Popular Transcripts Full Transcript: In the Dark – S1 E6 – Stranger Danger

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with In the Dark podcast. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time πŸ‘€, just click the player below.

In the Dark: S1 E6 Stranger Danger

Previously on In the Dark.

"Rochelle, someone took Jacob. Someone took Jacob. There was a man with a gun, and he took Jacob."

Helicopters scanned a 30-square-mile area, while searchers below combed the area on foot without finding a trace.

I wanted everybody in the world looking for Jacob. It was like my son, you know, we're talking, getting him home. We did what we had to, what we felt we had to.

Lots of kids that are taken are not taken by some caring person and taken to Disneyland. They're taken by someone who is into sexually assaulting children. And if you're lucky, you'll find the body in a field.

We pulled out all the stops and turned them upside down. Sometimes, you just can't get it.

A few weeks after Jacob Wetterling was kidnapped, Jacob's mom, Patty, started getting letters from all over the country. Letters from kids, kids who had heard about Jacob, and wanted to tell Jacob's mom their own stories of violence and abuse.

"This happened to me," or "My sister ran away, and this happened, and this." And it was like this growing … It's like a snowball.

Before Jacob was kidnapped, Patty thought she understood how the world worked. The lives of kids, as she understood them, revolved around homework, and hockey practice, and playing outside, and getting into small and quickly resolved fights with friends. But Jacob's abduction and this deluge of letters forced Patty into a world she'd never imagined.

It's bigger than Jacob. I knew that right away.

This is In the Dark, an investigative podcast from APM Reports. I'm Madeleine Baran. Today, we're going to do something a little different. We're going to leave the dead-end road where Jacob was kidnapped 27 years ago. We're going to look outward, far beyond this tiny town, far beyond Minnesota even, and see how the fear about what had happened to Jacob, and what it seemed could happen to any child would grow and spread until it took the form of a federal law that would alter the lives of millions of Americans.

And to understand how all of this happened, we have to go back to the 1980s, to the world that Jacob disappeared into.

Remember, a stranger-

Can mean danger. Now, I know.

And knowing is half the battle.

GI Joe.

Back then, the idea of Stranger Danger was everywhere. It was on TV shows, and morning cartoons, on public service announcements with unscientific and ever changing numbers of how many kids go missing.

If she gets into that car, that may be the last time you'll see Jenny. I'm McGruff, the Crime Dog. See those kids? Every day in this country, 60 kids disappear. Some run away, but a lot are kidnapped by strangers, or even by people they know. Take a bite out of crime.

Child abductions and child abuse were one of the most popular genres of made-for-TV movies with anxious parents.

My little boy was here.

Yes.

Did you see where he went?

Melodramatic acting.

Which one of them hurt you?

They all did. They showed us and took pictures.

And lurid plot twists.

But how did it happen?

One day I'm off doing something for myself, you know. I don't know, eating a Danish. And these people raping our baby.

This idea began to take root at the edges of the public's consciousness that thousands of child abductors were out there waiting to strike the moment we let down our guard, even though this is actually a really rare crime. And that fear, it grew into a kind of national hysteria.

This is not a Halloween fable. This is a real life horror story.

The faces of missing kids started appearing on milk cartons. Parents fingerprinted their children in case someone snatched them. Daycare providers were accused of performing satanic rituals on toddlers.

A symbol of every parent's worst fear.

An increasing national tragedy has become a national scandal.

I was talking to a man named Ernie Allen about what it was like back then. He's a national expert in child abductions. And back in the early '80s, Ernie was one of the first people raising alarm about missing kids. He would go on to help found the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

This was a time, late '70s, early '80s, in which there were some horrendous cases involving the abduction and murder of children. Adam Walsh in South Florida, Etan Patz in New York.

These cases became iconic. You might remember some of them yourself. Etan Patz snatched away on his two-block walk to the bus in Manhattan, the first time he'd been allowed to make the trip by himself. Adam Walsh, taken from a Sears Department Store and found beheaded two weeks later in a drainage canal off the Florida Turnpike. Johnny Gosch disappeared from his paper route in West Des Moines, Iowa.

It just frightened people and made people think something's going on. Something is wrong. This is not about one sick city. It's not about one Jack the Ripper. This is happening to greater or lesser degrees in communities across this country, and America has missed it.

By the time Jacob Wetterling was kidnapped in 1989, after a decade of hysteria, the public and lawmakers are hungry to do something, anything, to protect children and put an end to child abductions.

Right from the beginning, investigators on the Jacob Wetterling case were convinced the crime fit into the pattern of other child abductions; that the person who did it had a sexual motive.

Investigators now say they plan to question every person in Minnesota who has ever been convicted of a sex crime or crime against children. They want to know where those people were Sunday night when Jacob was kidnapped.

The top FBI agent on the case at the time, Jeff Jomar, told reporters how this worked.

What we're trying to find out where persons who had been convicted of this type of crime before were at 9:15, Sunday night.

But it wasn't easy. Back then, the files of people convicted of sex crimes were spread out in boxes in small town police departments, sheriff's offices, courthouses. There wasn't a central directory of people convicted of sexually assaulting children. So, when Jacob's mom, Patty, started asking some of the investigators who worked on that case if there was anything that could have helped, they told her, "Yes, there was one thing."

Knowing who was in the area would have made things move a lot faster at expediting, you know, ruling out. Actually, it works to rule people out. If you know who's done this before, and you have their name and address, you can go, "Where were you?", you know, right through the list much more quickly.

What law enforcement and Patty had in mind was a private registry of the addresses of sex offenders, so they could quickly find all of the sex offenders who lived in a certain area. Some states already had laws like that, but Minnesota wasn't one of them. So, about a year after Jacob was kidnapped, with the case still unsolved, Patty pushed for a state law to create a registry in Minnesota. But there was no national registry. Patty worried that offenders could easily cross state lines.

I was, at that point, working closely with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. And people were calling the National Center and finding out which states don't have sex offender registry. "My brother's getting out of prison soon, and he's trying to decide where he should live." So, it was like, "Well, we can fix that." So, we did. We just did it.

In 1993, about four years after Jacob was kidnapped, a US representative from Minnesota introduced a bill in Congress, the Jacob Wetterling Act, that would require all states to verify the addresses of sex offenders every year, and to maintain registries of sex offenders. Patty envisioned the registry as something meant for law enforcement.

It was not designed to be open to the general public.

But then-

Right before, you know, we were already closing in on finalizing the bill when Megan Kanka was kidnapped.

Megan Kanka, she was a 7-year-old girl from New Jersey who was raped and murdered by a convicted sex offender who lived across the street. Megan's parents didn't know the man was a sex offender. So, they asked Patty if they could add one tiny seemingly minor addition to the Jacob Wetterling Act, just a couple of words.

So, they added one sentence saying that law enforcement may notify community upon the release of a violent offender.

May notify the community, it didn't seem like much.

But I had this nagging thought in the back of my head from the first time I heard it. I had this nagging thought, "What would the general public do with that information?" But I would be going against another victim family who saw another need. And I wasn't strong enough to say, "No, I don't think so."

The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Registration Act passed as part of the 1994 Federal Crime Bill. It marked the beginning of a new way of thinking about sex offenders in this country. And once the idea took hold that this group of people, sex offenders, should be registered and tracked, there was no going back.

Two years later, in 1996, Congress passed Megan's Law. It took the idea of community notification, something that had been voluntary in the Wetterling Act, and made it mandatory. Now, local law enforcement had to notify communities about most sex offenders moving into their neighborhoods.

Today, America warns if you dare to prey on your children, the law will follow you wherever you go state to state, town to town.

This is letting parents know that the fox is in the hen house. Are we mad and bitter? No, but we're sick of seeing these people get all the rights, and our children and the parents not getting any rights.

From then on, it seemed like it almost became a competition. Who can pass the most restrictive laws on sex offenders?

The drumbeat is intensifying to toughen up laws regarding sexual predators.

Question is, can anything work short of life in prison or execution?

Congress passed a law that said the most serious sex offenders had to be on the registry for life.

By enacting this law, we're sending a clear message across the country. Those who prey on our children will be caught, prosecuted, and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Registries expanded to include people who commit all kinds of sex crimes, not just crimes against children. Some people, now, end up on registries for texting a nude photo of themselves to their boyfriend or for peeing outside. Teenagers started being put on registries. It just kept going. More and more laws, more and more restrictions.

Missouri State Law requires sex offenders on Halloween night to turn off porch lights at 5:00, stay inside until 10:30, and post signs like this that say, "No candy or treats can be found inside."

One place has a law banning certain sex offenders from public storm shelters. The Governor of New York has even banned some sex offenders from playing Pokemon Go.

Officials are worried about luring component of the game. With 38,000 registered sex offenders in New York State, they fear it might be easy to fake an ID and stalk a child player.

Earlier this year, President Obama signed International Megan's Law. It requires authorities to mark the passports of US citizens who have been convicted of certain sex crimes against children with what they call a visual identifier, presumably a stamp; though the government has yet to figure out what the exact marking will be. The marking passports, by the way, is something we've never done before in this country for any kind of crime.

As efforts to get tough on sex offenders picked up steam, Jacob's mom, Patty, was right on the front lines with the parents of other abducted kids pushing for more laws, for more restrictions. She met with President Clinton in the Oval Office, appeared at a news conference in front of the White House, and became a nationally-renowned advocate for child safety. She even ran unsuccessfully for Congress three times on a platform of keeping kids safe.

When her son was abducted 17 years ago, Patty Wetterling told herself she'd do everything possible to bring Jacob home and everything possible to protect other families. From Minnesota to the US Congress, Patty Wetterling forced gridlock legislators to pass new laws to prevent child abduction, lock sexual predators behind bars, and keep our families safe. An ordinary Minnesotan with extraordinary courage.

I'm Patty Wetterling, and I approved this message.

But Patty couldn't shake that nagging thought in the back of her mind that maybe some of this wasn't such a good idea. She began getting another type of letter, letters from parents, parents of kids who had been put on sex offender registries. And one day, she went to Alabama to speak at a treatment center for kids who had been convicted of sex crimes.

I walked in, and there all these kids wearing blue jeans and blue work shirts. You know, they're kids. And the youngest one had just had his 10th birthday, and he was experimenting with a cousin or something when a relative walked in, and was horrified, and named him a sex offender. And I was so devastated by that.

And eventually, she even started going to prisons to talk to adult sex offenders to try to help them.

I want them to see a personal side, and I don't need to be mean, and angry, and yelling at them. I want to show them a compassionate side of life.

Patty thought more about all these sex offenders, about what all these laws and restrictions meant for them. She began to think about all this in a different way. She began to think, "I want these sex offenders to have a successful life."

Because that would mean no more victims, and that's the goal. But we we let our emotions run away from us achieving that goal.

And some of these laws, the way Patty began to see it, were actually doing the opposite. They're making it harder for sex offenders to rejoin society in a way that was safe for everyone.

You're screwed. You will not get a job. You will not find housing. This is on your record forever, and ever, and ever. Good luck.

Today, the best estimate is that there are about 850,000 people on sex offender registries in this country. That's about 1 in 400 people.

There's something that I think is really important to remember here, these are people who have already served their time. Many have spent years in prison. And this is the only crime that we do this for. Murderers don't get put on a public registry. Arsonists don't. Thinking about all this, it sounded unconstitutional.

So, I got in touch with a guy who has studied sex offender laws extensively, even written a book about them. His name is Eric Janus. He's a lawyer and former head of William Mitchell Law School in Minnesota. Janus told me that, yes, it's true, the state is not allowed to punish people after they've served their sentences. That would violate the Constitution. But sex offender laws, according to the Supreme Court, are not punishment. They're regulation.

I think, and I don't mean this in any kind of provocative way, but it's like we're regulating nuclear waste. We're not punishing the nuclear waste. We are making sure that it's kept away from us at a safe distance. And that's perfectly acceptable, and the law does that kind of thing all the time. It's not punishment. It's regulation.

The problem is that these laws take that idea and apply that idea to people. And these laws treat people as if they are dangerous objects that have certain dangerous properties.

Like hazardous waste?

Exactly, like hazardous waste.

If someone is hazardous waste, there's no safety measure that goes too far.

But we'll take a little quick right, to the right. Let's go here. You're not making it too obvious.

A few months ago, we sent a producer named Rowan Moore Gerety to see where these laws have taken us. Rowan met up with the guy, Marcos, around a commercial area in Miami, known as the spot.

But there's tents, and a few cars parked on here.

The spot isn't a house or an apartment complex. It's just this outside area, a parking lot basically, next to some warehouses. And it's where some of Miami's sex offenders live. Marcos used to live here too.

Here to my left, right behind, just next to the lighting pole is where I was parked there. Right there all the time. Right in front of me, there'll be a gentleman pitching a tent every night with a car in front of us as well. So, you'll see-

Marcos as a Marine Corps veteran. When he was 21 years old, he tried to meet up for sex with two teenage girls he'd met in an internet chat room. The girls turned out to be undercover officers. Marcos went to prison for seven years and got out last year. He's still on probation, and wears an ankle monitor. He asked us not to use his last name because he doesn't want to be threatened or harassed.

Marcos will be standing behind me. Marcos will be here.

When Marcos was getting ready to get out of prison, he started thinking about where to live.

You know, you're like,"It can't be that bad. You know, there's got to be a place to live. It can't be hard."

But it turned out it was that hard. In Miami, where Marcos lives, sex offenders have to live more than 2500 feet from a school, and more than a thousand feet from a daycare center or playground.

That area right there, it's good for any sex offender to live in. Right where we were at maybe five seconds ago, it is not good for sex.

What's a thousand feet that way?

I have no clue, but the circle goes around in and as the crow flies. So, that means that, pretty much, there's got to be some sort of school around there or some sort of daycare.

Just think for a minute what this means. Imagine taking out a map of Miami and drawing a circle around every day care center and playground, a thousand feet in diameter. And drawing a larger circle 2500 feet around every school. And then, coloring in all those circles with a red marker. Once you're done, almost the entire map will be red. That's the map of Miami that Marcos has to work with for the rest of his life.

When Marcos first got out of prison, he managed to find an apartment that fit all the restrictions, and things are going okay. But then, about a year later-

Someone must have seen the registry, and they notified them. They notified the property that there was a sex offender living on the property. Obviously, you know, your face is plastered all over the internet. Anyone can punch in their address, and they'll know you're living close to them. And then, I mean, just that label itself, that says enough. You know, it's the worst label you can have pretty much.

The property manager gave Marcos 10 days to get out. That's how he ended up at the spot. His probation officer told him about it.

She said, "Look, if you don't find housing, this is where all the sex offenders are staying at."

The first time Marcos went to the spot was in the afternoon. He wanted to check it out before it got dark.

And I was like, "Wait a second. Here?" I'm thinking more of a safer area, I guess, you could say. And yeah, I mean, it was surreal that this exists in the United States. Forced homelessness is pretty much what it is. It's a makeshift prison. If you think about it, it's like one of those prisons in the future.

But Marcos didn't have any other choices. So, he found a place to park and moved in.

Where do people go to the bathroom?

To be honest with you, my case, I went in a cup and a Gatorade bottle that I had in my car. I mean, it's not safe to get out, obviously, at nighttime. At nighttime, there's no lighting at all here. You don't want to be, you know, going in and out of your car. You never know who's out there waiting for you.

Here's what seems especially absurd about this. The spot was where Marcos had to come to sleep. It guaranteed that when Marcos was sleeping, he'd be far away from children. But during the day, he could pretty much go wherever he wanted.

Later on, as the night gets closer, you'll see a lot more cars here. I mean, this place is packed pretty much.

From the first night he slept here, Marcos was trying to get out of the spot to find a house he could move into. And Marcos was better off than a lot of people at the spot. He ran his own business. He could afford to buy a house. But when he looked at his map of Miami, the map he had to work with, with all the red circles around the daycare centers, and schools, and playgrounds, there were only about 80 or 90 houses in all of Miami Dade County that fell outside those red circles, not houses for sale, houses period.

I was honestly looking. I was looking every day at the map where I could buy the houses. I told that to my best friend who was my realtor. I told him we're finding a needle in a haystack here.

Marcos would look at his map of where he could live.

Small pockets. Some pockets were small as two homes. Some pockets were as big as 30 homes. And I remember the pockets. I wrote them all down. And then, I went on to Zillow.com, you know, the housing website. I would kind of like go off each other, kind of, you know, "Okay, there's no different in this than here. Okay, now, go back to this site. Where's more houses for sale? Boom." Kind of constantly going back and forth, back and forth, back and forth looking every single day.

After three months of nonstop searching.

Yeah. Can you show me around?

Sure. It's a new home. I mean, the main thing is that it was good for my residence restrictions.

Marcos finally found a house that met all of the restrictions for sex offenders and moved in.

It's this little issue right here, which is nothing but a blanket pretty much. It's better than sleeping in a car, which is what I was doing for the past two months and a half.

Marcos says this whole experience has made him feel like an outcast.

And I said the main thing I want to get across is fairness to not just me but the other guys that have no way out, you know. And something that I did 10 years ago will haunt me for the rest of my life. But I hope that people will realize that these laws have no purpose. These laws are there just for further punishment. Nothing else.

You can trace all of this, all these laws, the laws affecting Marcos, the spot, the passport markings, the Halloween restrictions directly back to a few specially dramatic abductions of children by strangers. The goal of all these laws was to protect kids from these kinds of crimes. And so, the obvious question is, did they work? Did they reduce the number of kids getting abducted by strangers? Jacob's mom, Patty, have the same question.

Is it working, or is it not working? You can't pass legislation, and then 20 years later, strengthen it without any proof that it's doing what it was set out to do.

So, I went looking for that proof. I brought in Will Craft, a data reporter I work with.

Hey, Will.

Hello.

So, thanks for coming in.

No problem.

And I asked him to try to find out whether fewer kids are getting kidnapped by strangers these days, now that we have all these laws.

This is the most perplexing journey I have been on.

You'd think this would be pretty easy to figure out, that you just go to the FBI and say, "FBI, how many kids are kidnapped by strangers every year?" And they'd say, "Glad you asked. Here's our annual report on that very topic."

The FBI's website even says, "Get in touch with us if you want archived statistics."

So, Will get in touch. The FBI said, "Submit a FOIA request for the data." FOIA stands for Freedom of Information Act. It's the formal way you request records from the federal government.

So, I submitted a FOIA request. It was rejected. I submitted a second FOIA request, and then a FOIA negotiator got in touch with me and said, "We can't give you the information that you want. They say it's too difficult to gather all of it, and would take a really long time."

Who is they?

That's a good question. I asked, "Who is they?" And the FOIA negotiators said, "I'm not allowed to tell you." And then, I pressed her on that, and I said, "Well, I'd want to know, is this the people who have gathered the data? Is this the custodians of the data?" And she said, "I would really like to tell you more, but I would get in trouble with my bosses if I released any more information about this basically."

Why?

She wouldn't tell me that either. It's very strange.

She did eventually tell Will that the information on this was in paper documents stored in boxes.

She basically said, "I cannot tell you where, and I cannot tell you who is in control of it."

You think you were asking for like the nuclear codes?

Yeah, I mean …

So far, the FBI has refused to let us look inside those boxes. And even if they did, we still wouldn't be able to figure out whether fewer kids are being abducted these days. That's because the whole process of local law enforcement reporting missing kids to the FBI is voluntary. A lot of local agencies don't do it.

There's no national requirement. There's no national standard for how these things need to be reported.

I kept looking into this. And eventually, I found out that Congress actually does require the Justice Department to conduct what it calls Periodic National Incident Studies to find out how many children go missing and how many are found. But in the past three decades, the department has only done two of those studies.

The first one looked at 1988. It sampled 83 law enforcement agencies, and estimated that 200 to 300 kids in the United States were abducted by strangers that year. The second one looked at 1999. It sampled more than 4000 agencies, and it estimated that 115 kids were kidnapped that year.

But these numbers don't tell us anything because they're only two years, and they used different methods of counting, so you can't compare them. The federal government actually says not to.

This is like shining a flashlight into a cave. You see a small number of cases, and you get a few details, but there's so much still left in the dark.

Yeah. And you don't know, like, if you were to shine it in a different area, like, would you be looking at something completely different?

Yeah, because this is not, in any way, a scientific study of this. There are just so many caveats. These numbers are useless.

Will and I spent six months researching this. And in the end, we came up with almost no data on what lawmakers, the media, and pop culture have led us to believe is one of the worst threats facing children in this country.

We spent a lot of time doing work that can basically be summed up by the shrug emoji. It's like, "Ugh."

That's so depressing.

Yup.

A few months ago, before the Wetterlings found out what had happened to their son nearly 27 years ago, I went over with our producer, Samara, to talk to Patty Wetterling.

Good morning. Hi.

Come in.

Thanks.

It's finally spring.

We wanted to talk with her about how she feels now about the laws that she played such an important role in creating, especially the one that started all this, the law that requires all states to have registries of sex offenders.

Do you check the registry periodically?

No. It doesn't do me any good to know the registry. I know they're out there. So, no, I don't I don't check registries.

Do you think that any public registry is a good idea?

You ask hard questions. I think, the way it was set up at the beginning can be a helpful law enforcement tool, much as, the same as when you get pulled over by a state trooper, they got your entire record, man. They know what you've been up to. And if it's been a lot, they may be more likely to issue the ticket than the warning. And it's all there. Your neighbors don't know that. Most people don't know that. And the rest of the world doesn't need to know that.

It's hard. It just seems like where we're at right now, it's like-

We're stuck. Right now, we're stuck because it's a trap. We want people to be angry about sexual assault. And then, when they're angry about it, they want to toughen it up for these people, you know, these bad boys who do this. And if we can set aside the emotions, what we really want is no more victims. Don't do it again. So, how can we get there? Labeling them and not allowing them community support doesn't work. So, I've turned 360 or, no, 180 from where I was.

Patty wanted her legacy to be a world that was better for kids, a safer, happier world. But she said she worries that what all those laws have actually done is make people reject that idea, and instead, view the world as fundamentally violent, dark, and suspicious with danger lurking behind every corner.

It's all the fear. I think, fear is really harmful in this topic. You're more likely to get struck by lightning than to get kidnapped. But the fear of sexual abuse, especially with parents, is huge. And they think that making their kids scared is going to keep them safer, and that's absolutely not true. It's probably the opposite.

And Patty told me, the reality is kids are much more likely to be harmed by someone they know than by a stranger or a registered sex offender.

It is somebody who knows the family and knows the child, the teachers, the coaches. They are in our community, and it's not somebody jumping out from the bushes.

