UPDATE: Angela "Mischelle" Lawless (Interview with Josh Kezer)

[00:00] Hi, Crime Junkies, it's Britt, and I have big news. One of my favorite seasonal shows, CounterClock, is back with a brand new season, and it is wild. Host Delia D'Ambra is digging into the 2008 Lane Bryant murders. I mean, this isn't just a recap. It is a reinvestigation. She's talking to law enforcement, people from the community, even sources who have never spoken publicly until now. And you know I love a show that asks all the questions. Listen to CounterClock Season 8 now, wherever you get your podcasts. [00:30] Hey, Crime Junkies, Ashley Flowers here, and today we're doing something a little bit different. We have kind of an update on one of our old episodes. That's episode 34 on the murder of Angela Michelle Lawless. Sometime after we released the episode, we were actually contacted by Josh Kieser. He is the man who was wrongfully convicted for her murder. We had the opportunity to have a really long conversation with him, learn about some of the stuff that's misreported in his [01:00] and what he's doing now and where Angela's case stands. So what we're going to do is we're going to re-release the episode next. So if you just recently found our show, you've binged it, you're familiar with all the details, you can check our show notes and jump right to the hour-long interview with Josh. But if it's been a while, if you've been a crime junkie for some time, I bet the details are fuzzy.

[01:30] the entire interview with Josh. I'm so excited to be able to talk to him. And I think you guys are going to be really interested in what he has to say. [02:08] So [02:10] All right, Britt, today I'm telling the story of a girl named Angela Michelle Lawless. And our story starts in the early morning hours of November 8th, 1992, shortly before 1.25 a.m. to be exact, in the small town of Benton, Missouri. A couple is driving down the highway when they see a car pulled over with its headlights on, the car is running, and the dome light is on. [02:36] When the couple sees this car, they pull up beside it and the husband offers to get out and check, but his wife insists that he doesn't. And I feel like maybe she had some crime junkie instincts because all of this scene feels really wrong. Yeah, definitely. Right. So when they pull up, they didn't see anything specific. It just felt weird. So they decide the safest thing to do isn't to go exploring Hardy Boy style and do their own investigation.

[03:06] office and report the car to police. When they get to the sheriff's office, there's a reserve officer working at the time named Rick Walter, along with another officer named Roy Moore. And they're just about getting off their shift, so the two decide to go check out the car themselves. Rick Walter pulls up and parks in front of the six-year-old Burgundy Buick, and the scene is nothing like what [03:36] Inside the car is a girl slumped over in the driver's seat. His partner that's with him, Roy Moore, popped the door open with two fingers. And the two men shouted a couple of times, trying to wake this person up. They thought maybe she was drunk, maybe she's sleeping. But they get no response. Then Rick Walter shines his light in, trying again to maybe startle the person or see what's going on. And... [04:03] They think for sure, yeah, this couple's right. This girl's just passed out. The driver's drunk. Until they see the blood. Lots and lots of blood. The girl didn't appear to be breathing, so Rick Walter radios in for an ambulance at 129 in the morning. While he's making this call, another person comes in to report this scene to the sheriff's station. [04:33] Benton exit off the highway. Now, when I say Mr. Abbott, you might be picturing an older man, maybe someone who could be like a dad, but this was actually kind of a young guy, maybe Michelle's age or slightly older in his early 20s, like tops. Mr. Abbott says there was blood everywhere and she had been shot. At first, Mr. Abbott says that he told the officer he thought that maybe she was drunk like the other people had thought. And he said that he leaned through the window, which he

[05:03] by the waist, trying to sit her up when he saw all of the blood. And at the time that he's reporting this, they're obviously getting the same call about the same thing from one of their own officers. So since they didn't see any blood on this man, they don't hold him for questioning, and the man leaves the station. [05:21] Back at the scene, Rick Walter and Roy Moore are taking in more of the scene as they wait for help. And here's what they observe. [05:29] And all of this is going to be super important later. The driver's side window was rolled down five to seven inches. The victim, who they identify to be a woman, doesn't appear to be wearing any rings. She just had socks on her feet and her shoes were somewhere else in the car. And it looked like there was grass and weeds on the bottom of her socks. So they're thinking that she had gotten out of her car at some point. And to back this up, there appeared to be drops of blood outside of her vehicle. [05:59] About the time the first responder comes responding to Rick Walter's call, he checks for a pulse, but there is none. However, her body is still warm and clammy, so they know that she had to have died shortly before they arrived. This first responder also takes note of the girl's grassy socks and the blood outside of the car. That's when they follow this trail, and it appears that at some point their victim had actually been outside of her car

[06:29] embassy embankment and at the bottom was a bloody scene where they believe that she was severely beaten and hit over the head. They could tell this not only from the scene but from her wounds. What wasn't obvious at first though but becomes clear after officers take a harder look at the car was that the girl had not only been covered in blood from her two blunt force trauma wounds [06:59] that she had actually been shot three times after being beaten. So what they pieced together and what they think happened is that this girl was driving down the highway and they think that someone somehow got her to pull over. There was nothing wrong with her car. So their best guess is that it was someone that she knew or someone that got her attention and would make her feel comfortable enough to pull to the side of the road near the exit. [07:27] And there had to have been some kind of altercation that either made her run down the ramp, or maybe she followed someone down that grassy embankment. But there is where she was beaten, and they think that she was likely... [07:40] hit over the head a couple of times and knocked unconscious, and then carried back up over the hill, over the guardrail, put back in her car where either she was shot while unconscious or some people believe that maybe she regained consciousness. And this is what scared the person. They shot her three times point-blank range, once in the face, once in the back of her head, and once in her back.

[08:10] a white car, a hatchback or station wagon coming towards him. And this person actually comes up and he's driving by really slow, which is creepy. So Roy stops the car and the driver speaks Spanish and asks where he might be able to get some gas. So he directs him basically says everything's closed right now, dude, just like go home. Just minutes after this first encounter, Roy sees [08:40] a man actually approaches Roy directly. And Roy says, you know, can I help you? And this man asked, is she dead? Oh, my God. And Roy's like, what are you talking about? Like, this guy isn't supposed to know anything about the scene. And he said, the girl. I'm the one that found the girl. And this man goes on to tell Roy Moore that he was Mr. Abbott. And he tells him about how he had gone into the sheriff's station to report finding the body. But actually, going to the police wasn't his first move. [09:10] of tells roy a slightly different story he says that he had come upon the scene tells the same story about finding her reaching in the window trying to help her up realizing she was shot so then he says he drives to a nearby pay phone tries to call 911 but for some reason the phone didn't work or he couldn't get through so that's when he drove into the station [09:30] Roy Moore actually calls in to verify this story, and he asked the person in the sheriff's office if he wanted the guy to come back in, and he said, no, you know, we got everything we need from him. You can let him go, too.

[09:43] For decades, some cold cases have been reduced to files in a cabinet, but not anymore. I'm Ashley Flowers, and me and my team on the deck have been traveling across the country to report on these forgotten cases. And in some instances, it's resulted in these cases being solved after decades. [10:03] Join me every Wednesday as we revive these stories one card at a time. Listen to the deck now. [10:10] wherever you get your podcasts. [10:13] As they continue their investigation, they find that the victim is a 19-year-old college student [10:19] Angela Michelle Lawless but she goes by Michelle the first stop they make is around 3 a.m to Michelle's parents house where they have to make the notification and start to try and piece together Michelle's last known movements who might have wanted to hurt her who was she acquainted with who was she hanging out with that night and here's what they learn about Michelle and what she did in the evening hours of November 7th and the early morning hours of November 8th at around 7 [10:50] Around midnight, she drops her friend off at home and she tells her friend that she plans to go home, too. Now, we know for sure she doesn't go home because she ends up murdered on the side of the road at 1.30 in the morning. But we also know for sure that she isn't murdered on her way home because her body was still warm when officers arrived on the scene. So we know that she had to have gone somewhere else. [11:13] and according to her on again off again boyfriend of three years named leon michelle was at his house during that missing time and he said she came over around midnight they had sex and then she left around 1 a.m now michelle and leon were on again and off again because like a they were teenagers and like woof dating was the worst in high school but not for all of us not for yeah

[11:43] So apparently, though, they would also fight a lot. And he would get especially angry or jealous if he saw her hanging out with other guys. So even if it was just... [11:53] friends. I mean, it caused a ton of fights. So that's why they were so tumultuous on again, off again. Leon told the police this about their relationship, but police also confirmed this story from Michelle's diaries that they were on again, off again, but she did really love him. So again, according to Leon, around 1am, Michelle leaves. And as she's leaving, she says again to him that she's going straight home. He did say though, that there was something in her that was [12:23] Like she was kind of lingering. And I don't know if that's just because she's 19 years old and hanging out with her boyfriend or anything. [12:29] If she knew she was heading somewhere else that she didn't want to go to. We know that by 1.25 in the morning, Michelle's car is on the side of the road and she is either mid-attack or has already been attacked. Leon is given a polygraph and passes, so police continue to look for new suspects. All of Michelle's friends say that she didn't have an enemy in the world. She wasn't afraid of anyone before her death, so they felt like they had absolutely nothing to go off of. [12:59] they circle back and talk to the same guy that found her, Mr. Abbott. And things get a little wonky with Abbott. They interview him about that night, his actions, his movements, and what he might have seen. And here's what he tells them. Well, here's what he tells them the first time. He walks them through finding Michelle again. He said, I see the car. I pull over,

[13:29] What? [13:44] Didn't the responding officers notice that she wasn't wearing any rings? Right. So a little bit of a red flag. And this time when he's telling the story, he has something new to add. He says that as his truck was approaching the exit near Michelle's car, he saw a man who looked like a hitchhiker wearing a gray sweatshirt and light colored jeans jump off into that ditch alongside Michelle's car. So this is where we get him saying like he has the first sighting of somebody. [14:14] Not a half an hour later, he gives a more detailed statement to another deputy. And in this version, he finds Michelle in the car. He heads straight for the payphone at the small convenience store, and the store is closed. But he tells police that he dialed 911 from the payphone anyways. And as he's doing so, a small white car rolls up, and a man with dark complexion, who he described as Hispanic, asked for a ride, claiming he was out of fuel. [14:44] sense this version because you'll remember there was a guy that pulled up kind of matching that description and talked to the officer Roy Moore so police okay maybe they can believe this one well when pressed he said it was too dark to give any more detail about what this guy looked like and in another

[15:03] Totally different statement to police. Abbott says that the car's interior was so dark, it was difficult to tell how many people were inside, but it could have been as many as six. [15:14] So first there's this hitchhiker jumping over the guardrail. Then there's this Hispanic guy who asked him for a ride near the scene. Then there's maybe six people in a car. [15:23] that he talks to. So there's a couple of things wrong with Abbott's statements or his ever changing statements, things that stuck with Rick Walter for decades. And the first was his statement to that deputy. The first time that he went in saying he found a woman who had been shot. Now, [15:42] When Rick Walter went to the scene, he remembers saying that, you know, I had no idea what happened to her. I thought she was beat. She was so bloody. I had no idea she had been shot until we found those shell casings. So he thinks it's strange that this person who had little to no interaction with her would have known her cause of death. The second thing that he finds really strange about his statements is the fact about the window. [16:12] up to the scene, the window was only rolled down five to seven inches. Abbott's telling them the window was rolled down enough that he actually got his body into the car and tried to pick her up by the waist. So he's saying that if he actually did put his body in the car, he would have broken the glass. There wasn't enough room and it wouldn't have made sense that the window was rolled down and then he rolled it back up. So that's not flying either. And then the third thing was exactly what

[16:42] only knew it was a woman because of her rings. But if you remember from the beginning of the story, she wasn't wearing any, and all of her rings were found in the center console of her car. So not only did this not make sense, but it would make someone think that maybe this Mr. Abbott guy had seen Michelle at some point that night with her rings on. Yeah, I'm with Rick Walter. There's a lot that doesn't add up here. Right, so he has got his eye on him. He doesn't feel right. [17:12] deputy, like on the reserves. He's not an official investigator. So this is not his case. Now, [17:18] The fourth thing I need to mention that is probably the wonkiest of all, I don't know why I keep using the word wonky, but the weirdest of all, and police knew about this confusion right away. [17:31] but I wanted to get all the other facts out there first, so no one was distracted by it. When Mr. Abbott approached those deputies on the scene, he introduces himself as Mark Abbott. When police called in to the deputy to verify his story about coming in to report the scene, the jailer there said the man identified himself as Matt Abbott. Wait, why would he give two different names? That doesn't make any sense. [18:01] are identical twins. What? Yes. And to this day, there is still a ton of confusion about who reported it, who was actually on the scene. I guess these guys had a history of, like, taking each other's places. When they were younger, they would, like, do each other's schoolwork or play pranks on people, and one person would pretend to be someone that was actually the other. So no one is really buying their story.

