nineteen ninety, over twenty
years after the murder. The true killer finally confessed, but
even then the people in the town of Logan still
chose to believe that Dale was guilty in one way
(10:24):
or another. On today's episode, we're going to examine how
a supposed footprint put an innocent man.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
On death row.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
I'm Josh Dubin, civil rights and criminal defense attorney and
Innocent ambassador to the Innocence Project in New York. Today,
on Wrongful Conviction Junk Science, we examined footwear comparison evidence,
even when done correctly, impression analysis of evidence like shoe
prints and tire tracks as purely subjective. Many experts recognize
(10:59):
its limitations, but one so called expert in particular push
the limits of this forensic discipline to produce horrific outcomes.
It turns out that Dale Johnson wasn't the only innocent
person to be convicted of a crime based on faulty
footwear comparison evidence.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
The Pacers Foundation is a proud supporter of this episode
of wrongful conviction with Jason Flahm and of the Last
Mile organization, which provides business and tech training to help
incarcerated individuals successfully and permanently re enter the workforce. The
Pacers Foundation is committed to improving the lives of Hoosiers
across Indiana, supporting organizations dedicated primarily to helping young people
(11:46):
and students. For more information on the work of the
Pacers Foundation or the Last Mile Program, visit Pacersfoundation dot
org or the Lastmile dot org.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
In nineteen seventy six, archaeologists made one of the most
exciting discoveries of our time. They found footprints dating back
three point seven million years immortalized in the volcanic ash
in Tanzania, and they looked like human prints. Archaeologists were thrilled.
(12:25):
They thought these footprints could shed some light on when
human beings began walking upright on two feet. Luis Robbins
was an anthropology professor at the University of North Carolina
at Greensboro. She too was excited about these footprints and
wanted to know exactly who left them behind. Louise had
(12:45):
been conducting her own studies in footprint analysis. She started
collecting footprints from people who were still alive. Five hundred
people put ink onto their feet and then stood on
a piece of paper. Based on those prince Louise tried
to find characteristics and feet that were specific to age, sex, stature,
(13:06):
and weight, using her own system of measurement. She would
then compare those characteristics to the footprints found in the caves.
Her conclusion, no two footprints are the same. In fact,
she thought she could tell a great deal about a
person just by looking at their footprint. Her methods were
(13:26):
never tested by her peers, nor were they confirmed by
other scientists, but Louise she thought she was onto something.
She claimed to do something no one else could identify
a person solely through their footprint, and so in nineteen
seventy eight, when a team of scientists went to excavate
the site in Tanzania where the prehistoric footprints were found.
(13:50):
Louise went too. When she saw the prince, she claimed
that one of them was left by a woman that
was five and a half months pregnant. Now, other scientists
on the expedition scratched their heads. It was hard enough
to figure out if the prints that they were looking
at were even human at all. No one had ever
claimed to know the gender of the person that made
(14:11):
the print, let alone of that person was carrying a child.
Then Louise took a dangerous leap. She positioned herself as
a forensic expert, authoring a book on footprints. She didn't
write this book with her scientific peers in mind, but
she wrote it for law enforcement and crime labs. Only
(14:33):
five pages in this book were dedicated to the analysis
of actual shoe prints, and yet, based on these five pages,
Louise claimed that she was an expert in this area
of forensic science. Lawyers began to hire her as an
expert witness. They told judges that her work was on
the cutting edge of forensic science. Critics of her work
(14:56):
called it Cinderella analysis. After all, she usually he made
sure that the shoe fit when she matched the suspects
foot to the shoe Prince found at a crime scene.
In the more than twenty cases for which she testified,
twelve people, some of whom who have since been proven
to be innocent, were sent to prison, including Dale Johnston,
(15:19):
who was sentenced to death.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Dale Johnson and his wife Sarah at the time, came
down to Logan several days after the bodies had been discovered,
and they came to the Logan police department. They wanted
to be helpful to them, and Dale was immediately taken
up to an interrogation room. His boots, his pants, his
(15:47):
shirt were all confiscated. So he was sitting there in
the chair in his underwear and they were bombarding him.
You did it, didn't you? And we know you did it?
Over and over and over again. He kept saying, no,
I have nothing. I would just I came into town
to try to help.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Here today is Bill Osinski, a journalist who covered the
Dale Johnson case for years and wrote a book about
it called Guilty by Popular Demand. So Bill, tell us
a little bit about yourself and how you started covering
this case.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
For nearly forty years. I was a reporter. I worked
for eleven different newspapers around the country. I worked for
the Akron Beacon Journal at that time, which is nearly
two hundred miles away from Logan, Ohio, where the murders
took place. But in those days, the newspapers valued a
major story and would make that kind of an investment
(16:41):
in time and resources to cover a widely publicized case
like that.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
So, Bill, you actually went to Logan, Ohio to cover
Dale's trial? What was that like?
Speaker 3 (16:53):
I drove into Logan, which is about thirty five miles
southeast of Columbus, Ohio. I've ever been there before, and
I drove in on a January morning, and it was
one of the coldest things I can remember. The temperatures
were well below zero. And I went to the center
of the little town and found the courthouse. And here,
(17:15):
you know, eight o'clock on a weekday morning, there was
a line outside the courthouse. People were standing in that
below zero cold waiting for a chance to get in
to hear all this salacious details of this horrific murder
of a teenage couple who were found dismembered, parts of
(17:37):
their bodies buried in a cornfield near the Hawking River
in Logan, Ohio.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Wow, this is a really brutal crime. I mean, you
have body parts buried in fields. And the prosecutors claimed
that Dale Johnson committed these murders and putting aside what
his motive would have been. How do they claim he
committed the murders.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
The prosecutor alleged in his scenario that Dale Johnston had
kidnapped these two kids in downtown Logan, made a stop
on his way home at a doctor's office and drove
him onto his trailer, where they got into an argument
about a little used car that the parents were supposed
(18:20):
to have given a net but hadn't yet, And out
of that argument, Dale went into a jealous fit and
pulled out a gun which they never found, and shot
his stepdaughter and a boyfriend, and then took them outside,
apparently and butchered them, and then brought them back to
(18:43):
downtown Logan where they had last been seen and put
some body parts, heads and limbs in the cornfield. I mean,
it just it made absolutely no sense. They had no
evidence that he was actually back in town at night
trying to bury these bodies, but that's what they elect.
