This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This episode is brought to you by peacock bridge ending the original limited series, a friend of the family on the story of the Jan roper. Kidnappings from again. Tosca executive producer of the act and candy and direct producer eliza hip and comes a dark. Compelling look at the harrowing story through new lands produced which amber burke herself the series stars anna pack, when jake lacy college hanks LEO Tipton, and mckenna grace stream now only on peacock.
Discount nike air nice
I'm doing really good just than how are you doing wonderful? We ve put out some stuff on our patriarch everyone. If you're not out there listening to it- and I don't know what you're doing and less clear something up. We ve had some confusion. We have people saying or Give you two hundred dollars a month or four hundred dollars a month.
If you see a number on there, that's the total that's been contributed to our patriotic. Our patriarch. Only cost two dollars to start. So, if you only want to convey, the two dollars and get a premium episode than do it? If you want to contribute more you'll, get more Hadrian is a widely used crowd. Sourcing patron donation system just go, look at other people's patriot pages and you'll get the gist of it. So tonight's episode is fort Stockton, Texas, nov, tenth nineteen. Ninety one is when the event takes place, but we might startle bed earlier before that, where we talking about tonight tonight, we're talking about in arson, fire a fire broke out. Home of bill Richardson and he would die in that fire his These sonya casey would survive the fire but would later be prosecuted
for deliberately setting a fire to kill her uncle so that she could inherit his estate they'll say that he died from the thermal burns and they will say that she had strange statements and behaviour right after the fire and all this made her look suspicious. and that's why they charged her sign. Your casey grew up in fort stalked in texas, with their parents, buster insanely Richardson, sonya, was a divorced mother of two by nineteen. Eighty six. She moved in with her uncle slashed step father. I say that because her uncle I married her mother after her father died, but we won't be going go through their whole history, but just understand that she did help out her huh,
and her son and she was staying with her uncle because he had gone through cataract surgery, so she was helping him get through that she was staying with him taking care of him. Yes, she moved in with bill in ninety ninety one. It was late September early october now november, second, which this is about it. Little over a month from the time that she moves in a couple of fires break out at the home at three seventeen I am police and ff Our departments receive a call about a fire at bill, Richardson's place According to the statement from Sonya, she woke up down the hallway and saw that the back door was open and She looked over at the office door which was closed and saw smoke and which you When the door she found a fire burning- and this sound strange but just about three hours later, there's a fire that breaks out
in the storage room at the carport, when bill is asked about this fire, he said he's afraid for life both he and sign? You feel as though some one is deliberately setting fires to harm them now bill, the smoker. But these two fires seem very deliberate and not a rogue cigarette flicked in the wrong place. So the authorities take some statements and they say that they'll investigate these fires, but does it really I feel like they're going to investigate them justin. Well, they the investigation was pending through her trial and through most of her sentencing and everything. So yet I don't think these fires were ever investigated at all there used against her later kinder reminds me of that seen in the big lebowski, when he The car is stolen. Oh yeah and asking about is his.
in case his credence tapes yeah? They disregard him. It's not a priority of the police department, I think there's enough evidence in this case to show that there were and a priority on this should there then I don't know, I think so. I mean what if they had died in this in one of these two fires that night, what if somebody had been injured any of the neighbors question, any witnesses that might have seen somebody fleeing from the home. I mean arson is a serious situation: air, kansas city, firefighters. We have multiple people, spinning the rest of your lives in prison for arson, so yeah. Let's take it serious but they data on november, tenth police and fired apartments, respond to a call another call at bill, Richardson's house there's another fire. This is at six thirty, a m and police officer rob. Curtis is first to arrive and out
the house, our son casey and a neighbor, though, as close and now the neighbor had made. The call back as I guess, sonya was too distraught to make the call and yeah was injured. Big. Apparently she had tried punching through the homes picture window, see when officer Curtis got there. He checked the free door and it was locked. The neighbors said that sonya had tried punching through the window probably to get in, and she seemed very upset screaming that her uncle was inside the home and they needed to get him out. So the officer ends up kicking in the front door right yeah he kicks in the front door. or any attempts to crawl inside the house, because there is a lot of smoke