[18:31] are sticking to is that the whole time everything was Mark and Matt had nothing to do with it. But the deputy at the sheriff's station says, no, I wrote down Matt Abbott. Why would I write that down? That's who he said he was. So [18:46] This has just been a red flag the whole time of why are these two boys both at the scene, but not being honest about like I could even see one found her and like sent their brother. I mean, I think you could. [18:56] write this off pretty easily, but they're sticking to the story that everything was Mark and it's just a red flag that I can't get rid of. And both of these boys did actually know Michelle. They didn't know her well, but she had mentioned the boys to her friends saying she thought they were cute and she had mentioned them in their diary. So it's possible, it's speculated that at some point she may have dated one of them, but it's not known for sure which one or when. The deputies [19:26] at Mark and they do identify other suspects though. Her boyfriend for one who was last seen with her, a man named Todd Mayberry who Michelle's friends saw her actually fighting with at a Halloween party just a few weeks earlier, but none of these men could be conclusively linked to her murder. The officers bring Mark back in again and have him take a polygraph. He gives yet another story about when he was making that 911 call. This time he talks about meeting that man who ran out of gas [19:56] but he says now that this is a man that he had met earlier that night at a party. He said he gave police that name just 10 days following the crime but this man's name was never released so I have to assume that he was cleared or more likely never existed because mark is bananas. The department continued to identify more people of interest but a month into the investigation deputies still had not

[20:23] A single idea on what the motive would be or why she would have pulled over her car. I mean, they had more questions than answers. And even a month into the investigation, they didn't have a single idea. [20:35] prime suspect. And four months pass before the sheriff's office gets the big break that they've been waiting for. [20:42] For decades, some cold cases have been reduced to files in a cabinet, but not anymore. I'm Ashley Flowers, and me and my team on the deck have been traveling across the country to report on these forgotten cases. And in some instances, it's resulted in these cases being solved after decades. [21:01] Join me every Wednesday as we revive these stories one card at a time. Listen to the deck now. [21:08] wherever you get your podcasts. [21:11] Several inmates at a county jail say that there was a 17-year-old boy from Illinois who was being held in a Missouri county jail very briefly on an assault charge. And while he was there, apparently he had confessed to killing Michelle to these other inmates. And this boy's name was Joshua Kieser. This is huge for the investigators and the prosecutors. [21:41] like the most reliable witness, wink, wink, sarcasm. No, he's not. [21:46] And this is the beginning of a lot that goes wrong in the case against Josh. First, I mean, the fact that they're going to Mark at all when he's changed his story so much to me is crazy. But when they put this photo lineup together, they basically do one sheet and they tell Mark that the person they think did it is in this lineup. And Mark then picks out Josh and says that he looks like it could be the guy that he saw in the car that night.

[22:16] anything. Josh is this like blonde hair, blue eye, white boy. And he said that the guy he saw in the car was a dark skinned Hispanic man. I'm not sure why this like, [22:29] adds up to anyone, ever. [22:32] Yeah, I mean, I'm a light-skinned Hispanic person. So, like, mistaking me for Hispanic? Sure, that's what I am. Mistaking me for white? Sure. But not if you're blonde-haired and blue-eyed. Like, I don't think anyone would mistake me for you. Exactly. So, this statement, though, this lineup, combined with the statements from the jailhouse informants, is all police need, and they end up charging Josh with Michelle's murder. [23:02] Her friends, her family never had heard Josh's name before. Josh says he's never met her. They weren't friends. He isn't mentioned in her diaries. And everyone feels just lost. Was she just at the wrong place at the wrong time? And she ran into this stranger. But that doesn't even really make sense. Because what they can't figure out is like something, someone made her pull over. And she wouldn't have pulled over for a guy she'd never met before. [23:32] thought that she pulled over for someone she knew, and she did not know Josh. But in the sheriff's mind, this was but a minute detail. In the sheriff's mind, Josh fit the profile of a killer. He had an unstable home life. He would bounce from place to place, sometimes even sleeping on the streets. And he had plenty of run-ins with the law by the time he found himself in the county jail at age 17.

[24:03] Now, Josh says there was no way he was anywhere near Missouri when Michelle was murdered. He said he was 350 miles away in Illinois living with his dad at the time. But there wasn't any kind of video proof putting him in Illinois at the time. So the sheriff and the prosecutor charge him with the murder. They say, you know, we can't prove you were here, but we can't prove you're away. So that's really not a hang up for us. [24:32] thing because in his mind, I mean, he's still a kid. He still probably believes in the justice system because growing up, you think, or at least some of us think that police are honest and you think that the whole reason we have this justice system and proven innocent until guilty is because that's how it actually works. And in his mind, there's no way he's going to get convicted of the murder of a girl he had never met, who was murdered in a town 350 miles away from where he was. [24:59] Yeah, that reminds me a lot of Damien Eccles from the West Memphis 3 case. He was kind of nonchalant about this trial, too. Yeah, it was. I remember it being one of the things that actually the jury... [25:11] convicted him on or it added to everything was that they just didn't like him. They thought he wasn't taking the trial seriously. And when he was interviewed years later, he was like, [25:20] Of course I didn't take it seriously. I thought, like, I had never met these boys. I didn't do anything. And I thought the justice system would realize that there was nothing tying me to these boys. So there's no way I'm going to go to prison for it. And it was just, like, all this act, basically, that we had to get through. But the jury read it as no remorse, cold-hearted. Yeah. And it flipped on him. So not only is Josh feeling confident because he knows he didn't do it,

[25:50] two other suspects that are used in the trial. There wasn't any prints of Josh in her car. There was no motive by the prosecution for why Josh would have killed her. There was no paper trail putting him in the state at the time of her murder. And the biggest thing of all, I think, there was blood under Michelle's fingernails and the blood type did not match Josh. Really? It didn't match him and they still took it to trial. Right. Does it match anybody? Did they [26:20] sure they were able to. This was 1994. So DNA was really new. And if one thing I've learned, the more I've done this podcast, looked into wrongful convictions, a lot of times if you don't have honest prosecutors and you don't have honest detectives, they will actually choose not to test evidence if they think there's any chance that it's not going to point to their suspects. They consider it bad evidence. So I think that's what they did in this case. They tested it for [26:50] type to see if it matched Josh. And when it didn't, they didn't push any further because they didn't want to know. They had the guy they wanted to convict. Exactly. And they kind of tried to write it off being like, well, the DNA, the stuff under her fingernails doesn't have to be a result of defensive wounds. Like even if she was defending herself, like she could have grabbed the guy's shirt. I mean, the stuff under her nails doesn't mean anything, which to me is kind of crazy. I think the DNA under your fingernails when you're murdered and she did have marks on her

[27:20] hand and her wrist that were consistent with defensive wounds, so we know she fought. This seems like a key piece of evidence to me. Definitely. So Josh is thinking, okay, not only is there no evidence pointing directly at me, there's also evidence that could be pointing at someone else. [27:35] All they have at this point [27:37] Against Josh is those jailhouse informants and Mark Abbott's testimony that he saw him that night near the scene. And Josh's lawyer was desperately trying to discount Mark's statement, saying that he was, quote, wholly unreliable as a witness, which, let's be honest, he legit was the worst. But he was able to testify anyway. And the prosecution did present some evidence they say is proof of a crime. [28:07] signs of blood when they did some luminol testing. But to me, again, it still doesn't feel like strong enough evidence because it's not like they tested it and it was Michelle's blood. They just said that there were some like spots that showed up. Their case to me was still really lacking, but just before the trial ends, another witness comes forward and provides prosecution exactly what they need to put Josh away. [28:34] This witness provides a motive. A friend of Michelle's named Chantel comes forward with a story that is a very familiar story. Chantel says that there was a man at a Halloween party that Michelle was arguing with. Like Todd Mayberry? Well, no. So when investigators did their investigation, they found that she fought with a Todd Mayberry at the Halloween party.

[29:04] that she fought with. She said that Josh was at the party and he kept asking Michelle out. Michelle kept saying no, and he got really ugly and it got heated. And then he gives up on Michelle, comes up to Chantal and asks her out. And Chantal's like, are you kidding me? You've been asking my friend out all night. And when she turns him down, he slaps her on the back of the head. And even though this sounds super made up because there was someone before who said that guy wasn't Josh, [29:34] so they are going to use it they say okay he was angry at michelle for rejecting him he clearly is violent because he smacked chantal in the back of his head when he didn't get what he wanted this is it and really [29:47] It was the piece that they were missing. It was all they were missing and all the jury needed because with this new witness, the jury deliberated and found Josh guilty of second degree murder and sentenced him to 60 years in prison. Literally the day after the trial was over, another friend, Dawn, who actually had hosted that Halloween party, read about Chantal's testimony and came forward and was like, nah, she spoke to Josh's attorney and said she knew everyone at her party. [30:17] and Josh was not there. But [30:21] It was too late to use her at this point, and the case was over. So Josh goes to prison, sentenced to 60 years, and he was sent to one of the deadliest prisons in America, which has now been closed. A few years after he had been in prison, Josh's mom happens to meet a private investigator named Jim Sullins. He comes into a diner where she's serving as a waitress, and they get to talking about her son and how he's in prison for something he didn't do.