(19:05):
Dale was not a warm guy. I mean, you know,
he was the outsider. He didn't have a high opinion
of the locals. They didn't like him. You know, he
was convenient guy for them to hang in on.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
So, Bill, did anyone think that Dale was innocent? I mean,
what was your sense of the atmosphere surrounding the case.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
There was such an atmosphere of the case having been
already tried in the court of public opinion before the
trial even started. More than a year passed between the
murderers and the trial, and obviously the only story coming
out of the investigation was that Dale Johnson did it.
So that, in fact, was why the defense waived a
(19:49):
jury trial and asked for a three judge panel, because
they knew that people in Hocking County were so predisposed
to believe that Dale Johnson was the killer.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Now, very little evidence was found at the scenes where
these body parts were found, but we know investigators found
some sort of print in the mud by the riverbank.
And Dale goes down to the police station with his
wife Sarah, and he thinks he's going there to help
them find the killers, but they confiscate his boots, and
(20:32):
of course those boots would be compared to the impression
found at the scene. So tell us a little bit
more about what happened.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
There were so many cops out there that, according to
the testimony of a Ohio Bureau of Investigation agent, they
totally ruined the crime scene as far as being able
to collect any valid evidence. They were cops stomping all over. Well,
what happened was the share of Hockeing County had an
(21:00):
impression made of a depression in the riverbank, and they
made it casting, and they sent it off to the FBI,
and it was examined by a nationally known footprint expert
at the FBI, and he was brought in to testify
to his findings, and he testified that, well, all he
(21:21):
could say that this casting was more likely a footprint
than any kind of a shoeprint or bootprint. And however,
he forwarded this plaster cast at his own volition to
a woman anthropologist, Luis Robbins, for her examination. And she
(21:43):
had a theory of how he could identify footprints from
the ware patterns on the inside of someone's footwear. She
had this Kakamami theory that by examining the interior of
a footwear she could get wear impressions and use that
(22:06):
to analyze a casting of a print from a shoe
or a boot. And so she testified and triwed it. Well,
you can't really say that Dale Johnson's boot fits this,
but from the wear patterns that she observed from the
interior of the boot, when you looked at it that way,
(22:28):
then yes, this was made by Dale Johnson's boot. And
you know, I had never heard of that before. It
didn't make any sense to me. It was only later,
after the damage was done, that it came out how
irresponsible and unreliable and untrue. Her testimony was.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
So let me hit this straight. This is like, you know,
kind of mind blowing here. Louise Robbins said that she
could match the depression found by the riverbank to Dale
based on war patterns made by his foot inside his boot.
I mean, it just sounds ridiculous. I've never even heard
of that before. This seems to go so far outside
(23:09):
the bounds of any verifiable science. And you know, it's
important for our listeners to keep in mind that with
impression pattern matching methods, that's the type of science we're
talking about, or alleged science that we're talking about with
shoe prints and tires. There's a database that experts have
and they refer to this database when they're matching a
(23:31):
shoe or a tire to an impression at a scene.
And tires and shoes are mass produced, so the same
rubber mold is used to make them. But that just
tells an expert what class that piece of evidence came from. So,
for instance, they can say that this footwear impression was
made by a size ten Nike Air Jordan. But the
(23:55):
problem is a lot of people own a size ten
Nike Air Jordan, so it's not enough to put somebody
at the scene. So impression analysis really comes down to
the individual characteristics in the specific shoe or shoes that
belong to the accused, and we're talking about things like
cracks in the sole of the shoe, comes stuck to
(24:18):
the bottom of the heel, you know, characteristics that are
often caused by routine wear and tear. But the problem
is there is no standard regarding the number of unique
characteristics that are needed to make a positive identification. And
it sounds like from the mold they were working with
in this case that the FBI analysts couldn't even tell
(24:41):
if the impression was made by a bare foot or
a shoe, let alone, what kind of a shoe? So
that should tell you something about the quality of the
impression they were working with. But Ms Robbins makes this
huge leap, and it's really really hard to imagine that
this could have been allowed in a courtroom when someone's
(25:02):
freedom was on the line. And yet he or she
is one of the prosecution's key witnesses when it came
to analyzing the physical evidence of the scene. So how
prominently did Miss Robbin's testimony play in the prosecution's closing arguments?
Speaker 3 (25:18):
Bill, Well, it was very prominent because it was the
only piece of evidence that linked Dale Johnson to the
murder scene. I thought it was a very weak link
to begin with, but apparently it was strong enough for
three judges. His closing line was, murder is the ultimate
(25:41):
form of molestation, so you must be guilty of the
murder too. He had, of course, been alleging without evidence,
that Dale Johnson had inappropriate relationship with Annette.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
So after he's convicted and sentence, what happens next?
Speaker 3 (25:57):
Bill? He was sent immediately to death row. But you know,
it was such a weird, hostile atmosphere in that town.
I mean, I will never forget when it came time
for the verdict, all the spectators had gathered on the
lower level of the courthouse but listened to the verdict
by radio, and I will never forget that when the
(26:20):
guilty verdict was announced, there was this eerie cheering that
came from below, you know, that filled up the courtroom.
And these people wanted somebody to pay, and Dale Johnston
happened to be the guy who they were able to
hang it on.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
I mean, it seems Bill that they didn't even have
anything other than a hunch that Dal Johnston did this.