I think he knows. Sonia is clambering over the top of him to get in. She couldn't get back in the house because the door was locked so once he kicked in the door, she was now able to get back into the house. So she goes in so he forcibly removed sir, but that's not the last, time. She tries to get in. She makes another attempt. And she gets a little violent. You might say, So the officer escorts her to the neighbor's house, and I think that the neighbour called because, as you here sonya escaped out a window to get away from the fire and ran to the neighbor's house for help. So she didn't really have a chance to call nine on one from the home and in know it's at house. So why? Wouldn't the neighbor call a couple of officers with low key it's the wretched since body they ve really felt like he was beyond help. At that point, they could tell that he was deceased. All that was left to do as the
fire chief gave in order to put out the air with the mist so as to serve? The scene is best as they could. Emergency services will take sonya to the hospital because she suffering from smoke. Inhalation she's got certain stuff all over, so they want to get her checked out at this point, she's a little combative with the officers and when they questioned her when they try to get a picture taken of her she's cost at them and yelling at them, and they will see the police officers will say that she sang. I will not say another word to untie, talked my attorney. I wonder if her treatment by them made her behave this way or if she felt they were turning suspicions on her who knows, but she was being very aggressive towards the police officers and not cooperating with
any longer well, they were asking for samples, blood samples protesting that woods. Certainly indicate to her that she was a suspect, but their investigating now she's, not very nice when she tells them that she's not going to provide these samples. and later on after it seems as though there is a possibility that she might. At that time the officers say that, oh, yes, she will provide samples and they will get a court order make sure that she does many months pass and by the next year, though, end up indicting her and bringing charges against her for the death of bill. She will insist on her innocence. She will say that it was an accident, it was a fire and she makes another statement that that morning she remembers bill
coming into her bedroom and saying the house, is on fire either tapping or on the shoulder or just verbally telling her and that she needs to get out and he's gonna go back for the dark, so she gets out of bed opens her window to her bedroom exits, the home bill goes back in now. It was early in the morning and she was groggy in she claims that she might have had a few drinks the night before so she might be hung over its early. She doesn't know she's, remembering this correctly. Now the police will claim that she smelled of alcohol now will come up and trial later, but bill. It's a little interesting, her her statement and whether her state
adds up or not if bill had actually woke her up that morning. So once we get into the trial here, you'll understand why the prosecutor and the investigators felt her statement was contradictory and it kind of makes her look suspect. Why do you think it makes her look suspect, Why are you time you're trying to investigate and someone keeps throwing up, profanity and asking for a lawyer. It seems suspicious because if you ve lost a loved one in a fire, then you think you would want to help but in this case sanyo was not very cooperative and Not very I mean I don't think she was cooperative at all and they say that if she escaped from her window and bill went back into the house, it would have made sense that he would have escaped out like the front door and instead he went back to where the fire
needed from which would have been illogical. I may not have been illogical and this comes up at trial. There was a hole in the ceiling, Underneath the hall was a trash. Can I think I was a thirty gallon trash can and it would collect the rainwater, so they believe that is possible. He thought. Oh, I can stop this fire, He doesn't want to lose his home. This is a seventy six year old man he's lived there for more than ten years. I believe, and he has all this rainwater right next to where the fire,
it probably is so he can just put it out. I think that's the theory anyway yeah, but the prosecutors are saying well. She had to have set the fire. This whole statement of him coming in and waking her up is all bs. She fabricated. It and he would have left the house the one route that wasn't on fire pretty much. He would have either followed her out or gone out the front door. So therefore he had to have been where the origin of the fire was and then they claim that they see pooling of an accelerant around him or pores of accelerant around him. He also had a aluminum cot that he dawn and from the time that the fire was reported to the time that they showed up and put the fire out. The aluminum had melted and they say that the in the fire chief in prague