[30:51] her his card probably just as like a nice gesture. And she shows up though weeks later at his office with boxes of materials. And when he looks at Josh's case, and this is 1997 now, he spent the first couple of months actually trying to prove that he did it. He wanted to see what the prosecution saw. What did they know that makes so much sense that made them so sure of his guilt that they could send this kid to prison for 60 years? And he's like, I want to find this so I can show Josh's [31:21] and maybe put her mind to ease that maybe he's where he belongs. But he couldn't find it. Not only could he not find a single thing connecting Josh to the murder, he couldn't find any proof that he had even been in Missouri at all, which is what Josh had been saying the whole time. Multiple family members in Illinois remember seeing him the night of November 7, 1992, less than two hours before Michelle was murdered. From where he was in Illinois, it would have been physically impossible [31:51] get to Michelle and kill her, even if he had known her or had a motive, which by the way, he still did not. This case was slowly eating away at the private investigator. He said it bothered him more than almost any other case he had worked because he couldn't make any kind of connection and he couldn't figure out why the sheriff would have focused in on this guy with no motive and no connection to the crime when there were other suspects. Eventually he packed up [32:20] all of his research, everything that he had gathered, and turned over about 50 pounds of paperwork to the then governor, basically pleading and saying, listen, you have somebody in jail who shouldn't be there. And the governor's office doesn't even dignify his efforts with a response. And he doesn't hear anything about his efforts until 2004, when he's contacted by a woman named Jane,

[32:50] She had gotten to know Josh and taken an interest in his case. And although she had no legal background, you didn't need one to see that this kid got a raw deal. [33:00] So she actually works on his behalf to get a lawyer to take on Josh's case pro bono. So Jane and the lawyer and the PI are all trying to work new leads, file for appeals, do anything they can to give Josh a second shot at a fair shake. While they're working all of their angles, everyone is surprised when a new sheriff comes to visit Josh in prison. [33:25] It's 2006 now. And remember Rick Walter, the first guy to be on the scene, who went to go check out Michelle's car after work? Yeah. [33:34] Well, he is sheriff now, and he has never formally met Josh because, again, he wasn't an investigator. He just arrived on the scene and someone else took over. But he has a sit down with him in prison, and he asked Josh if he trusts law enforcement. And Josh basically says, listen, all I know is I don't trust the Scott County sheriffs. And that's when Sheriff Walter drops a bombshell. He says, listen, I'm on your side. [34:04] And now that I'm in charge, I promise you I'm going to find the truth. You guys. I know. I got like really happy full body chills. Like this is so magical. It's so rare. I mean, we can go into this a little bit later, but... [34:19] to [34:20] overturn a case that's already been closed.

[34:23] I mean, there's financial repercussions. There's political repercussions. What this guy's doing is not popular, but... [34:32] For every bad prosecutor and bad investigator, it is so... [34:36] heartwarming to know that there are a couple of good guys out there who know that people make mistakes and won't stand for it just because they're part of a system. Like I have such a cop crush on Sheriff Walter right now. Seriously. Also cop crush. We need to like brand that or something. Hashtag cop crush. So 15 months after Sheriff Walter met Josh and 27 months into the new investigation, Walter and his team began to question every piece of evidence, [35:06] every alibi, and they start from scratch. Like the PI before them, they found nothing that connected Josh to Michelle's murder. [35:16] For decades, some cold cases have been reduced to files in a cabinet, but not anymore. I'm Ashley Flowers, and me and my team on the deck have been traveling across the country to report on these forgotten cases. And in some instances, it's resulted in these cases being solved after decades. [35:36] Join me every Wednesday as we revive these stories one card at a time. Listen to the deck now. [35:43] wherever you get your podcasts. [35:46] Sheriff Walter hires a full-time investigator to work on the case and naturally the first place this investigator wants to start is with Mark Abbott. What he finds is that Mark's changing stories didn't stop when Josh was convicted and sent to prison. He continued to tell new changing stories. In 1997 there was an entirely different,

[36:08] version that he told police. Now, Mark and Matt both were in jail at the time for manufacturing meth. And Mark offered up a new story about Michelle's homicide, hoping that maybe he could get leniency in his drug case. The story he tells this time is that a man named Kevin Williams, who was a friend of his, committed the murder and Mark was there. Mark said, [36:33] that Kevin Williams had been having an affair with Michelle, and that Michelle claimed she was pregnant with his child. Apparently, Kevin wanted to talk to her that night to try and calm her down. So Kevin and Mark followed her in their car. And Mark said they were able to flash their lights from behind Michelle to get her to pull over. Which, again, kind of makes sense. We were saying all along it would be somebody that she knew. If they flashed their lights, they would get her to pull over. [37:03] When it's really dark, all you see is headlights. I don't know how you would know that it was someone you knew trying to pull you over. But he says that it worked. [37:11] She pulls over and her and Kevin start to argue for a short time. And Mark says the next thing he hears is gunshots. He said then that Kevin Williams took off on foot toward a mobile home sales lot. And after Mark then went to report the homicide to the sheriff's office, he said he later swung back around to pick up Kevin. Now, this story makes some sense, but there's even holes in this one. Michelle was not pregnant at the time of her murder.

[37:41] But the story does offer up a new suspect, this Kevin Williams guy. And by the way, this information was not new. The investigator who finds this back in 2006 finds that this information was given to investigators in 1997 when Mark came forward. And when the guy who took it, like the narcotics officer who was working with Mark on his drug case, went to the sheriff's office who investigated Michelle's murder and says, hey, I have this new story. [38:11] want to hear this, they basically were like, nah, we don't need that. We already got a conviction. Like you can just keep your stories. [38:18] Ugh, this is so frustrating. They're literally just saying, "We have our conviction, and now the guy's saying it's someone else. We don't really care. [38:26] our statistics look better without this information. Yeah, and it's really hard for me to wrap my mind around because one of their key witnesses, I mean, [38:35] Mark Abbott was the guy who puts Josh at the scene. And now the same guy is saying, it's not even like you have a random person saying, like, oh, I heard somebody killed this guy. You're like, no, we got a conviction. It's almost like he's recanting. Exactly. And this isn't the only time Kevin Williams' name is brought up in this reinvestigation. A witness gave a statement saying that he and his wife were in the car with Kevin Williams shortly after Josh's conviction when the subject of Michelle's murder came up. [39:02] And it's right as they were driving past that trailer sales lot that Mark said he had run to. And Kevin tells a slightly different version. And he basically says that he had something to do with it. And that trailer sales lot is where it all started.

[39:19] If that isn't enough, a third witness comes forward, not someone saying he heard something, but someone saying he saw something. A man named Dallas Butler says around 1 a.m. the night of Michelle's murder, he was riding his Honda motorcycle along Interstate 55 in Benton, Missouri. He got to the exit where Michelle's car was, and he saw two vehicles pulled to the side of the road, a small dark sedan. [39:49] parked near the exit. So he pulled up to see if maybe they needed help. [39:54] When he got close, he saw a woman in the driver's seat. She had her head bowed and both of her hands on the steering wheel. But he said that she seemed fine. She didn't look to be injured or disheveled in any way. And a man was with her. And Dallas described this man as being about 160 pounds, slender, and wearing a red hat. And he was standing near her car. And when Dallas pulls up, he kind of waves him off. And he's like, listen, everything's fine. We don't need help. Like, you should go. [40:24] He thought the girl might have had car trouble and was upset or maybe had too much to drink. [40:29] that this man was trying to help her. But he said something about the whole situation was just nagging at him, and it didn't feel right. Dallas, trust your instincts. I know, and I'm sure it nags at him. And he said the man seemed super nervous and anxious, and he kept thinking about that girl even as he drove away. And the next morning, he actually saw a television broadcast reporting that a girl had been killed at the same exit ramp that he was at.

[40:59] Gott County Sheriff's Office to report what he saw. And he gave a statement to the girl at the front desk. And the girl told him that a deputy would be in contact with him, but he never heard anything back. So he assumed that the Sheriff's Office didn't need his story or they kind of looked through it and it didn't fit or it wasn't relevant to what happened. But looking back, it seems so relevant. The description of the guy could have matched Kevin or Mark or Matt. [41:29] like the one he described. And in 2015, Dallas ends up picking Kevin out of a lineup as the man he saw that night. Now, granted, this is 20 years later, but this lineup was actually legit. And they showed him a couple of mugshot sheets and they didn't tell him if their suspect was even in any of them. And of all of the pictures, he points out Kevin Williams as the man he saw standing next to Michelle's car that night. Stories abound about Mark and Kevin. People [41:59] Kevin confessed to them in one way or another, or they would say that the wrong man is in jail, or that they took care of her. But again, in the reinvestigation, these two were not the only suspects. Sheriff Walter wanted to have all of the physical evidence retested, and the DNA under Michelle's fingernails was. [42:19] her clothing, [42:20] anything in that car. [42:22] And there was blood evidence at the scene. Apparently there was a bloody paper towel that didn't match Michelle and it didn't match her boyfriend and it didn't match anyone else.

[42:31] didn't match Josh, and this likely could have been the killer's blood, and they needed to get it tested. [42:38] The type of DNA analysis required was a technique involving a low copy DNA where only a few cells are analyzed. It was something that the lab that they normally used didn't do in 2006 when he started this reinvestigation. [42:53] they would typically refer clients to the Marshall University Forensic Science Center in West Virginia. Well, [43:01] All of the evidence is sent there, including the nail clippings, fingernail scrapings, all the blood, the paper towel, her clothes. [43:08] It's properly packaged by the Southeast Crime Lab and then sent to Marshall. And this also included samples that had never been tested before. And at Marshall, scientists were able to extract a partial genetic profile based on blood evidence from a blood-stained paper towel. Now, this is compared to Josh as well as some of the other suspects. And that profile didn't come back as any of them. But it did contain enough genetic markers required to be entered into CODIS. [43:38] So when Scott County gets this information back, they're like, OK, like we want to enter this in a CODIS. We want to see if maybe there's a suspect that's not even on our radar. But they are told that they cannot submit anything. [43:52] their results to CODIS. And this is kind of confusing to me, but basically the reason they're given is that because the results were sent to a lab that's not the normal one that they use,

[44:04] Under the Crime Lab's recommendation, they were told basically, we won't submit to CODIS because we didn't do the testing. We didn't supervise the testing. And apparently there's like some kind of rule they have, which kind of makes sense. They're basically saying... [44:20] You can't like do a DNA here, then send it somewhere else and then send that to CODIS because that looks like you're shopping your DNA, which wasn't done in this case. The first lab never did it to begin with. But they weren't going to sign off on someone else's work. Exactly. And they were like, you know, if we would have known you wanted to send to CODIS, we would have had to go and supervise their methods, which we didn't do. Now, the team that's working with Josh and trying to get him a new trial sends some of the items to be retested. [44:48] But they can't send everything. They need like $37,000 to do all of the retesting. And it's funds that they just don't have. And again, this is early 2000s. There isn't a ton of DNA methods that are even available at a reasonable price in the U.S. But they were able to send some stuff outside of the U.S. where it was a little bit cheaper to test. But more tests were possible with touch DNA. [45:18] the crime farm. And basically this crime farm was a place in the Netherlands. I think it was run by like a husband and wife and they were way ahead of their times. I mean, they're doing touch DNA in 2009, getting stuff off of her clothing. And basically they have this farm. I mean, that's exactly what it is set up where they would do experiments. They would run DNA. And a lot of people were sending evidence over there to get tested at a slightly cheaper rate, but where more