I mean, I it's hard to make sense of this.
I mean, do you think that they did this on purpose?
Do you think that they've set out to frame Dale Johnson?
Speaker 3 (26:56):
Well, I don't think anyone wants to accept that the
prosecutors and police would knowingly fabricate an entire case against
a murder defendant. And I know I came down to
Logan with no preconceptions. I do remember, you know, having
(27:17):
the belief that you know, the state wouldn't bring these
charges unless they had something against this guy. And by
the end, I said, where is the case I was
shocked at the prosecutor's summary. I mean it, it was
total high opera and total fantasy. Everything that was presented
(27:41):
in that trial was a lie. I believe somewhere before
I die, I'm going to learn the truth in this case,
and it just so happens that I did.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
You know, it's interesting that oftentimes, when one of these
disciplines of junk science is used in a case and
the person is convicted, it's not the exposure of that
junk science as being total bullshit that leads to the exoneration.
It's often that DNA testing is used to prove that
(28:24):
they have the wrong person. What's really interesting about this
case is that Dale is eventually released from prison because
his lawyers were able to prove that some of the
evidence that was used the convictim was not admissible. And
oddly enough, it wasn't the shoe evidence that was thrown out,
but another witness's testimony. It turns out that a witness
(28:46):
had been hypnotized by a detective and was persuaded to
give this awful testimony against Dale at the trial, and
testimony that he like forcefully put a net in and
Todd into a car and that testimony was never supposed
to be admitted in court, and that was what was
(29:08):
deemed inadmissible, and Dale was let out because of that.
And of course Louise Robbin's testimony about his you know,
the inside wear patterns on his boots, you know, being
definitive proof that the impression left on the riverbank was
his that was left undisturbed. And everyone still believed he
was guilty. But then someone else confessed to murdering and
(29:31):
it and Todd so Bill tell us about that. Who
actually committed this crime, A.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Sorry little fellow named Chester mcnight was nicknamed Chester the
Molester just because apparently because he was weird and was
an habitual criminal, habitual drunk, even though he had a
history of assaults against women. And Chester actually got married
and it lasted a couple of weeks before she kicked
(30:02):
him out and left. And it was in that atmosphere
where Chester just went over the deep end and was
drinking day in and day out. He was obviously depressed,
the wife had left him, and he was just drinking incessantly.
He came on that afternoon, early evening of October fourth,
(30:23):
to Kenny Lynn Scott's house, a local drug dealer, you know,
they were drinking buddies. Anyway, there was a kind of
a makeshift party in Kenny's yard and Chester joined in,
and here comes Todd and Annette. So they joined the
party for a little while. I think they may have
had a beer and Chester decided to hey, let's keep
(30:46):
the party going. I've got some I've got some stuff.
And so they start walking down the railroad tracks and
according to Chester's account, he wanted to have a group
sex with Annette, and she of course know and Todd
tried to get her out of the situation, and that's
(31:08):
when Chester pulled a gun and shot him, and that
started screaming. She shot her. At that point, Chester and
Kenny dragged the bodies down to the riverfront at the
edge of the cornfield and dismembered them. And Kenny, maybe
with help maybe not, got the bodies back into the
cornfield and dug shallow holes and put the limbs and
(31:30):
the heads into a kind of a bare spot in
the middle of the cornfield that he knew about. And
Kenny the next few nights he would go out to
that railroad bridge and cry and moan and friends saying,
what's wrong Kenny and he told him, Yo, you wouldn't understand.
His neighbors knew what he was doing. His neighbors saw
his behavior. His neighbors told the police that they should
(31:53):
be investigating him, but they never did, and they did
have a record then of this strange call made the
night before the body parts were found. Kenny Linscott made
the call and said, have you found the bodies yet?
And nobody at that point knew that the kids were
even dead or that there were bodies to be found,
(32:14):
And that call was logged and it became the thing
that led to Kenny and ultimately to Chester. And so
I have a law enforcement source that helped me with this,
and he told me that, you know, everybody knew Kenny
was acting weird after the killings. And he said, well,
let's go talk to Kenny. And the sheriff says, oh, no,
(32:35):
we confined him, when then we need him. So at
the very beginning, Linz Scott's name came up, but yet
the police just dismissed him right out of hand.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
In reflecting on all this, I just want to go
back to Luiz Robin's testimony about the shoeprint for a moment.
I understand why jurors would be persuaded by her. She's
got this anthropology degree, she's a professor. She comes across
short convincingly. She went and studied these ancient footprints in Tanzania.
(33:06):
That all makes sense. But the three judges hearing this,
you know, the inside wear patterns on the boot and
that being definitive proof that it was Dale Johnson's bootprint.
I mean, what did they make of her testimony?
Speaker 3 (33:23):
I can tell you how strongly her testimony was accepted.
Twenty five years later, you know, when the real truth
came out. I interviewed two of the three judges on
the case and they both said, well, we had doctor
Robin's testimony before us, and that was very convincing. This
(33:44):
was even after they learned the truth, after they learned
that everything this woman said was a lie, they still
wanted to believe in her. I have summed up this
case as a total collapse of a local justice system,
and I still believe that it left me with such
(34:07):
a sense of outrage that this kind of thing can
be done in our system of justice toom and I mean,
you know it was it was not even close. But
the lies that were told in that courtroom were enough
to send an into some man to death row sitting
there through the entire trial. Is they never they never
(34:31):
presented a rational case, and the evidence that they did
present was you know, challenged very successfully by the defense.
I mean, what I learned is that someone with an
academic position and the claim of scientific expertise is automatically
granted some level of believability, even by judges and prosecutors
(34:56):
and investigators. And they really accepted Louise robins testimony and
as fact I called it in my book fantasy forensics,
and as events have proven, it was totally fabricated. I
can only attribute it to the desire to get a conviction,
(35:17):
any conviction. That people in that town were petrified. The
judges knew it, They knew what would happen if they
didn't get a conviction, and they knew that they wouldn't
have another crack at Dale Johnson if they acquitted him.
