Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
Hey everybody, it's Lacy and I'm Lauren and we're here for another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: And today we're starting our book club episodes. And once again it is John Grisham's book called Framed. And we're gonna go into two cases this morning and mine is on my phone. So I promise if you see me looking at my phone during this, I'm not texting. I am just. I used to be a paperback girl, but then I got a Kindle and then I got the Kindle app. So this is how I've been reading. And then this morning we do want to give a shout out to our South Carolina Gameco. Lacy, show your shirt. We are in the sweet 16 again. Yes. So we're excited about that and but we're going to talk about today we got two parts of the book we're talking about and this is going to be a multi part series. So definitely, if you haven't read the book yet, still read the book. It's really not hard to read. I think it's about 300 pages.
Definitely not an easy read emotionally, but an easy read as far as like reading wise. But today we're going to start off and talk about two cases. I'm going to talk about the Norfolk four case, which obviously me and Lacy both read all this. We're going to have intake and tell them what you're going to talk about.
[00:01:19] Speaker A: Lacy, I'm going over the Ellen reason over case. And like we said, this is an easy read and each story is like 30 pages. And if you follow our Instagram account, we will highlight what stories we're doing each week. So if you saw this week we mentioned that we were doing these two, we'll have another teaser to say what we're reading. So if you just want to read those two things before next week, definitely just follow our account and you'll see what stories that we are going over so you can kind of maybe skip along in the book so that way you know what we're talking about.
But Lauren, I really want to get started with your story because it was also, I hesitate to say a favorite. Right? Because I don't.
[00:01:58] Speaker B: These stories are so sad.
[00:01:59] Speaker A: It's hard to say favorite. Right?
You know, people are like, oh, what's your favorite serial killer? Well, none of them are my favorite, but the ones that capture my attention the most and intrigued me. So Norfolk, I guess, was one of the ones. So I really want to start with yours, if that's okay.
[00:02:16] Speaker B: That is So I will say this case to me kind of reminded me of like the crucible. Like we were on a witch trial hunt here. Like, it was like nothing was ever gonna make them happy. But to be on this witch hunt. And it was very tunnel vision, very focused and they had blinders on. Like, it really was like the witch hunt to me. Like, I really felt like we were back like cold war days. Like, oh, you're a communist, like, oh, you're the rapist kind of thing. Like, it was. I think why this case was one of my favorites was because it really opened my eyes to how sometimes the justice system gets way too tunnel visioned on a case and can't see anything else. Like, and this whole book does a lot of that. But this is, I think, the first case, so just kind of an overview. In this case, these. This all happened like right near military or some type of military base up in Norfolk, Virginia. It's really sad story as far as what happened. A wife of one of the guys who was in the military was brutally raped and murdered.
Very she, very sad. I think he was like away, like deployed or something at that time. She was by herself. And in this situation, we know who the killer is and the cops don't even care.
[00:03:46] Speaker A: Like, DNA, right?
[00:03:48] Speaker B: I can't remember.
[00:03:50] Speaker A: They had a DNA sample. Yeah.
[00:03:54] Speaker B: So in this situation, pretty much what happened is there was no forced entry into the house.
She had let this person in and this person had just came. There's no forced entry, no signs of like robbery, anything like that. It was not some random act.
But what happened is the police, and there was only.
I will say this one may get a little bit graphic as far as words we use, which I know we're usually relatively like friendly on this type stuff, but there was only semen from one person. So like, it is one person went in, raped and killed this girl. So it is not a bunch of people from all the evidence there. But the police decide to start questioning some of these other military guys and their tactics are just terrible. They are questioning these guys for 10 and 12 hours straight to the point they're delusional. Well, what starts out is they question one guy, but he obviously couldn't do it because he was with somebody else. So they question that guy. And now there's two people that have done it. And then by the end of it, there are, I believe, a total of seven men they have said came together. And a lot of these men did not even know each other. And this is gonna be a terrible term Though to gang rape this girl is what they're saying. Like it was these seven men.
[00:05:18] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:05:18] Speaker B: There's only. Because semen from one and the semen from one.
Why would you like. I just, I guess in my opinion, these seven men supposedly raped this one girl and they didn't know each other. They all made a plan to come together. And this crime happened within about 15 to 30 minutes. It was not a long time frame. They came together, raped this girl, all looked out for each other, for one of them to rape this girl. Even though in the case DNA evidence was exonerating them. But they kept adding more people to try to find this DNA. And I will say none of the guys that were questioned were ratting on the other guys because they, none of them had did this. And the whole time there was a guy out named Omar Ballard who had been convicted of stuff before.