Here's what seems so remarkable to me about this. Patty's own experience is of her son being taken by a stranger in the dark. It really is that nightmare scenario. And yet, what she's telling us is that we should not be making any more laws based on what happened to Jacob. But we did talk about Jacob. We talked about Danny Heinrich. By that point, Heinrich was already known to the public as a possible suspect in Jacob's kidnapping, but he hadn't confessed yet.

I just want to say this after all of our hours and hours of conversing. Most of the offenders, most of the suspects that we have had were never on a registry. Danny Heinrich that they have now, he wouldn't have been a registered sex offender.

Danny Heinrich had never been convicted of a sex crime. Even if all of these laws had been in place back then, it wouldn't have mattered. None of them would have alerted authorities to Heinrich.

And even when Patty learned all the awful things that Danny Heinrich had done to her son, she didn't ask people to be more vigilant or pass tougher laws. Instead, she asked people to play with their children, to eat ice cream, to laugh, and to help their neighbors. She asked people to celebrate living in the kind of world where Jacob lived before he was kidnapped, a world where people were so scared of each other.

Next time on In the Dark.

Crimes are being committed that were unsolvable for the education and background of the individual who's holding a position of chair.

The murder shocked the rural Stearns County community and left State Crime Bureau investigators and sheriffs puzzled searching for some fragment of reason behind the slayings.

All at once, we're locking doors.

Yeah, yeah.

We started having a gun in the house at this point.

What has changed in those 40 years? Nothing has changed. So, the problems that were back 40 years ago and beyond are still with us today, but there has to be an element in order to have accountability. And when accountability is not there, disastrous things happen.

In the Dark is produced by Samara Freemark. The associate producer is Natalie Jablonski. In the Dark is edited by Catherine Winter, with help from Hans Buetow. The editor in chief of APM Reports is Chris Worthington. Web editors or Dave Peters and Andy Kruse. The videographer is Jeff Thompson. Thanks to Rowan Moore Gerety for his reporting in Miami. Additional reporting for this episode by Will Craft and Emily Haavik. Our theme music is composed by Gary Meister. This episode was mixed by Johnny Vince Evans.

Go to InTheDarkPodcast.org to watch a video of Patty Wetterling talking about how she's changed the way she thinks about sex offender registries, and to find ways to get help if you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted.

In the Dark is made possible in part, thanks to our listeners. You can support more independent journalism like this at InTheDarkPodcasts.org/donate.

Automatically convert audio to text with Sonix


New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts Full Transcript: In the Dark – S1 E5 – Person of Interest

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with In the Dark podcast. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time πŸ‘€, just click the player below.

In the Dark: S1 E5 Person of Interest

Previously on In the Dark.

They were going that way. And then, we see that car going really fast go by here, and he was going the same way; only, he was going really fast.

And we've been running so many white cars down, and red cars down, and tan station wagons, and vans.

So, no one came and knocked on your door that night?

No.

And nobody came and searched your house that night?

No.

And nobody searched any of, as far as you know, the buildings, the farm buildings right around your house.

No. I remember saying, "I'm going to … I'll look down here." And that was a mistake.

When the news broke three weeks ago that a man named Danny Heinrich had confessed to the murder of Jacob Wetterling, US Attorney Andy Luger held a news conference. Standing by his side was a Stearns County Sheriff.

First, I want to introduce Sheriff Sanner, my partner on this matter, and a man whose dedication to seeking justice for Jacob Wetterling knew no limits, Sheriff Sanner.

Thank you. Over the past several days, the response to this news has been pretty much the same. This is not the ending that any of us wanted, but Jacob is finally home. Our thoughts-

John Sanner had been the Sheriff of Stearns County since 2003. And ever since taking office, Sanner had vowed that he and his investigators would try their hardest to solve the Wetterling case. His efforts over the years had even led some reporters to give him the nickname Jacob's Sheriff.

A steadfast commitment to never lose hope that this day would eventually come.

What Sheriff Sanner didn't say, and what no one else brought up at the news conference either was that for most of John Sanner's time in office, he had focused on the wrong guy.

This is In the Dark, an investigative podcast from APM Reports. I'm Madeleine Baran. In this series, we're looking at what went wrong in the case of Jacob Wetterling, an 11-year-old boy who was kidnapped in a small town in Central Minnesota in 1989.

Today, we're going to look at what happened when the people of Stearns County elected a new sheriff. And his team came up with its own theory of what happened to Jacob, a theory that would lead the sheriff to turn one of the investigation's best witnesses into its top suspect.

Back in March, about five months before the Wetterling case was solved, I went with our producer, Samara, to meet up with a man named Dan Rassier, then 60, but he looks at least a decade younger. He's tall, fit. He's a marathon runner. Dan was a bit wary at first. He didn't want us to come to his house. So, we met at a library instead.

All right. So, thanks for meeting with us.

Yeah, I'm not sure where we're going exactly but-

Yeah, yeah.

We sat up in a room in the library with glass walls on three sides right in the middle of the book stacks. And Dan kept glancing over his shoulder as people walked by.

He's watching the sky.

There was a guy browsing the books right outside the room. And he kind of stayed there for a few minutes just hovering with his back to us. I didn't even notice him at first.

This guy's listening out here. That's all he's doing. He probably can hear every word we say. He probably took my picture too.

We tried to assure Dan that the guy was probably just curious because we had a huge microphone, and Samara was sitting on a table with it. But Dan was convinced the man recognized him because of the Wetterling case. And while this might sound paranoid, it's really not. Dan had good reason to feel that way.

In 1989, when Jacob Wetterling was kidnapped, Dan was 33. He lived with his parents in a farmhouse at the end of a long gravel driveway on the dead-end road that led to the Wetterling's house.

Dan was a music teacher in the public schools. His students called him Mr. Bebop. He collected thousands of records, brass ensembles, big band recordings.

It was like I had this dream of buying every brass ensemble record known to man. That's kind of why I had to leave college. I was buying too many records but ran out of money. Everyone called it pulling your ass, you're going into the record store, and buying all these records.

Pulling your ass.

I mean, it's hard not to buy them.

On October 22nd 1989, Dan's parents were on vacation in Europe, and Dan was home alone. And that night, sometime between 9:00 and 9:30, right around the time Jacob was kidnapped, Dan was in his bedroom organizing his records, typing their names onto index cards when his dog, Smokey, started barking.

I turned the lights off. I'm looking out the window.

Dan saw a small car coming down his driveway. It looked like it was dark blue.

I could hear the car coming down the hill, and it turns around.

The car came all the way down to the house. And then, it turned around in the farmyard, and headed back out toward the road. Dan didn't get a good look at the driver. A little while later, Dan went to bed. And then, around 10:45 or so, Dan's dog, Smokey, started barking again, and Dan woke up. He peered out his window. And this time, he saw some people with flashlights roaming around near the family's woodpile. He thought maybe they were trying to steal the wood.

And I stepped out the door. And at that point, I remember my heart rate going up, and realizing I can't go up there. I can take care of maybe a couple of them, but not like 10 of them. And I just immediately called 911. They said a child was taken, and I go, "Oh, okay." So, I went right up there.

Dan went outside and ran into a sheriff's deputy. They talked for a minute or two. Dan offered to search some of the farm buildings, and that was pretty much it.

The next day and over the next few weeks, investigators did look at Dan Rassier, and Dan didn't blame them.

I was home alone. People would say I was weird. I am weird. "And you're not married, and you're 34 years old, you're living at home with your parents. You are weird. You did this."

Do you think that's how people viewed it?

Oh yeah.

Okay.

Investigators went into Dan's family's house a few days after Jacob was kidnapped. They looked at his shoes. They looked in the trunk of his car, but they didn't find anything. And they didn't think Dan did it, but what they did think back then was that Dan was a witness, and that what he saw that night, that small dark blue car that turned around in his driveway right around the time of the abduction was really important.

All the law enforcement officers I talked to who worked on the case back then said they always believed that the person who kidnapped Jacob drove to the site, put Jacob in a car, and fled. They'd found some tire tracks in the driveway of the Rassier property up by the road. And there was some shoe prints there too, adult-sized prints that didn't match any of Dan's shoes, and a shoe print that looked like Jacob's.

So, they pushed Dan to remember more about that car. They even had him hypnotized. Dan remembers the whole thing was really intense; so much so that sometimes, he would just start crying. None of it worked. Dan couldn't remember anything else about that car.

This theory, call it the car theory of the abduction, led the investigation for 14 years until John Sanner was elected as the new sheriff of Stearns County in 2002.

Sheriff Sanner put together his own team to investigate the abduction of Jacob Wetterling. He put one of his top officers in charge of the investigation, a captain named Pam Jensen. And she teamed up with an agent from the State Crime Bureau named Kenneth McDonald. Together, this new team rejected the car theory.

It was a huge shift in the investigation. And it all came down to a story from one guy, a guy named Kevin.

Hello. This is Kevin. How can I help you?

Kevin agreed to talk to us on the phone as long as we didn't use his last name because he didn't want to be harassed. Here's what he told us. On the night of October 22nd 1989, Kevin was at his girlfriend's mom's house in St. Joseph, sitting around, playing cards, and listening to the police scanner.

And at around 9:30, they heard something strange come across it, something about bikes and a man with a mask. They're curious. So Kevin and his girlfriend got in a car, and drove around to see what was going on. They ended up on the dead-end street that leads to the Wetterling house. They turned left onto what they thought was a dirt road. And then, they realized it was actually a driveway that led to a farmhouse. So, they turned around. As they came back out onto the road, their headlights hit some bikes in the ditch.

Drive there for a while. It's shining right in the ditch and the bikes. I'm sitting there going, "What the hell is going on?" You know, we threw the bikes in the trunk.

Kevin and his girlfriend drove back toward town and saw a police car stopped in a parking lot. Kevin told the officer about the bikes, but Kevin said the officer didn't seem to care.

The only thing he said to me, he goes, "We already know about it. We already know," and that was it. Didn't ask me what I was doing there, didn't ask for my name, nothing. We pulled out there going, " What the hell? No one cares about these bikes."

Over the years, what happened that night became a kind of funny and strange story Kevin would tell to people at parties. One night in 2003, 14 years after Jacob was kidnapped, Kevin ended up telling this story to a guy who turned out to be a federal marshal.

And he goes, "Well, you should tell the investigator you might have seen something." He goes, "If I line up, will you talk to him?" And I'm like, "Sure, what the hell."

In October of 2003, Captain Jensen and another officer met with Kevin. I got a copy of the transcript of that interview. It was short, just 12 pages, double spaced, large font, maybe 10 minutes total. The investigators asked Kevin to tell them what happened that night. They bring up the tire tracks that were found in the driveway of the Rassier farm. They tell Kevin they've been trying to identify them for years, and they say they think the tracks were left by brand new tires.

I told them I had brand new tires on the car. That's when they looked at each other, and said, "Oh my God. We've looking for you for 10 years."

Okay. So, I know this sounds a little far-fetched that one guy could appear after 14 years with a story about driving through the crime scene before police even got there, and changed the whole course of a massive investigation, but that's actually what happened here.

I read it right in a sworn statement written by Agent Kenneth McDonald. He wrote that when Kevin came forward, the investigators eliminated the car as an option in the abduction. Once they did, everything started to point to Dan Rassier.

A few months later, Dan got a phone call. It was an investigator on the Wetterling case asking Dan to come into the sheriff's office to talk.

I went in blind. I had no idea. I went, and "How are you doing?", you know.

There were two investigators there, Agent McDonald and Captain Jensen. I tried to interview McDonald for the story, but he refused. Jensen never returned my calls.

"And can I shoot the breeze a little bit?" And then, "Well, that car that you saw, we know who was driving it." And I remember saying, "You have your person then. You know who did it." "No. No, he didn't have anything to do with it."

Investigators told Dan the car he saw that night in his driveway had been ID'd, and the person driving it had been cleared. So, that only left one option.

They were saying, "You took him. How did you do it? We know he was taken by foot. The car is accounted for. Would you just please admit that you did it, and we can make this a lot easier for you?" And I remember laughing going, "No way. You've got to be kidding."

Dan thought this was absurd. The night Jacob was taken, he had no idea what was going on; so much so that when he woke up to the sound of people searching with flashlights, he called 911 and reported them. Dan says that in that interrogation in 2004, investigators tried to use that 911 call against him.

"But that's why you were so nervous on the phone because you did do this, and you were way too nervous to be worried about a woodpile. You were worried because you might be caught, and you wanted to think of a way that you could keep the police from coming in your house, so you went to them."

I wanted to listen to that 911 call. But in Minnesota, recordings of 911 calls aren't usually open to the public, but the transcripts of those calls usually are. So, a few months ago, before the case was solved, I asked the Stearns County Sheriff's Office for a copy. At first, they told me they couldn't give it to me because the case was still active. So, I asked our lawyer to get involved. And once he did, the explanation from Stearns County changed.

Now, they told us the reason they couldn't give us a transcript of the 911 call was because the transcript doesn't exist. They said the Stearns County Sheriff's Office never had one, and that it never even saved the audio from Dan's 911 call. They just pretended to have it when they questioned Dan.

Dan remembers the interrogation going on for almost three hours.

They had me watch a little videotape of Jacob talking. And I remember thinking, "Wow, this little boy is gone for this long already, 15 years or so." And I think that the idea behind that was that I would break down and confess.

Did you think about getting a lawyer at that point?

No.

A lot of people would be like, "Oh my gosh. You are in a serious situation right now."

Even at that point, I remember as I left that interview thinking, "This is an insane story. I remember going home telling my parents about it. They didn't believe me.

And then, do they call you again or what happens next?

That's what really gets bad.

Okay.

That's where I go, "Those turkeys," a lot of bad words for them.

A couple of weeks after the interrogation on a Friday night, Dan drove home from the school where he taught.

And I drive down into the yard, and there's a car there waiting. And I get out of my car, and there's already a bright camera light. And that was the end of my life.

A TV reporter named Trish Van Pilsum had somehow gotten wind of the fact that Dan had been called into the sheriff's office, even though the only people Dan had told about it where his elderly parents. Dan still doesn't know how she found out.

And she wanted me to go on camera so bad. And I said, "No. Nothing good will come of it for me to be on the news with this story."

Dan declined to do the interview, and he thought that was the end of it.

Fast forward to the Monday, Monday comes, and I drive to the back of the school to unload all my stuff for band. And before I could get out of my car there in the back of the school, she was right there. I'm looking, and here she comes. I remember she's just shouting questions at me, and these really insulting questions. I remember thinking, "Why are you being so mean?"

14 years later, who took Jacob? Police finally turned their focus to this man.

It's Trish Van Pilsum with the exclusive.

We won't identify him because he hasn't been arrested or charged.

I didn't have anything to do with this.

He lives near the abduction site, home alone on October 22nd 1989, no one to confirm his whereabouts.

They disguised my voice to make it sound almost like I had problems speaking more than I do already, and they made me sound like an idiot, like I really didn't care. I didn't give a shit about anything. And they made my face blurred out, but you could see my car, you could see the school, you could see what I was wearing. Everybody knew who it was. I mean, it was devastating.

I called up Trish Van Pilsum, and told her what Dan had said about how devastated he was by the whole thing. Trish wouldn't talk about it. All she would say is that, "I think the story speaks for itself."

From that point on, Dan lived with this uneasy feeling that people were looking at him differently, that maybe they were talking about him behind his back. But for a few years, Dan wasn't sure exactly what was going on with the investigation, and I didn't know either until a few weeks ago when the Stearns County Sheriff's Office released a batch of documents related to the case written by Agent Kenneth McDonald.

And in these documents you can watch as McDonald and Jensen spent years trying to build a case against Dan Rassier. They started out by looking at some basic facts. Dan was home alone on the night of the abduction. The boys didn't see a car. The boys said the abductor seemed to come from Dan's driveway. But then, Jensen and McDonald started looking into what kind of person Dan was or, at least, what kind of person they thought he was.

In one of the documents, Agent McDonald noted that on the night Jacob was kidnapped, Dan was organizing his record collection. McDonald wrote, "The abductor appeared to be detail-orientated, and Rassier has the same traits." They noted that Dan taught music to kids around Jacob's age; that Dan didn't call any friends or relatives to tell them about the abduction; that Dan went on one or two dates with a woman briefly in the mid-1980s, and it didn't end well; and that in the winter of 2007, after a solid month of monitoring and reading Dan's mail, investigators discovered something. For that entire 31-day period, Dan had only received one Christmas card. Investigators considered all this very suspicious.

The documents described what happened next, how in 2009, McDonald and Jensen went to Jacob's mom, Patty, with an idea. They asked Patty to wear a wire, and pretend to run into Dan in town. She did, and she started talking to him about the case. She kept asking him if he did it. And when that didn't work, she tried asking him what he thought happened.

Dan told Patty that he was worried the abductor might come back and bury Jacob's body on his property. And then, he would be the one who would get in trouble for it. I talked to Dan a lot about this worry he had. He told me he had spent years thinking of all the places on his property that law enforcement had missed, the places where he thought it would have been possible for someone to hide Jacob's remains.

Well, the silos. Silos, you could bury, you know. Somebody could even put them under a cement.

Dan has his own term for this type of thinking. He calls it his negative imagination. I think a lot of us have this tendency to start to think this way. Some of us shut off those thoughts pretty quickly. But Dan, he continues down that path as far as it leads.

In our house, we have potato cellar. And I could easily bury a body down deep in that, and you would never know.

Do you see how saying something like that would make people suspicious?

What should I say? I have no idea? Then, I'm not being honest.

And I know that these kinds of statements didn't go over well with the officers assigned to the case. In the interrogation of Dan in 2004, Dan brought up the incomplete searches of his property. Agent McDonald wrote about the exchange in one of the documents. McDonald wrote that Dan, "seemed to be enjoying this part of the conversation, smirking at times."

But I noticed there was something else that seemed to especially bother the investigators, and that was Dan's insistence on this blue car, the blue car he saw that night sometime between 9:00 and 9:30 right around the time Jacob was kidnapped; that Dan was certain it belonged to the abductor. Dan just wouldn't let it go.

Agent McDonald wrote that Dan was "overly concerned with the car he saw that night." He wrote that when he accused Dan of the crime, Dan still kept coming back to that car. Dan "continuously went back to the fact that it must have been the person that turned around in the driveway." It's like Dan's reminding them of something they find irritating.

At one point, Agent McDonald even described it as Dan refusing to allow them to eliminate the car theory. Dan kept insisting that he saw a car, and that the car he saw was small and blue.

In 2010, the investigators took all this information: the record collection, the job teaching kids, the bad relationship with a woman in the mid '80s, the conspicuous lack of Christmas cards, and they brought it all to a Stearns County judge to ask her to sign a search warrant, so they could dig up the Rassier farm and look for evidence of Jacob. They had a meeting about it before the judge signed it. It was Agent McDonald, the judge, Vicki Landwehr, and the top prosecutor in Stearns County, County Attorney Janelle Kendall.

I called Judge Landwehr, but she declined to talk. I do know exactly what was said in that meeting because a transcript of the conversation was released a few weeks ago. Judge Landwehr told them she agreed that the circumstances and Dan's reaction did seem suspicious, but she questioned whether some of the details actually added up to probable cause. So, she asked them if there was anything else they had that would, as she put it, tie him a little more directly. The prosecutor said she didn't have anything, and turned it over to Agent McDonald.

According to the transcript, McDonald said quote, "I'm thinking." And then, he came up with a few things. He told the judge that Dan ran marathons all over the United States, and that they'd even contacted law enforcement in all those places to look for similar crimes, but didn't find any, but they did find a quote Dan had given to a newspaper reporter about running. Dan said he runs to suppress pain. Agent McDonald put it this way to the judge, "You can interpret that to, well, he running and suppressing pain with running, or is he running away from something?" Judge Landwehr replied, "Sure, okay."

Agent McDonald also mentioned that Dan once, "made some strange comments about being on a train in Europe." McDonald told the judge they tried to investigate that through Interpol, the international police organization known for helping to stop terrorism and hunt down stolen art, but they didn't have much success. Judge Landwehr replied, "Okay."

So, Agent McDonald took all this, the stuff about running away from pain, the stuff about Interpol, and put it into a sworn statement, a statement under oath — It's called an affidavit — that he gave to the judge as grounds for signing the search warrant. And in that affidavit, Agent McDonald took this offhand reference to contacting Interpol to check out some strange comments Dan made about being on a train in Europe, and turned it into something else. What McDonald now claimed was that Dan "has been further investigated by Interpol regarding comments he made on a train while traveling in Europe."

So, McDonald had taken the story of them contacting Interpol and turned it into a story about Interpol conducting its own investigation of Dan. I just had to show this to Dan as soon as I found out. And when I showed him the paper, Dan just stared at it, and shook his head.

It's like, "Now, Im Jason Borne. I was investigated by Interpol in Europe when I was riding trains for four summers." It's like, "Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? I can't even make this stuff up."

It seemed odd to me too that Interpol would investigate Dan Rassier for something he said on a train. So, I decided to get in touch with Interpol to see if this was really true. I emailed them the exact wording from the affidavit that Dan had been investigated by Interpol, and asked them to confirm that they did, in fact, conduct this investigation. They did not confirm this. Their press office in Lyon, France got back to me almost right away, and they told me Interpol doesn't even do its own investigations, but Judge Landwehr signed the warrant.

We have exclusive new information tonight about the Jacob Wetterling investigation.

I'm standing in front of a cornfield on the edge of the Rassier family farm. Just to the right of me, take a look, you'll see a sheriff's officer there. And then, just behind him, down that long dirt road, well, the end of that road is a farm, and that's where this investigation is going on.

In 2010, the Stearns County Sheriff's Office, the FBI, and the State Crime Bureau descended on the Rassier farm with cars, a pickup truck, and a backhoe. Dan had no idea what was going on because, back then, all these documents about the search were sealed. Officers scooped up ash and dirt from the farm, and held it away in barrels. Then, they came inside the house.

And they pushed my dad aside. I grabbed my dad. I thought he was just going to have a heart attack because of how they were treating him. And my mom comes up from the basement going, "What's going on?" And they're rushing, almost like a drug bust. It's like you go, "You've got to be kidding, you guys.".

Dan said his mom started talking to one of the officers.

Saying, "What are you guys doing in the house?" And he pulls her. He grabs this old lady's arm, and yanks her off the chair. She falls to the floor. He drags her across the kitchen floor, and he says, "You're all under arrest. You're all under arrest." And my mom's going, "Oh no. What did we do?" "You're all under arrest." It was really … It was horrible. And I'm ready for them to pop us with their gun.

Law enforcement didn't arrest the Rassiers. They didn't arrest anyone. I sent an email to the officer who Dan says dragged his mother across the floor, and asked him if this happened. He forwarded my email to a spokesperson who sent back a one-word answer, "No."

