← All Cases / Episode #219
The Case of Patrick Pursley
📻 Episode #219
🎙️ Hosted by Jason Flom
📅 Aug 25, 2021
About This Episode
This is an updated episode that originally aired on January 15, 2020.
The Case
This is an updated episode that originally aired on January 15, 2020.
In this live audience recording at ComplexCon Chicago 2019, Patrick Pursley tells us how a false identification, a coerced and immediately recanted statement, and false expert testimony led to his wrongful conviction. Amazingly, Patrick Pursley spearheaded changes to the law while still in prison in order to obtain the ballistic testing necessary to set himself free. His fight continues on the outside for his Certificate of Actual Innocence, as the state has yet to admit what is evidently true. His hearing is set for August 27th, 2021.
We have worked hard to ensure that all facts reported in this show are accurate. The views and opinions expressed by the individuals featured in this show are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of Lava for Good.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In Their Own Words — transcript excerpts
Short excerpts from the episode's official published transcript, with timestamps — listen from these moments, or read the full transcript via the podcast's own platforms.
00:04:25“Speaker 3: had a chemistry set for him and we were just Speaker 3: tinkering around and have no idea of these events happening Speaker 3: just a few miles away. Speaker 1: I Meanwhile, there's another aspect of this that's important to recognize, Speaker 1: which is crime stoppers, right and theory. Crime stoppers great thing, right,”
00:16:08“Speaker 1: you are in the segregation unit of one of the Speaker 1: worst prisons in America. Not a great education. You'd have Speaker 1: a law degree, you don't have a science degree. It Speaker 1: would seem to be hopeless. But somehow or other you Speaker 1: managed to actually get the law changed from inside yourself.”
00:28:06“Speaker 1: in your hands may not be what you're being told Speaker 2: So they're supposed to be a. Speaker 1: Reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt right, and there's supposed to be Speaker 1: a presumption of innocence. Speaker 2: None of that worked. Speaker 3: No, it's a credibility deficit. There's a credibility deficit for”
Listen to the Episode
🎧 Listen on Omny / the podcast's platforms
Resources & links from the episode:
Share this case, follow the organisations working on it, and support the podcast's fight for the innocent at lavaforgood.com.
← #218 Jason Flom and Kim Kardashian on Julius Jones #220 False Confessions - Emerson Stevens →
Also on the podcast: #110 Patrick Pursley (Live from ComplexCon Chicago 2019) · #393 Patrick Brown · #573 Patrick Brown