[45:48] Yeah. It was more experimental. Exactly. So, [45:51] They're getting her clothing retested for touch DNA. While this is going on, we do find out whose DNA is under her fingernails. [45:59] The DNA under her fingernails belonged to her boyfriend, Leon. Really? Yes. And when they confront Leon with this, he says basically that... [46:12] that is not because he had anything to do with her murder. He says that it was because they had sex that night and he said they were very passionate and sometimes she would scratch him. And I don't know what to believe about this because it seems strange to me that his DNA is the only one that's found. It seems to me that her boyfriend would be somebody that she would pull over on the side of the road for. And we know that he gets jealous and [46:40] very easily if she's talking to another guy or being seen with another guy. Maybe they had some kind of altercation when she came over. I mean, he admittedly is the last person to have seen Michelle before she was murdered. So he's back on the radar for police. There are even more suspects, though. Information came in during this reinvestigation that the killing may have been connected to a murder-for-hire plot back in 1994. A handful of people said that the same gun was used in both [47:10] gun has never been recovered. But they both were believed to have been a .380 caliber semi-automatic handgun. But they don't necessarily need the gun itself to conclusively tie these cases together. In the 1994 murder for hire case, a man named Richard Clay was convicted of the murder. All that Sheriff Walter needs is to get one of the bullets from that 1994 case and compare it to his

[47:40] who was in charge of that evidence won't release the bullet for comparison. Ballistics report shows similarities in all of the grooves, but there's no way to know with any kind of certainty just with pictures. Okay. [47:53] Amidst all this reinvestigation, Josh is still fighting for a new trial. In 2009, he gets a hearing to see if he can have his conviction overturned. And after the hearing, [48:04] Of all of the evidence, the judge makes an incredibly unusual ruling. Instead of just overturning his conviction and granting him a new trial, he just straight up rules that Josh is innocent. And the next day, Josh gets to walk out of prison a free man for the first time in 16 years. And again, this judge gives me the same, like, judge crush. [48:34] system. [48:35] And instead of going through the appeals and the retrials, like if you see a gross injustice has been carried out, like let's just try and right the wrongs where we can, please. [48:45] And this makes me feel like so hopeful and so bummed out for cases like Adnan's. Like, I know it could happen for him, but it won't because of the elected officials involved. Yeah. Yeah. A lot of politics involved. Again, this whole case, as I was researching it, to me is so rare because I feel like for every case like this, I can find 100 cases. [49:08] where everyone is protecting people or they're so deep into politics that at the end of the day, the truth doesn't matter to them. It doesn't matter that there's an innocent man in prison. It doesn't matter. There's a guilty man walking the streets.

[49:20] It's all about preserving their own life. [49:23] careers and saving face. [49:25] As the investigation continues, the rest of the case against Josh falls apart. All of the jailhouse informants recant. Chantal recants her statement about seeing him at the party. And for many years, Kevin Williams' alibi was his wife said that he was at a Christmas party. [49:41] But in 2015, even she changes her story to say that he left the party early that night. In 2015 and 2016, Sheriff Walter tried to get a grand jury together, but he was denied both times by the prosecutors. The sheriff won't say which man is his prime suspect, but whoever it is, he thinks he has solved the case and has enough evidence to prosecute. [50:11] which again is so sucky, especially for a guy who's just out there wearing the white hat, trying to right wrongs and doing what he was elected to do. I will say, though, I think his investigation is leaning towards Mark, Matt and Kevin. [50:27] having some kind of involvement because in 2017, the sheriff polygraphed Mark and Matt again. And the same year, 2017, a grand jury finally was convened and they were able to hear 15 hours of testimony over a two month period. And the grand jury did not come back with an indictment though, meaning that the panel did not believe there was enough evidence that existed to proceed with

[50:57] that maybe would have changed their minds. So there was one guy who would have spoke to the DNA that they found that touch DNA. There was one person who was a crime scene reconstruction expert who I think would have testified to the fact that the way Mark says he would have picked her up out of the car by her waist. And later he even says he touched her on the shoulder. Like they would say that that probably didn't make sense. And the jury never got to hear from Kevin Williams wife who recanted his alibi for that night. [51:24] I agree that there's... [51:26] a bunch of evidence, but I don't see the motive. It was hard for me, too, to kind of piece it together, so... [51:33] I think for people who believe that [51:35] Mark, Matt, and Kevin had something to do with it. The motive was drug related because we know by 1997, both of the Abbott brothers were in jail for meth. And Kevin's ex-wife says that he was a drug informant. So it's possible that Michelle found out something either by accident or she actually did know these guys and she knew something that she wasn't supposed to know. It's possible that they're just really bad guys and she was kind of into one of them. [52:05] mixed up with the wrong crowd. That's the best motive I can come up with those two. [52:09] I, again, I'm so stuck on the fact that it was her boyfriend's DNA under her fingernails, but from everything I can pull together, I don't think that that's who the sheriff is looking at. So, yeah. [52:19] I don't think we really need to talk about his motive. Again, what I'm so confused about is how they would have gotten her to pull over.

[52:27] Did she know that they were following her? Were they all going somewhere together? Did something start earlier and then she drove off and they followed her? There's just a lot of holes. Exactly. And that kind of fits in with the story that Kevin said, where they were at this trailer home sales lot, something went down and maybe she got mad and left and they tracked her down and got her to pull over. I also heard one theory. It's not based on anything, but someone said maybe someone was hiding in the back seat of Michelle's car. Yeah. [52:56] Yeah. Full body chills. And they, I don't like this. I don't like thinking about this at all. And they basically like, as she was driving down the highway, like got her to pull over. They had a gun forced her to pull over. And then somebody maybe drove up like a partner drove up behind them. Again, not sure what the motive is for that. [53:13] because she wasn't robbed. Y'all check your back seats. Right. [53:17] This case is crazy. I hate stories like this about wrongful convictions. I mean, it happens. You can't ignore it. It happens. [53:24] so often. And to me, it's not even like, [53:27] I can kind of understand where a prosecutor, if there's like a little bit of evidence, something looks bad for somebody. Like we're all human and we can make mistakes and you can think somebody did it and actually believe it in your heart. But I don't know how anyone believed in their heart of hearts that Josh was guilty. And it's amazing to me that they were able to sleep at night knowing they're sentencing this kid to 60 years in one of the most deadly prisons.

[53:57] sheriff who was in charge of prosecuting Josh actually was like warning Kevin Williams when a reinvestigation was being done. [54:06] So I don't know if he was doing that, like as a being politically motivated, he didn't want his conviction to get overturned or what, but, [54:14] I mean, again, this case was so hard because there were so many bad guys, but it was encouraging to see a couple of good guys come. [54:22] fighting the good fight. [54:24] doing the job that I would hope that [54:27] Sheriff's officers and police officers and prosecutors should be doing. So it gives me a little bit of hope. And I hope for cases like Adnan's and other wrongful convictions, Brandon Dassey. [54:39] God, I hope that we can get a couple more good guys. [54:43] So that was the episode as we knew it back in July of 2018. But if you're in for some more, stay tuned because you're going to get to hear from the wrongfully convicted man himself. [54:57] so i first of all i mean i want to thank you for reaching out we get we don't get that a ton um from people and i know we kind of had like a back and forth of like i feel very uncomfortable reaching out to people you encouraged me that that's something i should be doing um as we talk about these cases and [55:19] As we kind of gather information, of course, from the Internet, which is never 100 percent reliable, something that I really dislike is that things get reported and then re-reported and then twisted and re-reported. And so I never feel like we have the full truth. And when we tell these stories, so I so appreciate you taking the time to reach out and kind of pointing out the things that you.

[55:41] that weren't 100% right. So you had sent me an email kind of just laying out a little like the inconsistencies or where we had misinformation. So I thought it'd be really good if we could walk through that and you can kind of help us understand the story. Yeah. [55:56] From your perspective, what really happened? And, you know, one of the first things that you said was that the timeline was just a little bit off. Would you be able to speak to that and how it really happened for you? I could speak to that. Now, I'm sitting in a Starbucks drinking a coffee, so when I'm on my phone and don't have a computer sitting in front of me, so I don't have my message sitting in front of me. [56:17] So if you can kind of go over a little bit what I said and – [56:22] then that can kind of help me. But if you can't do that, it's just the timeline that I can give you a little bit off the top of my head of what I remember. Sure. No, I've got the message in front of me. So the first thing that you pointed out is that you were not actually locked up when you first became a suspect. True. [56:39] I was not. So when I listen to the podcast, one of the things that that [56:45] stuck out to me and to be sure that I was hearing things correctly, or at least according to what you were saying, [56:53] I also sent a copy of the podcast to a journalist who has covered my story. [56:57] Pretty much the paper has covered my story from the inception of the case. [57:02] and have covered me since my appeal... [57:07] process started and I was ultimately released and [57:10] They continue to cover the case. So I sent it to a journalist very familiar with it.

[57:14] And, you know, the same things that caught my attention caught hits. And so one of the things that, [57:20] I noticed was the timeline, and I did not become a suspect. [57:25] because I [57:27] confessed in jail. [57:29] I became a suspect because some jailhouse snitches [57:35] or locked up. [57:36] and each one of them were facing various different charges. And they were locked up in the Cape Girardi County Jail in Missouri. [57:47] At that point, I was living in Kankakee County, um, [57:50] Illinois with my father. [57:52] I was not locked up. [57:54] and [57:55] they were all locked up in the Cape Girardeau County Jail, and they were talking to each other, and one of them... [58:00] Basically, you know, I mean, what they were talking about, they were in a tough spot. [58:05] because they were all guilty of the things they were charged with. [58:08] and various different types of cases. [58:11] And they were like, what are we going to do? [58:13] And I happen to know these kids because I used to run around in Cape Girardeau County. [58:19] because my mother lived there. [58:21] um, [58:21] But at this point, I didn't live there. [58:23] And one of them spoke up and said, hey, I saw this murder. [58:28] on television. [58:29] in the news. [58:31] And they don't know who did it. [58:33] Why don't we just tell them Josh did it? [58:36] And that's how I became a suspect. It wasn't because I confessed to anybody. [58:41] It was because they claimed. [58:43] while I was living with my father that I had confessed

[58:47] at a Halloween party. [58:49] Or not at a Halloween party, at a party. Not at a Halloween party. I got that mixed up. They had said that I had confessed to them at a party, [59:00] at a girl's house. [59:02] um, [59:03] in 1993. [59:06] where they, the Halloween parties, the Chantau Friday thing, where [59:10] She had said that I had come on to her and the victim, Angela Michelle Wallace, at a [59:19] We know that that was never me, not just because I denied that it was me, [59:24] but because the people who held the party said it was not me. [59:28] They approached law enforcement and my attorneys [59:31] and said it was not me. And we also have a police report [59:36] who stated who it actually was, was a guy named Todd Mayberry, [59:40] And Todd Mayberry was spoken to by the police officer. [59:44] And... [59:45] He admitted that it was him. [59:49] And that was not allowed in my trial. [59:53] The judge will not allow that in my trial. But back to the timeline... [59:56] um, [59:58] Yeah, the timeline is that I was first accused. [1:00:01] Then I was locked up. [1:00:03] And at no point did I ever confess to anybody that I did anything. I did have some cellmates in a Scott County jail. [1:00:11] that claim that I confessed to them. [1:00:14] But we were able to prove both of those claims erroneous as well.