skipper will say: there's no way. It could have melted that fast. If an accelerant wasn't used in ninety ninety three sites casey will go to trial and Prosecution gives their theory on what they believe happened. They state that sanyo casey murdered uncle by pouring accelerant on him, possibly gasoline. Setting him on fire, and they say that she had had alcohol to give her liquid courage so that she could set the fires and kill her uncle and a couple of police officers would testify that they detected alcohol on her breath. This is actually a quote from the trial. Why would she be drinking liquor,
at that time of the morning, except to build up enough courage to go in there and kill the man that loved her, they said that she was trying to murder him to get an inheritance or to inherit the home. Yes, when the when the place with search standard at finding a hand written will by bill Richardson in one of her dress, her drawers and in texas. This is known as a holographic will and it's completely valid in the Will he left all assets to his knees, Sonia J casey, so she gets wrong. Yes, they did check the handwriting and it matched bill, and there was no concern from any one as to whether This was legitimate or not, but for the state, this isn't problem because that's the motive. She wants olive in all this money and they went after her character
said when the officers were outside the home she scratched and struck at them. She was very combative. She was crying but no one ever saw any tears. It was about six thirty in the morning when the call came in and none of the neighbors heard. Any dogs barking pure recall, before the fire There's from november. Second, it was asserted that they must have been arson fires set by strangers, someone trying to harm bill and his niece. They say without the dogs barking. Where would the intruders be at I mean a dog would hear an intruder and bark like. I get that because We bring it up on the darley road case where were like. Why didn't the dog alert? So it looks like Sonia in of course sonya since she was so combative, was not cooperative. She wanted a turning. She didn't want to give a blood sample. In addition,
this. Her hair was singed which, according to them go examiner. A trial was a direct result of being close. Proximity of the fire They also said that bill richard died of thermal burns and accord. To the medical, examiner, doktor robber box. He had so in his nose and mouth, which meant he was breathing at the time he died. and he had a low level of carbon monoxide the way they did private bill suffered, he died by being burned to death. He also had a red frothy liquid in his lungs. The state actually questions box about this, and he states that different things could cause this. It could be heart failure or smoke. He really believe that it didn't challenge his finding of death by thermal burns.
It wasn't a concern that defence, for some odd reason doesn't challenged this. I think because they don't bring in an expert. So this opportunity is what We call it goes by with no challenge. I mean the defense will hire an expert to go. Do a walk through of the house, but it's almost a year later so looking at.
This quote: unquote: crime scene a year later. What are you going to figure out from that? When the prosecution says there were signs of accelerant pores around the body when the prosecution says that her hair was singed when the prosecution levies? All these allegations, her defense literally, does not challenge any of it because they don't bring in their own experts or when they do it's too late. Now, there's some evidence linking her and bill, and it's a test that Joe cast arena he's a chemist and a toxicologist who is testing the clothing from both bill and sonia in here
will testify that their clothing tested positive for accelerants or petroleum based, something or other you know so gasoline turpentine kerosene, so she had to have doused him with gasoline. This is very damning, because why would he have gasoline on him? Why would she have gasoline on her? Why would the fire burn so hot melt to a aluminum cot? Why would she have singed hair? Why would she be so uncooperative with police? I mean it looks, ready, straightforward that she's very suspicious or she should be a suspect? What do you mean so far with all this evidence we ve laid out it looks pretty bad for her right right? It does and sadly that fence really only go after bills, history, and they describe as history being a little careless with fire me.
He carries around a blowtorch, so weak and light cigarettes and start the furnace up and marshmallows, he tens the cigarettes burning places. This is texas though. Well, how else do you light your cigarette? Besides with a blowtorch, so you can imagine she's not getting good representation here, wet whatever you think about guilt or innocence. this point there should at least be challenges made along the way, and it feels like that offences. Just I don't know going out with a whistle bat. Let me will there attacking the character of the victim. That's never going to get you off the hook. You have to attack the evidence, that's being used against you. While I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I will say that when they establish the history of his carelessness with fire, I think they are showing how it's likely that he caused this fire that you can't run I'm out, but I know you're saying: if that's all their presenting there might be