After this, he had actually confessed during this whole time he told the cops I did it.
[00:06:13] Speaker A: And that wasn't turned over to the defense. Right.
[00:06:17] Speaker B: I think, I don't think it was what happened there. They said Omar and these guys all came together and did it. That's right.
[00:06:24] Speaker A: Yeah. Because what they were doing with the sample is with the one guy, they tested it with this, the sample that they had and didn't match. And they're like, oh well, somebody else was involved. So then they'd get another name and they're like, okay, they work together. Then the DNA didn't match that one. So literally the police were adding people to get the DNA to match and expanding on their theory because they kept getting it wrong. But they couldn't admit that.
[00:06:52] Speaker B: No, they kept going out like, what? That's why it makes me feel like a witch hunt. Because they literally were so narrow minded in this, knowing good and well there's this other guy out there that the semen has matched in a different case. And then after this, this guy raped and murdered again. So because of their tunnel vision, another person was killed. If they had just got the right person and listened to the evidence to start with. And the thing that's really sad is a lot of these guys, four of them ultimately went to jail for this.
Three of them, one like it was crazy. They had really good alibis. Like one of them was on a ship.
[00:07:31] Speaker A: Like they're all something verified that he was with something like that.
[00:07:36] Speaker B: Yeah, he was on a ship. The captain verified it. But they interrogated it him for so long, he just made up any story because he was exhausted and stressed out and said, okay, I did It I ran off the ship, I killed her. I came back, got back on the ship. Even though there's no log of him leaving this ship, his captain had seen him there, there during the time of the murder. And the police just accepted this story.
[00:08:00] Speaker A: And there was one that was intellectually disabled, like a lower iq, I believe, as well.
And they fully took advantage of that and exploited that to get a confession. I can't remember if he was one of the ones that went to prison or not.
[00:08:17] Speaker B: I don't think he ended up going to prison. But yes, in this case there was a person who was.
I mean, at this time, they didn't probably have him classified, but in today's time, he probably would have been on disability, unable to testify. And it's just crazy that even though the DNA didn't match, they just kept adding people, adding people. And I think it shows you like that. I would recommend even if you don't read this book, go online and just you can look at this story everywhere. Because the police, I think the big things the police did wrong. So tunnel vision wouldn't get this story. Even their new evidence was coming out. They didn't care. And I think you're going to see this as a theme of the book. They don't care. New evidence comes out, don't care. This is our killer. We're sticking with it. Right in the way they interrogated these people for 10 to 12 hours. No food, no water, and you're exhausted and you're falling asleep and they just continue to question you. I mean, in my opinion, this is almost to the level of cruel and unusual punishment type stuff, like how you would do with the terrorist. Not a person that is a most. None of these men had convictions prior. None of them were a threat to the community. They were all in good standing with. I think they were in the Navy, I'm not sure, but one of the bases. So like they had been through a lot and during the case of this was really sad as one of the men was sitting in prison for a murder he didn't commit. His wife died of breast cancer during this.
[00:09:52] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:09:53] Speaker B: And he wasn't even allowed to be with her.
[00:09:58] Speaker A: It's just so sickening and annoying and it's like the police cannot admit, like, okay, we got this wrong. Let's reconvene and go back. Because like you were saying, the DNA didn't match. The DNA didn't match. Kept adding people and turned it into, okay, this was a solo thing, but now it's a gang thing. Because A gang rape because it's not adding up with the semen sample. But also like common sense tells me that if this was a gang rape, there would be additional physical evidence and there wasn't. You know, if you have this many people in a small apartment, people are going to hear it. You're not going to be able to be completely quiet. There's going to be people that like the neighbors and stuff like what is going on over there? Feel like there would be fingerprints, additional DNA from something else, maybe that or that was like touched or something. But there was nothing else with anybody like connecting it to any of those guys. So that too was annoying for me. It's like, come on, use your common sense.
[00:11:01] Speaker B: And I think some questions we've kind of got that have arisen from this chapter in the book that we kind of probably, maybe this is my fault. I dug in, but probably need to take a step back and talk about is who comes in to help these guys. So what this is, is a. So like these people usually do hire private attorneys, but they can only take you so far in the fact that your funds are probably limited in this.