The search came up empty. They found no evidence connecting Dan to the abduction of Jacob, but the same day the search ended, Sheriff John Sanner did something new. He started using a three-word phrase to describe Dan Rassier's connection to the Wetterling case.

The Stearns County sheriff says Rassier is a person of interest in the Jacob Wetterling-

Labeled Rasser a person of interest-

Person of interest. Good evening, I'm Bill-

Person of interest, a vague phrase. There's no actual definition, no legal meaning, but that label, "person of interest," and the stigma of it would mark Dan for years.

During the 2010 search of the farm, Sheriff Sanner said something to Dan that stuck with Dan ever since.

Sanner, he's standing in the shade with his crisp white shirt on and his cap acting very calm, and cool, and arrogant. Scoundrel, he is. I say something like, "How could you come to this?" He said, "This is what happens when you talk. This is what happens when you talk."

Things are growing now. We've got a lot of maple trees growing. I hope they keep coming.

A couple of months ago before the Jacob Wetterling case was solved, Dan invited me to go exploring with him in his family's woods. Over the years, Dan has spent a lot of time alone in these woods, cutting down trees to use to heat the house, maintaining the trails, especially since his father died last year.

How big is this whole woods?

Not that big. I would say it's maybe 25 acres.

Dan had mentioned that he sometimes finds evidence of that search from back in 2010 when investigators dug up his farm. We went looking together for what we could find.

You're looking for basically police tape on a little … just like on a branch.

What color? Like would it be-

Yellow. It could be yellow.

The woods we're walking through, it was like a magical forest.

Like this used to be called The Lost Valley because it was lower down, and it was-

All dense with trees, maple, and ironwood, and ponds, fallen logs, and vines that looked like Tarzan's row.

When I was a kid, dinosaurs were down in this part of the woods.

As we walked, the light filtered in here and there through the trees casting a dreamy haze onto the path in front of us.

I see one straight ahead, right there. That's the yellow tape that they used to mark off where they were looking for with the dogs. Look at that. If you look that way, you see them. They're disintegrating. You can tell they're falling apart.

Dan walked over to a tree branch to touch one of the pieces of crime scene tape. He rubbed off some of the dirt with his fingers.

When I see that, I just shake my head and go, "That was a bad day. Bad, bad day."

Dan told me it's hard to describe how much this has changed his life, to be under suspicion for so long.

It changed everything in our family. I mean, my dad would probably still be living. It was so stressful for him. And the stress of it, there are certain members of the family that the stress was unbearable for them; and therefore, it's my fault.

Dan still works as a music teacher, but his side business giving private lessons has dried up because a lot of parents no longer trust him alone with their kids. Dan told me he couldn't even sell stuff on Craigslist because as soon as people Googled his address, they realize, "That's the place where the guy who might have kidnapped Jacob lives."

People in town, it's sort of a weird feeling when you realize that, "Yeah, they probably don't think too much of me," and women are the same way. They look your name up on the internet, and they go, "Thank you but no thanks." It's like you've become a little bit … What's the word? Poisonous or toxic.

I mean, as I'm talking here, I realize I can't talk to family members about any of this. They don't want to hear it. It's just they get upset. I can't talk to people at school about it for obvious reasons. So, I can't talk to anybody about it really.

The whole thing just sounds very lonely.

Well, I mean, how would I say this? I'm 60 years old. And this has been going on since I was 34. So, it's almost half my life time. And you realize you're going to go to your grave. You're not going to be known for being, you know, a teacher, or, you know, a musician, or whatever. You're going to be known for this, connected to this tragedy of Jacob. And it's not a good feeling.

For years before the case was solved, Dan tried to get help from people outside the sheriff's office to clear his name and get his family's stuff back, some lawn furniture, a chest, some documents. Dan wrote to the State Attorney General, the State Crime Bureau, various oversight boards for courts and lawyers, the FBI, the senator, his representative, even the governor.

In one letter, he wrote, "What can be said for living in America when I've experienced hell right here in Minnesota at the hands of law enforcement? This whole mess continues to torment my family, and shows no signs of relief."

No one did anything in response to Dan's complaints; though, a few agencies did write back. An FBI agent sent down a letter saying the FBI couldn't get involved because there was no evidence that a federal law was broken. The FBI agent added, "We're happy that you have no complaints directed against the FBI investigator involved in this matter."

The reason that no one could do anything with Dan's complaints is that in the United States, sheriffs have an incredible amount of power. There's no government agency in charge of supervising them. Unlike police chiefs, sheriffs don't have to answer to a mayor or a city council. They're out there on their own. And the only check on their power comes once every few years when they're up for election.

Come here. Sit down.

Okay.

I wanted to talk to Sheriff Sanner about what investigators did to Dan Rassier, and how it basically ruined his life. So, in early August, about a month before Danny Heinrich confessed to kidnapping and murdering Jacob Wetterling, I went to meet with the sheriff in his office. Sanner's 62 years old. He has blondish gray hair, a mustache, and he was wearing a sheriff's uniform: brown pants, and a white buttoned down shirt, with a shiny sheriff's badge on one side, and an American flag patch on the other.

So, thanks for taking the time.

No problem.

What I wanted to know from the sheriff was his answer to the question Dan had asked years ago, "How did it come to this?" How did the sheriff come to view Dan, not as a witness, but as a suspect? And why did the sheriff decide not to keep this quiet? Why did he tell the public that Dan was being looked into? There was a lot Sheriff Sanner wouldn't talk about, like the interrogation of Dan in 2004, or how his parents were treated during the 2010 search.

I can't confirm or deny anything the Dan Rassier is commenting about because it is about the Wetterling investigation.

And then, I guess, similarly I was going to ask why hasn't Dan gotten his property back or all of his property back?

Again, the same answer for that. I'm sorry.

But there were some things about Dan that Sheriff Sanner was willing to talk about, like that TV news story from 2004, the one that blurred out Dan's face and voice, the one that said investigators were now focusing on him.

There's this one story in particular that Trish Van Pilsum did in 2004.

Hmm.

You're making a sound.

When I mention this reporter's name, the sheriff leaned back in his chair and groaned. And then, he brought his hands out in front of him, and made this kind of wrenching motion, like he was trying to wring someone's neck.

It's frustrating because I have absolutely no control over what the media does and doesn't do.

So, do you know who told her that Dan was a suspect?

I have no idea who made those comments. If they were even made, I don't know.

And did you ever try to investigate whether or not there is a leak in the sheriff's office?

I'm sure we would have. If the information was coming from inside the sheriff's office, that would be gravely concerning.

I followed up with Sheriff Sanner after the interview and asked him if he had any evidence he could send me about this internal investigation. He told me that, actually, there was no internal investigation. During the interview, I asked Sheriff Sanner why he decided, in 2010, to publicly call Dan a person of interest?

I have to think back.

Sheriff Sanner told me it had to do with an interview Dan had done with a local paper.

He, by himself, went to the St. Cloud Times, and talked to them, and started talking about the case, and his involvement. So, when he did that, he identifies himself then. So, I just gave him the label of "person of interest." He's the one that goes to the St. Cloud Times. I don't do that.

I think, they called him on the phone, and he-

However it works, he talks to them.

What the sheriff just said is startling when you think about it. The reason the sheriff decided to call Dan a person of interest, a decision that would be so devastating for Dan and his family was because Dan did what all of us have a right to do. He talked to a reporter.

I think you need to call him something, and person of interest seemed to be the best fit for him.

Why don't you just say, "No comment"?

Because Dan had already come forward and talked about the case or his involvement in the case to them. And for me to say no comment at that time would have been like we're not doing our jobs either.

So, the lesson is like don't talk to the media?

Well, not necessarily. Maybe don't talk to the media the way he did.

But doesn't he have the right to talk to the media however he wants?

I suppose, but when you're involved in a major, major criminal investigation, you might want to use some discretion when you identify yourself.

So, this has really damaged his life. You know, I mean, he describes how he's like a pariah. He has had trouble meeting people. He can't date anyone because they Google his name, and it's like, "Oh, you might have kidnapped Jacob Wetterling." He can't do the private music lessons. He just feels like he's under suspicion. I wonder if you weigh that in the equation. I mean, do you feel that … I mean, do you think about that?

Yeah, of course, I think about that. There are consequences to things that we do in law enforcement. But there's also consequences to things that we don't do. If we don't look at things, and we don't do investigations because we might hurt somebody feelings. Still, our primary goal is to resolve the case, and you're going to maybe hurt some feelings or damaged reputations in the process, but it's still a piece. We still have to do what we have to do.

And how does it help the investigation to call him a person of interest?

I don't know how it helps the investigation.

Just three weeks ago, after nearly 27 years, a man named Danny Heinrich confessed to kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and murdering Jacob Wetterling. Heinrich told the court that on the night he kidnapped Jacob, he drove down Dan Rassier's gravel driveway. He swung around, and pulled back up near the road to wait for the boys in the driveway. He was driving a 1982 Ford, a small blue car. Dan Rassier had been right all along.

I went back out to St. Joseph last week to check in with Dan.

Good to see you again.

You too. It's actually been a while.

Yeah, it has.

We couldn't go inside. Dan's family is still wary of reporters. So, we ended up grabbing some chairs and bringing them into the family's empty chicken barn where Dan used to practice the trumpet as a kid. I wanted to talk to Dan about what it feels like 27 years later, after all he's been through to know that he was right.

It makes my life in a lot of ways worse. I've been sleeping less than ever, and just thinking about it over time, and-

But why?

Long pause. You don't recover 27 years of time. You just don't get it back because it's just such a … I can't even describe the frustration of the 27 years of time being … It never had to be this way. Just a feeling of complete waste with time gone.

I went to the news conference after Danny Heinrich confessed. And as I sat there waiting for it to start, I wondered if the sheriff would use this case as an opportunity to review what had happened, to really look at why he and his investigators had focused for so long on the wrong guy. Not to apologize exactly, but to learn from it; to say to the public, "Next time around, we'll be better prepared. We'll do things differently."

But when Sheriff Sanner got up to the podium and started talking, if there was one thing he was clear about, it was that he wasn't interested in any of that.

Over the years, I've been asked to look back and comment on things that might have been done differently. My response has always been the same. Our energy needs to stay focused on what we can control and not waste it on things we have no control over.

And Sherrif Sanner had nothing at all to say about the man he called a person of interest. He didn't mention Dan Rassier's name at all.

Coming up next time on In the Dark.

Investigators now say they plan to question every person in Minnesota who's ever been convicted of a sex crime or crime against children. They want to know where those people were Sunday night when Jacob was kidnapped.

This is not about one sick city. It's not about one Jack the Ripper. This is happening to greater or lesser degrees in communities across this country, and America has missed it.

The drumbeat is intensifying to toughen up laws regarding sexual predators.

Today, America warns, if you dare to prey on our children, the law will follow you wherever you go, state to state, town to town.

This is the most perplexing journey I have been on.

It's like we're regulating nuclear waste. We're not punishing the nuclear waste. We are making sure that it's kept away from us at a safe distance.

In the Dark is produced by Samara Freemark. The associate producer Natalie Jablonski. In the Dark is edited by Catherine Winter, with help from Hans Buetow. The editor in chief of APM Reports is Chris Worthington. Web editors are Dave Peters and Andy Kruse. The videographer is Jeff Thompson. Additional reporting for this episode by Jennifer Vogel. Our theme music is composed by Gary Meister. This episode was mixed by Johnny Vince Evans.

Go to InTheDarkPodcast.org to learn more about this term, "person of interest," and how it's been used in other cases, and to see a timeline of the 27-year search for Jacob, and to learn more about the shoe prints and tire tracks found in the driveway.

In the Dark is made possible in part, thanks to our listeners. You can support more independent journalism like this at InTheDarkPodcast.org/donate.

Automatically convert audio to text with Sonix


New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts Full Transcript: Editing Audio Using a Text Transcript in Adobe Audition – Mike Russell

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time πŸ‘€, just click the player below.

Full Transcript: Editing Audio Using a Text Transcript in Adobe Audition – Mike Russell

Hello there. I am Mike and welcome to another edition of Music Radio Creative Live. Oh, that feels good, doesn't it? It's good to be back.

And in this edition, I'm going to talk about the best way to transcribe your podcast audio into text. So you can do all kinds of cool stuff like PDF transcriptions that you can give either as a lead magnet or as a free download. Also how to create awesome show notes, that kind of stuff.

I'm going to show you a few options on my screen right now during this live little explain session. Thank you by the way for joining me. If you are in live or if you're here on the replay, I hope you find this content valuable.

So as you see in the background here just behind me, I've got a Google Doc opened. That will be the first option. Also I've used this service from Rev before in the past and had very good results.

But I also want to introduce you to a new service you might have seen on my channel, done a few videos about them. Cool enough to sponsor some of my videos before as well. It's called Sonix.

And in the time it will take me to explain the other features to you, I will be able to do a transcription in lightning speed time using Sonix.

So I've got an old podcast episode here. Let's just play it for a second. It's about five minutes. Okay, perfect. So it should just take a couple of minutes to drag and drop it here and I'll get this going.

And then while that's happening, I'll show you some other ideas. So English British, that's my accent. Start transcribing. Brilliant. Okay. While that is wearing away in the background, obviously I can't fast forward this video because I'm live, I'll explain some of the other stuff.

So Rev is popular. I've seen it recommended a random load. I've had good results with it in the past, does use human transcribers. Hence, the fact it is speedy but not quite as speedy as artificial intelligence which is what this app is using here, Sonix.

And also yeah, one dollar per minute so if you have an hour long podcast episode, that's going to be 60 bucks to get your podcast transcribed by a real human being.

In my experience, I can say they've been very fast. Usually 24 hours or less so no real messing about but this is going to take two minutes which is pretty, pretty cool.

The other way to do it is to use something like a Google Doc and there is a cool feature in here. You've got tools, voice typing and see that and I can click to speak. Hang on.

Let's change my accent again because I'm British. Where are you British? Or is it UK? Where is it? Am I missing it? Australia, Canada, Ghana, India, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Philippines, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, oh, United Kingdom. Okay.

Let's see whether it picks up my voice. Hello. I'd like to find out if you can transcribe me perfectly. Not too bad.

Now, if you've got your audio interface hooked up in such a way you can actually play what you hear audio in, you should also be able to go into a new line here, transcribe using this podcast episode.

So let me hit transcribe. Hit the mike phone button again and I'm going to try playing my podcast episode.

Hello. I'm Mike.

I'm Isabella.

And welcome to season. Okay, that is not working. So a little bit of messing about here or maybe it disabled itself because it didn't hear any audio. Let's try that again then.

Hit record and play the podcast episode. So podcast episode ready to go. That's a problem. It seems to disable when I click off. So maybe if I start the podcast episode first then hit the microphone.

Hello. I'm Mike.

I'm Isabella.

Maybe it's missing the intro. You see, it's a bit fiddly this one. Mike. Okay. I'm gonna start it from that point.

Let's just check back in with Sonix. Oh yeah, it's already done. It's already transcribed the episode of Ron Sonix but never fear, I am determined to make this work. So let's play the audio and start the microphone.

Hello. I'm Mike.

I'm Isabella.

And welcome to season three of the Music Radio Creative Podcast.

You know I was literally itching to be back. It's really funny how we had such a long break from podcasting.

I know.

And I almost feel really guilty. And there were days where I'm just thinking, "Oh could we just not sit down and start recording right now."

And that's the beauty of podcasting, right. You can just grab your microphone, you can switch it on and start talking.

Absolutely.

Okay. As you can see, it's done an okay job but it's really not perfect. And it's mistranscribed a few of the words, plus I'm not getting nice paragraphs. Literally, at the end of this I'm going to have one big chunk of text.

So let's go over to Sonix. Oh, before I do actually, there is one more thing that I can show you. If you can get this to work on your desktop, you can use something like Evernote.

So I'm just loading up the Evernote app here, logging in to my Evernote. And if I create a text note here, there you go, creating a text note on Evernote. Then, what I will do is I will use my microphone input here.

Hello. This is a test note. And you might be able to see that or not but it is transcribing exactly what I say. You could be really fiddly and start that recording and hold it up to a speaker and play your podcast episode.

But remember, both the Google Drive way and transcribing into phone way, you're gonna have to transcribe in real time. So if you got a 60-minute podcast, you'll have to sit there for an hour, leaving it playing in real time so not ideal.

Rev will work it but uses real human beings, more expensive than Sonix and also you're going to have to wait a little bit longer to have that real human being turn around your transcription.

But let's have a look at this, I'm very very quickly falling in love with Sonix. And you can see it's done a great job. It split the podcast episode into nice little paragraphs as well.

It's given me a confidence rating as well so I can actually highlight with the thermometer any words that it's not confident about. Brilliant, brilliant stuff.

If you want to try this out for yourself by the way, mrc.fm/transcribe. Okay. That will not only give you 30 free minutes but if you sign up for a paid account, you'll get 100 minutes for free by using my link. So mrc.fm/transcribe to test this out.

Hi. I'm Mike. And I'm Isabella is the last bit. And welcome to season three of the Music Radio Creative Podcast. So really really cool stuff. A very fast way to get some nice looking show notes going on here.

You can go ahead and assign speakers. So I can say that this is going to be Mike, save and this is gonna also be Mike. This was Isabella speaking and you can go through like so just assigning the speakers to be the correct speakers here.

You see it will pick out for you automatically different speakers that it detects. You can just go through and do Mike, Isabella, Mike, Isabella. You'll see why I'm doing this in just a moment.

Let's get that all assigned, Mike, Isabella and you can just go through and do this really quickly. I'll leave the rest. Oh, might as well do the whole thing for sake of completeness, Mike, Isabella, Mike, Isabella, Mike, Isabella.

And this has got some really cool integration so not only can you make a podcast show notes. So if I wanted to add a show note here. Okay, we're changing the format. We're changing the format of this podcast, read more at mrc.fm/about. That could be one show note.

What else did we talk about here? If there's something you'd like to hear on the podcast, okay. If you'd like to hear about something on our show, go to mrc.fm/submit.

And as you can see here, I'm making quick show notes to the podcast which would take much longer if you had to listen to it. Now I can just skim, read through this text to make notes. And as you can see here, they appear as nice notes.

Now, let's do some exporting to really show you what this can do for your podcast. I can export as a Microsoft Word document or text file if I want to copy paste into something like WordPress. I include time stamps and speaker names. It's very handy. Export and boom.

There we go, some show notes and look at this, looking fantastic. It calls out Mike and Isabella so each speaker here with timestamps of when we were speaking. Show notes are here at the top with links. So again, ready to Command A, Command C and paste into your CMS like for instance WordPress.

But if I want to go ahead and make some edits here, I can edit out a whole line of me talking here. Just grab your microphone, you can switch on and start talking. Boom, that's gone and that will actually disappear now from the audio.

And I can show you this just quickly over in Audition. If I then export this as an, let's click here, Adobe Audition session file which we're gonna do using Sonix, export and then open in Adobe Audition. And we want to link the media with MRC and it is mrc-s3e0. Boom.

Open up and you'll see here transcription is going to appear here in the market section or it should appear here in the market section. For some reason that's, oh, it's not working because I've got a search in there already. There's the transcription.

And you can see how it is making cuts at the point that I have told it to cut our out audios. So right about here but this is nondestructive so if I zoom right in, I can actually re-enable any of the audio that Sonix is cutting it out.

So Sonix will edit your podcast for you as well. It's a really really cool app and the best I have found in order to transcribe your podcast audio into text. So go, give it a go, try it out for yourself and let me know how you get on with this.

Like I say, the time it has taken me to explain the other methods of transcribing, the artificial intelligence inside this app transcribed a short podcast episode with ease and not even breaking a sweat.

So go and try it out for yourself at mrc.fm/transcribe. Really hope you enjoy using this for your podcast. Let me know how you get on and I'll be back tomorrow for a brand new episode of Music Radio Creative Live. Join me then.

Automatically convert audio to text with Sonix


New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts Full Transcript: Top Podcasting Tips & Tools for Recording, Interviews & Exporting – Pat Flynn

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with Pat Flynn. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time πŸ‘€, just click the player below.

Top Podcasting Tips & Tools for Recording, Interviews & Exporting – Pat Flynn

Hey, what's up guys, it's Pat Flynn here. You know I've recorded over a thousand podcast episodes, conducted hundreds of interviews. I'm excited to share with you today in this video some of my best and favorite tips. We're going to talk about recording your episodes. We're going to talk about interviews.

We're actually going to dive into the editing software. I'm gonna show you different kinds of episodes you can create and how they're structured and then finally, I'm going to show you how to export an MP3 file and tag it properly in a way such that it has all the right information in it for the person listening on the other end. All right. You ready to get started.

All right, let's start with tip number one. When I first started podcasting, I thought that when you recorded a podcast episode you had to record it all in one fell swoop, meaning just one take and I would get frustrated every time I made a mistake. I would go back to the beginning and re-record everything over and over and over again and over time it would get longer and longer the amount I could go without actually making a mistake, but I eventually found out the secret.

You don't have to record everything all in one take. You can and you should be stopping at certain points, going back and redoing something if you feel like you can do it better and at the end, your podcast episodes are going to look like a bunch of pieces all put together. So, don't try and be One Take Jake because that is very difficult and unusual.

All right, tip number two. You don't have to script your entire podcast episode either. I actually used to do that too because I was so scared that I was going to miss something. I wanted to make sure I structured my episodes and said everything I wanted to say in the perfect way. But what ended up happening was a lot of those episodes that I scripted out word for word kind and it didn't sound like they had a lot of personality in them and you can make sense of that when you start to read your own stuff.

My best tip for you is to actually just outline your episode. Start with the end in mind – the transformation. What is it that you're trying to teach or share with this audience member of yours and then work backwards from there, listing the examples; the case studies; the stories that you want to tell; the facts. All those kinds of things. You don't have to, and you should not, script everything out. Trust yourself to use that outline to be able to tell stories in a way similar to if you were to just go to a cafe and talk to a friend.

All right, tip number three and this relates to microphone placement. So, a couple of things here. You need to know that your mouth needs to stay in generally the same position at the same time. Now you obviously want to talk naturally too and this can be a little bit tricky for some of you but you want to make sure that your mouth is pointing the same direction the whole time.

And, trust me, it's so easy to forget that you need to do this because we often move our heads around, especially when we're talking, especially during an interview. But always try to make sure that your mouth is pointed in the same direction. You also want to make sure the distance from your mouth to the microphone remains the same too.

One trick that I like to use, especially on this particular microphone is I like to have basically the tip of my nose touching the windscreen because that allows for that deep resonant voice, whether you're a man or woman, to come through and make it sound very natural and soothing sounding, so try to stay as close as you can to the microphone and obviously check your levels when you're recording, run some test recordings, make sure you're in the right spot. But, generally speaking, mouth always facing microphone and always having it be the same distance from the mic.