[1:00:19] I would never confess that. [1:00:23] I was a stubborn young man and I'm a stubborn old man. Well, and that's something, again, like I apologize if you felt we got saying that you did confess. We always try and tell the story as if it were unfolding so the listener can hear how they might have heard it if they kind of follow the story. So I don't think at any point we really believed that you did. It's what they were saying. No, no. So for me, for me, I think I try to convey this in my messages to you. [1:00:52] that the details matter on this so much to me. It's your life. I absolutely understand. Well, yes, ma'am, but let me even correct you on that. [1:01:00] They used to matter so much to me because it was my life. [1:01:05] They no longer matter to me for that reason anymore because my life has been given back to me. My justice has been established. I was declared actually innocent. And I don't know if your listeners know... [1:01:14] know what that means. [1:01:15] But there are different types of exonerations in the United States of America. [1:01:19] Actual innocence is the most thorough thing. [1:01:22] exoneration a man or a woman, a citizen in this country, can receive. So I'm no longer concerned about the details [1:01:29] regarding myself. [1:01:30] The details concern me because every detail, whether or not they involve the murder of Angela Wallace or they involve the botched investigation that resulted in my conviction or they involve – [1:01:43] the investigation that resulted in my exoneration or they involved the present investigation [1:01:49] All the details now revolve around Angela Lawless.

[1:01:52] as they always should have. [1:01:55] So every little detail, [1:01:58] matters to me because she deserves justice. [1:02:02] and the person who killed her or persons [1:02:05] as most of us believe, they deserve to be brought to justice. [1:02:10] And attention to detail is the only way that we're going to be able to accomplish that. [1:02:14] So that's my motivation. I appreciate that. [1:02:17] And actually, if we can diverge just a little bit, it kind of – you sent me a Facebook post that you had made this last November about the anniversary and there being a new DA, and you had said something to the effect of, you know, you got – [1:02:32] brought into this trial not by anything you actually did you were forced into it but now it's it's a part of [1:02:38] a part of like what your motivating factors are in life. And that being said, how involved are you still in the case? I know you put up a substantial reward for information. Do you have contact with the investigators and the family? Like what role do you play now? Well, it wasn't so much a reward for the investigation, ma'am. [1:02:57] it was that I gave back to the county. [1:03:01] that decimated my life. I gave back to that county. [1:03:04] $10,000 to put towards DNA testing. [1:03:08] for the lawless investigation. [1:03:11] And there's nothing... [1:03:15] that [1:03:16] um, [1:03:17] I'm not required [1:03:22] to be involved in this case anymore.

[1:03:24] I choose to be involved in this case because – [1:03:29] I like to at least consider myself to be a man of honor. [1:03:33] And I like to at least believe that I'm on the path of becoming the man that my [1:03:39] grandfather and my father raised me to be when I was a young man. [1:03:44] Now, clearly, I didn't always follow that, you know, their lessons because, you know, when I was younger, I was in a gang and things of that nature. But as I've gotten older, I try to follow those principles, and I'm a Christian man. [1:03:55] And I believe as a principal, ethical, honorable Christian man, [1:04:00] A man should always defend the honor of a woman. And ultimately, that's what we're talking about here. A woman who was brutally murdered [1:04:08] on the side of a highway, and it just doesn't sit well with me. [1:04:12] that she hasn't gotten the justice that she deserves. Is there anything being actively done? [1:04:18] to reinvestigate her case. Do you know where it stands now? [1:04:21] There are some things happening. [1:04:25] Thank you. [1:04:26] I'm not really in a position to be able to – [1:04:31] divulge those [1:04:32] But there are some things happening. [1:04:34] People talk to me. [1:04:36] I have reached out [1:04:38] on social media to people and ask them to contact me if they know anything. [1:04:43] And just recently I spoke to [1:04:47] a person who confirmed that she used to party with the suspects. [1:04:53] of the alleged killers.

[1:04:56] I mean, the suspect of the -- I mean, the suspects of the -- used to party with the alleged killers in the Wallace case. [1:05:04] So – [1:05:05] She confirmed that. I had somebody come and say, hey, I know this girl who [1:05:09] used to party with them. Would you... [1:05:12] You know, maybe you can talk to her. So I reached out to her. [1:05:15] told her I would keep her name private until she was ready to divulge that information herself. [1:05:21] But she did confirm that. [1:05:23] So I got people that come to me all the time. They talk to me. They tell me things because they know that I [1:05:28] you know, um, [1:05:29] I'm not scared. [1:05:32] I'm not afraid of these men. I have told them to their face. [1:05:36] that the boy that they framed is no longer a boy anymore. When you say the boy that they framed, is that something you felt like these people actively... [1:05:45] We're involved in framing you. [1:05:47] So [1:05:47] Absolutely. Why you? [1:05:51] Were you close with them? [1:05:53] No. Okay. Okay. [1:05:54] I don't know the answer to all these questions, ma'am. I really don't. You know, like, no, the questions like why me and... [1:06:02] and things of that nature. I really don't know the answer to that question. My response to that would be it doesn't really matter why me, it was me. [1:06:10] So, um... [1:06:12] And that was their mistake. And, you know, I've had people who believe in the providence of God that have told me, [1:06:19] or maybe [1:06:20] There was a reason why it was you, because had it been someone else, maybe they're not as intense... [1:06:25] on giving that girl the justice that she deserves. And maybe they're not as selfless

[1:06:29] and things of this nature. And don't get me wrong, I'm not standing on any pedestal and saying, you know, look at me, admire me, because... [1:06:35] God knows no one should do that. [1:06:39] I do... [1:06:41] I want to do the right thing. [1:06:43] for this girl. [1:06:46] And I just can't walk away from that. I really wish sometimes I could. [1:06:51] But I can't. Because like I said, I can no more walk away if I'm walking down an aisle in a Walmart and I see a man slap a woman or a child. I can no more walk away. [1:07:02] from the Angelo Lawless murder. [1:07:05] then I could walk away from that. And there's no way I can ever walk away from that. Do you think there's any way for the public, either locally or nationally, to help push this case along? Or is this something that we just have to leave in the hands of the investigators? No, you never leave a case in the hands of investigators. [1:07:23] especially not a case that's been in their hands for 26 years. [1:07:27] But I also think that the thing that society can do is just stay interested, stay engaged. Don't let tomorrow's news distract you from news that happened yesterday. [1:07:38] in 1992. [1:07:40] That's the hardest thing. The hardest thing is to stay focused, to stay concentrated. [1:07:45] Because every day some new tragedy [1:07:47] hits us and rocks us. [1:07:49] You know, something new happens and it takes the wind out of us. [1:07:53] and for good reason because those things they upset us. [1:07:57] There's been women, unfortunately, and men and children that have been murdered and kidnapped and sex trafficked.

[1:08:04] um, [1:08:06] you know and [1:08:07] Kurt. [1:08:08] as we're having this conversation. [1:08:11] And they matter every bit as much as Angela Lawless does. [1:08:14] And I understand why people [1:08:16] focus on them whenever the news comes out. [1:08:19] My only request is that people would not forget Angela Wallace. [1:08:24] Todd. [1:08:26] Thank you. [1:08:26] I never knew the girl. I never knew my accusers. [1:08:30] um, [1:08:31] I knew the guys that said that I confessed to them at a party, right? Um, [1:08:36] But... [1:08:38] You know, I never knew my accusers. I never knew Matt. I never knew Mark Abbott. He's the guy who claimed that he saw me at the scene of the crime. [1:08:47] And now he's the number one suspect. I was just going to say, I'm amazed at how... [1:08:51] like strong you are when it comes to this and I I think some people are right I think what happened to you could have broke another person do you attribute the way you're able to handle yourself and continue on with your life and stay so involved is that because of your faith or what what is it do you think that's given you the strength to go on after what happened to you [1:09:12] Let me be very clear about this. It is absolutely because of my faith and not faith in a chair or not faith in... [1:09:20] an unknown thing, faith in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. [1:09:24] We need to be very clear about that. [1:09:26] And with all due respect to our sensitive society that we live in nowadays, I really don't care if that offends someone. [1:09:32] because that faith has carried me through.

[1:09:35] years of torture. [1:09:37] that faith, [1:09:38] help mold me into the man that I haven't yet become but I strive to become. [1:09:44] And without it, I would have lost my sanity. [1:09:48] I know the monster I would have become. [1:09:51] without my faith in Christ because I was so angry. [1:09:54] when this happened to me. [1:09:56] I was furious. I was full of rage. [1:09:58] And it was only through my faith in Christ and through watching how reading the Bible and reading how he carried himself with his accusers. [1:10:06] when he was hanging on the cross and said, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. [1:10:10] I looked at it at the time when I was reading that, and I was like, but Father, they know what they did to me. They know they set me up. They know they lied about me. [1:10:19] And the response I got in my heart is believing that the Lord told me, does it matter? [1:10:24] Does it matter if they knew or they didn't know? Are you better than me? I forgave. [1:10:28] I'm the Lord of the universe, and I forgave. [1:10:31] My, you know, the people that crucified me, [1:10:34] You're a man. [1:10:37] You can't forgive the people that do this to you? And who am I to argue with God? [1:10:41] So I forgave them. And sometimes that's a daily process. It's not a one-time thing. [1:10:47] So sometimes I do that regularly. I forgive and I re-forgive and I re-forgive and I re-forgive and I re-forgive. [1:10:52] But every time I find myself doing that, [1:10:55] I find myself becoming a better man. So it is my faith that carried me through this. It is my faith in Christ that maintained, not only maintained my sanity, but put me in a position to become a good man through the process.

[1:11:08] when everything was available to me to become anything but a good man. [1:11:12] I grew up around killers in a maximum security prison. [1:11:16] in what Time Magazine once called the bloodiest 47 acres in America in Jefferson City, Missouri. [1:11:22] I could have become anything but a good man. [1:11:26] So it is my faith that carried me. Absolutely. And you're you know, it's not even like it carried you through. I think you're actively doing wonderful work because, you know, in our conversations before, you said not only are you continually trying to make people remember Miss Lawless and make people remember what happened to her and get justice for her. But you are actually also working on other wrongful convictions, correct? [1:11:56] to find justice for Angela Lawless, but still trying to devote my life to other things to help people who are suffering. [1:12:06] I tried to help others who had been falsely convicted. I also [1:12:10] have been actively involved in the anti-human trafficking community as well. [1:12:15] When it comes to helping people who have been wrongfully convicted, I just know what it's like to go through that. [1:12:21] So I've befriended family members. I've befriended people who have gone through it or are going through it. [1:12:27] One of those people [1:12:28] being a guy named Donald Doc Nash. [1:12:31] Donald Doc Nash is incarcerated here in Missouri, who's accused of a gruesome [1:12:36] horrific crime.