So like they will hire somebody and then they get convicted and they start to appeal it. So a lot of times as soon as you're convicted, if you know it's a wrongful conviction, you're going to appeal it and they can keep going and going. But with this case, every appeal kept getting denied, everything, there was no hope. And eventually this non profit group comes in and takes over and they have just a team of attorneys that are fighting these cases and they have to come in and usually like grants and those type things and private donors help this company run because normal, we don't, normal people, even, you know, very middle class people do not have the funds to keep funding a defense for years. So it came off with a nonprofit group of attorneys and investigators come in and they understand these cases and they will usually partner with local attorneys to make sure, like the judges. I will tell you, being in small towns or those type things, knowing how your judges operate does make a huge difference just on their preferences, like when they go into court. So a lot of times these attorneys from the outside will still partner with the local attorneys just to understand every court is different. So understanding your local norms and stuff.
[00:12:46] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:12:46] Speaker B: And so that comes in and they really help. It was the Innocence Project that came in and really helped to get these guys. But I. This case went all the way to the governor. That is how they got pardoned. The nonprofit took it to Tim Kane, who was the governor at the time, and he actually conditionally pardoned all these individuals. So.
[00:13:08] Speaker A: And pardon does not mean the conviction is overturned. It just means the state forgives you.
[00:13:14] Speaker B: And they had all spent. So these four guys who never raped, never murdered this girl who ended up, you know, one of them losing their wife to cancer. I think one of them's parent passed away during this. They were in prison, I think, 10 to 15 years easy. And yeah, they never. They. The justice system completely failed them because they appealed it. Appeals will be denied. It was a pardon from the actual governor that got them out. And then after this, though, one thing they did do.
You're right, though, it did not pardon them as far as it did.
[00:13:50] Speaker A: It doesn't overturn the conviction. Yeah, pardon me. That you're out of jail or prison, but it's still on your record, and that still stands as a conviction. And in the bigger picture, that means that you can't sue the state for wrongful conviction. So when you see somebody exonerated, well, they're not truly exonerated until that conviction is gone. You can't sue the state for wrongful conviction unless it's gone. So with the governor pardoning them, it releases them from prison, but doesn't release them from being a convicted killer.
[00:14:22] Speaker B: And so with the conditional part, yes, they were still sex offenders and felons. So that was the conditional pardon. But then after the fact, the detective that worked on their case was actually sued, and he was a dirty cop, pretty much. He. So I think in this, we told you we're gonna talk about jailhouse snitches and those type things. So what would happen is this detective would go to the jailhouse and say, you know, I'll get you off if you'll tell me this, and, you know, say it on the stand, or, you know, there was actually cash involved with his. He'd ran. He'd made over, I think, close to $100,000 by working with these inmates, getting paid, and then having them become snitches. So that way he got them convicted through jailhouse snitches. But then the pot, the pardons were really hurting these guys as they were not able to work, they were not able to do anything. So the lawyers actually did seek a petition to be able to get where these people were no longer considered criminals. And that did happen.
So eventually, they were completely exonerated from this. But it took 25 years to do this. They suffered PTSD. They cannot have normal lives there. I mean, and Yeah, I think this happened when they were about mid-20s, so they're getting out at 50. So like the years they had, you know, to have children, to have that.
[00:15:51] Speaker A: Family, a career and support a family is gone. And you know what bothers me? So like so we have an ethics committee and there's certain things that if we know another attorney or do we are mandated to report that ethically some things you can report but we have an ethics code that we have to live by. And I mean I think I would do the right thing either way. Same for you Lauren. But I do think that does keep some people in check. And there's sometimes my clients are like I need a guarantee from you and always say I can't guarantee you anything. That's an ethical violation and I'm not losing my law license.
I don't think there's anything like that for police officers. And I think that's why some of these things happen and why they get such tunnel vision because they can like what's, what's the repercussion? Like you said this took 25, 30 years and yeah, that did. Guy did get sued but how many years was he doing this and nobody did anything and reported it. I know they have internal affairs and stuff like that, but I don't think there's anything that's like mandated to report to them. I could be wrong.
[00:16:57] Speaker B: But sometimes the hard part do like as attorneys, like we are self regulating industry so like if you do something wrong, I'm mandated to report you. And the part about that being that if you do something wrong I have to report. Like that's the way we can continue to be self regulating. But I think and a lot of times we're not always turning over our bosses or those type things. We're turning over maybe opposing counsel or situations. But like in the cops world a lot of times it's the lower cops seeing these higher cops do things. And I think that's hard because am I going to lose my job? And I don't know, I don't like for us we can report anonymously some tips which I think give us some safety because you don't want to be fired or anything. And yet there needs to be regulations because it said he made over 100,000 or 80,000 was what the book said he probably made three or four times that because you're never going to trace it, you're never going to cash.
[00:17:55] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah.