some jury members. Looking at this and thinking wow nice go after the dead guy yeah. That's that's how I felt when you just read it so yeah. So the verdict in this trial guilty they give her a sentence of fifty five years in prison and hit her with a ten thousand dollar fine whoa On top of that now, she's going to prison for the murder of her uncle her children, are going to be motherless, family whose she's been taken care of are without a caretaker gap, palatine, isn't just about banks and treadmills. It's a team of instructors, ready to motivate you, twenty four, seven with politics
There are literally thousands of classes ranging from strength, training and yoga to running and boxing, which means politicians the perfect non, judgmental space to experiment with new types of movement at a level in pace. It feel good for you super busy. It doesn't matter if you have five minutes or an hour if you're, an early riser or a fan of the evening burn, there's a pellet on class. It fits into your day politics. Is where you'll find what works for you on your schedule, wherever you happen to be at home at the gym or even where's motivation that moves you anytime anywhere. Try the ballot on biker, tread risk free for thirty days, learn more at one pellet: honda com, new members, only terms apply after here's a fine print contracts and getting ripped off by big wireless providers. If we ve learned anything it set, there's always a catch. So when I first heard that mid mobile offers premium wireless starting at just fifteen bucks a month, I thought what's the catch, but after talking to them, it all made sense. There isn't one made mobile
secret sauce is at their the first company to sell wireless service online. Only they cut out the key of retail stores and passed those sweet savings directly to you. Men mobile gives you the best rate, whether you're buying for one or a family, and it meant families started two lights: all plants come with. Unlimited talk and text to get your new wireless plan for just fifteen bucks a month and get the planchet. your door for free, good, emit mobile dot com, slash podcast, that's minimum we'll dot com, slash, podcast, cut your wireless bill to fifteen bucks. A month, admit mobile, dot, com, slash podcast. She appeals well. She will get a retrial on the punishment phase, so she's not going to be the mission to get out of prison. I don't think I mean really what this is is well. She keep her fifty five years. Will she get a reduction? in sentence or will she get more at this trial, I feel like
Finally, getting some good defence defence included in this trial on her side is gerald Hearst He is to design explosives for military and he has become an arson expert. It seems to be a real passion of his views as the latest the latest science to examine scenes that normally have been considered arson using the latest science. He can determine if actually was arson or not for a long time, Arson fires were determined by, I would say, got instinct and experience yeah I was really the firemen and possibly a fire investigator in just observations. It was very straightforward. Just looks like somebody set this its causes. area actually back mean. This is ninety ninety one. So when this happened and they do go
after the evidence, this time hearse talks about there is this chair. that bill would sit in all the time. As a green chair and inside this in chair were a bunch of old cigarette butts that he could clearly see had just been Dropped in the chair lit that's what they call firebug and the chair had. Burn marks all over it near the fabric was had, you know, been melted from all these lit cigarettes. Really. The important thing that hearse goes after is the testing that showed that an accelerant had been found. Apparently when they gathered up what was left of heav of bills. Clothing
Wasn't much, I mean he had like a waistband and he had some tattered remnants of his pants, but that's about it right I mean most everything had burned up yeah, some of it. Well, possibly some of it had been kept in a glass jar. Now the problem with this is a glass jar. A mason jar has rubber in the lid of it that can cause false positives and cause rubbers made out of petroleum that if they rub off and they we're looking at microscopic residues in molecules to test for accelerant. So just rubbing rubber on this clothing could possibly contaminated and accelerate will be laughed if it doesn't get all burned up or if all the oxygen in the room burns up before the accelerant is used up or if they're, just in abundance.
accelerant and some arsonists will use way too much accelerant and leave evidence behind now this glass jar joke pastrana. This chemist was testing and he says he found itself. During this recent missing trial. This is the first time in my reading. Righteous became disgusted They show that everyone who tested samples- they came up negative for accelerant. Only Joe cast raina found any evidence of an accelerant. There was, other people testing. It was nine or ten. I could be wrong, but all of em negative, neither positive words negative. I mean it's like a pregnancy test here. There's no, in between there's no amount, it's either yes or no up the ten people say no, but Joe says yes how content people be wrong. Even his boss tested samples, and they