So they convicted him and just went back home.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
The use of doctor Robins as a forensic expert is
an example of what can go horribly wrong when courts
allow unverified signs into our courtrooms. She testified in twenty cases.
Truly a hired gun by attorneys looking for a particular outcome.
Her work was reviewed by a panel of one hundred
(36:00):
and thirty five anthropologists, forensic scientists, lawyers, and legal scholars
sponsored by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and they
concluded that her methodology for identification had no basis in science,
but the damage had already been done. Dale Johnson spent
(36:20):
four years on death row for a double homicide that
he didn't commit. But he was fortunate and that even
though his trial left him impoverished, his attorneys stayed on
his case pro bono and took on the appeals. The
psychological trauma inflicted on those who were wrongfully convicted, especially
for people who are innocent and sit on death row,
(36:42):
is well documented. It isn't just the conviction that stays
with the wrongfully convicted, it's the aftermath. Dale lost it all.
He lost his stepdaughter, his property, his wife divorced him.
It wasn't until well into his eighties earlier this year
that Dale finally received some compensation for his time spent
(37:05):
in prison. The Innocence Project provides support for therapy and
social services for its clients who are forced to cope
with the harms associated with their wrongful conviction. You can
donate to the Innocence Project by visiting www. Dot Innocenceproject
dot org, slash give. Next week, we'll explore the junk
(37:32):
science of fingerprint evidence. Wrongful Conviction Junk Science is a
production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal
Company Number One. Thanks to our executive producer Jason Flam
and the team at Signal Company Number One executive producer
Kevin Wardis and senior producers Karen Kornhaber and Britz Spangler.
(37:54):
Our music was composed by Jay Ralph. You can follow
me on Instagram at dubin Josh. Follow the Wrongful Conviction
podcast on Facebook and on Instagram at wrongful Conviction and
on Twitter at wrong Conviction
Hey folks, Kate Judson here, I'm a lawyer and the
executive director of the Center for Integrity and Forensic Sciences.
We're back with another episode of Junk Science, a series
we first released in twenty twenty. But these stories are
just as relevant as ever. In this week's episode, Josh
will dive into the story of Dale Johnson and the
(00:22):
use of footwear analysis to wrongfully convict an innocent man.
It's yet another example of a highly subjective analysis that
is presented in court as objective fact. Just like other
types of pattern matching evidence, in court, testifying experts may
overstate the certainty of the evidence, overstate their conclusions, or
(00:45):
exaggerate their reliability. In fact, when looking at hair comparison
analyst testimony another type of flawed pattern matching, the FBI
and others found that analysts overstated their conclusions more than
ninety five percent of the time. There's no reason to
(01:08):
believe that other types of pattern analysis are any different.
So sometimes analysts overstate or exaggerate, and of course sometimes
they're just playing wrong. Dale Johnson's case is an extreme
example of this area of flawed analysis, but there are
plenty more cases where footwear comparisons are used in a
(01:29):
problematic way, and likely many more exonerations to come.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
It's a clear fall day in America's heartland. You sit
in a chair outside your trailer, contently looking out over
your farm. It's cool and the sun is setting behind
the dense forest that surrounds your property. Everything seems just right.
That evening, your stepdaughter in Net stops by with her boyfriend.
(02:02):
You and your wife were pretty upset when Annette told
you she was moving away from the farm and moving
in with her boyfriend, Todd and his parents downtown. You
don't want a Net to be caught up with someone
from town. All those townies seem to care about his
church and gossip. You want nothing to do with them,
and they don't seem to want anything to do with you.
(02:23):
But in Nette's already eighteen, she's an adult. You can't
really control her. You try to act supportive, so you
nod to Todd and help a Nette pack the last
of her things into his trunk. You give her a
hug before she gets into the car with him, and
you watch as Todd pulls away to drive them back
into town, and you're feeling a little helpless. The next
(02:47):
day is pretty routine for you. You pick up loads
of hay to bring to your barn. It's strenuous work.
You work hard all day. You're exhausted, and you go
to bed early. The next morning, the phone rings. It's
Todd's mother. She says, are ant in Todd with you?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
No?
Speaker 2 (03:08):
You say, I thought they were with you. Todd's mother
becomes frantic. She says, the kids went for a walk
around four pm yesterday and they never came home last night.
But there's something else going on there. There's a hint
of something, a tone of accusation in her voice, like
she's somehow blaming you. You hang up and call the
(03:31):
police immediately. You wait all day, hoping to hear something,
but there's nothing. You're just waiting and waiting, and the
police finally get back to you in the evening. They
can't find them. One sleepless night bleeds into another, and
then another and another. This is one terrible nightmare for
(03:53):
you and your wife. Ten days go on like this.
All you and your wife can do is it and worry.
You're not eating, you're not sleeping, you don't know what
to do with yourselves. It's raining outside when you finally
get a call from an officer and you can hear
it in the tone of their voice. This is not
(04:15):
going to be good. The news I have for you
is not going to be easy to hear. He says,
we found Todd in a net in the Hawking River.
Oh my god, you can't stand. Your body is trembling.
You try to restate what the officer just said. You're
(04:37):
trying to wrap your head around what this means. You
found their bodies, their dead bodies. The officer says, they
didn't find their whole bodies, just their torsos. Their bodies
have been dismembered. You're completely sick. Officers spend two days
(05:02):
searching the cornfields between the railroad tracks and the river
where the torsos were found. They find Todd in the
net's limbs and heads buried in shallow graves. You and
your wife drive into town to the police station, and
you're taken aback by the attitudes of these cops. When
you're separated from your wife and pulled into an interrogation room,
(05:25):
officers tell you to take off your boots, your shirt,
your pants. You sit shivering in your underwear for eight
and a half hours and then a detective comes in.