[1:12:38] All right. [1:12:39] was accused of killing his girlfriend. [1:12:42] And we know he did not do it. [1:12:45] And let me be perfectly clear. [1:12:48] I'm a hard man when it comes to representing [1:12:51] claims of innocence. I've had many people, many people contact me. And as I question them and as I look into it, [1:13:01] I walk away from it and I tell him I'm sorry. [1:13:04] I hope someone else is able to help you. [1:13:07] From what I can see, I can't, and there's been times where I've been like, I just don't believe you're telling me the truth, that you're not answering all my questions. [1:13:15] I'm sorry I can't move forward or sometimes I'm not sorry. I'm not going to help you. [1:13:19] I've been that blunt with people before. But with the Donald Doc Nash case, [1:13:26] I absolutely am convinced that he's innocent. [1:13:30] And so much to the point that his daughter reached out to me years ago. [1:13:34] And she saw me on television. She reached out to me. [1:13:38] And she told me about the case, and I got to ask her some questions. [1:13:42] looked into it a little bit and I connect to her with my attorneys, the attorneys that got me out. Um, [1:13:49] And now they are national attorneys. [1:13:52] Yes. [1:13:53] Are you able to speak to his case just a little bit and point out maybe the things that went wrong? Was it a lot of the same things you saw in your case or was it completely different? [1:14:03] There is a lot of differences. I'll go into a couple of things. I don't want to go into too much, but a couple of things. Now, people can actually, if they chose to, they can – on YouTube, I made a video, and if you look up Donald Doc Nash,

[1:14:19] or the Josh Kieser page. I've only got one thing I posted. It's the video I made on Donald Doc Nash. [1:14:26] Well, and Josh, if you're able to, if you email me the link, I can put it in the show notes and on our website for people to get to. Well, you can do that. Now, I made the video before he lost his last appeal. [1:14:36] but the way he lost his deal was just absolutely egregious. The judge should be ashamed of himself. In fact, the judge just lost his most recent election because – [1:14:47] the people in that area know that he basically just did not [1:14:51] he did not do his duties regularly, not only with that case, but with other cases. [1:14:56] Um, [1:14:57] But Donald Doc Nash is innocent. And one of the things is they said they found his DNA. [1:15:04] underneath the victim's fingernails. Well, the DNA was his girlfriend. [1:15:08] And the type of DNA was contact DNA. [1:15:11] Common DMX. [1:15:13] So if you have a husband or a wife, you guys are just covered in each other's DNA. [1:15:18] all over the place and all your follicles and your fingernails, your toenails, everywhere. [1:15:23] Right. [1:15:24] Because that's common, common touch. If you went to work today and you shook someone's hand, their DNA is underneath your fingernails. [1:15:30] So that's not evidence of a crime. [1:15:33] You have to look at, [1:15:34] more. You've got to understand the types of DNA [1:15:38] They're useful in a criminal conviction, and the type of DNA that was used in the Donald Dog Nash case is not useful in a criminal conviction. [1:15:46] And these types of cases need to become more familiar to people because they're bad science. And a lot of times when people hear, well, they found DNA, they're not.

[1:15:56] They think that means something. [1:15:58] And it should mean something, but sometimes it means something other than what they think it means. [1:16:04] So there is that. And also the very fact that [1:16:07] um... [1:16:09] a previously convicted sex criminal in the Donald Doc Nash case [1:16:14] evidence of his [1:16:16] Okay. [1:16:16] presence. [1:16:18] was sound. [1:16:19] Um, [1:16:20] years back [1:16:22] And the prosecution did not allow it to talk to the trial. [1:16:28] What? And they should have. So there's a lot going on here. [1:16:33] in Doc's case and in Daniel Holtzclaw's case. And that's the Daniel Holtzclaw case, the case you should definitely look into. Also, I don't know if you're familiar with the Michelle Malkin, [1:16:43] Um, she's a news personality from Fox News. Like she's like a little like, um, she's literally like a little piece of dynamite. She's a little Asian woman. She's literally got tons of energy. She's like, you know, people say it's like, you know, that's my spirit animal. She's like my spirit female. She's like a little piece of dynamite. She's like just fighting everything that she believes in, which is awesome. And she's fighting everything. [1:17:08] really fighting for the Daniel Holtz-Caw case. And she may be able to clarify what I just said. I might have just gotten a little bit wrong on his, but my point is, [1:17:16] in docs cases, common DNA. [1:17:19] and everything else about the man. [1:17:24] Everything says that he's innocent. All the evidence suggests he's innocent. You mentioned that Doc lost his last appeal, the last one that he filed. Does he have any more to go or was that it for him?

[1:17:40] They're preparing to file next appeal very quickly. [1:17:44] like probably within the next month. [1:17:46] That's a Missouri case, correct, where you are? [1:17:49] It is. It's a Missouri case, yes. Is that getting, so obviously I've never heard of it here in Indiana. Is that something that's getting a lot of attention in Missouri, or is that one of the cases you're talking? Well, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I was going to say, there's many Missourians that have never heard of the case. It's egregious, actually. And one of the things that has angered me about the Doc Nash case is how little it's known of. And that was what I was afraid of, is kind of like you were talking about in Angela Wallace's case, how people just have a short attention span and they forget. [1:18:19] if that was a case in his where people just moved on. And even though he's going through this process, no one's paying attention. [1:18:31] Donald Ragnash wasn't even... [1:18:33] arrested until 2008. Because of the DNA? Is that what spurred the arrest? Yeah, they looked into the case and some, like, [1:18:41] some kids or something along those lines found, you know, [1:18:45] found his DNA... [1:18:46] And it's like... [1:18:48] If she was murdered in 1982 on this flimsy evidence, you know, that is not improperly used, [1:18:58] you're going to arrest him in and decimate his life. And now he's 76 years old. And I just spoke to him on the phone the other day. He called me. [1:19:04] And it took me all of 30 minutes to encourage him to continue to fight and to live. [1:19:09] How long did it take you to go from being that angry man to...

[1:19:13] the man who could forgive and [1:19:16] you know, [1:19:17] try and help other people. [1:19:18] From one to the other? Yeah. I don't know that I've actually made the transition yet. I mean, if we're talking about a clear transition, I haven't made that transition yet. I still struggle with anger. [1:19:31] And I still have to bring that to the cross of Christ, and I still got to bring it in prayer to God. [1:19:36] and I still have to forget. [1:19:37] um, [1:19:39] but how long did it take me to start seeking that path? [1:19:41] Yeah. [1:19:42] I don't know. I don't really know if I have a timeline, a clear timeline in my own head on that one. I do know that at no point in time have I ever been upset with the Lawless family. [1:19:51] Ever. [1:19:53] I mean, you can go back as far as this case goes, and I've always understood who the actual victim was in this case. [1:19:58] I had to have people convince me at one point in time, even after my conviction that I was a victim. [1:20:04] It took me a long time to accept that I was a victim. [1:20:06] Really? [1:20:07] Yeah, and even like today, I have friends that – [1:20:12] that are in the anti-human trafficking industry. And, you know, we use the word survivor. [1:20:17] and [1:20:18] I don't know if you've ever heard of Rebecca Bender, with the Rebecca Bender Initiative. [1:20:23] She's not like a close friend, but I like her. I've met her. You know what I'm saying? We get along. We chat on Facebook. That makes it official, right? [1:20:32] Totally. [1:20:34] But we've talked about, and I've shared with her how I'm not really that big of a fan of the word survivor. [1:20:41] Why is that? [1:20:42] Because I wasn't really interested in surviving prison.

[1:20:45] I was more interested in conquering it. [1:20:48] And the word of God even says we're more than conquerors in Christ. And what that really means in my head when I think of more than a conqueror, I think of a warrior that conquers a city and then he takes the city and then he makes the city his own. [1:21:02] And I felt like the only way I was really going to -- I was really going to -- [1:21:06] beat this is if I took this false conviction, I took this torture, I took this suffering, I didn't just survive it. [1:21:13] I didn't just take it over, but I literally made it something that it was never intended to be. [1:21:19] I turned it into something that is mine. [1:21:21] that is precious between me and God that can be used for his purpose and can be used for other people. [1:21:27] without them ever having to admit it, [1:21:30] The people that did this to me never intended that to happen. [1:21:33] And I believe that that's what any of us who are going through something can do. You mentioned that you never blamed her family, even when they thought you were guilty. You knew that they were the victims. Do you have any kind of relationship with them now? No, not really. And it's not necessary. I mean, I've spoken to her brother. [1:21:56] You know, we have an understanding, and that's all. That's all that's good. You know, that's all that's necessary. Yeah. [1:22:02] um... [1:22:04] They believe I'm innocent. [1:22:06] um... [1:22:07] But they want justice. [1:22:11] as they should have watched. You know, they're like, we're glad that Josh is free.

[1:22:16] But what about Angelo? [1:22:17] and... [1:22:18] That's the way it should be right now. [1:22:21] It's really the way it should be. The thing that... [1:22:24] disappoints me is that the [1:22:28] The officers in charge of this have just been so... [1:22:31] I really believe they haven't done what they should be doing. [1:22:35] They treated this case like it's the next JFK assassination. [1:22:39] Like it's going to require a Donald Trump or the next president [1:22:43] presidential decree to release the records. [1:22:46] Yeah. [1:22:47] And it's like, good grief. [1:22:49] You know, she was a 19-year-old college student who was murdered on the side of a highway, brutally murdered on the side of a highway. [1:22:57] Now, unless they know something that the rest of us don't do and who know a lot about this case, [1:23:01] There's no excuse for them not having already finished this case or at least having charged someone. And you know what really bothers me? It bothers me when they use the excuse, well, we don't want to do another Josh user. We don't want to falsely accuse someone else. [1:23:15] My response every time they use that is like, no, no, no, no, no. [1:23:18] Don't use that. [1:23:20] Then it's a cop-out. [1:23:22] Pun intended. [1:23:23] that's cop-out. [1:23:25] Because there is more evidence against the alleged killers now than there ever was, ever was against me because there was never any evidence. [1:23:34] against me. [1:23:35] Do you think they say all of that, you know, we don't want another Josh Keeser because... [1:23:40] And they're kind of watching their own butts. Like, I mean, they made a huge mistake when they put you in jail. And now even now it's almost made them afraid, because even if they have all of this evidence against someone else, they're just it's like, but what if we don't have that? That's where I would correct you, though. They didn't make a huge mistake. They knew very well what they were doing.

[1:23:59] The officers in that day knew very well what they were doing. [1:24:02] I feel very confident saying that, and I feel so confident saying that, that if they have the gumption to actually want to sue me for having said that, [1:24:10] Bring it. [1:24:11] Bring it. Let's go to court. You proved me wrong because I believe sincerely they knew what they were doing. I believe we have proven that they knew what they were doing. [1:24:19] So they can't say they want to do another Josh Cheezer. [1:24:22] Right? [1:24:23] unless they want to actually intentionally frame someone. Okay, so yeah, that was my question. So you think that they... [1:24:29] in their heart of hearts, knew it wasn't you, but just wanted to close the case, not that they just had it all wrong and ego was involved and they thought you did it and they were going to prove it no matter what. You think they knew you were innocent and set it up anyways? I do, and I think ego was involved in that being done. [1:24:44] So it's not the same people involved, right, that were involved in your case. I would assume it's different investigators now. [1:24:51] Unfortunately, [1:24:53] It is now. Because in my case, the officer that you pointed out, Wes Curry, when the Abbott brother came in and accidentally said it was Matt Abbott. [1:25:03] You did get that part correct. [1:25:05] And when you said that, that part was correct, where he accidentally slipped and said it was Matt, but it was, and then he corrected himself, no, it says Mark. [1:25:13] Right? [1:25:13] The officer that was on duty that night and did not actually go through the process of knowing they're identical twins – [1:25:19] He knew who they were. [1:25:21] and knowing they're identical twins, did not go through the process of getting a fingerprint from one of them, getting a signature from one of them, [1:25:27] getting a statement from one of them, you know, getting proof of who it actually was,

[1:25:32] in the department at that point. [1:25:36] the one who exercised such irresponsibility [1:25:40] in that juncture and that crucial juncture of the case, [1:25:44] the night of the homicide. [1:25:46] is now the sheriff. [1:25:47] and the one in charge of the investigation. Really? Really? [1:25:50] West Drury. [1:25:51] And if I'm correct, he's facing sexual misconduct allegations right now. Do you think it'll take him... [1:25:57] like leaving the sheriff's office for any real progress to happen in this case? I think it's going to take him and everybody that is, [1:26:06] loyal to him, the cronyism and nepotism in that county. It's just [1:26:10] out of control. He's going to take that. There is now a new prosecutor. Thankfully, that's over the case. She was just elected. [1:26:17] So, [1:26:19] That's a good development. [1:26:21] But we'll see. You know, if she does the right thing, like I put in my message, if she does the right thing, then I will be very thankful and grateful. [1:26:31] I'll be behind her. But... [1:26:34] And I want to believe that she's going to do the right thing. [1:26:36] I really do. And I've communicated that with her. [1:26:39] But... [1:26:42] She was just elected in November of 2018, correct? [1:26:46] Correct. How long is it? Is there a normal amount of time or has anyone communicated to you like how long it would take for her to make a decision whether or not she's going to try and prosecute someone else? Well, I got two answers to that question. One is. [1:27:00] I don't see why they would report to me.