came back. Negative Hearst would go on to talk about how false positives happen, including the elastic from bills. Waistband could give false positives because of what its made of he testified clothing. Remnants in the glass jar were fake. They were fraudulent. He seemed very, then said they were just planted. That's that's a bold statement. They weren't even clothes from bill. They were just other clothing that Joe had thrown in a jar, now joke ass arena, despite all the their tasks saying there was no accelerant stuck by his own findings and that's even after he admitted at the lab was contaminated. He admitted that the was contaminated when question about that he said well, no one asked me he doubles down. So much one. He says nobody asks him. So ok, so you
somebody else might have urinate it on this pregnancy task, but I'm not gonna say anything when it comes up positive, it just doesn't make any sense. He says that the cross contamination or the contamination of his evidence could have caused false negatives. Ok, wrap. Your head around that he saying that if there was gasoline on a piece of fabric or clothing it being contaminated with something else could cancel out the gasoline gasoline either present or it's not present, so a false negative. The way he's explaining it. I personally have a big issue with I don't see how you get a false negative. I can see I can get a false positive, but a negative means. It's not present, so I dont see how it can be contaminated with something else unless you dust it with,
reach and then got rid of the contamination, but he doesn't say that, but then again no one asked him. He also says that by his testing that gasoline may have been removed. You know ever accelerant might have been. There had been removed because he had already run tests and hearst when, after that and said, that's impossible. As the hiv lab didn't get the same samples he did. so Joe was saying the tests I ran could of cleansed, though the accelerant from this fabric. So that's why you're getting a negative result gerald says: no, we had a deal sample. Not yours so were catching him in a lie. Joe is lying. and it's amazing because hearst points this- he says if you
store clothing that may not have an accelerant in a mason jar. You can get a false positive because of the rubber in the lead. Another lab technician actually says that if you check there are peaks that you look at and the peaks in the samples found that thing and this and the peaks from actual gasoline or accelerant did not match at all. So even if he thought He had something. All you have to do is look at the peaks and he would see that Don't match its just like the dna. You know it has to meet certain criteria, or you can't say that it's a match in this is joe cast Irena, despite all scientific testing methods
decides to as justin says, double down or even triple down. It seems and state that he definitely found accelerant. Think about that. This is the one key link the smoking gun, the whatever you wanted. The ace in the whole further prosecutors linking mouse intent to her, and it was not real. It was not true. That's what got her
convicted fire investigator, ten gibson testified and using all of the collected evidence from the ninety ninety three trial. He said if you look over all of the pictures that were taken and you look over the scene as it was, they dont describe the scene correctly during ninety ninety three trial and one of the things he pointed out was in the ninety three trial. They tried saying that the charring was the worst at the exposed. Rafters at were above bill, but he said if you look at the evidence, the worst sharing was was actually near with the window, which is evidence that the fire started near the caught. They also had other witnesses who testified that, including the the neighbour and some of the nurses that she did not smell of alcohol that morning they did not detect that she was drunk. Yet that was a main peace at the prosecutors case. Was she built up there
courage with alcohol to commit this crime, but the only people that seem to back this story up are the two police officers that she was being combative against, but none of the nurses or neighbor testified at us about the process. In his opening statement, says the nurses will testify to this and they won't doktor James case testifies and said that the red frothy subsidy, in the lungs of bill. Richardson was likely from sudden heart failure. He said that was no evidence of cooking of the inner organs and ease explained. The sit found in the nose and mouth was normal, because if you ve had a heart attack, you might take short breaths for a bit you no prior to your heart. Stopping- and He said you can't die in this is this is something really stood out to me said you can't die from thermal burns and then have a heart attack so way
He's saying that bill died from a heart attack and not a fire at all, so the entire prosecution's theory that he was burned to death just deemed false. This does seem a little suspect to me, because I, I think back to Sonia's statement that morning that bill had come in and told her the house was on fire and that she needed to leave now. I think that she dreamed this or it never happened, because The bill might have been having a heart attack while smoking a cigarette. He also was able to show that bill showed signs of coronary heart disease. Now the state questions him and wants to know how the possible that bill is burn so badly? If you didn't die of thermal burns,.