He sits down right next to you, puts his finger
in your face and says, you did this. We know
you did this. We found your bootprint down by the riverbank.
(05:48):
Once we match that boot to the print that was
left at that riverbank, it'll prove you were there. You
killed your stepdaughter, and then you sick bastard, you cut
off for arms, her legs, her head. You better confess,
because I'll tell you right now it's going to get
worse for you if you don't. You say, over and
(06:11):
over and over again, what in the world are you
talking about. I didn't murder a net I just came
here to help you find out who did What is
this all about. They don't have enough evidence to charge
you for the murder of a net and Todd, so
they have to let you go. They impound your car
(06:31):
so it can be searched for evidence. It's dark and
cold when they drive you home. They let you and
your wife out of the car and you're still naked
except for your underwear. You walk barefoot to your trailer.
Your toes are totally dumb. By the time you get
to the door. Downtown, rumors start to spread. People are
(06:53):
saying this murder must have been some kind of cult ritual,
that it must have been you who did it. The quiet,
stern stepfather who never says much, never goes to church,
keeps his family hidden away. Who knows what goes on
at that farm. They didn't like you before, but now
they're straight a hostile. They cross the street to get
(07:13):
away from you when they see you coming. It takes
them a year to build the case against you. Are
they even looking at other suspects. The whispering of your
name around town grows to a fever pitch. You can
hear their accusations ring in your ears. Murderer, molest you're
(07:37):
eventually arrested in charge with the butchering murder of your
stepdaughter and net and her boyfriend Todd. When you finally
go to court, you do something very out of the ordinary.
You waive the right to a jury trial. Finding twelve
impartial people in Logan, Ohio really not going to happen.
(07:58):
The newspapers, everyone around town, they all think you're guilty.
Everyone just wants to feel safe again. They won't be
satisfied until someone is convicted and they are sure that
person is you instead of a jury. You put your
fate in the hands of a three judge panel. A
(08:19):
jury might not see it, but three judges they have to.
It's their job to apply the facts to the law
without any outside influence from the court of public opinion.
Your lawyer calls to the stand and FBI analyst who
says the plaster mold of what the prosecution claims is
your bootprint at the riverbank is quote unquote unsuitable. The
(08:42):
analyst says it lacks sufficient detail for meaningful comparison, and
that it looks more like the footprint of someone who
is walking barefoot. There is no way to claim your
boots match that print, So you're optimistic. But then the
prosecution calls an anthropology professor or to the stand. She
says she studied footwear impressions of countless samples. Her delivery
(09:06):
is slow and deliberate and really credible. She says, quote
no person's footprints are the same as another. They're as
unique as a fingerprint. I've analyzed the wear patterns on
the inside of the defendant's boot, and I can say
with certainty, scientific certainty, that the footprint found by the
(09:27):
riverbank was made by the defendant. This sounds unbelievable, but
you see the judges are nodding along. There's no wather
buying this is there. After a very short deliberation, the
judges apparently believe the testimony of the prosecution's anthropologists who
put you right at the scene of the crime. They
(09:50):
convict you, and you are sentenced to death. The story
you just heard is based on the murders of Nette
Cooper Johnston and Todd Schultz.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
Dale.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
Johnston was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death in nineteen
eighty four. He was exonerated in nineteen ninety, over twenty
years after the murder. The true killer finally confessed, but
even then the people in the town of Logan still
chose to believe that Dale was guilty in one way
(10:24):
or another. On today's episode, we're going to examine how
a supposed footprint put an innocent man.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
On death row.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
I'm Josh Dubin, civil rights and criminal defense attorney and
Innocent ambassador to the Innocence Project in New York. Today,
on Wrongful Conviction Junk Science, we examined footwear comparison evidence,
even when done correctly, impression analysis of evidence like shoe
prints and tire tracks as purely subjective. Many experts recognize
(10:59):
its limitations, but one so called expert in particular push
the limits of this forensic discipline to produce horrific outcomes.
It turns out that Dale Johnson wasn't the only innocent
person to be convicted of a crime based on faulty
footwear comparison evidence.
Speaker 4 (11:23):
The Pacers Foundation is a proud supporter of this episode
of wrongful conviction with Jason Flahm and of the Last
Mile organization, which provides business and tech training to help
incarcerated individuals successfully and permanently re enter the workforce. The
Pacers Foundation is committed to improving the lives of Hoosiers
across Indiana, supporting organizations dedicated primarily to helping young people
(11:46):
and students. For more information on the work of the
Pacers Foundation or the Last Mile Program, visit Pacersfoundation dot
org or the Lastmile dot org.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
In nineteen seventy six, archaeologists made one of the most
exciting discoveries of our time. They found footprints dating back
three point seven million years immortalized in the volcanic ash
in Tanzania, and they looked like human prints. Archaeologists were thrilled.
(12:25):
They thought these footprints could shed some light on when
human beings began walking upright on two feet. Luis Robbins
was an anthropology professor at the University of North Carolina
at Greensboro. She too was excited about these footprints and
wanted to know exactly who left them behind. Louise had
(12:45):
been conducting her own studies in footprint analysis. She started
collecting footprints from people who were still alive. Five hundred
people put ink onto their feet and then stood on
a piece of paper. Based on those prince Louise tried
to find characteristics and feet that were specific to age, sex, stature,
(13:06):
and weight, using her own system of measurement. She would
then compare those characteristics to the footprints found in the caves.
Her conclusion, no two footprints are the same. In fact,
she thought she could tell a great deal about a
person just by looking at their footprint. Her methods were
(13:26):
never tested by her peers, nor were they confirmed by
other scientists, but Louise she thought she was onto something.