[00:17:57] Speaker B: And so I definitely think this case shows you tunnel vision. It shows you that. And what happens when you're wrongfully convicted. Like when you sit in jail for 20 years and you know, you're. While they're out. And I think they've all suffered ptsd. A lot of them are not able to function normally because their most developmental years as an adult were sent in prison. And yeah, you may get money for it, but that never gets your time back.
[00:18:23] Speaker A: No.
So carrying on with very similar things, especially with jailhouse snitches. And it's kind of reversed in the next story. The police paying a snitch to say stuff. Switching gears to Ellen Reason over.
So Ellen Reason, over. In January of 1983, a store clerk named James Buckley was murdered while at his job.
Ellen Reason, reason over. Was convicted for murdering him. And I picked this story because she is the only female in the book that was convicted and later exonerated. But also, like I said, it really, the mom part of it really broke my heart. So Ellen was a single mom and she had a two year old and she was, it was easier for her mom to watch the two year old at night when the two year old was sleeping. So she would go to the laundry mat and errands sometimes in the middle of the night while her two year old was sleeping. So that way her mom could watch her kid and she could get these things done. So she had gone to the laundromat to wash clothes and her mom had her two year old at home and she ran out of coins.
So she went to a convenience store and like nothing was going on or whatever. So she left and went somewhere else.
So later, like the next day, they found out that where she was at that convenience store, the clerk, James Buckley, had been shot multiple times and murdered. So she did not want to call the cops because she did see two individuals there and a vehicle. But her grand, her mom encouraged her to do the right thing, like, you need to help, you're a witness. So finally she agreed to call the police and come in and give a statement and describe the two individuals and the vehicle that she saw by the store that night to assist in the investigation that eventually led them to state that she did it herself. So they put her in jail.
They accused her of killing him. And it didn't even match up like the trajectories in the gun. She had no prior criminal history. She did have some relatives that were in prison and had been convicted of some violent acts, but not Ellen. Ellen had not. And it's almost like they use that against her, like, oh, well, it's a family thing. And so they put her in prison, and eventually they, like, accused her boyfriend and being involved as well.
While she's in prison, she. Or not prison in jail. And just for clarification, jail is when you're being detained prior to a conviction. Prison is after you've been convicted. So while she's in jail pending this charge, she talks to some other women in there. Well, she gets out, the police go. And there's two jailhouse informants that the police work with. One had been arrested for several fraud charges. And I bring that up because it's important to know, because that's a crime of dishonesty, fraud stick, stealing, stuff like that, that I've always said, like, I would hire a paralegal with. With a marijuana conviction, I would hesitate on fraud or shoplifting, because how can you trust that person? Right. So, like, that's a credibility issue. So already that was sketchy.
But they talked to her. She's like, oh, yeah, I can tell you stuff, but I need a deal. So they offered to dismiss all these charges, and she was going to get a lot of time because she had been doing this. She'd been convicted of all of it in the past, and now she had it going again. So she says that Ellen confessed to the murders to her, and she.
They also paid another informant to say the same thing. That's all the evidence they had. It was. There was no physical evidence, no eyewitnesses, nothing else. They literally convicted her with two jailhouse snitches.
[00:22:44] Speaker B: She turned herself into the police. Like, that's like, the crazy part to me. They had no idea she was there. Had she not told them about these two other guys.
[00:22:54] Speaker A: No, no. And I can't imagine how her mama felt when all this was playing out. Like, I'm the one that told her to. Do you know what she felt was the right thing? Yeah.
So the two women with, like, long criminal histories and one was stealing was Rose Joliff and Mary Ellen Liner.
Those were the ones that testified against her at the trial.
She. They did seek the death penalty in this case. And there was one juror that was the holdout that saved Ellen's life. She's the reason Ellen was able to continue to fight to prove her innocence. Without that, it is a scary thought to think that this woman would have been put to death.
[00:23:45] Speaker B: That is crazy to me. I guess, like, from my perspective, that the jury could see these two people sitting in jail and they can take that testim. Like, they can look at them and say, oh, they're. They're Truthful. Right. That's kind of crazy to me. Yeah.
[00:24:03] Speaker A: Yeah. And there were. So after she. She maintained her innocence, she wrote so many people about.
Was later overturned.
One of the. There's two things that came out after the trial that was exculpatory material. And what that means is material showing that Ellen was innocent that was not turned over to her original trial attorney. And you may have heard us talk about this before, but that's a Brady violation.