How can you explain what happened to his body, because bodies aren't that easy to burn throughout this investigation by those that are looking for errors in the ninety nine three trial. It's been suggested that curtains may have fallen on bill and caused him to burn fer a longer time, apparently on november. Second, his Dryer had gotten damaged in the fire, and so he was hang up a lot of clothes around in that room to dry yeah. You know to try them out and if a curtain fell on him it will certainly cause a fire to keep burning on his body and with certain They destroy him now. The state definitely does not believe that a curtain fell on him, but it seems like while there are experts testifying that
very well could have happened. So this is a recent in sing trial did a hail marian innocence. It seem like it really seems like if you go through the trial, the way that that the court documents show it it seems like they made. Very good case as to why Sonya should be sentenced to more present time, but the verdict comes back. Ninety nine years, so she got forty for more years over she got in the first trial. We have to ask why: how is that possible yeah? The best I can guess it's almost as though the jury's weren't ready to digest this- debate on the evidence and in the end went with who they trusted, and I think they trusted the police officer. Isn't the firefighters and fire investigators who were on the states,
side, that's how they made their decision should already been found guilty once they thought this was a simple issue of how many years do we need to give her I mean she's already been found guilty, so we're not really trying to figure out guilt or innocence here, we're trying to figure out how much punishment to administer so that unless nay, this evidence she went from fifty something years to ninety nine years. That's what He gets for trying. Now. I think one of the things that really drives her innocence. campaign for those I personally know our but got involved anyway, was the fact that this is something that was really troubling to people who had studied arson fires. and we're working with the latest science about how to determine if an accelerant was really used, how to tell if a fire was deliberate and they were seeing all kinds of red flags here and knowing
people were either being incarcerated or put to death for fire related deaths or murders, as they were called during the trials. This troubled them. They didn't like this idea that people we're having to suffer because of a lack of understanding of the science of this or you know being judged because oh, there is a will. She stood to inherit in a state, of course, she looks guilty, that's something I did. sit right with a lot of people and they got involved. Her conviction was upheld for many years but ah july. Fourth, ninety ninety, eight sonya wool request parole. The texas border, pardons and in november of ninety ninety eight. They will grant her pearl and release her, which is sort of interesting
There wasn't really. I mean there was a lot of public support for her, but they let her out ninety nine year sentence, but they didn't say she was innocent. They just said: ok, we're gonna release you from prison because we don't deem you a danger to society. She gets out, but she's still a guilty. You know ex convict, It just seems crazy, because they're saying that she murdered her uncle for money and she it's ninety nine years, but yeah. Let's let her out a couple of years since through retrial you mean what are they really saying here? It's it's as though they want it both ways. We want the conviction. We want you to look bad, but then we don't need to keep you in prison. It's ok, we'll! Let you out- and let me take another point of contention here with this whole motive. She was killing her uncle to inherit the house that was burned.
I mean it's like no one else. Think of that, like that would be the worst way to kill somebody, because you're literally burning up the property that you're seeking, I mean I, I dunno. Some people are dumb and they might do that, but that never was countered by the defense. It just seems weird: What of course, it comes out that she used up whatever money that she had received from bill and then had to pay out more money of her own. Most areas of this fire shed light sophie's fees- she was fine, ten thousand dollars mean yeah, she's gonna be broke. One thing it came out about sign was for a while when she was younger. She was calling bill richardson daddy. Now. Remember, though, writ It's in was her dad's brother, her biological dad's brother and
She was calling him daddy for a while until her dad got wind of it and she felt ban, so she stopped calling build dad. She very much from from what everyone has said that new her that she loved bill Richardson and he was very much her father, so even he was considered her uncle and then her stepfather. It was always her father or her second potter. She is afraid to seek actual innocence, she's afraid to go akin to a courtroom and go for an exoneration, because she feels that they could just reset and sir and send her back to prison. She doesn't trust the system to fix her problem. I get her frustrations, I get her fear, but she's older now, she's not doing well health wise and she
lost a big chunk of her life. Her children need help so attorneys in innocence. Projects are working with her to seek actual innocent so that she can turn around and get compensation for this. For conviction, and she is in texas tat, which I know there's there might be. Some of you out there saying hey, don't pick on my state. Look, we love taxes. I've been down, there are a number of times, but when it comes to the legal system down. There are some of the worst cases. I've ever seen have come from texas at carmona, we're in the
is this driving you happy and with the widest selection of used cars under twenty thousand dollars, you're bound to find a car that will put a smile on your face. Carvana gives you control by letting you customize your down and monthly payments. You can browse tens of thousands of cars online to find one within your budget and you won't get surprised with any bogus fees. Visit, karbala dot com or download the app to shop for a vehicle. Carvana will drive. You happy availability, may vary by market we at wondered. Creators of doktor death scan fluency were said over my dead body, live, breathe and downright obsess overture crime, and now we're launching the ultimate true crime fan. Experience exhibit see. It's true The criminal exhibits sea will emerge. She went to the investigation of scandals, controversies and cold cases that will keep
you on the edge of your detective sea, like never before, exhibit see, gives you an inside look at all of the evidence and takes you step by step through the twists and turns of each case. Exhibit c is home to fan giveaways, exclusive merchandise, members only content and announcements. The community of true crime obsessed fans around the world joined now by following wonder. He exhibits, see on facebook or find us on the web at wonder. He exhibits, si dot com and listen to true crime. On wondering amazon music exists, it see it's true,
criminal. I mean this is a prime example that bad junk science was used in trial and, if its not challenged by the defence, then it gets in its like the carry max cook one. They dated a fingerprint and said the fingerprint was laid on a door at the exact time of the murder. you, you can't do that. But if you dont challenge it, if you dont object or if the judge doesn't allow you to object to it, you can say: pigs fly in it goes in, it goes in and the jury we now have to determine your guilt.