She claimed to do something no one else could identify
a person solely through their footprint, and so in nineteen
seventy eight, when a team of scientists went to excavate
the site in Tanzania where the prehistoric footprints were found.
(13:50):
Louise went too. When she saw the prince, she claimed
that one of them was left by a woman that
was five and a half months pregnant. Now, other scientists
on the expedition scratched their heads. It was hard enough
to figure out if the prints that they were looking
at were even human at all. No one had ever
claimed to know the gender of the person that made
(14:11):
the print, let alone of that person was carrying a child.
Then Louise took a dangerous leap. She positioned herself as
a forensic expert, authoring a book on footprints. She didn't
write this book with her scientific peers in mind, but
she wrote it for law enforcement and crime labs. Only
(14:33):
five pages in this book were dedicated to the analysis
of actual shoe prints, and yet, based on these five pages,
Louise claimed that she was an expert in this area
of forensic science. Lawyers began to hire her as an
expert witness. They told judges that her work was on
the cutting edge of forensic science. Critics of her work
(14:56):
called it Cinderella analysis. After all, she usually he made
sure that the shoe fit when she matched the suspects
foot to the shoe Prince found at a crime scene.
In the more than twenty cases for which she testified,
twelve people, some of whom who have since been proven
to be innocent, were sent to prison, including Dale Johnston,
(15:19):
who was sentenced to death.
Speaker 3 (15:26):
Dale Johnson and his wife Sarah at the time, came
down to Logan several days after the bodies had been discovered,
and they came to the Logan police department. They wanted
to be helpful to them, and Dale was immediately taken
up to an interrogation room. His boots, his pants, his
(15:47):
shirt were all confiscated. So he was sitting there in
the chair in his underwear and they were bombarding him.
You did it, didn't you? And we know you did it?
Over and over and over again. He kept saying, no,
I have nothing. I would just I came into town
to try to help.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
Here today is Bill Osinski, a journalist who covered the
Dale Johnson case for years and wrote a book about
it called Guilty by Popular Demand. So Bill, tell us
a little bit about yourself and how you started covering
this case.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
For nearly forty years. I was a reporter. I worked
for eleven different newspapers around the country. I worked for
the Akron Beacon Journal at that time, which is nearly
two hundred miles away from Logan, Ohio, where the murders
took place. But in those days, the newspapers valued a
major story and would make that kind of an investment
(16:41):
in time and resources to cover a widely publicized case
like that.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
So, Bill, you actually went to Logan, Ohio to cover
Dale's trial? What was that like?
Speaker 3 (16:53):
I drove into Logan, which is about thirty five miles
southeast of Columbus, Ohio. I've ever been there before, and
I drove in on a January morning, and it was
one of the coldest things I can remember. The temperatures
were well below zero. And I went to the center
of the little town and found the courthouse. And here,
(17:15):
you know, eight o'clock on a weekday morning, there was
a line outside the courthouse. People were standing in that
below zero cold waiting for a chance to get in
to hear all this salacious details of this horrific murder
of a teenage couple who were found dismembered, parts of
(17:37):
their bodies buried in a cornfield near the Hawking River
in Logan, Ohio.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Wow, this is a really brutal crime. I mean, you
have body parts buried in fields. And the prosecutors claimed
that Dale Johnson committed these murders and putting aside what
his motive would have been. How do they claim he
committed the murders.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
The prosecutor alleged in his scenario that Dale Johnston had
kidnapped these two kids in downtown Logan, made a stop
on his way home at a doctor's office and drove
him onto his trailer, where they got into an argument
about a little used car that the parents were supposed
(18:20):
to have given a net but hadn't yet, And out
of that argument, Dale went into a jealous fit and
pulled out a gun which they never found, and shot
his stepdaughter and a boyfriend, and then took them outside,
apparently and butchered them, and then brought them back to
(18:43):
downtown Logan where they had last been seen and put
some body parts, heads and limbs in the cornfield. I mean,
it just it made absolutely no sense. They had no
evidence that he was actually back in town at night
trying to bury these bodies, but that's what they elect.
(19:05):
Dale was not a warm guy. I mean, you know,
he was the outsider. He didn't have a high opinion
of the locals. They didn't like him. You know, he
was convenient guy for them to hang in on.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
So, Bill, did anyone think that Dale was innocent? I mean,
what was your sense of the atmosphere surrounding the case.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
There was such an atmosphere of the case having been
already tried in the court of public opinion before the
trial even started. More than a year passed between the
murderers and the trial, and obviously the only story coming
out of the investigation was that Dale Johnson did it.
So that, in fact, was why the defense waived a
(19:49):
jury trial and asked for a three judge panel, because
they knew that people in Hocking County were so predisposed
to believe that Dale Johnson was the killer.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
Now, very little evidence was found at the scenes where
these body parts were found, but we know investigators found
some sort of print in the mud by the riverbank.
And Dale goes down to the police station with his
wife Sarah, and he thinks he's going there to help
them find the killers, but they confiscate his boots, and
(20:32):
of course those boots would be compared to the impression
found at the scene. So tell us a little bit
more about what happened.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
There were so many cops out there that, according to
the testimony of a Ohio Bureau of Investigation agent, they
totally ruined the crime scene as far as being able
to collect any valid evidence. They were cops stomping all over. Well,
what happened was the share of Hockeing County had an
(21:00):
impression made of a depression in the riverbank, and they
made it casting, and they sent it off to the FBI,
and it was examined by a nationally known footprint expert
at the FBI, and he was brought in to testify
to his findings, and he testified that, well, all he
(21:21):
could say that this casting was more likely a footprint
than any kind of a shoeprint or bootprint. And however,
he forwarded this plaster cast at his own volition to
a woman anthropologist, Luis Robbins, for her examination. And she
(21:43):
had a theory of how he could identify footprints from
the ware patterns on the inside of someone's footwear. She
had this Kakamami theory that by examining the interior of
a footwear she could get wear impressions and use that
(22:06):
to analyze a casting of a print from a shoe
or a boot. And so she testified and triwed it. Well,
you can't really say that Dale Johnson's boot fits this,
but from the wear patterns that she observed from the
interior of the boot, when you looked at it that way,
(22:28):
then yes, this was made by Dale Johnson's boot. And
you know, I had never heard of that before. It
didn't make any sense to me. It was only later,
after the damage was done, that it came out how
irresponsible and unreliable and untrue. Her testimony was.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
So let me hit this straight. This is like, you know,
kind of mind blowing here. Louise Robbins said that she
could match the depression found by the riverbank to Dale
based on war patterns made by his foot inside his boot.