All right, tip number four and this is a quick one. Make sure you remove all distractions when you're recording your podcast episodes. This means turning off your phone, making it silent or turning off the notifications on your desktop or closing the door, obviously, or if you have kids or people around the house, let them know that you're recording and not to distract you during that time. One of the worst things that can happen is obviously losing your flow because when you're in a podcast episode, you're often in a state of mind where things are flowing, things are going really well. When you get distracted, it can throw you off. So, remove those distractions as much as possible and just make sure that becomes a habit for you.

All right, in tip Number 5, the final one for now. I'll give you some more tips related to interviews specifically once I show you how to conduct an interview because it's a little different beast, but the last one is no matter what kind of episode it is, make sure that you create some sort of hook in the beginning of that episode because, you know, kind of like with a website or with a YouTube video, you know, people watch that or they read it and then if they're not interested right away, they're going to click away or exit right away, right? Same thing with your podcast although you have a little bit more time. You have about 20 to 30 seconds to really convince the listener that they should stick around. I mean, that magic moment is when they take that device of theirs and they put it in their pocket, they're saying to themselves, yes, I commit to listening to this episode. You want that and the best way to get that is to actually give them something that they can look forward to. So, whenever possible, especially in the beginning or the introductions of your episodes, tell them what they're going to get and why they should stick around.

Now, when it comes to creating content for your podcast episodes, some of those episodes may lend itself to just be you. Have it be a solo episode where you're chatting with that audience on the other side. Other times, it might make sense for you to have an interview type of episode where you have a guest or a number of guests on your show and this is beneficial for a lot of reasons. Number one, a person might have an expertise that you are able to share with your audience through that interview when it's an expertise that you might not have yourself. Number two. Guess what, you get to have a lengthy conversation with somebody, perhaps somebody who you look up to in your space that allows you to start building a relationship with them at the same time. And, number three, now you're associated with that person, which means if a listener comes through and sees that you have this connection with this other person, I mean, that means a lot. Now, in order to capture an interview – I'm not going to go into the details of how to do all the interview process, scheduling, and all that kind of stuff. A lot of that is common sense. I also talk a lot more about it in my premium course Power of Podcasting, but for now I'm going to give you a quick rundown of how to capture an interview using Skype. Skype is a free tool that you can download online that allows you to do audio and/or video chats with other people, even messaging as well, but using some third-party tools you can actually capture those things, take those MP3 files and just drop them right into your editor. If you're on a Mac, likely you'd want to use Call Recorder for Mac by the Ecamm Network and then if you're on a PC, you'd want to use either Pamela for Skype or Amolto, which a lot of people are using now too. Obviously, links for all these things are below this video.

All right, so really quick I'm gonna show you how to record an interview on Skype using Call Recorder for Mac and then we'll get into some interview tips after that. ok, so here you are on Skype and a few things you want to do. First, make sure you follow this account here, the Skype name Echo 123. This is a robot test call tool that Skype provides you so that's Echo 123. We're going to record a conversation with this person in just a moment to show you how easy this is to do. Secondly, after you install Call Recorder for Mac, for example, if you go to view up here and click Call Recorder, you'll see the call recorder pop up and simply you click on this red button to record the conversation. It will record the audio on my end and it'll record the audio on the other person's end too at the same time. Now, as you can see, it is greyed out and that's because we are not initiated in a call right now. It'll only initiate and be able to be clicked on after we're on a call, so let's go into that Skype call and let's actually test this out. So, I'm going to click this button here, call the Echo Sound Test Service and then I'm going to hit record and then I'm also going to speak so that we can capture that and then I'll show you where that file ends up and what to do with it.

Hello, welcome to Skype Call Testing Service. After the beep, please record a message. Afterwards, your message will be played back to you.

Hey Skype, this is Pat Flynn here. Welcome to the Smart Passive Income Podcast. Woo hoo. Yeah.

Hey, Skype. This is Pat Flynn here. Welcome to the Smart Passive Income Podcast. Woo.

If you are able to hear your own voice, then you have configured Skype correctly. If you hear this message but not your own voice, then something is wrong with your audio recording settings. Please check your microphone and microphone settings or visit skype.com for more help. Thank you for using Skype Call Testing Service.

All right. So, there we go. I closed the conversation and that recording ended and we're going to go find it really quick, but briefly she mentioned that you can check your preferences for Skype if your mic is not hooked up and to do that all you have to do is go to Skype and then audio and video settings. If that setting is not there, just go to preferences. It's likely there instead. And, now you can see my camera. So, my camera is working, which is great. Good to see you guys. And then microphone, as you can see, is the built-in mic and we did that for the purposes of this demo. If I wanted to do a real podcast, I would hit this and select the ATR USB microphone. So, that's how you would make sure that you have the correct mic.

Now, let's go find that podcast episode or, excuse me, that interview that we just "recorded" there with that test sound service. So, if you actually click on this find your icon or this magnifying glass here, that will actually open up a list of your previously recorded episodes here or interviews and if you click on this, you can you can actually play it and preview here. So, you can do that. Now you're hearing a little bit of echo with mine there because I didn't have headphones on. It's always best to kind of have headphones in when you're recording so that your microphone doesn't pick up what the speakers are putting out. So, that way it's in your ear, there's no echo. I'm not going to play here because there is an echo, but here's what you would do from here. You'd go to export as MP3 and then click export and then you can save it wherever you'd like. Save it as the best quality and it's going to be something that you can easily drag and drop into your editor for your interview shows. Cool.

All right, now really quick, three simple tips to help you increase the likelihood of having a great interview. Number one, make sure that you and the person you're interviewing are both on the same page, meaning when that interview is going to happen; where does it happen; what are your Skype user names together and what is it going to be about. Also, make that person feel really comfortable when they get on with you. That way the interview just goes that much smoother. All right tip number two, as much as you might want to write down questions beforehand, which you can, my top recommendation is to don't always stick with them and see how deep you can go. A lot of those questions that you might ask initially are just surface level questions. The gold lies deep down below so, continue to ask questions like, why or how come you felt like that or what was going through your head at that time. Try to pull stories out of that person too. That's how you get into the golden, great information that your audience is going to really enjoy. And finally, just overall, the third and best tip I can offer you as an interviewer is be genuinely curious. Yes, you're going to have to listen, obviously, but it can be very difficult to listen because you're going to want to make sure you ask the right follow up question or you might be keeping track of notes or certain things but when you are genuinely curious, when you approach your interviews as that, nothing can go wrong because you are putting yourselves in the shoes of those who are listening. You're collecting information, you are learning about that person and you're getting valuable information that your audience will benefit from.

ok, so to finish up this video, a really, really important step here and that is taking your file, right, after it is completed, after you got all the pieces in there, the music, the interview, intros, outros, call to action, all those necessary things. Once that's ready to go, well what do we do next? Well, we have to export it. Take it from our editing software into an MP3 file but then we need to take that MP3 file and add a little bit of data behind it to make sure that the information in that file matches what it should be so that when a person listens to it on the other end it's exactly the way it needs to be. So, let's dive right into the editing software right now. I'm using Garage Band. There's like a made-up episode that is put together for you for the demonstration purposes here and then we'll export it and we'll tag it and then we will be done for today.

All right, so here we are in Garage Band. We have this made up episode here as you can see. This is my track here with the intro and outro. There's like a middle piece here for the interview and then there's music on either side to kind of cap things off. Now, at this point, what we want to do is export, and to do that, quite simply we just go to the share area in the menu item and then click export song to disc and what we want to do is make sure this is an MP3 file. So, we're going to click on MP3 file and in terms of quality, there's a number of different selections here. There's a low quality, medium quality, high and then highest. The higher you go, the bigger the file size is going to be, but the lower you go, the lower the quality of that episode is going to be as well. High quality or medium quality will work just fine and because we want the highest quality possible, that makes sense. Just click on high quality, 192 gigabytes per second. But don't worry about highest quality. That's too much. That's for, like, music production. High quality will work just fine and then what you do is you can name it. You can name it the episode number, if you have episode numbers, or the name of that episode or the guest that you might have, for example. It's nice that they include this timestamp here for you automatically so that you just know when you exported this one so, I'm just going to keep it as Test Episode and hit export and it should take just a moment. Obviously, it can take a little bit longer depending on the size of your episode. And boom, we're done. It is converted now to an MP3. So, let's go and find it. All right, so I found it here in this Test Episode Folder. Now, hopefully, you can have your own file management system in your computer that has different numbers and just makes it easy for you to find these kinds of things. So, this is Test Episode. This is the Garage Band Project file and this is the MP3 file that we just created and if we were to play that, it would play properly. But, as you can see, it uses just the default logo there because we don't have artwork put into it yet nor do we have any information related about this episode that would play on the other end. If a person plays this on their device, it would literally say test-episode-010918-335pm, and that's not what we want. We want to put the proper metadata behind it. In other words, we want to tag this thing. So, how do we do that?

There's a number of third party tools that you can use to add tags to your file. You can also do it within your podcast host, which we'll talk about in the next episode, but I wouldn't recommend doing that. I would recommend just doing it on the file itself using iTunes. The reason I like doing it on iTunes is a) because it's very simple; and, b) you can get a sense for what it's already going to look like as you go along. So, I'm just going to open up iTunes right here and, in my library, I'm gonna create a new playlist just to house these episodes that I create and build over time. So, I'm gonna click new playlist and just do a Podcast Episode – I can't speak and type at the same time. There we go. And now, what I'm going to do is drag this over and literally just drag and drop this test episode, the MP3 file, not the Garage Band file, into that playlist. Now, here it is. So, let me expand this really quick so we can get more of you there. ok, so now we have that podcast episode. As you can see here, it's Test Episode with the day and the time and it has the default image file. This is all the information that is in this file right now.

So, let's change that. To do that, you can right click and click on Song Info and, as you can see here, now we have a number of fields – Artist; Album; Album Artist; Composer; Grouping; Genre. But, hey wait, we didn't create a song, we created a podcast, so we have to change that first. First thing you wanna do is go to Options and then change the media kind from music to podcast. This changes the menu items up here. Now, if we go to details, for example, you'll see that this has changed. So, title here is the title of this podcast episode. So, podcast episode title goes here. The author, this is you. The host. This should be the same as what you're eventually going to put into your media provider, which we'll talk about your media host in the next video. So, same as media host then, podcast. This is the title of your podcast so your podcast title goes here. Your release date, this is the date that this is going to be published, if you know that already, if not, that's ok. Genre. That's something that doesn't have to be filled out either. Runtime, as you can see, that automatically populates and then simply to add your artwork, just click on Add Artwork. You're going to find your file and then it'll be essentially embedded in that episode. Boom and now that artwork is in there for my podcast and when I click ok, it's going to show that artwork there but we're not ready to click ok yet. I'm going to click on description and this is where we add a little bit of a description of what this episode is about. Not your show, but what this particular episode is about and you can have it as long or as short as you want. In some applications they truncate this so don't spend too much time on this, but you do want to make sure that when a person reads this, that they are enticed to go and listen to it. So, I'm just going to put a description for Episode goes here. Then, I'm going to hit ok. Whoa, what happened? Our playlist disappeared. Well it didn't disappear, it just moved because remember we switched from music to podcast and we are in the music library right now. You're seeing music from the movie Frozen and a TV show called Happy Endings. We need to go to the podcast library so, to do that, just go to the drop-down menu here, music podcasts. Now after this, you won't ever have to change it anymore. But, as you can see there's your episode. You can see the title of our episode. Podcast episode titles go here. You host, same as me, host. Podcast title goes here, but where's our artwork? Well it's not necessarily gone. It doesn't often show here right away, but if we were to click play on this it should show up here at the top and that's how we know it's connected. So,let's press play. Check, check, one, two. This is Pat Flynn. We're ok because see there's the logo up there and it played that funky music which was what we just used for demonstration purposes and all is good to go. So now our file is ready for the world.

All right and final step here relating to this podcast episode that we just tagged. We want to take this tagged file and put it back into our folder. That way we know that that's the final one that is tagged. So, we're actually going to click on that here in iTunes, drag and drop it over to our folder and then just one thing I like to do is just click on here and add the words final at the end and that's how we know that that's the file that we should be uploading to our media host.

All right, great job. In the next video, you're going to learn a few things such as how to get set up with media hosts properly, get your show ready for the world. Also, distribute your show on directories like iTunes, Stitcher and Google Play. We'll also get into how much does a website play a role in all this and also show notes and what that means. All right, and really quick before you go, I have a gift for you and that is the Podcast Cheat Sheet. You can get it for free using one of the links in the description below and what that does, is it helps you just make sure that you have all the pieces into place to help you get your show up and running and also has a checklist to go from nowhere to a podcast up and running on iTunes and also to make sure that you are creating the right kinds of content and can plan properly ahead to just do a great job with your podcasts. I'm excited for you. You can get that link, again, below in the description for the Podcast Cheat Sheet, and if you're ready just head on over to Day 3 and we'll finish this off with a bang.

Automatically convert audio to text with Sonix


New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts Full Transcript: How to Get Your Podcast on New and Noteworthy in iTunes – Eric Siu

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with Eric Siu. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time πŸ‘€, just click the player below.

Full Transcript: How to Get Your Podcast on New and Noteworthy in iTunes – Eric Siu

In this video, we're going to give a two-minute guide to getting your podcast on the New and Noteworthy. My name's Eric Siu and the reason I'm talking to you about this is because I have two podcasts; one, Marketing School over six point five million downloads to date. The other one, Growth Everywhere. About a million downloads, a little over a million downloads to date.

So I know a thing or two about podcasting. I've interviewed over 300 people and I do a daily podcast with Marketing School. So I'm going to show you how you can actually get there and get the numbers that we saw.

Alright, so let's dive in. What you have to do to get on New and Noteworthy is you have to get as many ratings, reviews, and subscribes as possible. You got to do that in a quick manner, right? So think about it as a PR bump. You get this really big like influx first and it kind of goes down.

There is a community called Podcasters' Paradise by John Lee Dumas. It's actually a podcasting course where people can help you rate, review every Friday or so, and they're all helping each other out.

That's a really easy way to do it and there's other podcasting communities out there that where you can help rate each other. But also if you're talking about online marketing for example, or if you're talking about interior design for example, you can definitely just join a community and do that.

Second is, blast your email list, your social channels etc. People tend to forget about the assets that they have. Your email list, social media channels, these are people that know you already. So, it's in your best interest to try to get that influx going, right?

You can even retarget these people by using paid advertising or Overcast is a podcasting app that I use. You can run ads on there as well.

You could also go to Marketinginyourcar.com. That's from Russell Brunson and he has a MP3 funnel that he used, and it was very strategic about how he basically for every one person he got to buy his little MP3 podcast stick, five people subscribed. So, you could see how it scaled really quickly that way.

The other solution is to get on other podcasts as well. So get on other podcasts in your niche, in your industry, or whatever. Try to get that big bump. When people are doing book launches, they get on a bunch of different podcasts. So think about, "How can I get on other different podcasts"

And, the final thing I'll say is, use Libsyn. That's L-i-b-s-y-n. That's a podcast host that I use, that allows me to blast my episodes or promote my episodes to multiple channels at once. To Linkedin to YouTube to Soundcloud all at the same time, and that makes my life a lot easier.

So if you enjoyed this video and you want more videos on how to grow your podcast? Just hit subscribe and we'll see you in the next one.

Automatically convert audio to text with Sonix


New to Sonix? Click here to get 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts Full Transcript: Collaboration and Competition – The Knowledge Project

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with the Knowledge Project Podcast. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time πŸ‘€, just click the player below.

Collaboration and Competition – The Knowledge Project

(music) Welcome to the Farnam Street podcast called The Knowledge Project. I'm your host Shane Parrish the curator behind the Farnam Street blog, which is an online community focused on mastering the best of what other people have already figured out. The Knowledge Project is where we talk with interesting people to uncover frameworks you can use to learn more and less time, make better decisions, and live a happier and more meaningful life. Margaret Heffernan is on the show today. The former CEO of five businesses, she's learned how human thought patterns lead us astray. She's the author of a book called Willful Blindness which examines why businesses and the people who run them ignore the obvious and the resulting consequences, as well as a book called Beyond Measure which looks at how tiny changes can make a ginormous impact. Enjoy the conversation.(music)

Before I get started. Here's a quick word from our sponsor.

This episode is brought to you by Inktel. Every business needs great customer service in order to stand out and gain a competitive advantage. Yet many businesses struggle with how to provide their customers with world-class customer service. Inktel Contact Center Solutions is a turnkey solution for all of your customer care needs. Inktel trains their customer service reps to know your business almost as well as you do and help you build your brand. Managing a call center can be a complicated, expensive, and time consuming task, and you still may not be able to do it well. So do what many leading companies do and outsource your customer service needs to a partner who specializes in taking care of your contact center needs. Inktel can provide your company with every touch point, including telephone, email, chat, and social media. As a listener of this podcast you can get up to $10,000 off if you go to Inktel.com/shane. That's I-N-K-T-E-L dot com slash Shane.

Welcome, Margaret.

Thank you.

First of all you wrote a book called Beyond Measure which looks at how tiny changes lead to big changes. What one reviewer on Amazon said was, "This book is filled with specific and meaningful examples of how to transform the work environment in order to improve not only performance and outcomes, but also the collective and individual experiences of all employees." Let me begin with this, I'd like to hear about the smallest change you've seen make the largest difference in a wide variety of organizations.

Well, I guess the easiest one for me to talk about is the one that I did within one of my companies. So as you probably know I've spent most of my life in England, but in 1994 I moved to the U.S. My husband got a position at Harvard. And after looking around a bit, I ended up running tech companies for a venture capital firm. So the first company that I was running I did what you would expect, which is hired all sorts of extraordinary and wonderful people and gave them all sorts of hard problems to solve. And my observation was that everybody came into work and worked very diligently and went home again. I thing I chiefly remember is it didn't sound right. There wasn't a sort of what I think of as a sort of jolly hum. And it certainly didn't sound like companies I'd run in the UK. And I thought about this and I was trying to figure out what's wrong. Is it just that you know this is the US it's not a UK and companies are different? But I just felt it was all a little bit too task-y, it was some little bit too tactical. And I — you know what I chiefly remembered for my companies in the UK was at the end of the day or and definitely on a Friday, people would go to the pub and wait for the horrible London rush hour to subside.

Right.

And I thoughtm well, this is Boston and you know about eight months of the year it's winter and everybody drives and there aren't any pubs. So that's definitely not an option. (chuckles) And so I thought, well, what the heck. I'm just on Friday I'm just to tell everyone to down tools at Hoppus for and and every week three people are going to tell us who they are and why are they here.

And it was it really was beyond awkward, I have to say because it made it felt very clunky, but I honestly was at my wit's end and I just didn't know what else to do. So I thought, what the heck, let's give this a shot. And you know to be honest the engineers mostly did PowerPoint presentations and the marketing people mostly did kind of a standup comedy routine. But what it did is it stopped people looking at each other in terms of function and made them start to look at each other as human beings. And it was absolutely transformative in the way that people started to relate to each other and talk to people and you know talk to people in the lunchroom and sometimes even spend — you know, go to a movie together or see each other at weekends or whatever. And it was quite interesting because many, many years later I was talking about this at an HR conference in Boston. And unbeknownst to me one of my former employees was actually in the conference. And in the Q&A session she, you know, put her hand up and said, "I was there. It was absolutely transformative." And she remembered virtually every detail of these sessions. And you know so I think this is about as simple as they come. But it was really my rather lame, but effective attempt to get people to see each other as human beings, not as titles, not just tasks, not as experts, certainly not as rivals, but just to, you know, what I would now call build social capital.

Why do you think that we're more in tune with our workplaces or more productive or happier when we have a human connection to the people we're spending so much of our time with?

Well, I think the basic thing is that in any organization, you know, the whole premise of organizational life is that together you can do more than you can do in isolation. But that only works if people are connected to each other. It only really works if they trust each other and help each other. And that isn't automatic, and I would even argue and have argued at some length that in fact I think there's a lot that happens to people as they're growing up that if they did that naturally to begin with they learn how not to do it. Instead how to regard each other as rivals and competitors. So you're only really going to get the value out of organizational life to the degree that people begin to feel safe with each other, to trust each other, to want to help each other

And the way I think about that these days is, not surprisingly, I think of it as a network. And I think that all the collective knowledge of the organization flowing through that network. And what impedes the flow is distrust, rivalry, or not knowing what other people need. So to the degree that people are open and generous and information flows quickly, it'll find the problem that it is destined to solve. But all of the distances between people, all of the distrust or just ignorance as to who people are and what they care about slows that flow down.

Do you think a lot of organizations inadvertently create rivalry with incentive systems? Or how does that come to be? When you think about an organization as a whole entity there's very similar goals, but when you break it down into sub-entities you have maybe competing or conflicting goals.

`Yeah.

Why is it do you think that organizations develop such rivalries?

Well, I think there are a couple of things. So I think there are kind of sins of omission and sins of commission. In other words, there's some this happens organically and some of it does happen, sadly, deliberately. So the stuff it's deliberate is to do with definitely there are leaders out there who believe that the more people compete within an organization the smarter and the better the organization will be. They pretty spectacularly misread Darwin.

And you know Darwin, there's no evidence that Darwin was a social Darwinist. And they've introduced systems like forced ranking. And forced ranking in effect get — pits everybody against each other. And bear in mind, certainly in the US, that most people — the US and to be honest the UK, most people are coming out of competitive education systems. They may have had very competitive, pushy parents. You know that prompt predominant metaphors for business in the US is around competitive sports. So there's an awful lot of competitive mindset that comes into a company, whether you asked for it or not. And when you add on to that systems like forced ranking and hierarchies, you foment necessarily status contests. And what all that does is it implies that if I help you, you might do better, which is by inference means I do worse. So I'm not pretty, you know, if I'm thinking about this and if I feel threatened or anxious then I'm not going to help you. And I might know exactly the person who could help you solve your problem or exactly the piece of information that would, you know, help you develop your product or whatever. But I may be quite reluctant to do that because of both the kind of implicit and explicit kinds of competition that exists within the company culture. And I think that however much you say, you know, we're all in this together or we all need to help each other, you have to think quite carefully about where are — where are the sources of competition coming from? And what can I do to make it advantageous for people to help each other rather than compete with each other?

A lot of organizations in response to that seem to think that they have to make seismic shift to make seismic impacts. Part of what you're arguing is that, you know, I'm thinking about all of these grand restructurings we see in the business news almost every week. And part of your argument is that that's not necessarily the case.