If you are riding on a flying pig when you made when you committed the murder in that's acceptable, regardless of reality, and here we have a case where they have fabricated results. That are what got the conviction of this. What I think is an innocent women. One of the really telling moments in this whole fiasco is a man who worked at the county tax college lab, where Joe katharina worked had gone to the people that run the lab and said hey. I'm seeing a lot of crap coming through here, a lot of tests that weren't run properly or people just making up results, and they ended irish him, so the whistle blower, whose reporting that there is a problem in that their fabricating evidence against innocent people were tainting the evidence
is. Let go is that what you're saying here yeah his name is doktor larry at duarte and date and around and said they were firing him because he had falsified lab results but see this backfires on them because he had meticulously documented everything he had done, and so, when it came time to show the cards they had ro chance of any success ass fighting this guy and they had to settle for three hundred fifty thousand dollars and give him his job back. Although he quit the next day, he wasn't staying there just for sure he filed the wrongful termination suit and he won with flying colours. You don't mess of the Taipei, a rod, pont and who is district attorney at the time. He said that, despite the problem of not having an accelerated proven to be on the scene, he said that there's other
and said he is using to suggest that she did set the fire and he says that there were no fires, that house until sanyo moved in so it's over ten years of no fires, and he said the singed hair that she had shows that she probably set the fire. Yet before she moved in. I don't think bill what are reported any fires, because he apparently pad lots of fires. Secondly, we ve already mentioned that. When the first police officer showed up. He kicked in the front door and sonya win and after him, so she was around fire multiple times either when she was escaping from the house or when she first the other police officer into the house into the fire. So I'm not really sure sure why this since hair is such a suspect item that they like
point out what he has other evidence he brings out, but it's pretty lame. In my opinion, one of the points he makes is that why is she trying to thanks through a window when she could have just gone back through the window she escaped from there was in. According to him, there was that very much smoker heat damage in her room. So why didn't she does go back in their ponting? Doesn't care about the true? I would say he loses his own primary to a young inexperienced guy, and I think it's because people didn't like em. If you look at the way handles this case, he doesn't care evidence he cares about his got instinct and for him, that's all that matters. I say if we want to talk about the good things that come out of this case. Is that the
people seem to know when they were dealing with someone who was full of it and pont and seem to be full of it. The way they investigate fires changes because you know when you put up a hint, you know you're you're tuesday, clue day. A lot of people talked about another case. They guessed another texas case where a man was charged and convicted of arson, killing his family and he was sentenced to death. You're talking about cameron, Todd Willingham yeah, we could have a man that was executed, who was innocent and taxes sonya, who spent the rest of her life behind bars because of this bs junk science that they were using. Yes, so if there were any cases that predated this two thousand five state law
that allows our friends at commission to evaluate claims of convictions based on junk science while heck, you know we're not going to go back and look anything prior to two thousand five, and this is where they are putting finances and they're, putting laziness ahead of the truth and of protecting the public, because if you have someone who's been wrongly convicted and yet oh, we can't go back another year or two to investigate their case. That's that's wrong. I, I mean what would you say that just a mean it they're just willing to say who cares if their innocent we'll take care of her one from here on our justice retro active with a with a deadline? I dont get that when we were talking about the the other tech who was the pretty much the whistle blower saying these are the people are doing their jobs correctly? I take pride in
work, I do- and I beat myself up when I make mistakes and nobody's life- is on the line when I do a pod, castor, when I fix a computer so to see the complete disregard from these lab tax. From these prosecutors- who are involved with this and they just disregard it and double down on whatever their original finding was. It is disgusting, and I I wish I could try to give something positive here, but I I feel that this is showing me that they absolutely can plant evidence, fabricate evidence, and now, when I look at other murderers and rape is who I absolutely think are guilty, I think well, should I start taking their side? Is the system that corrupt, where I start saying let em all walk, because if you can't do this correctly