I mean, it just sounds ridiculous. I've never even heard
of that before. This seems to go so far outside
(23:09):
the bounds of any verifiable science. And you know, it's
important for our listeners to keep in mind that with
impression pattern matching methods, that's the type of science we're
talking about, or alleged science that we're talking about with
shoe prints and tires. There's a database that experts have
and they refer to this database when they're matching a
(23:31):
shoe or a tire to an impression at a scene.
And tires and shoes are mass produced, so the same
rubber mold is used to make them. But that just
tells an expert what class that piece of evidence came from. So,
for instance, they can say that this footwear impression was
made by a size ten Nike Air Jordan. But the
(23:55):
problem is a lot of people own a size ten
Nike Air Jordan, so it's not enough to put somebody
at the scene. So impression analysis really comes down to
the individual characteristics in the specific shoe or shoes that
belong to the accused, and we're talking about things like
cracks in the sole of the shoe, comes stuck to
(24:18):
the bottom of the heel, you know, characteristics that are
often caused by routine wear and tear. But the problem
is there is no standard regarding the number of unique
characteristics that are needed to make a positive identification. And
it sounds like from the mold they were working with
in this case that the FBI analysts couldn't even tell
(24:41):
if the impression was made by a bare foot or
a shoe, let alone, what kind of a shoe? So
that should tell you something about the quality of the
impression they were working with. But Ms Robbins makes this
huge leap, and it's really really hard to imagine that
this could have been allowed in a courtroom when someone's
(25:02):
freedom was on the line. And yet he or she
is one of the prosecution's key witnesses when it came
to analyzing the physical evidence of the scene. So how
prominently did Miss Robbin's testimony play in the prosecution's closing arguments?
Speaker 3 (25:18):
Bill, Well, it was very prominent because it was the
only piece of evidence that linked Dale Johnson to the
murder scene. I thought it was a very weak link
to begin with, but apparently it was strong enough for
three judges. His closing line was, murder is the ultimate
(25:41):
form of molestation, so you must be guilty of the
murder too. He had, of course, been alleging without evidence,
that Dale Johnson had inappropriate relationship with Annette.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
So after he's convicted and sentence, what happens next?
Speaker 3 (25:57):
Bill? He was sent immediately to death row. But you know,
it was such a weird, hostile atmosphere in that town.
I mean, I will never forget when it came time
for the verdict, all the spectators had gathered on the
lower level of the courthouse but listened to the verdict
by radio, and I will never forget that when the
(26:20):
guilty verdict was announced, there was this eerie cheering that
came from below, you know, that filled up the courtroom.
And these people wanted somebody to pay, and Dale Johnston
happened to be the guy who they were able to
hang it on.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
I mean, it seems Bill that they didn't even have
anything other than a hunch that Dal Johnston did this.
I mean, I it's hard to make sense of this.
I mean, do you think that they did this on purpose?
Do you think that they've set out to frame Dale Johnson?
Speaker 3 (26:56):
Well, I don't think anyone wants to accept that the
prosecutors and police would knowingly fabricate an entire case against
a murder defendant. And I know I came down to
Logan with no preconceptions. I do remember, you know, having
(27:17):
the belief that you know, the state wouldn't bring these
charges unless they had something against this guy. And by
the end, I said, where is the case I was
shocked at the prosecutor's summary. I mean it, it was
total high opera and total fantasy. Everything that was presented
(27:41):
in that trial was a lie. I believe somewhere before
I die, I'm going to learn the truth in this case,
and it just so happens that I did.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
You know, it's interesting that oftentimes, when one of these
disciplines of junk science is used in a case and
the person is convicted, it's not the exposure of that
junk science as being total bullshit that leads to the exoneration.
It's often that DNA testing is used to prove that
(28:24):
they have the wrong person. What's really interesting about this
case is that Dale is eventually released from prison because
his lawyers were able to prove that some of the
evidence that was used the convictim was not admissible. And
oddly enough, it wasn't the shoe evidence that was thrown out,
but another witness's testimony. It turns out that a witness
(28:46):
had been hypnotized by a detective and was persuaded to
give this awful testimony against Dale at the trial, and
testimony that he like forcefully put a net in and
Todd into a car and that testimony was never supposed
to be admitted in court, and that was what was
(29:08):
deemed inadmissible, and Dale was let out because of that.
And of course Louise Robbin's testimony about his you know,
the inside wear patterns on his boots, you know, being
definitive proof that the impression left on the riverbank was
his that was left undisturbed. And everyone still believed he
was guilty. But then someone else confessed to murdering and
(29:31):
it and Todd so Bill tell us about that. Who
actually committed this crime, A.
Speaker 3 (29:38):
Sorry little fellow named Chester mcnight was nicknamed Chester the
Molester just because apparently because he was weird and was
an habitual criminal, habitual drunk, even though he had a
history of assaults against women. And Chester actually got married
and it lasted a couple of weeks before she kicked
(30:02):
him out and left. And it was in that atmosphere
where Chester just went over the deep end and was
drinking day in and day out. He was obviously depressed,
the wife had left him, and he was just drinking incessantly.
