Saul Kassin

And so they sent me two big Xerox-type boxes. And I spent the next couple of weeks probably doing terrible teaching at Williams because I was completely distracted by this case. And when I was done, I was horrified. There was no evidence of their guilt. The confessions were contradictory.

And so they sent me two big Xerox-type boxes. And I spent the next couple of weeks probably doing terrible teaching at Williams because I was completely distracted by this case. And when I was done, I was horrified. There was no evidence of their guilt. The confessions were contradictory.

And so they sent me two big Xerox-type boxes. And I spent the next couple of weeks probably doing terrible teaching at Williams because I was completely distracted by this case. And when I was done, I was horrified. There was no evidence of their guilt. The confessions were contradictory.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. And I think that's what everyone was thinking. I didn't know this in 1989, but I learned in 2002. that detectives showed Corey Wise pictures of the victim. So he was able to describe her. He was taken to the crime scene. He gave a vivid description of the crime scene. They all did. Turns out two of them were taken to the crime scene. Now, that's contaminating their memories.

Yes. And I think that's what everyone was thinking. I didn't know this in 1989, but I learned in 2002. that detectives showed Corey Wise pictures of the victim. So he was able to describe her. He was taken to the crime scene. He gave a vivid description of the crime scene. They all did. Turns out two of them were taken to the crime scene. Now, that's contaminating their memories.

Yes. And I think that's what everyone was thinking. I didn't know this in 1989, but I learned in 2002. that detectives showed Corey Wise pictures of the victim. So he was able to describe her. He was taken to the crime scene. He gave a vivid description of the crime scene. They all did. Turns out two of them were taken to the crime scene. Now, that's contaminating their memories.

Now, this is not their statement. You've motivated and incentivized them because they think it's in their best interest to cooperate, and you've spoon-fed them information to provide a compelling, accurate confession. But you're right. Nobody expected a full alignment of all the facts.

Now, this is not their statement. You've motivated and incentivized them because they think it's in their best interest to cooperate, and you've spoon-fed them information to provide a compelling, accurate confession. But you're right. Nobody expected a full alignment of all the facts.

Now, this is not their statement. You've motivated and incentivized them because they think it's in their best interest to cooperate, and you've spoon-fed them information to provide a compelling, accurate confession. But you're right. Nobody expected a full alignment of all the facts.

And that's why I think the judges and juries, they were convicted at two different trials, were able to look past those discrepancies.

And that's why I think the judges and juries, they were convicted at two different trials, were able to look past those discrepancies.

And that's why I think the judges and juries, they were convicted at two different trials, were able to look past those discrepancies.

There were several semen samples taken, sent to the FBI lab. That summer, the results came back. First, all of those samples taken traced back to one person. They all match each other. That person was not one of those five confessors. The judge knew it. The juries knew it. We have two juries in which they are told that they confessed on the one hand, but they're excluded by the DNA on the other.

There were several semen samples taken, sent to the FBI lab. That summer, the results came back. First, all of those samples taken traced back to one person. They all match each other. That person was not one of those five confessors. The judge knew it. The juries knew it. We have two juries in which they are told that they confessed on the one hand, but they're excluded by the DNA on the other.

There were several semen samples taken, sent to the FBI lab. That summer, the results came back. First, all of those samples taken traced back to one person. They all match each other. That person was not one of those five confessors. The judge knew it. The juries knew it. We have two juries in which they are told that they confessed on the one hand, but they're excluded by the DNA on the other.

And as one of the jurors said in an interview years later, they had a confession, and if there's a confession, what else do you need to know?

And as one of the jurors said in an interview years later, they had a confession, and if there's a confession, what else do you need to know?