We talked about in our last episode that there shouldn't be too many surprises from the state in a criminal case because they're required to turn everything over to the defense, including anything that is exculpatory in nature. So this is where we see the prosecutor also participating in this essential cover up, you know, to cover up what the police did. This shrimp. Um, so there was a tape with one of the jailhouse informants because they were trying to, like, catch Ellen on tape admitting to this crime. Instead, it was the complete opposite. So the informant is talking to her and, like, trying to get her to say. And she kept just saying, like, I don't know why this is happening to me. I didn't do this. I wouldn't do this. Like, yeah, it's. It's so hard because she did get out on bond. So she's literally on this call with the informant completely con, like, saying she didn't do it, she had nothing to do with it. There was nothing on it. So that's exculpatory material because that's showing, like, she gave. She gave a complete opposite statement of what this informant was saying. And Ella didn't know she was being recorded then, of course. So that tape was never turned over to the defense. There's another tape of her talking to her boyfriend. Just really frustrated with the police, like, basically calling them stupid, because how on earth would they think she did this? And she could, like, overpower this man and just shoot him for nothing because there wasn't even that much money taken from the store.
So it just didn't make any sense. So there was two recordings, two tapes where she's maintaining her innocence and professing it and calling the police stupid, you know, for, like, believing that she would ever do something like this. And that was never turned over to the defense.
So that was two of the reasons that Judge Hamilton, that was the judge that overturned her conviction.
They said that her trial was fundamentally unfair and deprived her of her rights. She also stated that there was no physical evidence, of course, linking her to the crime. There was no witnesses placing her at the scene. There was really no motive because there was only, like, because they found almost $3,000 in the safe at the store that was still there, that wasn't even taken.
So it really didn't make sense that this was, like, a robbery gone wrong as well as addressing, you know, the issues with the jailhouse informants and the issue with the Brady violation. So she was exonerated as well. When she got out. Her daughter was 18 years old. So she missed her whole growing up. Everything. Yeah, from 2 years old to 18 years old, she missed her daughter's entire, you know, life. When you get to be right there with your. Your kid, you know, 18 is when your k are typically moving out or getting, you know, ready to move out and enter that next chapter. Like, that's the nurture stage. That's prime time for being A mom is 2 to 18, I feel. And that just broke my heart. Like, who are you to take that away from her for no reason? And I do believe that race played a part in this.
Ellen is a black woman. And, you know, in the 80s, I mean, you still see racism play into it. Today, I can't even say it because it's the 80s. The same stuff happens today. It's just being caught and called out more. I do feel that.
So I definitely do think that played a part in it. And Ellen did say, like, that was one of the reasons she didn't want to call the police.
She didn't want to deal with it, and she didn't know how she would be looked at because of, you know, her being a black woman and the police being racist. And I won't say it's because she's a black woman. It's because they're racist. And so I do. I think that also played a part in this story. So jailhouse informant, Brady violation and racism is what led to the wrongful conviction of Ellen. Reason over.
[00:28:40] Speaker B: Well, we hope you have enjoyed, like, our first dive into the book club. One update I did want to give on something we've talked about before, and I just. It hit me. Kanye has went on another tie parade recently.
[00:28:52] Speaker A: Oh, gosh.
[00:28:53] Speaker B: About Beyonce's children. And the reason you only see Blue Ivy is because Beyonce's other children are. I believe he used the R word to describe them.
Stop.
[00:29:07] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:29:08] Speaker B: So two topics we've talked about before. So when are we going to get help for Kanye out here? Get him. But I do think he's not seeing his kids as much, thankfully. I think the Kardashians have stepped in for that, but I just had seen that in the news, so I wanted to. Not news, but, yeah, you know, like.
[00:29:24] Speaker A: So another thing with Kanye is he released a song with P. Diddy on it and Northwest, which, if you follow, you know, that's Kanye and Kim's oldest child. She's very much interested in the entertainment industry and being an entertainer. And so he released text messages where Kim was saying, like, take this down.
And I do. It does. From what I've read, it does seem like she brought him to, like, a mediator, which you're talking about, to. And it was taken down.
But unfortunately, I think if he doesn't get some help, we are going to continue to see more restrictions with him and his children. From Kim, it did seem like she. She does step up to protect them, but she also recognized there's only so much she do because he is an adult and she's not married to him anymore. So I think her primary thing is just protecting her children, and she can't force him to get help and reach out. I don't know that she could even take over with a conservatorship. I don't know what standing and ground she would have. But, yeah, it's definitely crazy. So I. I definitely think it's something we should continue to follow.
[00:30:40] Speaker B: Well, and if y'all want to keep, we're doing more book club next episode, so definitely join us, read the book, and we'll see you next week.
[00:30:48] Speaker A: All right. Bye, Lauren.