Well I mean the data suggests that most of them won't work. The thing people do of course is they think about silo's, so what they do literally is knock down walls, which I think is kind of comic. (chuckles) So they knock down walls and they get a whole bunch of sofas and then they think they're done. And it's really interesting, I did to work with a big multinational chemicals business some years ago and they did exactly this. And two things happened. One is they really are one of the most viciously competitive cultures I've ever seen in my life.

And so none of that changed. In fact people were more withdrawn because they no longer even had offices in which they could be safe and generous to the few people they trusted. And the other thing is the chief operating officer acknowledged to me that actually the real — you know, they paid lip service to collaboration, but really the reason they done it is it just saved them a fortune in real estate costs. So I think, you know, I think there's a lot of — there's a lot of these restructurings that isn't necessarily strategic, although it's wrapped up as that. And I think there's also a lot in these restructurings that doesn't appreciate that actually the crucial thing here are the sort of social bonds between people. And that doesn't have to take a fortune to address, but it is going to take time. And it is going to require that people understand why it matters as a business issue. It's not that we've all just become Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. And it does require people understand what the kind of critical behaviors are really going to change a culture, which is after all a stupendously difficult thing to do.

What are the things that people do that change the culture that lend themselves to increasing the probability? I think I read somewhere when I was doing my MBA that the probability of changing a culture is, you know, under 5%. But there must be things that people can do that correlate to improved odds.

Yeah. Well, I think — I think it is very — I mean obviously it's really important who you hire. It's really important the signals you send to them as to the kinds of behaviors you want. I think that having kind of critical people who appreciate the generosity is a business characteristic. It's not something you just save for out of work time. (chuckles) I think that's really fundamental. You know that — that — if you really believe that the value of collaboration lies in the kind of aggregation or compounding of talent and creativity, then you have to have an environment in which people are really prepared to help each other. And people are only really going to be prepared to help each other if they will feel that they in turn will be helped when need it. And if you feel that, not egregiously, but respectably you might get a bit of credit for your contribution because people don't like to feel invisible quite rightly. So…

So basically people don't want to feel like they'll be taken advantage of.

They definitely — You know Adam ___ of course is brilliant on a subject. They don't want to feel that they'll be taken advantage of. And as Adam has shown, people have quite a good sense of who the takers are. But I think they also like to feel that their contribution has value. And the best way for them to feel that is for somebody to tell them. Now that doesn't mean that every day you go into work and make the equivalent of an Oscar's acceptance speech, you know. But it does mean that you kind of have to remember who helped you. And people whom other people want to help are very good in remembering those things. I mean, you know for me one of the most fun parts of writing books, actually the most fun part of writing a book is writing the acknowledgements, you know, because it's really fun to remember and to keep track of if you can all the people who helped you. But it's also — it's also a way of saying thank you.

Why did you start writing books in the first place?

(chuckles) Good question. Well I had writing five businesses and I had got to the point of thinking, "I don't want to do this anymore." I had hired and fired so many people, I was fairly burnt out. And I remember going to our first company retreat of people that, I don't know, writers and I think people they thought were interesting. And somebody there, and shame on me not remembering who, said to me, "You know Margaret just because you're good at something doesn't mean you have to do it forever."

And that really stuck with me. And I thought, "Well I don't have to run companies forever. That's cool." I thought, "So what I want to do next is I want some sort of business that requires no employees." Now at that point your options are pretty limited. And also at the time, so this would be in the early 2000s, coaching was a pretty kind of wild west arena. And it wasn't an area I want to go into. And a friend of mine who is a literary agent in London said, "Margaret you should write a book about the Internet." And I thought about it for a long time and I thought, "Actually it's either too early or too late. I'm not sure which, but it's — I don't have anything very interesting to say and the world is full of books with nothing very interesting to say. So let's not add to that." But it did get me thinking, "Well what would I like to write about?" And so I think, you know, those different things, the wanting a business with no employees, the encouragement by my friend the literary agent, and the great question is you know what — what is interesting enough to you that you might have something to say? I think that's pretty much the kind of combination of events that led to it. And it's fair to say, you know, before that I'd written a number of screenplays and radio plays and radio programs and people had always said, "Wow, Margaret, you wrote really well," so I didn't feel like a completely bizarre a concept.

I want to come back to — you having wrote plays, but first, are there — You've run five businesses, are there recurring patterns to the irrationality that you see happen in organizations you've observed from the outside and run? Do you think of it that way in terms of irrationality or are the things you write about simply kind of natural outcomes of bringing groups and people together to accomplish goals?

I don't really think specifically about rationality versus irrationality. I mean I'm pretty allergic to anything binary, which is probably strange having run software companies. But you know I really I think anytime I hear, well, it's either this or is that, I know I'm being sold a pup. I think my experience is there's always more intelligence and talent in organizations than manages to get out and to surface and to be deployed. And I've always wondered why and where does it go and why does that happen and where does it get stuck and trapped and why? And I think also I have always felt that it is in organizations specifically that very good people can go bad. And I've been endlessly fascinated by why or how that happens.

How does that happen?

Well you know that's — that is my whole book, Willful Blindness is really how that happens. But I always felt that that wasn't about rationality or irrationality, it was all sorts of stuff kind of distracting or sending people on detours from themselves. And I wondered, I wonder why. And you know, so I used to wonder why you'd have a huge number of creative people doing very uncreative work. I wondered how you'd get huge numbers of perfectly decent people doing really terrible things. You know I think I was highly driven to run companies in a desire to try to not do that. And this is very characteristic of female entrepreneurs, which is a sort of sense that, you know, I want to prove that it's possible to be successful and not do some of the crappy things that traditional managements do routinely.

So I think — I think all of those things were, you know, were kind of very, very big motivating forces both in the companies that I ran and in the books that I've written. Of course, it's a very — it's very scary, right? Because I've run five companies and I've written five books. And now I think if I were a numerologist I'd be extremely anxious and out looking for a new career right now.

I want to go back to something you said about people thinking in black and white. What do you think causes people to think that way?

Well it's much easier. It's much easier. It's much easier to think that something is either good or bad or black or white or alive or dead. And of course there are binaries in human life, right? You either are alive or you are not. And it's much more dramatic and we like drama. I just don't think it reflects the complexity or the richness of life very well. And I think that it — it oversimplifies to the degree that much that is wonderful, fun, and full of opportunity in life gets kind of run over when you simplify it that much. And it's kind of interesting because I think, I mean I think this quite a bit in the sense that I think a lot in my book are probably more complex than the genre likes, but perversely I don't really mind. (chuckles)

Right.

Because I'm really trying to talk about what I see as happening rather than trying to boil it down to a couple of: do these three things and everything will be okay, because I just don't believe it's true. And I do — This is going to sound really pretentious and pompous, but I do have a very bedrock belief that in as the writer Cyril Connolly said, you know, a writer should be a lie detector. And so I do care probably disproportionately about trying to get things right, and that means they're not going to be simple.

When you're writing it's really — it's probably easier to come at subjects from a place of nuance, but when you're in your day to day moment, when you catch yourself kind of thinking in black and white, how do you — how do you get out of that?

Well, I quite often say to myself, "Well, Margaret, if you think it's that simple, you've got to be wrong." (laughs) So–.

I like that.

You must be missing something, you absolutely must be missing something, so what's the counter argument? And some of that is, I mean, I just, you know, I just feel there's a sort of a demon on my shoulder saying, "Yeah, really? Who says so? How do you know?" And it's also of course that in my book Willful Blindness this is a story about the epidemiologist Alice Stewart doing a study of childhood cancers and her terrific collaboration with the statistician George Neal. And George who was very introverted once said of his work with Alice, "My job is to prove that she's wrong, because if I can't then she knows she should persevere." And you know I just think that's such a phenomenal model of collaboration, which is you know the argument is a gift. And I think about this both in terms of, you know, business or writing or family life. You know somebody who's prepared to listen and understand what you're saying well enough to argue with you. This is somebody who cares. And so it's just — it's you know, it's just a very kind of fundamental part of the way I think.

So often we see argument as a threat not only — probably to us. Why do you think that is?

Well sometimes of course it is. Right? I mean I'm not naive. I know there are times people have argued with me at work, you know, not because they had my best interest at heart, but because I wanted my budget. Right? So these things definitely do happen. But I think that, you know, when you're in a really good collaborative environment the argument is about that's not good enough, how do we make it better? Which is the crucial — the crucial kind of dialogue to have. But of course people will argue with you because their ideologies are different, in which case maybe they see something you don't, so it behooves you to listen to them. And it certainly sharpens your own understanding if you are prepared to take it on board and think about, well, if that were true what would that mean for what I see? Am I missing something? But I think, you know, obviously we're living through a phase where mostly people aren't prepared to argue with each other. They'll abuse each other in public, they'll abuse each other in social media, but they won't have what I think of is the real argument, which is let us together from different perspectives explore this territory and figure out what's going on here.

A lot of the people I seem to talk to who've run businesses or been in senior management often come to this understanding later. At first they see kind of argumentation or disagreement or thoughtful challenging as slowing them down.

Um-hmm.

And later, only later they come to see that as actually propelling them forward. Why do you think that is?

Well, I think you know often, especially when you're not wildly grown up, it's really easy to take it personally. So-and-so argues with me, that means they don't like me. Right? So you need a certain maturity to think beyond that, and especially if you have a very competitive mindset of course you've kid of got to get over that. So it takes a certain degree of maturity. It takes a certain amount of intellectual rigor. Which is do you want to get it right or do you just want to win. Right?

Right.

Those are two very different things. And I think it takes a long time, maybe — and maybe I'm just talking about myself. I think it takes a long time to look back and think, "Well, in those situations I did good work, in those situations I did less good work. What was the difference? Because obviously it's me in both places. So what were the conditions in which it was easier for me to do better work? And it's interesting because I think that, you know, we often tend to think, "Well, if I did good work that's me." Right? And I think one of the things I'm constantly probing is of course it's you, but it's also the environment and the context in which you're operating. So what is the content that's really conducive, you know, to creativity or productivity or, you know, perfectionism or whatever you're pursuing? Because I think this notion that you can do wonderful work regardless of context is romantic and naive.

I would 100% agree with that. What environment was conducive for you when you were running these companies to doing wonderful work?

Well, I had an investor who argued with me quite a lot. (chuckles) And was a brilliant guy. And I think we both understood it wasn't personal, so that was terrific. I had a hard core of people that I worked with for quite a long time and with whom I developed, you know, very high levels of trust and respect and freedom and safety, which is we could be very open with each other. I think a certain amount of pressure. I think that — when I worked at the BBC at one point I made a documentary of where I had a huge budget and a huge amount of time. And it's hands down the most boring thing I've ever done. I mean not for me, for the audience. (laughs) You know, it's just, you know, I researched it to death.

Right.

And what that taught me was actually I like having some pressure, you know, not insane pressure, but I do pretty well under pressure.

You need a constraint.

I need a constraint. And actually my biggest danger is that I'll accept insane constraints and only afterwards realize actually, "Margaret, you just agreed to do something impossible." But I like constraints. I like doing things I've never done before. I like trying to do something that I recognize from the outside is going to be difficult.

As you were running these companies, how did you make decisions? Did you have a structure for how you went about doing that?

Oh, I'm pretty sure I didn't. (chuckles) Which is to say to the degree that we had a structure, we had, you know, a good senior leadership team in which debate was pretty easy. I mean I remember for example having on my member — on my senior leadership team a really lovely guy named Will Richmond. And Will was what I think of, perhaps unfairly, as a classic Harvard Business School grad, which he was. So very, I think what you would call rational, very logical, very thorough, very careful, very different from me in other words. And —

He complimented you.

And he always asked some really hard questions that would always stop me in my tracks and they always made everything we did better. And I think he found us rather baffling. And I think some of us found him baffling, but there was no doubting his goodwill and serious intent. And so I think we, you know, to the degree that we had a process, we all had to feel in our different ways that the decisions that were being made were for the good of the business. And this has been a kind of, I guess you could say hobbyhorse of mine. Which is I always thought as chief executive my job was to do what was right for the business and which would not necessarily be what I wanted or what I liked or what was fun or what was easy. You know I just thought the only job description is what's right for this business. And I think we all, you know, I think we all felt that, that there was just a point at which when we came to discuss crucial decisions, that was the only question on the table.

I like how that frames the debate in terms of everybody might see things differently, but they're all coming at it from almost the same intent.

Yeah, and everybody wanted what was best for the business. Well, that was the you know the working assumption. And I think generally speaking it was true. But it's not, you know, it's not about me and it's not about sucking up to me. And I think that, you know, this is another very kind of recurrent theme in my work, which is, you know, power is incredibly disruptive. And you have to be very wary of it and try super hard not ever to have to use it.

Let's talk a little bit more about your work and selective blindness or what you call willful blindness. Can you define what you mean by that concept? What's the difference between blindness kind of in hindsight and blindness that could or should have been seen in real time?

Yeah. So willful blindness is a legal term and I first encountered it when I was writing two plays for the BBC about the collapse of Enron. And in the trial of Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay the Judge Simeon Lake referred to in his summing up to the jury. And he described it as if there are things that you could have known and should have known and somehow managed not to know, the law deems that your ignorance has been a choice and you are responsible for the choice that you made.

And so when I was writing that book, you know, the critical determinant for the cases that I chose was there had to be ample evidence that the information that was ignored was easily and freely available. So for example, at one point I thought of looking at the case, and I'm going to forget his name. There was a horrible case of a man in Austria who kept his daughter locked up in a basement for years and raped her repeatedly and had a child by her and so on. And I thought — and while his wife was and the rest of his family is living upstairs. And I thought, "Is this a case of willful blindness?" And as unpleasant as the case was, I read through, you know, everything I could find about it. And I determined that actually it wasn't knowable that this is what was going on. And there was no evidence that anybody knew what was going on, in which case it was not willful blindness, it was just ignorance. Right? So the ignorance wasn't a choice, there was just nothing to go on. Whereas if you take, for example, what I wrote about the deep water — not deep water, Texas City accident at the BP plant. There are years of consultant reports talking about how dangerous the site is.

So you know, that were commissioned by BP and sitting in filing cabinets in BP. So that was the really crucial defining characteristic of every case I looked at, which was: was it possible to know this? Because if it wasn't possible, it's not willful blindness.

Right. What circumstances do you think lead to people being willfully blind? If something is knowable, I mean what's the core of selective or willful blindness in organizations? Is it it's too hard to face the reality the way it is? So we deny something instead, or is there something that leads us to it?

Well there are lots of different things. I mean I think we — So there are a whole bunch of things. One is, you know, we all have mental models of how the world works. We have to because we couldn't make sense of the world otherwise if every day we started afresh. And the problem with mental models, also business models, also economic models, is they attract confirming data and they repel marginalize or trivialize disconfirming data. So our — what Alan Greenspan calls our ideology will be very useful in bringing to us information and prioritizing information that our model suggests is important. But it will fail to highlight the stuff that the mental model says doesn't matter. We would like to think that it being the nature of organizational life that we're surrounded by people who are different from us and will therefore might come with us to come to us without disconfirming piece of evidence. But of course we are individually highly attracted to people just like ourselves.

So we're most likely to be — to choose to be surrounded by people who roughly speaking share the same mental models and therefore will see the same things that we see and not see the things that we don't see. So they may sort of amplify our blindness. In addition, you know, there's this fabulous research on organizational silence by Morrison and Millikan at NYU that shows that people have issues and concerns at work, but they don't voice them either because they're afraid that they'll be labeled troublemakers.

Yeah.

Or it — just nobody will pay attention so why bother? It's more trouble than it's worth. And in addition to all that of course as human beings we're very obedient, we're very conformist, we want to belong. And if we see something going wrong and nobody else is making a fuss about it, we will take cues from them and think, "Well, maybe — maybe it's okay. Maybe everybody else knows something I don't and it's all fine." And I think that there are characteristics of hierarchy that exacerbate this. So I look up and see that my boss looks pretty happy so I'm not going to rock the boat, because my job description for myself is: keep the boss happy. So I think hierarchy exacerbates it. I think bureaucracy exacerbates it. So I have a job description and I have 25 KPIs and 37 targets, and none of those say if the house is on fire, call the fire department. So when the house is on fire, I don't call the fire department because I'm way too focused on like KPIs. And I can only think about one thing at a time and I'm already overwhelmed and I'm probably also quite tired. So you put all those things together and you can get Wells Fargo and Volkswagen and General Motors and the economic crash and so on and so forth.

What causes some people to buck that trend? Is it a personality trait? Is it something — a crusade? Is it — We've all, I mean I've worked in organizations where there are some people who are I would say relentless and they come from a good place, not malicious intent. But they're constantly challenging the status quo and making sure that other people can't be blind to information. What causes that to happen?

What is really interesting and it's a very very hard question to answer, because you know there's a lot of mythology around such people who are customarily described as whistleblowers, although that's quite a complicated term. So there's a mythology that says they're mostly women and the research doesn't bear that out. There's mythology that says they're people of faith, the research doesn't bear that out. The only thing I could find, and I've interviewed hundreds of such people, they tend to be a little nerdy. And I emphasize a little, because you know not spectacularly, but they are definitely people who like detail. And as a consequence of liking detail they may be slightly better than average pattern recognizers. So they'll start to see things that will prompt questions.

Hmm, I like that.

And they're very good at doing — you know this is how Hannah Arendt defined thinking. They're very good at having a conversation with themselves along the lines of, "Hmm, what does that mean? Does it matter? If it mattered, what else might I see? Oh, I've just seen that too. Oh, that's tricky." So they're — And they're doing that all the time. You know, that's not — it's not generally speaking, it's switched on by a problem. It's the way they experience life. So I think there's that. I think in general, and of course there are always exceptions to this, but in general such people are deeply dedicated to the organization that they serve. So they want to protect it. They want — they do instinctively hold it to a very high standard. And so when they see lapses they're quite concerned.

That's incredibly counterintuitive because organizations often see those people as troublemakers or making things difficult for other people or slowing things down or a variety of other things.

Right, Well I think that's true. but it's really interesting. I was talking to the head of the British Army last week and he said, "You know we now see that these people are helpful because they may see things before we do, and we need that." And I heard exactly the same thing from the chief executive of a big supermarket chain here in the U.K. that had some significant accounting issues leading to, you know, restatements of earnings and so on and also some issues around food quality. So I think part of what has happened is that as we've come to understand that in the cases of willful blindness there almost always are people who see early. That actually if we would would not rush to get them fired or silenced, but instead have the kind of poise and courage to listen to them, they might represent a really outstanding early warning system.

I think that's a good way to look at it. Can we explore Enron a bit, which is something I know you've done a lot of work on and a play on. I know it's also not current news, but nothing we talk about really on Farnam Street is current news. It's a story from business history that fascinates me as it kind of should for anybody.

Absolutely.

What do you feel was at the core of Ken Lay's unwillingness to see and address reality there? Like how did Enron morph from a sort of boring, steady company almost for retirees into the corrupt aggressive machine that it ended up becoming? And why do you think it wasn't stopped earlier by someone either internally or someone externally?

Yeah, it's — I mean I could talk about this for hours. I think Lay is a very, very interesting character. Partly because he's a preacher's son, he comes from a very, very poor background. He is, I think, seriously quite a religious person. And I think he had a very strong sense of himself as morally a very fine person. Now I know that could sound absurd. But I think — I mean I have interviewed so many people who knew him, who aren't necessarily defending you know Enron at all, but who will talk to this. Including his pastor in Houston, you know, who was rhapsodic about the effort Lay went to to get public transportation in Houston so that poor people could get to jobs.

So I think you know, my theory about Lay is that his sense of himself as a good person was so profoundly defended that he could not conceive that his company could do bad things. And and I had a long conversation with Albert Bandura about this because of course Bandura's whole life's work it's about the degree to which we have to think about ourselves –think of ourselves as good people. And we will bend our experience of life to keep that sense of good self intact. And so I think that's what was going on with Lay. And of course it's also important to remember when everybody says you're the greatest thing ever and they surround you with praise and wealth and accolades. That's very seductive. Right? So that I think, I think explains why he didn't see it. It doesn't explain why it went wrong. Why did it go wrong? I tend to believe that that's more to do with Skilling than with Lay, though I may really be letting him off the hook here.

You know? Skilling clearly did believe in social Darwinism to an extreme degree and absolutely played on the competitive instincts of people in the company. And everything in the company culture was designed around this. Now I think it's also true that Enron was packed full of people who were very uncomfortable with what was going on. And I remember talking to Sherron Watkins about this and her saying, you know, it was — I think it was with Skilling that they decided to do a kind of Christmas show of the Wizard of Oz. You know which is almost as big a clue as you could ask for, right?

Yeah.

That you know that this is all fake. So there is a kind of collective awareness there. And she also said something really interesting. She said she noticed a lot of people around her getting very overweight. And she wondered what was the emptiness they were trying to fill. In other words, they kind of felt something was wrong and they were overly driven to comfort themselves. And she talked also about, you know, private conversation that she had with people while working there about you know is this what happened in Germany? And so I think, you know, I mean Sherron's of course notable for having actually had the nerve to try to do something about it.

But I think — there's evidence that lots and lots and lots of people knew that it was going badly wrong. Now I think you know Skilling was a very intimidating character, quite — you know extraordinarily aggressive. So if people are afraid, which in a competitive environment like that they will be, and they have huge incentives to just shut up and deliver, they will. We know this.

What can we do to avoid a similar fate?

Well, it's a great question. I think we have to be very humble about how fragile our sense of good and bad is. And you know Stanley Milgram wrote about this brilliantly. He talked about how when we go into an organization, our moral focus shifts essentially from wanting be a good person to wanting to do a good job. And we implicitly assume that doing a good job is doing what we're told. And there is much in our organizational life that creates if you like a sort of special identity for us. The person you are at work is not identical to the person that you are at home. Which also is probably not entirely consonant with the person you are on the golf course or you know in the — on the baseball pitch. You know we — identities are not as absolute and fixed as we used once to imagine. And so we have to be very alert to how we change in different environments and pay attention to what we leave behind and what gets amplified. And it's — I mean I think it's a very hard problem. I work on a thing here in England called the Responsible Leadership Program where, you know, we work very hard with senior executives to try to alert them to the dangers that exist in organizational life. Not because the organizations are bad, but just because there are organizations. Right? And obviously some are more dangerous places to work than others. But the assumption that you're just, you know, that — the assumption that Ken Lay made if you like: I'm a good person and therefore nothing I do can be bad. That's just not safe.

I think that's a good place to end the discussion on Enron.

And we'll have to have an Enron–

I think so. Yes, we should definitely do and episode. We could just disect that case.

I know. But it's really funny because I remember talking to Frank Partnoy. And he said you know, it was when he was teaching corporate finance at University of San Diego. And he said, you know most students have never even heard of it.