[1:27:04] I just didn't know if you mentioned you reached out to her. I didn't know if there was any conversation. No, there is that. And, too, I really wouldn't divulge that information. [1:27:12] I would respect. [1:27:14] conversations I had with them and kept that private if that had happened. [1:27:18] You know what? I'm not saying it did, but if it did, um, [1:27:21] I'm very respectful of people. They're in charge of this case. [1:27:27] and people that talk to me, like I will not, unless somebody gives me permission, [1:27:31] I will not release information to someone else. [1:27:34] I have an understanding and have respect for what's really going on. [1:27:38] And the people that I believe actually committed this murder are free. [1:27:42] So what we have are convicted, or not, what we have not convicted killers, what we have are people that should be convicted killers. [1:27:48] But what we have are killers that are running the street. And other people are rightfully terrified. [1:27:53] The only person that I'm aware of that isn't actually terrified and that has told them that he's not terrified is me. [1:27:59] I put my hands in the hand of one of them. [1:28:02] I had one of them [1:28:03] attempt to shake my hand and tell me that he didn't do it in things. [1:28:08] And... [1:28:08] I looked him in his eyes. [1:28:11] and told them, [1:28:12] If I find out he did it, I want to do everything in my power to make sure he goes to prison for the rest of his life. [1:28:17] And I'm keeping my work because I believe he did it. Do you think the new DNA testing that... [1:28:22] that you helped fund, do you think that's going to [1:28:24] play a role in if this case goes to trial again? That DNA testing has identified a person that's identified Mark Abbott. And [1:28:32] No one's doing anything?

[1:28:35] They've known about that DNA since 2010. [1:28:38] That's why it's good there's a new prosecutor in office. [1:28:40] Do you happen to know, and again, you don't have to share anything you're not comfortable with, do you happen to know what kind of DNA? Well, I believe it's touch DNA, but I don't know that that's the only DNA. [1:28:49] And I'm not going to sit here and say that the touch DNA is the only evidence or should be the only evidence. [1:28:55] that we take in consideration for who is charged in this case. [1:28:58] I'm not going to do that. [1:29:00] um, [1:29:01] But Mark Abbott put himself at the scene. [1:29:05] But where the touch DNA was found, I mean, you can watch the 48 Hours mystery episode about the case. [1:29:13] in it, they [1:29:14] They show in 2010. [1:29:17] that his touch DNA was found on a part of the victim's clothing that it should not have been found on. [1:29:21] Right. If I recall correctly, it was basically the way of his story of reaching into the car. Like, none of it added up to where his DNA was actually found. [1:29:30] None of it added up. And his description of the scene, none of it matched anybody else's description of the scene. Any of the first responders, any of the officers, their descriptions of the scene all contradicted [1:29:41] Mark Abbott's description. [1:29:44] Knowing what you said before, that you think, okay, I think these sheriffs knew all along that I was innocent and framed me anyways, it seems like it would have been... [1:29:53] just as easy. [1:29:55] to [1:29:57] you know, put Mark Abbott away for this, even even back then? Why do you think it was that that they went after you and said just because they had those snitches, those jailhouse snitches, and they thought that that would just be an easier slam dunk? What was like? And again, if you don't want to speculate to their motives, you don't have to.

[1:30:13] I don't really at this juncture I could speculate the motive, and I know a little bit of the motive, but it would take too long to get into it, so I won't get into that. [1:30:23] I do believe that if you go back and your listeners go back and look at some of the articles that have been written by Bob Miller, [1:30:30] Bridget DeCosmo and others with the Southeast Missouri and Cape Girarde, Missouri. [1:30:35] then some of that will go into that. If not now, hopefully in the near future, [1:30:41] We'll go into that as well there. [1:30:43] that paper is dedicated to finding out the truth in this case. And I really appreciate them. I really genuinely do. [1:30:51] it's, it's, [1:30:53] it's good to have people that [1:30:55] really... [1:30:56] are dedicated to giving and for all justice. [1:31:00] You know, they... [1:31:01] She deserves it. I keep going back to that. I really do because... [1:31:06] You know, if people were asking, "Why are you involved in this?" We're like, "What else do you expect me to do, man?" [1:31:11] you know, it's, [1:31:13] Really, what do you expect me to do? I mean, can I walk away from knowing that a girl, her brains were blown out on the side of a highway that she was beaten for an estimated 150 yards? [1:31:24] that she was practically stopped [1:31:27] Haunted. [1:31:28] back to her car. [1:31:30] Shot three times, left for dead. [1:31:32] Am I supposed to just walk away from that? But let's go back to the message again. Could you ask me some more questions about that so we can get some more clarification? Sure. [1:31:40] One thing, the blonde, I didn't have blonde hair. I know you guys went into that, and I know that that might not come across well for me.

[1:31:48] But I didn't. [1:31:49] I didn't have blonde hair. [1:31:51] Okay. In fact, my hair was, I believe it was dyed blue-black at that time. Oh, really? Okay. Yeah, so where it was dark brown, one of the two. [1:32:01] Right. [1:32:02] Because they showed pictures on [1:32:05] I remember they showed me when I testified in 2008, the prosecutor, Mike Blaine, showed me a picture of myself and said, [1:32:11] What did you look like back then? I said, what's the picture look like? [1:32:16] Yeah, but did you have a 10? I said, you can see I don't have a 10. [1:32:20] And I said, and I've never been to a tan in bed in my life. I literally said that when I was testifying. [1:32:26] I've never had anything to be ashamed of. I've never had anything to hide from. [1:32:31] um... [1:32:32] And it just was not me, period. I was 350 miles away from the scene of the crime when it happened. [1:32:38] I had never known the victim... [1:32:40] It was never anywhere in that area. [1:32:43] during that period of time. Now I had, you know, I lived in Cape Dorado, [1:32:48] when I was, you know, at other times in my life. But during that period of time, I was nowhere near that area. [1:32:54] Nowhere near it. [1:32:55] One of the other things you brought up in the email that I actually would like you to clarify because I was just a little bit confused is we talked about Rick's visit being a surprise. And you had said in your email that it caught you off guard, but it wasn't a surprise. Could you talk more about that? Okay, because at that time I knew that Rick knew. [1:33:14] My lawyers had went to Scott County to look into the case and to inform the

[1:33:19] Scott County that they were not representing me. [1:33:22] in this blessed twist and I don't know really know how else you can actually [1:33:28] um... [1:33:29] Describe it. [1:33:30] We went down there thinking that the only people that were advocating for my... [1:33:35] Innocence at that point where [1:33:37] Jane Williams here in Columbia, Missouri, [1:33:41] a couple other people, you know, a couple of journalists and my lawyers, right? [1:33:47] We had [1:33:48] yet known that [1:33:50] Scott County had actually reopened the case. [1:33:52] So when they went down there to inform them that they were representing me, [1:33:57] Sheriff Rick Walter at the time the sheriff at the time and form them well, that's interesting and [1:34:02] Because I reopened the case not long ago. [1:34:06] And we found it at that point it's because he didn't believe [1:34:10] that I should have been convicted. [1:34:14] Now, he hadn't yet eliminated me [1:34:17] as a suspect, as you should not have. [1:34:20] Let me be clear. I have no interest in getting anybody's favors in this case. [1:34:26] I don't need anybody's emotional support. I don't need anybody's support just because it seems like a social thing to do. And so I didn't at that point in time want Rick Walter eliminating me as a suspect. I wanted him to investigate and include me as a suspect. [1:34:40] Right. And if you do your job, you're going to find out I didn't do it. Right. Right. So that's I knew that he was going through that process. And my lawyers had informed me and I was sitting in a visit.

[1:34:50] They'd informed me that he wanted to come and see me. [1:34:53] Right? Right? [1:34:54] But they had told him not until we talked to him. [1:34:59] Right, because we don't want you catching him off guard. We don't know how he's going to respond. You're a Scott County sheriff. You know what I'm saying? He deserves a heads up. [1:35:07] Right. Right. Absolutely. So I'm sitting. [1:35:11] with my [1:35:12] with some people visiting me, Jane Williams and another woman who was supporting me at the time. [1:35:17] in a visiting room. [1:35:18] And [1:35:20] It was upsetting to me because they interrupted my visit and [1:35:24] They told me, they came into the visit and they told me, you know, you need to come with us. Um... [1:35:31] They told my visitors, I believe they told me, "You guys can stick around. We don't know how long this is going to be." [1:35:38] But, you know, you might want to leave as well. We didn't know really what was going on. [1:35:41] So they brought me out and they brought me into their room and [1:35:44] captain was a captain in the, um, [1:35:47] in the Department of Corrections led me to the room. [1:35:50] basically told me, the option told me, which was actually... [1:35:53] against prison policy and the law. [1:35:55] that I was going to go into the room and talk to these cops. [1:35:59] Excuse me. [1:36:00] So I turn around and I go in and I see Rick Walter and Roy Moore was with him. [1:36:05] And there was another officer, I believe it was Brandon Cade. I may be wrong about that one, I can't remember. [1:36:10] You would think I remember all three officers, but I believe it was Roy Moore, [1:36:14] Sheriff Rick Walter and Brandon Cade. [1:36:16] And Rick Walter had brought Roy Moore with him because Roy Moore,

[1:36:20] I knew Roy Moore and Roy Moore had testified in my favor at my original trial. [1:36:27] So, [1:36:28] the [1:36:30] As I walked in, I was immediately unprofensive, but I wasn't surprised. [1:36:34] I wasn't surprised. It caught me off guard because I was in a visit and my understanding was, you know, I'm saying that I was supposed to be spoken to and things of that nature before then. [1:36:43] I really wasn't surprised. I was like... [1:36:45] Okay. So you were expecting it, just not then? Not at that point, no. [1:36:50] And people have, you know, expressed opinions, you know, like he came in and had a chummy conversation with me. And me and Rick have talked about it since then. We laugh, we talk about it. [1:37:00] We're like, yeah, if people could have been flies on the wall in that room, they would see there was nothing nice about that conversation. [1:37:07] Really? [1:37:08] No. No. It was him knowing that he basically had a wildcat in a corner. [1:37:16] and trying to inform me of what was going on, that he was looking into it and was not eliminating me as a suspect, that I was going to be the number one suspect. [1:37:23] that he believed something was done wrong, that he never sat well with him. [1:37:27] um, [1:37:29] He informed me that he was the first responding officer [1:37:32] at the scene when Wallace was murdered and [1:37:36] He went through some of that stuff, and he told me he was going to reopen it. [1:37:40] I literally... [1:37:42] I looked at him, I said, "You see the... [1:37:44] The badge. [1:37:46] Study arms, yeah. [1:37:48] Dr. Scott County on it. [1:37:49] Yeah.