then how are we supposed to believe you on these other cases and, unlike batman, were you know when two faces expose imbalances? While we can't that, because it'll reverse all the criminals that he's put in prison. Now that doesn't happen you can show that a prosecutor is completely corrupt, they won't do anything about his prior convictions that they don't have to. in this case, we see that all will go back to the certain date and reinvested gate, but we don't really have the funds to go back any further than that. So hey, if you didn't two thousand for well sorry about it. So in two thousand ten innocence project of texas get the ball rolling on trying to get her exonerated, because well we ve gone through it
there is no evidence at all that sign. Your casey set the fire that that these state claims took the life of her uncle bill. Richardson during this, the state will still come back and we will have a couple dissenting judges who will say no, she doesn't deserve actual innocence. She doesn't deserve compensation, they will question. and in their dissenting opinions all the evidence against her. They will even makes statements regarding her original trial. Saying- guy, if all these things have come to light, she wouldn't have been found guilty, but because she was already found guilty. The burden of proof to find her actually innocent is much greater than it is in the initial trial. So they still dissented, but the majority actually found her actual
innocent and they cleared her wholly crap. They are seeking compensation. Eighty thousand dollars for every year she spent behind bars and another twenty five thousand a year for each year she was on parole, plus the state would cover her health insurance, she's got actual innocence. She has been totally exonerated in the texas innocence project, got her that but she's destitute she's in terrible health, so now they're going for the compensation, and that would help,
her immensely and help her family out immensely, who have suffered greatly from this, but I dont know if she's gonna be around long enough to enjoy this and that's the really sad part she's in her late sixties, in poor health lot of her family members have been in poor health, so she's had a hard line. and for them to becoming coming around with this compensation. Now seems a little late to me, but I'm glad it looks like she's gonna get it. I think in closed. We should kind of go over. What's really wrong with all of this, I mean on one hand, you can always say if someone is wrongly convicted, it's a terrible thing because they get sent to prison. Their reputation is destroyed. They have the death of a loved one placed at their feet there responsible. But beyond that you had
a lab that supposedly was contaminated, and this is something that Jocasta Raina admitted to a number of times. The really disturbing part is they went after among this. He was quest about this well, did you ever tell anybody. He said. No, no one ever asked then lay Ronnie goes on to say that they discovered what the problem wasn't there it and they want to know who he was talking about you, because he kept saying we and he was refer to another man that worked there, a guy by the name of Robert rodriguez, here's a with that is. You would think that in a lab, if you have some contamination in this case, they had well according to joke ass. Rather they had two different types of contamination going on. You think that they would take it to their superiors and say: look we ve got contamination, let's fix this, but according to Joe, is they too
care of it. Does that make you feel better yeah I mean Joe, the guy that's being accused of all the contamination says he took care of it. Why wouldn't he have right Larry, a twat We talked about him earlier. In is the one that has really come out and, spoken out about this, so called contamination at the lab, and I think it's important because they tried shutting down. They tried making it to where he couldn't talk about this and since he was, well documented and he was so solid in his claims. They couldn't shut him down and they couldn't shut him up and so he's been out there and he's talked quite a bit about this stuff and he's not coming out in saying that the contamination was deliberate, buddy saying it
possible and I think that's a scary thought that people would contaminate samples to get the results they want. We covered that in a premium episode where any do can premium absurd, go check it out. It was drug tests, it was all kinds of criminal tests that she was running and she pretty much working with pride. cuter to get these convictions and they would come to her in this case, he's saying that the contamination was prevalent he was a whistle blower and they tried to shut him up. They terminated him and they tried to give him with it tried to stick with a gag order. Why would they do that? Just just think about that. Nobody wants to air correct. Nobody wants to take accountability, its status quo or nothing. I think we have room for improvement and that's all
was trying to do, but I will say I think if you look, even though it took a while, in this case the fact that she was exam It gives you hope that even in texas, where we have a lot of examples of bad results and poor investigations and questionable trials, I think maybe word turning a corner. The fact that we can turn this around, even if it took a while they were able to turn it around and Sonya, was able to get her reputation back
Do you hear that. It's a little space for mindfulness, become a meditation pie, gas in fifteen minutes are, alas, become yours is to unwind, listen, exe simply on amazon, music or simply I could have ass alexa play the podcast become
Transcript generated on 2022-10-15.