Oh, that's so sad.

And he — and we were joking, he said, "You know what we need is we need a desk calendar of business catastrophes," (laughs) because otherwise everybody forgets.

Yeah, and you're doomed to kind of repeat them.

And we just repeat this stuff.

Yeah. I want to hit on maybe a bit of a touchy subject and switch a little bit more to some personal questions. The intersection of a couple of things that you've written about a lot is seemingly coming into the forefront now, so women in the workplace and this call this concept of willful blindness that we've been talking about. Do you think that the massive list of kind of previously unreported sexual harassment coming into the forefront is sort of a prime example of people having turned a blind eye for all of these years? And what has watching this unfold meant to you personally?

Well, it's interesting. Absolutely it's an epic example of willful blindness. And in fact off the back of that my publishers have just commissioned an updated edition of the book. (chuckles) You know and not only because of that, because obviously there are many cases that have occurred, you know, high profile cases that have occurred since the book came out. But all this is really just an epidemic. Right? So why? Also I became very uncomfortable at one point a couple weeks ago where, you know, people were just quitting left, right, and center and I — I felt like I was watching a production of The Crucible. And I talked to a friend of mine who is a lawyer and just said, "What's going on here? You know it makes me uncomfortable that this is getting such a head of steam."

And she said, "Well, Margaret, these individuals are being fired now because the companies have been keeping dossiers. They all knew. But as long as they could get away with it, these how high profile people are delivering real business value. And they are able to fire these people very quickly because they have the information.".

Oh, that's interesting. I hadn't thought of that.

I hadn't either and it made me feel a little more comfortable, although you know there's nothing about this that should really make anybody terribly happy, except that maybe now it'll stop or at least reduce. So the first — you know, the first chapter in Willful Blindness is about bias. And of course you know we inhabit a business environment that is — was built by men for men in their own image and not surprisingly favors men. And I think that concentration of power is always dangerous. And I think everybody is biased. You know the biology suggests that everybody is biased. And so when you have one group that basically holds power with bias in all of them, you are going to get what economist called perverse outcomes. Now you can look at it a different way too. When I wrote my first book about women's corporate careers I thought a lot about power and — because —

And the reason I thought about it was because so many women said to me they didn't really like the idea of power. And I always thought, "Really? How are we going to get anything done without it?" And I think what I concluded was that it isn't that women don't like power at all, but that we think of it differently. So many of the very, very successful women I interviewed for that book and from my second book which is about the rise of female entrepreneurship, Women On Top, thought of power as orchestration, the power to bring people together to do collectively what they couldn't do alone. I think there is another concept of power, which is about domination. And I think that specifically the kind of power which women were saying they rejected. And I think there are certainly many organizations, many corporate cultures where power is about domination. And in those environments the kind of harassment and intimidation that we've seen is possible. And you know harassment is an abuse of power it happens because people have power over others.

Do you think we're about to see a lasting change?

I don't know. I think — I guess I have two questions. One is: will it all blow over and everybody think, oh, thank God, that's over, we can go back to business as normal, whatever that is. And I have a second question, which is: will it trickle down, which is — I remember interviewing a young woman who worked in a car showroom talking about sexual harassment. You know, so this is not a famous young woman working in not a famous place for not a famous boss, and my question is will her life, her working life get better? Because if it doesn't, then this isn't good enough. All right. And I really don't know. I mean it certainly feels and I know everybody's saying it feels like a real sea change. And I would really love to think that it is, but I think for it to have lasting impact requires more than heads rolling. It requires a, you know, as well as the kind of negative let's get rid of this. It requires a positive, which is what is the concept of power that replaces it? And whether that will take root I don't know. And how far this is actually displacement activity, because some people in power can't be removed. I don't know. I really hope it marks the beginning of something quite different. But it's way too early to tell.

I share your hope.

Yeah. I mean it's, you know, it just beggars belief that women go into work and get underpaid and physically intimidated, you know? And people are saying, well, it really makes a difference to guys if they have daughters, you know, then they take this stuff seriously. And I find myself thinking, well, don't they — any of them remember that they all had mothers? (laughs).

Yes.

I mean really, you know, these — you know the notion that, well, we didn't really get it and we had daughters, it just feels very lame to me. But clearly it's — clearly we are very, very, very trapped in our biases. I remember hearing Satya Nadella talking about, you know, the terrible gaffe he made at the Grace Hopper Conference for Women in Computing when asked about the gender pay gap. And a year later he was talking — still talking about what an eyeopener the blowback had been and how his mother and his wife had talked to him about had he not seen how hard it had been for them? You know Nadella is a very thoughtful, sensitive human being and he'd somehow missed this, which suggests that, you know, we are very, very trapped in our own biases.

Hopefully we can help people step back and get a little more perspective and context in the sense that we can learn about some of these things with an enduring progression.

I certainly hope so. I certainly hope so.

What are the the most important things you've learned over your career that are perhaps not well appreciated by others?

Oh, golly. What have I learned? Have I learned anything? (laughs) Sure, I have somewhere. I mean the difficulty with learning if it's any good is it just becomes part of who you are and then you forgot that you didn't always have it. Right? It's like it's hard for us to remember what life was like before we knew how to read. I think certainly the thing of not taking argument/opposition personally, really fundamental. I think carrying with me this sense that I could always be wrong is really fundamental. You know there's just this great question, you know, if I were wrong what would I see? That really is kind of in my bloodstream now. And some of that's, you know, because — because there have been times when I have been wrong. I think something that I have really toyed with a lot, and I think many people do, which is when do I really dig my heels in and when do I let things go? So to take that out of the abstract, there was a time I produced a monster global co-production for the BBC. And it was for all kinds of reasons, you know, logistically ridiculously complex. And among other things it involved a number of live broadcasts from parents. And I've never done a live broadcast before in my life and I'm generally really up for things that are hard and that I've never done before. But on top of all the other programs I was producing this was just kind of way, way too much. And I remember going to my boss at the time and saying, "I have no expertise. I have no experience. I don't think it plays to my strengths. I'm absolutely drowning in the ten other programs I'm responsible for. I need help." And he put his arm around my — he put his arms around my shoulder and said, "Margaret, the only problem you have is you're just not confident enough."

And I thought, "Well, I guess he's right. I mean I'm not that confident. So maybe I can do it." And I mean to, you know, to cut to the chase, this is some of the worst programming ever seen on BBC television. I mean, it was a catastrophe. And I look back on that and think, he was wrong to say that and not to hear what I was saying. But I wrong to let him do that. I should have said, "No, actually I cannot do this. I just I'm at my limit. No." And so that's, you know, I think that those are very hard calls to make. At what point is this a stretch goal and at what point is this madness? So you know — so — So I think — I think that's something I've learned the hard way. I mean we always learn things, you know, the hard way.

Do you have a process for reflecting on your failures that enables you to learn from them?

Well, I don't think I have a process. I think I'm very, very interested in mistakes. And I'm very ready to acknowledge them when they occur, partly because I want people who work with me to feel that it's completely safe to do so. And they won't unless they see me do it too.

Right.

So I think because I've all — I've felt that for quite a long time I'm very comfortable acknowledging to myself, "Wow, you really screwed up there, Margaret." And I will then pretty quickly sit down and try to think about, "Okay, how did this happen?" So let's not say it was a fluke. It might have been a fluke, but let's assume it wasn't a fluke. What were the things leading up to it that caused this to happen? And can some of those things be changed?

And sometimes you know the answer is, no, actually everything went right, you just blew it. (chuckles) But mostly you can see, you know, that there were just — there was no margin for error, there wasn't enough margin for error, or I was being — working too hard to please or I didn't spot some early warning signs or — You know the classic mistake I made more than once was I thought I could do it for less money than I could or I could do it with fewer resources than I could. So I guess, you know, I don't tend to think this is a judgment on me. This is Margaret. Are you a good person or not? I tend to think what could you learn from this?

I think that's a good way to look at it.

And you know and I was very lucky because my chief investor once said, "You know, Margaret, I don't mind you making mistakes. I'm just going to be seriously pissed off if you make the same mistake twice because that's going to show you weren't paying attention." And I thought that was terrific. So I said, "Okay, my promise to you is I will make different mistakes every time." (laughs).

That's a good promise. What sort of things do you read? Like what's on your nightstand right now?

Oh, wow. All sorts of things. I read fiction in the summer or when I'm not writing. I mean I read fiction mostly in the summer because I think it's just good for me and good for my brain. I'm trying to think, I'm looking around my office. What am I reading? I'm reading a book called The Curse of History at the moment. Analogies at War is another book I'm reading. So I'm reading quite a lot of history at the moment. And I always read a lot of history, that's fair to say. There's a book across my desk on Thomas Beckett. So I read a lot of history. I read a lot of fiction. I read quite a lot of poetry. I read quite a lot of history of art. I read very, very few business books.

Has it always been that way or is that just as you've grown in life?

I think it's always been this — that way. I read a lot of biography. I'm looking across my office at a fantastic double biography of Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Shelley, a mother and daughter. Yeah, I mean I — I do read some business books, but I read very few.

What's your process for reading a book? Are you — are you somebody who picks it up and goes cover to cover nonstop? Do you flip around? Do you look at the outline? How do you actually consume the book?

Well it depends. If I'm reading it as I think of for work I'll read it quite fast, I'll generally read it on my iPad and all annotate it quite carefully. If I'm not reading it, you know, with a specific purpose in mind, I'll read in a much more leasurly fashion and I'll quit if I don't like it. I care a lot about how things are written. I think a couple months ago I was reading Lionel Schriver's book The Mandibles and it stopped me in a — in my tracks because was just a wonderful sentence in it. And I thought, Oh, wow! Wow, this is really good writing. (chuckles) So I, you know, somehow subliminally paying attention to that kind of thing.

I read quite a lot of stuff by dead writers. So I read a lot of 19th century fiction, early 20th century fiction. I read a lot of old books. I mean, you know, a couple month's ago I was reading Kennedy's Profiles in Courage, which was not at all what I thought it was going to be. I'm very interested by, you know, how much great stuff there is that we think we know what it is, but we're wrong. (chuckles) The same happened when I read When Prophecy Fails, which is Festinger's wonderful book in which he comes up with the theory of cognitive dissonance. And it's — I mean I think it's kind of a hilarious read because it's clearly a scholarly piece, but you know the whole situation is so absurd that the contrast between academic writing and this insane situation is just kind of accidentally hilarious. You know?

Yeah.

And I definitely read what I think of as car crash business books. You know so books about businesses that go wrong. And I read some books about, you know, kind of happy ending business books. So American Icon I really enjoyed about the turnaround at Ford.

That was a good one.

Yeah, I thought it was a really good book. And it was fascinating as I was at Ford last week and so talking to people there and thinking about what's happening in between times, you know, it's really helpful. And the conversation I had — was having with Frank Partnoy about you know the business catastrophe desk calendar was very much because we both lamented the degree to which businesspeople often have very little sense of history and — and history is almost never taught in business schools. It's the live case studies or the case studies you know where the ending is known and therefore implicitly, structurally looks pre-determined. And I just — I just think that having a sense of what the longer story is is really important.

I agree with that. You've led a varied life. You've been involved with so much over time. Was there any grand design behind it or were you just putting one foot in front of the other?

(laughs)

What would you say to a young person who wants to follow in your footsteps?

Well, definitely no — absolutely no grand design. Absolutely none. I mean I've definitely experimented with lots of things. I think, so my advice to my kids is try stuff. Try stuff and whatever you're going to try to do, try to do it with the — with people who do at a really high level. So just try to work with people who you think are really serious about what they're doing. So don't mess around. If you're going to do it, do it with the very best people you can find. Because even if you then decide, actually, this is not my thing, you will have been exposed to high-quality thinking or high-quality doing.

Yep.

And that's just always more interesting. I mean it's interesting because when I — both of my kids went to school here in England which is notable for being a really outstanding music school, but they didn't specializing music. And 00 and what was interesting, and they said this to me, is the music in the school is so outstanding it just gives you a sense of what excellence is.

Right.

And I thought that was a really good way of putting it.

It's super insightful, yeah.

Yeah. So I would say you know try stuff, but try stuff down as well as you can find it. And contribute as much as you can, so be generous. Be curious, be reliable. I think reliablity is the most undervalued characteristic. If you say you're going to do something, do it no matter what.

Yeah.

You know be interested in other people because they are all interesting, no matter who they are, they're interesting. It's up to you to find what's interesting in them, but it's in there somewhere.

That's what I tell my kids, you can learn something from everybody. Your job is to be a detective and kind of like find out or uncover what that is.

Yeah, that must be the fun thing of what you're doing now, which is being able to have wonderful conversations with people.

Yeah, and you're definitely facilitating that.

Yeah, but you're facilitating that, too, you know.

Thank you. Yeah. Where can people find out more about you?

My website which is just www.mheffernan.com and that's the best place to look.

Awesome. Thank you, Margaret, so much —

— find out very much about me for the next nine months because I'm not doing any more speaking engagements so that I can get my head down and write something different.

Well, I look forward to when that comes out.

So do I. (laughs)

Thank you so much for agreeing to come on The Knowledge Project. This has just been an absolutely wonderful conversation.

Well, I've enjoyed it and — and Adam said I would. So I appreciate you making the time for it and asking such great questions, because I do often think it takes a lot more to come up with a good question than to come up with a good answer.

I don't know if that's true, but we definitely try to come up with interesting questions that we can ask people that we haven't heard before on their interviews. And the process that we use for the podcast is very labor intensive and time consuming in the amount of work that we put into a show.

Hmm, but preparation's everything; isn't it? Right? It's not necessarily that it will go the way that you think, but if you're prepared more interesting stuff will happen I think.

I a 100% agree with that, so that's why we do kind of what we do. I don't know how people put out shows like every two weeks, where we struggle to kind of do one a month at this point.

But it depends on what you care about, doesn't it? Do you want to do a huge amount of stuff or do you want to do something really well?

Oh, exactly. Yeah.

(music)

Hey, guys this is Shane again. Just a few more things before we wrap up. You can find show notes from today's show at FS.blog/podcast. You can also find out information on how to get a transcript there. And if you'd like to receive a weekly email from me filled with all sorts of brain food, go to FS.blog/newsletter. The newsletter has all the good stuff I found on the Internet this week that I've read and shared with close friends, books I'm reading, and so much more. Lastly, if you enjoyed this or any other episode of The Knowledge Project, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. Every review helps us make the show better, expand our reach, and share message with more people, and it only takes a minute. Thank you for listening and being part of the Farnam Street Community. (music)

Automatically convert audio to text with Sonix


New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts Full Transcript: Trader Joes (inside) – Episode 4 – The Store Is Our Brand

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with the Trader Joes (inside) Podcast. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time πŸ‘€, just click the player below.

Trader Joes (inside) Episode 4: The Store Is Our Brand

It's fun. You know when people come in and give me hugs, you know, 30 people one day and, it's amazing. I've made new friends. You know, they're family. We have such an eclectic, diverse, clientele base. There's a million stories.

From the Trader Joe's mother ship in Monrovia, California.

Let's go Inside Trader Joe's. [MUSIC]

Welcome to Episode 4 of a five-part series that takes you inside Trader Joe's. I'm Tara Miller.

And I'm Matt Sloan. Later in Episode 4, we'll taste some wine, and we'll also visit Napa Valley, California, where we search for more great wines and great values. But first we'll explain one of the seven values that guides Trader Joe's. It says the store is our brand.

And I'm really excited for you to meet some of the customers and crew members in our stores. They really are some of the nicest people you could ever meet.

And if you've ever thought about applying to work at a Trader Joe's listen closely for some tips on how to ace the interview.

I'm Jon Basalone, President of Stores for Trader Joe's. I don't really use the title too much. But yeah, that's it.

But we're going to use it here. [MUSIC]

The store is our brand.

This store is our brand.

This store is our brand. People can't understand, "Why aren't you selling products online? How come you don't just sell wholesale to China? They want a bunch of your products. Why don't you just send truckloads and shiploads of products to other countries and make a bunch of money?" It's like, well because that's not what Trader Joe's is. You know, for us the store is our brand, and our products work the best when they're sold as part of this overall customer experience within the store, and so we're not, we're not ready to give that up. For us, the brand is too important, and the store is our brand.

More than 80 percent of the products we sell at Trader Joe's are private label. Keeping things in *our* label as opposed to the brand name label or a supplier's label helps us keep our costs low.

We don't collect slotting fees, we don't have the producers of the stuff that we sell, pay for privileged space or any space in our store.

And that happens everywhere else, by the way.

Totally normal grocery store stuff. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And yet, there it is. There aren't a bunch of flat screen TVs and monitors and electronic signs, and why don't we have those things in our stores?

That's just not, that's not who we are.

Mitch Heeger, he started out as a part-time box boy, and now he's EVP of marketing and merchandising.

You know, when you walk into a store that has a big screen there, and you can see yourself on camera, you know the immediate feeling is someone's watching me and they must be watching me for a reason.

And just to be clear, we are not spying on you. We don't have access to your data at Trader Joe's because we don't *have* any data on you. Do you like cats? Do you buy a lot of chocolate bars, a lot of Belgian chocolate bars? We don't know that about you. We wouldn't share that information with someone if we had it. But we don't have it. That was weird, it's still…

No, it's actually kind of funny. [laughter]

We don't know what we don't know. That's a problem. [MUSIC]

God, you know we have so many great products, and they're so unique, and people come to our stores for that product. But what they really get excited about, and what they write in about, a lot of times is the interaction they have with the crew. A 93-year-old man wrote in about, he got to the checkstand, and they surprised him, it was his birthday, and they surprised him with a cake.

"Happy Birthday!"

Grocery store system, before,.

Anybody does…

But we do, and it's not something that we tell our crew to do. It's just something that we just do.

Oh, oh, you put it there, OK.

My name's Ray. I am purchasing level five colored bananas. They have green tips almost, almost ripe but not too ripe. I like to ripen them myself. And we're going to be making banana bread. There's about 100 bananas in there. [MUSIC] And I spoke to Josh, a sales employee, and I called him every day within the past three days, and he gave me an update on how the bananas are looking, when to come by, when to pick them up, so I really appreciate him. Thank you, Josh! Oh, he said "Ask for me, because I don't want anyone else to think you're crazy". So, I appreciate it! [Laughter].

Hi, my name is Rosario Medina. I've been with the company 23 years.

What's the part of being a Trader Joe's captain that you enjoy the most?

Talking to people. It's, it's, you know we're in the people business. We sell groceries, but we're in the people business. The absolute best part is, I get to come to work every day and talk to people, and smile, and meet new people, and it's… I'm really lucky. I'm really blessed.

Ever wonder what it's like to interview for a job at Trader Joe's?

You know when we do interviews, you know, I'll say, "So, what questions do you have for me? And they say, "Well what's… What do I not know coming in?" I said, "Well the work part, we could train you to do, that's easy. But it's all about the people. Just your ability to talk to people." We've got interview questionnaires, and I'll start with that. And then I tend to get off base a little bit. One of the best questions is "What do you like to do in your off time?" And then you'll see the passion, and then from there you could talk about food, and see how that works out.

You're not just trying to find someone who can fill a slot on your crew roster. You're interviewing a person to get to know a person because you're hiring a person, not a widget. [MUSIC]

Do you want to start, Tina, like just a little bit of your story as it relates to Trader Joe's. Like, what brought you here and why have, how long have you been here? And why have you stayed?

Ok. I've been with Trader Joe's for probably ten years. I have worked many jobs since I was 15, and this is, I just, like I see my other friends that don't work for the company, and the things they complain about, are how they don't have friends at work, and I'm just, I, and they don't get to drink wine at work, or any cheese! [Laughter] Yeah, this is, I fit in, right, I fit right in.

Same here, I worked for the company 12 years. Maybe like a couple of months into me starting here, they had me face paint. I'm artistic. Somewhat. And so for them to just ask me, "Why don't you start face painting some of these kids?" And I was like, wow, I could, yeah I could totally dig this. That's what helps. The fact that we could be ourselves. So, you know that translates with our energy, with the people, with our customers.

I could talk like myself, I could just be myself. I've never, ever felt out of place. [MUSIC]

Mrs. Schwartz was a great customer of ours in Sherman Oaks.

Dan Bain is chairman and CEO, but he still goes to Trader Joe's stores and helps out, just like any other crew member.

That day I was bagging groceries, and my name tag, which usually says crew member on it, but that day my name tag said Bagger First Class, and I was standing there bagging groceries with about a 20-year-old clerk who was running the cash register. And I still remember Mrs. Schwartz coming up to the front of the line as she starts having her items scanned by the guy, and she looks at my name tag and she reads aloud "Bagger First Class." I said,"Yes, Ma'am", and she said, "Do you mind if I ask you a personal question?" "No ma'am."

She said, "How old are you?" I said, "I'm sixty-five." And she said, "Don't you aspire to anything greater?" And I said "No ma'am." And the checker was like, almost laughing out loud, and he's having a hard time controlling himself. But I checked her out, took her bags out to the car, and she tried to tip me, and I said, "No, you know, the guys in the store take pretty good care of me." But she promised me that, you know every day when I shaved I should look in the mirror and think what I might become. And so, I do that every day.

Thank you, Mrs. Schwartz. [LAUGHTER, MUSIC]

Once again we ask:

Do you have a favorite Trader Joe's product?

Ooh. I love your Dark Chocolate Peanut Butter Cups. Those are always the go-to. [LAUGHTER]

The grass fed buffalo burgers. I love those.

The roasted chicken. I love that. They have a cauliflower in the frozen section. Oh, love the tomato soup.

Have you tried the tomato soup crackers?

No!

They're called creamy tomato soup crackers. And it's like kind of having a bowl of tomato soup, but in a cracker.

My name is Chris Condit and I work with the wine. Here. Was that really your question, let's see. I am the category manager for wine for the company known as Trader Joe's.

We sell a lot of wine, and for a lot of people, Trader Joe's is synonymous with wine. It's that place that's always had wine, and historically wine has played an incredibly important part in our business, a real difference-making part of the store.

I'm going to give you the secret to Trader Joe's here.

So far they've all tasted like Tang, but not the good version, if there is one.

One thing that we do, that sets us apart, is we have a tasting panel. There's a lot of wine out there. There really are hundreds of thousands of wines available in the market. We carry about 500 in our stores. So, we're tasting every day, literally every day. [MUSIC]

Yes, I mean it's got the color, the acid.

… a little more savory than fruity…

Yeah, it's pretty good, though.