[1:37:51] I don't believe the damn word come out of your mouth. [1:37:54] I mean... [1:37:55] I don't think anyone blames you. [1:37:58] Yeah, it was not a-- it was not a-- [1:38:00] chummy conversation, to say the least. [1:38:02] But I gave him my word. I told him, I said, if you do the right thing, and if you do the right thing, you will get me out of prison. [1:38:08] I said, if you do the right thing, I'll shake your hand. [1:38:11] And I shook his hand twice. [1:38:13] I shook his hand the day that right after he testified. [1:38:16] Um, [1:38:17] I was sitting in the 2008 hearing in Judge Richard Callahan's courtroom in Jefferson City, Missouri, [1:38:23] after Rick Walter got done testifying. [1:38:25] He walked by me to go back into the [1:38:28] Um, [1:38:30] into the, you know, [1:38:32] sitting chamber and things of that nature. [1:38:35] And I stood up and shook his hand. Thank you. When was the second time? [1:38:39] And then when I walked out of prison. [1:38:42] And there's a photo of that in the USA Today. Do you guys have any contact now? Or you just were, you know, he did his job, but there's no reason for you guys to be friends. [1:38:51] No, we're friends now. [1:38:52] You are. [1:38:53] Yeah, we're friends now. We talk. There's no reason why we shouldn't be friends. [1:38:59] bound together by... [1:39:01] something very [1:39:03] Thank you. [1:39:04] Rare. Well, and that kind of brings me to the next thing in the email. So someone who was brought into this and you said in the email that we probably shouldn't have brought her up at all was Kevin's ex-wife. And she was the one that originally had testified against you. But then she did come out and say, no, that it wasn't you. She took it back. She testified again. Do you want to speak to that a little bit? I just feel like.

[1:39:25] we need to be conscious as a people i understand there's an interest um in true crime [1:39:32] That's the new thing. [1:39:33] right get you guys your podcast is all above and [1:39:37] And, you know, you talk about true crime and things of that nature. [1:39:40] We need to be careful. [1:39:42] because these are people that we believe are killers. [1:39:46] and [1:39:47] People are scared. [1:39:49] And any little thing can set them off. [1:39:52] And I get so like when you're dealing with the case, thankfully, in this case, there's a lot of information. [1:39:59] It isn't always necessary to bring up certain information. [1:40:03] Because we want to be mindful that people... [1:40:06] are scared and that not everybody's walking around, you know, with no wife, no kids, no [1:40:13] Nothing to lose like me. You know, not everybody's walking around with, please. [1:40:19] Please. [1:40:20] You know, leave me alone. [1:40:21] But if you decide to go there, [1:40:23] Wouldn't bother me at all to get in a fight with you in the middle of Times Square. [1:40:27] You know, not everybody's walking around like that. [1:40:29] Some people are terrified. [1:40:32] And I think we should disrespect that. That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to... [1:40:38] chastise you or chastise anybody along those lines, but I'm very protective of people who have been brave and bold, specifically women in this case. Because I don't want another Angela Michelle Wallace. I don't want some girl getting murdered. [1:40:52] right um where do you think the balance is so again and this kind of feeds into one of the questions you know you asked why we covered it and i i think we touched on it a little bit at the beginning of the conversation is like you especially when these cases are considered unsolved i think the only way movement happens in these cases is is if people don't forget about them it is if people keep talking about it and you know sharing the story of people who aren't even in missouri but need to know a name of a girl who had something horrible happen to her

[1:41:22] and who still hasn't had justice, whose family hasn't had justice. So where do you think the balance is when we're trying to tell these stories, but also being mindful of the people, like you said, who might have something to lose? Like in your opinion, where do you think that balance lies? I think the balance is different for each case. I think it just it lies with [1:41:44] is primary is just there are certain human traits that maybe have been lost on society. [1:41:50] or not maybe, but I believe have been lost on society, like empathy, honor, [1:41:56] respect. [1:41:58] And [1:42:01] Just like everybody... [1:42:03] Just think about it, like everybody is, if I said some of the words, [1:42:07] I could throw out words today and be like, oh, that's taboo. We can't include that. [1:42:11] You know what I'm saying? We'll get boycotted. [1:42:13] It's like good grief, man. [1:42:15] And so that's the kind of, like, the society we live in is just so insensitive to really how other people feel. Yeah. [1:42:21] We believe that we're sensitive, but we're really not. We're only sensitive to our own things. [1:42:26] I think that whenever we're looking at these cases, just be aware of the fact that when something is unsolved, [1:42:32] Right? [1:42:33] it's different for each case. Like in one case, there may be nobody that's, [1:42:37] Scared. [1:42:38] You know what I'm saying? If there's no one that's scared, talk about it freely, whatever. [1:42:41] You know what I'm saying? But if there are people who [1:42:44] are terrified. [1:42:46] Right? That's the reason why it's important to reach out to them. [1:42:50] to say, hey, you know, what... [1:42:51] What would you think?

[1:42:53] You know what I'm saying? Um... [1:42:55] and things of that nature. And I understand what you said in your message that, you know, the police advise you to not do that from time to time. [1:43:02] But with all due respect to the police, they're wrong. [1:43:05] Like in my case, where's the harm reaching out to me? I've been... [1:43:10] Thank you. [1:43:10] I've been reached out to by media around the world. [1:43:14] I've had Hollywood execs reach out to me. I've walked away from two movie deals. [1:43:20] So where's the harm of a podcast region? [1:43:23] or something like that. I'm not saying specifically you, but if someone wanted to talk about the case, maybe they should reach out to the Southeast Missourian. [1:43:32] talk to the newspaper that is fairly familiar with all the sources and their personalities and their character traits. [1:43:38] of the nature. [1:43:39] You know what I'm saying? So there's just a little bit of background I believe that could help. [1:43:45] understand what should actually be, you know, tiptoed in and what shouldn't. [1:43:51] So people today, they literally don't have, they don't, I don't really believe they have this built-in gauge anymore that lets them know. [1:44:01] what should be broached and what shouldn't. I think that the only way we can really proceed in these cases is just be aware of that gauge that should be there and maybe try to fine tune it whenever we're looking into cases. [1:44:12] Those are most of the high points in your email. Is there anything that [1:44:16] that you've thought of or that you feel like we've left uncovered or anything again that [1:44:22] that listeners can do. You know, we have this platform, and, you know, we don't want to forget about Angela Bollinger.

[1:44:27] But is there anything else we can do? [1:44:29] Well, I'll tell you what. Angela Michelle Wallace was murdered on November 8th. [1:44:35] 1992. [1:44:36] around between 1230 and 1 a.m., [1:44:41] I think somewhere around there. [1:44:43] Um, [1:44:44] I think that, you know, if your listeners could maybe try to exercise remembering her on that date in their social media posts. [1:44:53] with the justice for justice [1:44:56] justice for lawless. I know that the, the, uh, [1:44:59] The term seems a little bit contradictory, but that was her last name. [1:45:04] And, you know, maybe we should... [1:45:06] um, [1:45:07] Things of that nature. I know that's the thing nowadays. I got out of prison and social media is the way that we report things. So, you know, we keep on track. So maybe if your listeners did that and then maybe... [1:45:18] If they just, you know, they pray that, you know, I... [1:45:21] those of your listeners that are afraid that like that pray and that have faith in Christ, you know, can, um, [1:45:26] could pray for her family. [1:45:28] 12. [1:45:29] I would really appreciate that personally. [1:45:32] and just pray for the prosecutor. [1:45:35] Um, [1:45:37] Pray for the journalists that are covering their case. Pray for... [1:45:41] the eventual jury that will be over the case. [1:45:44] I'm not interested in anyone posting anything talking about, you know, damn this person, that person should be fired, how dare they, what about the prosecutor that falsely convicted him, did she go to prison? [1:45:56] None of that has any place in this, so save all that.

[1:45:59] I'm not trying to hear any barking. I don't want any barking. All that stuff is ridiculous. [1:46:04] you know, [1:46:05] paper tiger posts. We used to refer to tough guys in prison that would yell at you from a distance. We used to refer to them as paper tigers. Because if you got up too close up on them, you literally like poke your hole. They look like a tiger from a distance. You get up close to them, you poke your hole for them like a piece of paper. [1:46:19] I'm not interested in any of those kind of posts. [1:46:22] What I am interested in is people basically just stand [1:46:26] Staying on it. You know what I'm saying? Staying on it. Staying on it. [1:46:29] you know, irritate your followers, irritate the people that are on Facebook and Instagram and Instagram. [1:46:37] and Twitter, and you've still got MySpace for crying all out, and just irritate them. [1:46:43] and get on Google and find [1:46:45] the 48 hours mystery story. You can find that on YouTube. You can, [1:46:49] Google Josh Keeser 700 Club, find that story. [1:46:52] You follow the Southeast Missourians reporting, and every time there's something, share those things a million times and just make people pay attention. [1:47:02] But in the whole process, be kind, be nice. [1:47:07] I don't know how many of your listeners have watched Roadhouse. [1:47:10] Right? [1:47:12] But, like, you know, be nice. [1:47:14] When people insult you, be nice. When people say mean things to you and bully you and troll you, be nice. [1:47:21] Until it's time to not be nice. But newsflash. [1:47:25] Those times are very rare, and they're not as often as people think they are. [1:47:29] on a computer screen.

[1:47:31] So just be nice. [1:47:33] thank you again to josh for reaching out to us and for spending so much time talking with me on the phone if you guys want to follow him he more than welcomes you to message him tweet him [1:48:03] And you can find him on Facebook, facebook.com slash Josh Kieser. So thank you again. I hope you guys enjoy the update, and we will continue to follow Angela Michelle Wallace's case. I hope none of you forget about her. We haven't, and hopefully we'll be seeing some developments in her case very soon. [1:48:33] you [1:48:39] Crime Junkie is an audio Chuck production. So what do you think, Chuck? Do you approve? [1:48:47] Okay, Crime Junkies, you know I absolutely love a twist and a turn, especially when it comes to people who turn out to be someone they're not. That's why I have been obsessed with the podcast Chameleon. Every Thursday, host Josh Dean deep dives into a scam so bizarre, it will leave you wondering, how did they get away with that?

[1:49:05] It is truly one of my favorite podcasts right now, and I've been listening for years. [1:49:09] I think you'll love it too. [1:49:11] Listen to Chameleon wherever you get your podcasts.