He came on that afternoon, early evening of October fourth,
(30:23):
to Kenny Lynn Scott's house, a local drug dealer, you know,
they were drinking buddies. Anyway, there was a kind of
a makeshift party in Kenny's yard and Chester joined in,
and here comes Todd and Annette. So they joined the
party for a little while. I think they may have
had a beer and Chester decided to hey, let's keep
(30:46):
the party going. I've got some I've got some stuff.
And so they start walking down the railroad tracks and
according to Chester's account, he wanted to have a group
sex with Annette, and she of course know and Todd
tried to get her out of the situation, and that's
(31:08):
when Chester pulled a gun and shot him, and that
started screaming. She shot her. At that point, Chester and
Kenny dragged the bodies down to the riverfront at the
edge of the cornfield and dismembered them. And Kenny, maybe
with help maybe not, got the bodies back into the
cornfield and dug shallow holes and put the limbs and
(31:30):
the heads into a kind of a bare spot in
the middle of the cornfield that he knew about. And
Kenny the next few nights he would go out to
that railroad bridge and cry and moan and friends saying,
what's wrong Kenny and he told him, Yo, you wouldn't understand.
His neighbors knew what he was doing. His neighbors saw
his behavior. His neighbors told the police that they should
(31:53):
be investigating him, but they never did, and they did
have a record then of this strange call made the
night before the body parts were found. Kenny Linscott made
the call and said, have you found the bodies yet?
And nobody at that point knew that the kids were
even dead or that there were bodies to be found,
(32:14):
And that call was logged and it became the thing
that led to Kenny and ultimately to Chester. And so
I have a law enforcement source that helped me with this,
and he told me that, you know, everybody knew Kenny
was acting weird after the killings. And he said, well,
let's go talk to Kenny. And the sheriff says, oh, no,
(32:35):
we confined him, when then we need him. So at
the very beginning, Linz Scott's name came up, but yet
the police just dismissed him right out of hand.
Speaker 2 (32:45):
In reflecting on all this, I just want to go
back to Luiz Robin's testimony about the shoeprint for a moment.
I understand why jurors would be persuaded by her. She's
got this anthropology degree, she's a professor. She comes across
short convincingly. She went and studied these ancient footprints in Tanzania.
(33:06):
That all makes sense. But the three judges hearing this,
you know, the inside wear patterns on the boot and
that being definitive proof that it was Dale Johnson's bootprint.
I mean, what did they make of her testimony?
Speaker 3 (33:23):
I can tell you how strongly her testimony was accepted.
Twenty five years later, you know, when the real truth
came out. I interviewed two of the three judges on
the case and they both said, well, we had doctor
Robin's testimony before us, and that was very convincing. This
(33:44):
was even after they learned the truth, after they learned
that everything this woman said was a lie, they still
wanted to believe in her. I have summed up this
case as a total collapse of a local justice system,
and I still believe that it left me with such
(34:07):
a sense of outrage that this kind of thing can
be done in our system of justice toom and I mean,
you know it was it was not even close. But
the lies that were told in that courtroom were enough
to send an into some man to death row sitting
there through the entire trial. Is they never they never
(34:31):
presented a rational case, and the evidence that they did
present was you know, challenged very successfully by the defense.
I mean, what I learned is that someone with an
academic position and the claim of scientific expertise is automatically
granted some level of believability, even by judges and prosecutors
(34:56):
and investigators. And they really accepted Louise robins testimony and
as fact I called it in my book fantasy forensics,
and as events have proven, it was totally fabricated. I
can only attribute it to the desire to get a conviction,
(35:17):
any conviction. That people in that town were petrified. The
judges knew it, They knew what would happen if they
didn't get a conviction, and they knew that they wouldn't
have another crack at Dale Johnson if they acquitted him.
So they convicted him and just went back home.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
The use of doctor Robins as a forensic expert is
an example of what can go horribly wrong when courts
allow unverified signs into our courtrooms. She testified in twenty cases.
Truly a hired gun by attorneys looking for a particular outcome.
Her work was reviewed by a panel of one hundred
(36:00):
and thirty five anthropologists, forensic scientists, lawyers, and legal scholars
sponsored by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and they
concluded that her methodology for identification had no basis in science,
but the damage had already been done. Dale Johnson spent
(36:20):
four years on death row for a double homicide that
he didn't commit. But he was fortunate and that even
though his trial left him impoverished, his attorneys stayed on
his case pro bono and took on the appeals. The
psychological trauma inflicted on those who were wrongfully convicted, especially
for people who are innocent and sit on death row,
(36:42):
is well documented. It isn't just the conviction that stays
with the wrongfully convicted, it's the aftermath. Dale lost it all.
He lost his stepdaughter, his property, his wife divorced him.
It wasn't until well into his eighties earlier this year
that Dale finally received some compensation for his time spent
(37:05):
in prison. The Innocence Project provides support for therapy and
social services for its clients who are forced to cope
with the harms associated with their wrongful conviction. You can
donate to the Innocence Project by visiting www. Dot Innocenceproject
dot org, slash give. Next week, we'll explore the junk
(37:32):
science of fingerprint evidence. Wrongful Conviction Junk Science is a
production of Lava for Good Podcasts in association with Signal
Company Number One. Thanks to our executive producer Jason Flam
and the team at Signal Company Number One executive producer
Kevin Wardis and senior producers Karen Kornhaber and Britz Spangler.
(37:54):
Our music was composed by Jay Ralph. You can follow
me on Instagram at dubin Josh. Follow the Wrongful Conviction
podcast on Facebook and on Instagram at wrongful Conviction and
on Twitter at wrong Conviction
Hosts And Creators
Lauren Bright Pacheco
Maggie Freleng
Jason Flom
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
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.