Where's that from again? And you're going to tell me…

"…it's Russian River. So it'd be Trader Joe's 2016 Russian River Petite Syrah. Everybody had a chance to try and think about it. Who'd like to see that come in? Excellent. And lastly…" [fade to MUSIC]

The source of the wine for our various private-label and controlled-label programs might change over time, but the wines are always going to be great, because we get to pick and choose. We don't have to carry every wine, we don't have to always repeat that exact same thing every year. If it's not good, we don't think it's great value, in all of the wine, we don't buy it. There's a lot of people that sort of famously make a fortune in other businesses and then they love wine. So, "I'm going to open a winery!" right? It's kind of like buying a boat. You just throw money at that hole in the water. And they, you know, they make their wine, they open a little winery, and they grow some grapes, and then they wait for the customers to show up. Customers don't always show up, for the customers already buy X, Y, Z,, and they weren't, you know, they weren't just waiting around for this wine to appear before they would start drinking wine, or buying wine. They need to clear out those tanks, they need to sell the wine at some point, no matter how wealthy the person is. It's always a bad business practice to not sell what you make. So in those situations we're oftentimes willing to help them at a lovely price for our customers. And so those, we call them hustle buys. Those wines come out in our stores at tremendous prices, and people are just like, you know, that's ridiculous. How do you do that? And we sell through it quickly, and then we're onto the next one.

What do you hear from customers?

Our customers oftentimes have a crew member that they learn to trust. Like, "I like what Sue likes. Is Sue here today? Because I'm looking for a recommendation for whatever, and every time Sue recommends that, I love it." Or you know, "I'm with Bill. Is Bill around? Because Bill's tastebuds totally match my tastebuds".

So you have a long history at Trader Joe's. Is there anything about how the Trader Joe's wine business works now that's new, or changing, or…

When I first started, almost 30 years ago, it was "this blend, that blend, so and so's wine". And then the fighting varietal thing happened and people were like, "Oh, I don't want this blend. I really just like the Merlot, or the Cabernet, or the Chardonnay," and it became all about varietal wines, and that really took over 25+ years ago. And it's kind of stayed that way, but what's happened is some varietals have have grown in favor, and some have completely fallen off the map. [MUSIC]

Merlot is one of the great easy-drinking, you know, most approachable varietal wines there is, and people hate Merlot. They just hate it. "I don't want Merlot! Merlot! Merlot is dead to me."

You sound like a jerk if you order Merlot.

Yeah, if you order Merlot, you don't know what you're doing. You're a complete loser.

Yeah.

People still love Merlot. The Merlot didn't just like, all of a sudden stop growing or something. It didn't go away. They just relabel it all as red blends.

I mean can we, can we really trace it all back to that movie, is it that one film's fault, really?

It seems that that's where it began, that that's when people decided, "Oh it's not cool to like Merlot anymore".

Well, you know, Paul Giamatti. So what's funny, Sideways is the movie, and he's the one that slammed Merlot, which is fine. It was actually a great movie. Little known fact is, at the end of the movie he's drinking a Bordeaux in that burger joint, right? That was a Merlot-based Bordeaux that he's drinking. So his favorite most prized wine was a Merlot. Anyway, life imitating art. [MUSIC fade to CAR IGNITION]

So now you've met Chris Condit. I'd like to introduce you to Pat Andrus.

I started in the company in 1969. I was 17. And when I was 25 I became a Captain of the store, and here I am a 65. I've got this job that I wanted all my life.

Pat's got a great job. He rides around places like the Napa Valley looking for great wines to bring to Trader Joe's.

Well the basic job today, is sourcing wine that will fit into one of our programs, the highest quality juice that I can possibly find, at great prices. This is my new baby.

This is? this is Napa Valley Chardonnay? I'd be interested in this.

Yeah, this is…

And you haven't sold this yet, have you?

I haven't sold it.

Oh darn. Are you telling me this is $6.99?

No I'm not. I promise you, it's…

Oh I heard that. This is the best $3.99 wine I've ever had. [LAUGHTER FADE TO MUSIC]

You're listening to a five-part series that takes you inside Trader Joe's. [MUSIC] If you like Trader Joe's, and you even liked this podcast, rate us on Apple podcast, or wherever it is you found this.

Oh,we'd like that. And here's what's on the next Inside Trader Joe's.

Chicago is very situated, especially Chicago proper, by neighborhoods. So we do our best to make the stores a reflection of the neighborhood.

Yeah, you might see an end cap of prune juice in the Florida market… [Laughter] …before you're going to see that on the Chicago market.

The folks that come here they are, they're us. They are working, they are retired, they have grandkids, they have aunts, uncles. They have baby brothers and sisters, they have dogs and cats. They're just like all of us. They just happen to need some assistance.

I think our stores probably are all in the range of sharing from $600,000, $700,000 a year, to over a million dollars with their local communities.

This place is a blessing to my home.

We started this podcast with the goal of answering some of the questions we often hear about Trader Joe's.

I love you, but what's with the parking lot? [LAUGHTER]

You know, people will ask all the time, "When do I get a Trader Joe's in my town?" and I said, "isn't your town like two miles from a Trader Joe's?" "Oh, yes, that's not, yeah, it's not close enough. We need, we need our own."

God, there have been a number of surprises…

…that we thought would work, but didn't.

Yeah. [Laughter]

We used to have an eggplant wrap, the fresh one, and I would eat that constantly. It went away, I was pretty sad.

I was really into that almond Jalapeno dip.

We're targeting to open 30 to 35 stores a year.

We could have a thousand stores, but what's most important to us is that we have a thousand Trader Joe's stores.

That's on the next Inside Trader Joe's.

Automatically convert audio to text with Sonix


New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts Full Transcript: Trader Joes (inside) – Episode 3 – Informative and Seriously Not Too Serious

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with the Trader Joes (inside) Podcast. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time πŸ‘€, just click the player below.

Trader Joes (inside) Episode 3: Informative and Seriously Not Too Serious

It's going so fast and so hot in here.

Yes. [Laughter].

From the Trader Joe's mother ship in Monrovia, California.

Let's go Inside Trader Joe's. [Music]

We're up to episode three of our five-part series. I'm Tara Miller.

And I'm Matt Sloan. On this episode, we're going to be informative, and seriously, not too serious.

Actually that's always our goal around here. We'll explore how and why we keep customers and crew members up to date.

I'll interview the editor of the Fearless Flyer, and I'm going to ask some really tough questions, too.

Uh-oh! Of course there's no better way to be informed about the new products at Trader Joe's than a visit to the demo station at your neighborhood Trader Joe's. We'll do that, too.

Also Hawaiian shirts, products that just didn't quite make it, and more. So let's get started.

My name is Mitch Heeger and I'm the executive V.P. of Marketing and Merchandising.

If there's a job to be done at Trader Joe's, Mitch Heeger has probably done it.

I've been with company a long time, 40 years with the company. Started off sweeping the parking lot and mopping the floors and actually vacuuming the carpet in the store. But I started off as a box boy.

There was carpet?

There was carpet. Yeah, and when you spilled the grape juice it wasn't a pretty picture. Or the bottle of wine. We used to have some really, really long wine tastings and the tastings were very different back then, and…

Was it drinkings or tastings?

Well they were they were tastings, but, and it's not about having a lot to drink. It's about really having some great discussion and having an ability to learn from people that could teach other crew members in the store. So, yeah there's probably some stories that I probably shouldn't share. [Laughter] Our business has changed so much that, you know where we might have opened up 12 bottles of wine and tried them and compared, and discussed, now a store may try a bottle of wine and a bunch of other products so they can learn on all the products in the store and that the focus isn't as much on wine.

Which really sets up in terms of this idea that we think of ourselves as wanting to be informative. We want to be an informative retailer.

We like to talk to our customers. You know, just seeing if they need some help, if they're looking for something, or they want some information on a product.

We're here at the Trader Joe's in Sherman Oaks California. We are releasing a podcast that's just sort of all about Trader Joe's. And a big part of Trader's Joe's are the people who shop here.

To be honest I only started shopping at Trader Joe's this past year, so I always ask, "Hey! Where is this? Or where is that?" And not only do they tell you where it is, but they show you. So, which is, I really like that. Unlike when you go to [BEEP BEEP], you say "Hey, where is this?" They're like, "Aisle 5." Here you say "Where can I find my almond butter?" and they'll direct you, and walk you, and give you recommendations on which is the best one, so I really like that.

We're not going to sound silly?

Well, you might. But that's OK. But what we're trying to do is really just get a sense of what are the things that make Trader Joe's an interesting place to work? Do you want to start, Tina?. You know

I love being here, it's like with my friends. It's my other family. There's good food, I get a discount. I laugh every time I come. It is nice to help people. It's amazing how much people, some people don't know, and some people do know. Like some people don't know that you, like our sliced Turkey is ready to eat. They don't know that they don't need to cook it, for example. Or like gluten free, vegan. It's nice to be helpful to the customers that have diet restrictions, or just started on diet restrictions and we can help them because we have all the knowledge here.

And in every section there's someone that's extremely knowledgeable. You've got wine, you've got cheese you got… I mean the list goes on and on. And for produce it's either me or MartΓ­n, me, Roberto.

You can come to me for anything. I know it all.

Our crewmembers do love to recommend the products. Just ask them.

We have a new frozen item that's a baked chocolate chip cookie that is really really good. Especially the scoop of vanilla ice cream on top it's amazing.

We've made a huge improvement in our new fresh salmon so that's certainly a favorite. I have that quite often.

And my favorite product at Trader Joe's is Charles Shaw wine.

Charles Shaw? Why?

And it's because it's our customers favorite product.

I think my current favorite would probably be our spatchcocked chicken. I've been cooking that a lot lately on the barbecue. Very good.

Right now, I would have to choose the Icelandic strawberry yogurt that we have. Oh, I can't stop eating it. It's so addicting! [Laughter]

We do try just about everything in the store, so our crew are very knowledgeable about our products. But we try to have a tasting once or twice a week, and our crew get an opportunity to not only fill their bellies but their minds, so they're able to pass on that information to our customers.

So we're at Trader Joe's store 49 in Sherman Oaks, California and we're talking to the store's Captain. I'll let her introduce herself.

Hi I'm J.J. Swayss.

How long have you worked for Trader Joe's, J.J.?

I've been with the company twenty-five years. I'm at the store where I got hired 25 years ago, which is pretty phenomenal for me. It was full circle. It was kind of a dream come true in some respects.

And your trajectory just kept going up from there?

Little by little. I had a couple of kids in between. Everybody who I had worked with at that point were so supportive and just wanted you to grow. The best thing about it, and I'm going to get choked up here, is that no one ever told me that there was an obstacle or I couldn't do it.

It's OK. This is OK. This is real, this is how you feel.

…that I was pushed, and made me feel like I can accomplish anything. They promoted me, pushed me on, gave me direction and always, always said "Keep going." So and that's the direction I went.

Is there anything that we didn't ask about Trader Joe's, or about you and your life at Trader Joe's and how it's how it's impacted you?

Well I hope I can put this in a nutshell. But it has changed my life. It's giving me opportunity. It's given me security. It's giving me hope in people. There's nothing standing in my way to achieve anything I want to achieve. Same thing for every single one of our crew members. You know, no matter what race, creed, religion you are, nothing ever stops you from achieving those goals if they're really your goals and you want to achieve them. You've got to put some work into it. Absolutely, it's not easy. None of it's easy. It shouldn't be easy if it's worth it, and it's definitely worth it.

Then of course, we also have to keep crew members informed about the products that are going away. Yeah, it happens.

The tasting panel does such a good job choosing products to bring into Trader Joe's, but even they miss sometimes.

And in hindsight we probably should have known that some of those products were going to be misses.

Like what?

Well, like all good things that sound great on paper, or even when you're thinking about it, Laplander Cuisine Soup just…[laughter] is necessarily tricky stuff. So we had a line of soups that were cuisine from the land of the midnight sun, and this is on-the-go Laplander Cuisine for those of you pressed for time, but still wanting a bit of that authentic old-country taste, and we had Cream of Venison soup.

Ooh…

And it was in a very gold foil can. It looked fancy but really, no one wanted it.

We thought they might though, huh? OK.

We really did. And you know, a lot of times an opportunity will present itself, something that seems on the surface like a negative situation, and you turn it around and you try to make it positive, and you still wind up in that awkward negative spot. So there was actually a large peanut crop failure that led to a peanut shortage that led to a peanut butter problem. We didn't have enough peanut butter to sell. And people love peanut butter. So what we found was cotton seed. Cotton seed actually, is plentiful, abundant, and it produces lots of oil, and we thought, "Wow, if you just blend this up, whip this up, it's like a cottonseed butter. Who's not going to love this? Apparently no one loved this. [Laughter] So, swing, miss. Another similar situation: there was again, we're going back some time here into the late 70s really early 80s, there was a shortage of what they called chunk light tuna. We needed more cans of tuna to sell. Well, there's another fish it's sometimes known as an alewife, or a pilchard. We thought chunk pilchard in a can would be great.

Yeah.

And the rest is history. [Music]

And so this, actually, just also in from the mailbag here, we get this, a lot of crewmembers get this question: How many Hawaiian shirts do you have?

I'm not sure I can provide a count. But my closet has changed dramatically in the time that I've been with Trader Joe's. They used to be all like, you know, gray and blue suits, and now it's like, the brightest-colored Hawaiian shirts you could possibly find are in my closet. And about once a year I make a donation to a nice charity of Hawaiian shirts.

So Matt, how many Hawaiian shirts do you own?

Well, you know without giving an incriminating number, I have enough where I can wear a different shirt for each day of the week for at least two months. Although I have the same six that I always go back to.

So, we asked a bunch of our Trader Joe's crew members the same question.

"What did they say?".

I have 14.

Some people have a full closet. I only have a small row.

Probably close to 40. My kids laugh at me. But there you go.

A lot. Believe me.

Can you start off by giving us your name, and what city you live in?

Yeah, my name is Xavier Bert and I live in South Pasadena, California. I just was telling the gentleman at the register that I read the Fearless Flyer cover to cover because it's super engaging and the writing is really great and I gave it to another person I cook with because I was like, "You need to read this about food. It's really good". I came in last night and bought all the stuff I found in the Fearless Flyer that was interesting that I never had. So last night I made sunchoke. I'd never even had a sunchoke. And you know, just nerding out on food.

OK. Well, I write the Fearless Flyer so you just made my whole day. Thank you. That's fantastic.

This one's great. I just was sitting there and my wife was sleeping, and every time she woke up I was like, "I'm still reading this thing". And she like, dozed off. And I was like, I'm still reading this thing.

Lining birdcages near you. It's the Fearless Flyer Show. [Laughter]

So Tara, what is the Fearless Flyer?

The Fearless Flyer is Trader Joe's main way of talking to our customers. We call ourselves a store of stories, and the Fearless Flyer is that idea made manifest on paper.

But it's a specific set of stories, right?

Rather than just show people a product and a price like a traditional grocery store, or a circular would do. We tell stories about our products. We talk to the people who've developed our products. We want you to know a little bit about what's in it. We want you to know a little bit about what it tastes like, and what a great value it is, so we tell you the price.

The usual grocery playbook says item price or BOGO for you jargon fans out there (buy one get one). It's none of that. It's a lot of words. It's a lot of words but they are words that have a look, like you can spot it at 50 paces. And, why does it look like that?

Originally it looked like that because it was the least expensive way to put something on paper. So, our founder Joe Coulombe would type it on a typewriter and make mimeographed copies.

"I wrote The Fearless Flyer for all those years."

Originally, it was for crewmembers. It was intended to give information about products, specifically wines, to crew members. It was called The Insider's Report. And he started doing that in 1970 and customers got wind that this was happening and said, "Hey, I want to see that, I want to know about that wine. I want to know what that's all about." The cartoons that are in the flyer? You know it's got these old-timey Victorian-era art pieces.

"We've put in the cartoons. Lighten it up. Don't take them so god-damned seriously."

They were royalty free, and Joe didn't want to have to pay anyone to create art to put in it, and didn't want to have to put pictures of products in it because that was expensive, too.

These old engravings, that was absolutely out of necessity to not spend money on it. And it became over time a look.

A cross between Mad Magazine and Consumer Reports. The initial cartoon image on the flyer was of someone who looked like he was flying. And I don't know if he looked fearless or terrified, but Terrified Flyer probably wouldn't have worked very well at the name, so you know, fearless, fearless it was fearless it is.

Is there any option for, like a paid placement? Can someone buy a spot in this?

No, it's not an option. There's, that's just not part of how we do our business. We put things in the flyer that we think are interesting, and hopefully our customers agree that they're interesting.

I'm Tara.

I'm Curtis.

I'm the Marketing Director at Trader Joe's. Why do you shop a Trader Joe's?

I shop at Trader Joe's because I love the products. I love the staff. I love how helpful they are and friendly they are. And I love to sample their food! [Laughter].

Do you sample products from the demo?

Absolutely. And I get a lot of ideas for dinner, and for lunches for my boys.

So what a lot of people might not know, is the biggest marketing expense we have at Trader Joe's is actually just letting people try our food. Today we're with Angel at the Demo station in our East Pasadena California store. What's for lunch, Angel?.

Ooh,today we've got a little beef brisket. This is the corned beef brisket on rye bread with mustard, a little cabbage, and a Swiss cheese.

So you don't just put out the food, you actually make things that customers could make at home?

Yeah that's what we're striving to do. We're looking for ideas, for inspiration, things that are easy, and that they could do for themselves at home real quick.

I've got a tasty sample for you here. You're very welcome to try, guys. Please, have a taste.

I'm so full.

Good afternoon, Miss, how are you?

Fine, thank you. What is this?

This is actually a little sandwich we made with our corned beef.

Mmmm, really?

Not bad, huh? Want to try some grapes, too? Because they're really crunchy and good.

That was very tasty. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

You need a glass of wine next time. Think about it.

I'll work on it.

Ray Miller at our original Trader Joe's in Pasadena California was one of the first crew members to work the demo station.

Well, in the early days, before we had potato salad I brought out my potato salad, and I was quite proud of that. Unfortunately it's not on the shelves but I thought it was delicious and the people used to love to have it when I would do that. At the demo station, you never know what you're going to be. You may be a nurse, you may be a secretary, you may just be a counselor. You know, we are many things, but because everybody come to the table, as the bishop would say, from a different place of enlightenment. And we just have to deal with the situations as they come, you know?

You're listening to a five part series that takes you inside Trader Joe's. If you like Trader Joe's and you even liked this podcast, rate us on Apple podcast or wherever it is you found this.

Oh, we'd like that. And here's what's on the next Inside Trader Joe's: we'll go to Napa Valley, California to sip some wine.

Merlot's one of the great easy drinking, you know, one of the most approachable varietal wines there is, and people hate Merlot. They just hate it. "I don't want Merlot! Merlot? Merlot is dead to me".

You sound like a jerk if you order Merlot.

Yeah, if you order Merlot you don't know what you're doing. You're a complete loser.

The store is our brand.

This store is our brand. People can't understand, why aren't you selling products online?

And just to be clear, we are not spying on you. We don't have access to your data at Trader Joe's, because we don't have any data on you.

I see my other friends, that don't work for the company, and the things they complain about, or how they don't have friends at work, and I'm just, I, they don't get to drink wine at work or any cheese…! [Laughter] I fit in…

That's on the next Inside Trader Joe's.

Automatically convert audio to text with Sonix


New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts Full Transcript: In the Dark – S2 E2 The Route

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with the In the Dark Podcast. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time πŸ‘€, just click the player below.

In the Dark: S2 E2 The Route

If you haven't listened to the first episode of In the Dark, stop, go back and listen to it first and this will make a lot more sense. One other note, this episode contains a word that's offensive.

Last time on In the Dark.

Do you remember how you heard that Curtis had been arrested for the murders?

On the radio. I thought it was crazy.

Curtis Giovanni Flowers murdered those four people. There's no doubt in my mind.

Curtis Flowers was sentenced to death on four counts of capital murder. That conviction actually marked the sixth time Flowers have been tried and the case.

It's too long, way too long and Curtis Flowers is still in prison and they're still dragging it on.

I know Curtis didn't do it. I will go to my grave believing Curtis didn't do it.

If you try a man and you go six times for the same crime, well, something is wrong about the entire system.

On the west side of Winona in the middle of a neighborhood with lots of houses close together, there's what looks like an abandoned parking lot. It's nearly a block long, it's overgrown, the grass isn't mowed. It's the kind of place you might drive by and never give a second thought.

But if you slowed down and looked more closely, you'd notice a row of bricks poking out of the grass along the edge of the lot and a set of concrete steps that lead nowhere. If you got out of your car and walked onto the lot and headed all the way to the back, you'd find an old desk overturned in the grass. You'd see that someone had taken a silver marker and written the words 'Merry Christmas'. This abandoned lot used to be a school.

Back in the 1960s, it was an all-Black school and it was in a Black neighborhood. But in 1970, the Federal Government ordered the City of Winona to integrate its schools and White and Black students started to go to school here together.

But then four years later, on the night before Valentine's Day, after all the students and teachers had left, a fire broke out. The flames lit up the sky and people could smell the smoke for miles. Within hours, the entire block-long brick building had burned to the ground. Nearly everyone I talked to about the fire Black and White, told me they think it was arson and that it was related to integration.

Right next to the field where the school used to be, there's a small, white house with a porch on the side. This is the house where Curtis Flowers' parents live.

Hello.

Lola and Archie Flowers have been married for 54 years. Everything in their house is just so. The dining room table is set perfectly with cloth napkins. In the living room, there's a curved, tan velvet couch with fringe on the bottom and a matching ottoman.

Lola and Archi are both retired and although they have five other children and many grandchildren, they have devoted most of their time in the past 21 years to their son, Curtis. Curtis' parents talk on the phone with him almost every day. They regularly make the 80-minute drive each way to Parchman Prison.

Every two weeks, we go.

Okay.

We see him the first and third Tuesday of each month. We don't miss a beat.

Can you bring him anything?

Mm-mm. When you get through getting searched and everything every time you go, you might as well leave your cclothes off and go on over there.

Well, they really search you there.

Yeah. Scan you and everythnig.

From the beginning, Lola and Archie Flowers have believed their son is innocent and they spent a lot of money on Curtis' case.

How much do you think you spent?

Shit, like I cannot add it up. It was like a hundred and some thousand dollars.

Oh, my gosh.

I'm telling you.

How could you afford it?

I used to work three jobs a day. He was working double [inaudible]. And then after that, we went and borrowed some from the bank and everything to pay for the next lawyers and stuff. We had some money then, but we don't have it now.

Over the past 21 years and six trials, Curtis Flowers has had every archetype of lawyer: the father-son legal team, the high-profile Black nationalist attorney, the dedicated public defenders.

When I met his parents, Lola and Archie, last summer, Curtis' case had been taken on for free by a new team of lawyers from the Innocence Project in a high-powered East Coast law firm. Lola was feeling optimistic for the first time in a while. She was thinking ahead to the next family reunion.

So we having the next one on Labor Day weekend, so I hope Curtis is out by then. Maybe it is a Supreme Court will say something. That's what we're waiting on now, to see what they've got to say.

Do you let yourself think about that moment? Like do you think about what that would be like if he…?

Oh, yeah. I think about that all the time, you know, what a good time we're going to have and everything. A lot of family say, "When they let him out, we're all going to be there." I say, "Yeah, we're going to have a good time."

Curtis' father, Archie, didn't say much the first time I met him. He sat next to his wife and when she talked, he would just sigh or shake his head. I asked the Flowers if they had any photos of Curtis. They told me they only had one because in 1999, just before Curtis' second trial their house burned down. Lola and Archie were out of town in Memphis when it happened. Their daughter was sleeping over at their house with some of their grandkids.

My daughter was home and she said it sounded like something blowed up or something. There was a loud noise and when she would look, everything was burning. It just burned everywhere.

As for the cause of the fire, according to the report from the fire department, which I got a copy of, there was no final determination as to what caused it. But Lola told me that after the fire, someone told her that they'd heard something from a White person in town.

But somebody said they heard say, "If they let that nigger go, another house is going to burn.

And what do you think of that?

What do you think I think of it? That somebody probably set on fire.

Many years ago, around the time of the first trial, Curtis' friends and family tried to organize people in town to help Curtis. I went with our producer, Samara, to talk to some of the people who were involved in it. Pastor Jimmy Forrest and his wife, Rosie.

Hi. Are you Reverend Forrest?

Yeah, I am.

Pastor Forrest had had a stroke the previous year. So, Rosie did most of the talking.

But what we were trying to do was family-wide was try to see if we need to raise money, get lawyers, find him a lawyer. Do we need to… We were just going to talk about and find out what it is that we can do to help Curtis.

[inaudible]

Yeah. Just be there for him.

Rosie said her husband, Jimmy, took the lead back then on organizing a community meeting. Rosie told me that it felt like there was some momentum there, like they could really get something going. But then one day, before the meeting it happened, a woman came into the salon where Rosie worked, a Black woman whom Rosie refused to name. And this woman told Rosie that she'd been asked to deliver a message to her husband,, Jimmy from the White side of town. The message was brief.

He needs to relax. He needs to relax, cool off.

Who was the message from?

We don't know exactly, but we didn't want our house burned or anything to happen to our family.

And so, did you still have that meeting?

Did we do it? No.

No, we didn't. Everybody just disappeared. We had planned to get together and talk about it. Nobody said… But so, we just didn't do anything else. We backed off.

Because it sounded like it's a threat, right, that you received.

It was. It was. It was. It was a threat. If you had been here… Matter of fact, if I had, if I knew enough about the law system, or lawyers or whatever, I would have investigated that incident. I would have tried to follow that up, but I didn't know enough. We don't have… The bad part about it, you can't prove none of this stuff.

Had you heard of things like that happening in Winona before?

I have. And so, that's what put the fear.

This is season 2 In the Dark, an investigative podcast from APM Reports. I'm Madeleine Baran.

This season is about the case of Curtis Flowers, a Black man from a small town in Mississippi, who's spent the past 21 years fighting for his life and a White prosecutor, who spent that same time trying just as hard to execute him.

I was in Mississippi to find out what was going on in the case of Curtis Flowers to find out why the prosecutor, Doug Evans, had tried the case six times. I decided to start out my reporting by looking at the evidence that Doug Evans presented to the jurors in those six trials.

The way I saw it, the case against Curtis Flowers really came down to three main things: the route he said Curtis walked the morning of the murders, the gun he said Curtis used to murder the four people at the store and the confessions, he said, that Curtis made to his cellmates. The route, the gun, the confessions. I decided to start with the route.

I went with our producer, Natalie, to check it out for ourselves.

Okay, so we are standing in front of Curtis Flowers' house where he was living in 1996 and what we're about to do is walk the route that the State says Curtis walked that day.

And it's like 7 o'clock in the morning.

Yeah. So, it's about that time that he would have started out, according to the State.

Okay.

So, let's start walking.

To the right, basically.

According to Doug Evans, Curtis had walked everywhere that morning. He got up early on the morning of July 16th, left his house on the west side of town and started walking east. In the neighborhood where Curtis lived, the houses are small and close together. It's hilly, the yards are short and some houses are practically up on the street.

People are out in their yards, hanging out, waving to people as they drive by. According to Doug Evans, Curtis walked out of his neighborhood and he went east. He crossed over one of the town's biggest streets, Highway 51, and kept going. Curtis turned down a street that led to a small sewing factory.

We're coming up to Angellica Drive.

He walked up to the parking lot right outside the factory and stole a gun from the glove compartment of a car.

Then he's going to walk home.

Then, he walked all the way home, back to the west side of town, his neighbor.

We're crossing 51. Now we're back on Curtis' side of town.

Curtis was at his house for a few minutes. Then, he left again, this time, to go to Tardy Furniture. Tardy Furniture was all the way on the other side of town, on the side of town where Curtis just was. So, he headed back east to go to the store.

We're crossing another busy street.

He walked past bloack after block of houses and as he got closer to Tardy Furniture, he started to pass by businesses: an auto body shop, a dry cleaners. He arrived at Tardy Furniture, walked inside and killed all four people there. Then, he walked out the front door and headed west to go back home.

On the way, he stopped at a convenience store on Highway 51 to buy chips and a six pack of beer.

This is such a long walk.

It really is.

By the time Natalie and I were done, we'd walked for an hour and 36 minutes. The route the prosecutor, Doug Evans, said Curtis Flowers took was long. It was nearly four miles. And it's brazen. It would have taken Curtis all over the town of Winona that morning.

When Curtis Flowers talked to investigators on the day of the murders and later when he testified in court, Curtis said he never walked that route. In fact, he said he was never on the east side of town at all that morning. He'd spent the whole morning in his own neighborhood on the west side.

But the problem for Curtis Flowers was that the prosecutor, Doug Evans, had found witnesses, who placed Curtis at almost every point on that route. These route witnesses were one of the strongest parts of the State's case. Each of them raised their right hand and swore an oath and testified to seeing Curtis that day as he walked by.

Although none of the witnesses testified that they saw Curtis carrying a gun or saw any blood on him, their testimony was powerful. Most of these route witnesses knew Curtis. A lot of them had known Curtis their entire lives. Most of them were Black and had grown up in the same neighborhood as Curtis. When Doug Evans put them on the stand and asked them to describe who they saw that morning, these witnesses could not have been more clear. They would point to Curtis and be like. "It was Curtis. There he is. I've known him for years."

It was hard for Curtis' lawyers to break the spell of the route they tried cross examining each of the witnesses. But it didn't seem to do much. If anything, as the trials went on, the witnesses seemed to get even more certain and even more angry at the defense attorneys for doubting them. It was easy to see how a jury would be convinced by these route witnesses.

To the jurors, these witnesses came across as credible, as people doing the right thing. Doug Evans told them that what the witnesses said, all their individual stories, it all fit together. It made sense as one story, one route, a clear, convincing story about a man walking to commit murder.

But there was something I found odd about this route and about these witnesses. I managed to track down the original statements that the route witnesses gave to law enforcement. There were at least 12 witnesses, who'd given statements about seeing Curtis Flowers walking on the day of the murders. Most of them testified at trial.

The statements are pretty basic. "Did you see Curtis Flowers. Do you remember what he was wearing?" that kind of thing. But it's when the statements were given that stood out to me. The first statement from a route witness naming Curtis didn't come until a month after the murders.

Some statements weren't given until four, five or even nine months later. This seems strange to me because what the witnesses were describing seemed totally unremarkable. They were describing a man they knew, who lived in their neighborhood walking past them, a man who wasn't doing anything strange. He was just walking. That was it.

I couldn't see any reason why on the morning of the murders, anyone would have connected that to an execution-style quadruple murder in a different part of town. And if you didn't make that connection in your mind that day, how in the world would you be able to make it weeks or months later? And even if you did remember it, why would you wait so long to tell the cops? That's what I wanted to find out when I set out with our producer, Natalie, to find these witnesses last summer.

I wasn't sure what to expect. A lot of people in Winona told me that these witnesses, they don't talk about their testimony. They don't talk at all about the case. I couldn't find a record of any of the witnesses ever giving an actual interview to a reporter. And when we found one of our first witnesses and asked him about his testimony, we didn't exactly get off to a promising start.

That is confidential.

This guy's name is James Edward Kennedy, but everyone just calls him Bojack.

It is confidential. We are not supposed to talk about that.

Oh. How come?

We're not supposed to talk about it because other people have gotten the wrong impression about talking to people like you all. So, me, myself, I don't talk about it.

You don't?

Mm-mm. I'm not going to talk about that, period, becuase it's confidential and it caused confusion on both sides.

Bojack had talked to the district attorney's investigator, John Johnson, in September of 1996, two months after the murders. He said that he'd seen Curtis Flowers walking by his house, smoking a cigarette on the morning of July 16th 1996, near the factory where Curtis had supposedly stolen the gun.

Bojack had testified in five of Curtis Flowers' trials and over all of those trials, Bojack never wavered. He was absolutely certain he had seen Curtis that day. I ended up talking to Bojack for nearly four hours over two days. And eventually, he did tell me a story of what he'd seen on the day of the murders. It was more or less the same one he told in court five times about seeing Curtis that day. Bojack told me he was out on his porch at the time when he saw him.

Walking there.

Walking back?

Yeah.

And did you say anything to him?

Oh, yeah. "Hey, man. What are you doing down here this early in the morning?" and he mumbled something and he never stopped.

But it quickly became clear that Bojack is the kind of guy who says a lot of things, the kind of guy who just likes to tell stories.

There's a lot that I know.

For example, Bojack told me that ISIS was in Winona.

ISIS. ISIS were here.

Like here in Winona?

Here, in Winona.

And that one time the river in Winona suddenly switched directions and started flowing backwards.

And then the rivers backwards. They didn't put that in the paper.

And also, he told me that he worried that my microphone might be transmitting messages to the Russians.

If Russia can hack into the election don't you think they're going to hack into what you say?

Bojack wasn't saying any of these things with any real seriousness. It didn't seem at all as though he really thought my microphone was in communication with Vladimir Putin. He was just messing with me. Bojack was happy to tell me about all kinds of things, but the only thing he wouldn't talk about was how he had ended up giving a statement to law enforcement two months after the murders.

I am not at liberty to say.

I guess.

That is all i want to tell you, that I'm not at liberty to say.

I didn't think it would be like a big question, actually,.

That's it. I'm not going to say anything more. I mean, I'm looking at, in the back of my mind, it's telling me not to talk no more. It's telling me not to talk no more.

As the summer went on, Natalie and I kept talking to witnesses and slowly, we started to piece together just how these route witnesses came to be giving statements to investigators. It turned out it wasn't like they just picked up the phone and called the cops to report what they'd seen. In the Curtis Flowers case, it worked the other way.

Hi, How are you doing?

All right. I'm Mary. Do you all want me?

Oh, yeah.

I talked to a route witness, named Mary Jeanette Fleming, who told me that how she got involved in this 21-year-long death penalty case isn't entirely clear to her. She said that one day, about seven months after the murders, she was working her shift at McDonald's when in walked the Police Chief of Winona.

He came up to McDonald's and told me to come to the police station and I asked why we're going to do that, that it was something that happened to one of my kids and he never did tell me something anyway.

You were worried something was up with your kids, did you think?

He just said said he wanted to talk to me at the station that day, you know.

Mary Jeanette asked her boss if she could leave work right then in the middle of her shift, and he said Okay. And then she drove herself down to the Winona Police Station. She said she still didn't know what it was about. And then, she ended up in a room with an investigator.

So, when I got there, he brought it up about the Flower case.

And so, did they ask you, like did you see Curtis a day of the murders, or…?

Yes, ma'am. That's what he asked me.

Mary Jeanette said she told the investigator that she remembered seeing Curtis walking past her on the sidewalk on the morning of the murders, seven months earlier.

So, I just, you know, told him I had seen him that morning. I didn't want no police over there anyway.

Mary Jeanette Fleming has had to testify at every trial that Curtis Flowers has had for 21 years. She said that all of this has turned her family against her. She said her family believes Curtis is innocent and that they think she went to the police with a made-up story so that she could get the $30,000 reward that had been offered in the case.

My own folk was against me, telling me I was lying to get more of that stuff like that. I didn't want no damn pay.

Why do you think they didn't want him to tell that story?

Because they were friends to him. [inaudible] tell me he was a church man. Well, oh so what? Me too. You know, so, he didn't win the deal. No, he couldn't have killed that many people that one time. I didn't say he did do it. I said I'd seen him that morning headed in that direction. I told them I don't know what he went to.

So, your own family accused you of being a liar.

Yeah. My own. Definitely, I got so sick, I've still got that [star].

We found another witness, Danny Joe Lot, lying on a bench out in front of a Dollar General Store, his arms slung over his eyes to block out the afternoon sun.

Are you Danny Joe Lot?

Sure am.

Great.

Back in 1997, Danny Joe had given a detailed statement to the DA's investigator, John Johnson. It was about 10 months after the murders when he gave it. When I found Danny Joe, he'd clearly been drinking and by his own account, Danny Joe's memory was terrible. He told me that back in 1996, he would get drunk almost every day. He told me he was actually drinking a beer the morning some officers pulled up in May 1997, 10 months after the murders and told him to go with them down to the police station.

They got me.

Who got you?

I don't know. Them White men, one of them the police. I dont know.

And they told you to get in the car.

Yeah.

Were you scared? Like they just come by. You don't know where they are.

Hell, yeah, I was scare. I didn't know who they were. I just got in. I

Danny Joe Lot had been picked up a lot by the police over the years, but this time was different. This time he said they didn't put handcuffs on him and they let him ride in the front seat.

They said, "We ain't going to… We ain't putting no handcuffs on you." I said, "Okay." He said, "Get in the front seat." I got in the front. He said, "You ain't dead and now we've got to ask you a question about Curtis."

Danny Joe told me that once he got to the police station, he was put into a room with the same investigator who talked to many of the other witnesses, John Johnson, the investigator for the District Attorney's office. That's when he gave a statement about seeing Curtis.

I kept talking to witnesses and as I did, it became more and more suspicious, not of the witnesses but of the investigation. Some people seemed kind of freaked out. They spoke to me through the screen doors, or out of car windows.

I don't need to talk about it, okay, beucase I [inaudible].

I knocked on one woman's door and she wouldn't come out at all. All she would say was that if Curtis had another trial, she would refuse to testify.

I don't want to be nowhere invovled.

I went to see a really minor witness. She didn't even testify at trial because all she said was that she saw Curtis in his own neighborhood on the day of the murders. But when I went to see this woman, she told me she actually did not see Curtis that day.

No. No, I didn't see Curtis.

And then she closed the door on me. One day, I ended up talking to a man, whose wife was a witness, but she never testified at trial. When I stopped by, his wife was taking a nap. And at first, he was very friendly and invited me inside. But when I asked about his wife's statement about seeing Curtis, he said I should go.

You know [inaudible] to talk about that.

That his wife would not want him talking about that.

She's not going to talk to you about it. I know that [inaudible].

When I asked him why, he said that his wife had felt pressured to by law enforcement.

She was pressured to talk [inaudible].

That they'd asked about things she knew nothing about. He wouldn't explain what he meant. On the way out, he made this really cryptic remark. He said they wanted everything.

They wanted everything.

They wanted her to make some commitments that she couldn't make. And then he told me. I've said more than I probably should have. And the interview was over.

And then one day, I met a witness named Ed McChristian. That's after the break.

In the Dark is supported by Quip.

When you think of the things you do every day, brushing your teeth probably isn't top of mind, but for something that's so important to your health, it should be. That's why Quip wants to help you brush better. For starters, Quip is an electric toothbrush that's a fraction of the cost of bulkier brushes, while still packing just the right amount of vibrations to help clean your teeth. Quip's built-in timeer helps you clean for the dentist-recommended two minutes with guiding pulses that remind you when to switch sides.

Next, Quip subscription plans are for your health, not just convenience. They deliver new brush heads on a dentist-recommended schedule every three months for just $5, including free shipping worldwide. Let Quip do the thinking for you when it comes to your teeth. Quip starts at just $25 and if you go to getquip.com/dark right now, you'll get your first refill pack free with a Quip electric toothbrush. That's your first refill pack ree at getquip.com/dark, spelled G-E-T-Q-U-I-P.com/dark.

Ed McChristian lives in a neat, one-story brick house. As I walked up, an air conditioner was blasting in the window.

Can we sit down for sec? Do you mind. It's just so hot.

Ed McChristian was wearing blue jeans and a T-shirt that became more and more soaked with sweat as we sat in lawn chairs on a little strip of concrete in front of his house. He held a little blue washcloth in his right hand and every minute or so, he would raise it to his head to wipe off the sweat that streamed down it. And then, he would neatly fold the blue washcloth and press it down on his jeans to dry it off.

I asked Ed McChristian all my usual questions. He told me how he saw Curtis Flowers walking by his house on the day of the murders. He told me he did not get in touch with law enforcement to tell them about this, that law enforcement got in touch with him, that he gave a statement to John Johnson at the police station. Ed McChristian had talked to John Johnson about a month after the murders. In court, Ed McChristian always testified that he was certain of what he saw, Curtis Flowers walking by his house on the morning of July 16th 1996.

He just passed, just like that. I never gave him a thought. I mean, you don't know nothing didn't happen, so I just looked up and seeing who he was and recognized him. That was it.

How certain are you that it was that morning that you saw Curtis.

I wasn't even really sure. They had more about it than I did.

I wasn't even really sure. They had more about it than I did. What did that mean? And then, Ed McChristian told me how it came to be that he gave such a detailed statement about seeing Curtis Flowers on July 16th 1996. He said that statement he gave, it didn't start with him. It started with John Johnson.

Ed McChristian told me Curtis Flowers did walk by his house at some point that summer, but he never remembered which day it was. They said that wasn't a problem because when he walked into that room at the police station, John Johnson already knew what day he'd seen Curtis, that he'd seen Curtis Flowers on July 16th 1996.

They had it down on a pad for me. So, all I had to do was go there and they asked me the question and I answered.

Ed McChristian said it's still not clear to him exactly how John Johnson knew this. He said Johnson told him that someone had turned him in, that someone had said that Ed McChristian had seen Curtis on July 16th. Johnson wouldn't say who this person was. The whole thing was kind of unsettling.

Somebody had told them I'd seen him, so I couldn't say I didn't see him.

So, Ed McChristian said, "Yes, I did see Curtis Flowers on July 16th 1996." He gave the statement and testified to it in six trials.

And so, if you hadn't been like called in there and they hadn't said like, "July 16th 1996," would you have even remembered that day?

No

Ed McChristian told me that every time another one of Curtis's trials came up and he found out he had to testify again, he didn't want to go, but he didn't think he had a choice. He told me he's not sure exactly what would happen to him if he straightup refused to testify, but that whatever it would be, it wouldn't be good, like he might have to pay a fine or could even be thrown in jail.

All they did they would tell me they would subpoena me every time.

So you didn't have a choice.

Mm-mm. Every time, I'd get a subpoena.

Did you ever say like, "I'm not doing this"?

You don't know how bad I wanted to. And I never did say it, but I sure wanted to. Don't do not good.

We had talked to almost all the witnesses on the route that the prosecutor, Doug Evans, said Curtis had walked on the morning of the murders. I had just two witnesses left and the story that these two witnesses told was critically important to the State's case against Curtis. Their names were Roy Harris and Clemmie Fleming.

They didn't talk to law enforcement until about nine months after the murders. Clemmie and Roy gave separate statements to John Johnson. But what they told him was more or less the same story. Clemmie and Roy said they were in a car together on the morning of the murders. Roy was driving, Clemmie was in the passenger seat. Clemmie had asked Roy to give her a ride to Tardy Furniture to pay her furniture bill.

Roy and Clemmie pulled up outside the store. It was right around the time of the murders, but Clemmie decided not to get out of the car because even though she had driven all the way down here, she later explained she wasn't feeling well because she was five months pregnant.

They left and as they drove around the corner and got about a block or two away from Tardy Furniture, they spotted a man up ahead, running across a field, running west, like he was running away from the direction of Downtown. Clemmie recognized him right away. It was her neighbor, Curtis Flowers.

She pointed him out to Roy, but Roy didn't know him. They didn't talk to Curtis. They couldn't remember what clothes he was wearing or what kind of shoes. They didn't describe seeing any blood on him or seeing a gun, but what they did see was bad enough; Curtis Flowers running west around the time of the murders, just a block or two from Tardy Furniture. Clemmie and Roy both testified in the first trial, but almost as soon as that first trial ended, the story of Clemmie and Roy began to fall apart.

Last summer, I went with our producer, Samara, to find Roy Harris. He lives in a little town about a half hour from Winona. Roy didn't have a listed phone number and we couldn't find anyone who had an address for him, so we just started stopping into gas stations and truck stops, asking if anyone knew him.

Do you happen to know where Roy Harris lives?

I have no idea.

Okay. All right.

Do you know where Roy Harris lives?

Who's that?

Roy Harris.

Roy Harris. I can't place him.

Okay. Do you happen to know where Roy Harris lives? No. Okay.

Finally, we stopped into a cafΓ© and asked the ladies working the lunch buffet if they knew where to find him.

Actually, we're trying to meet with a man named Roy Harris, but we can't figure out where he lives.

Isn't that him?

Oh, is that him there?

The cashier pointed to an older man sitting at a table with a woman. They were eating lunch. It was Roy Harris and his girlfriend, Joanne Young.

I don't want to interrupt your lunch.

[inaudible] sit down [inaudible].

Nice to meet you. Hi.

Nice to meet you. My name is Joanne.

Hi. I'm Madeleine.

Joanne told us that talking with Roy wasn't going to be easy because Roy was almost entirely deaf. He lost most of his hearing when he was a teenager when a tractor ran over his head. He didn't know sign language. He didn't use a hearing aid. We made plans to meet up with them a few days later at Joanne's house.

Hi.

Come on in. Do you all want me to head up to Roy and find him?

Actually no. Not at all.

Joanne was wearing a long, flowing skirt and red lipstick. Roy was wearing a baseball cap a T-shirt and jeans. We sat down at Joanne's kitchen table and right away, Joanne took charge of the interview.

He can hear the words, but he can't make it out what it is.

So, he can hear that someone is talking.

Right, but what it is, he don't. He can read your lips. My lips, he can read me good.

Yeah. Yeah. That's why it's good to have you here.

I mean, really, Roy, she wants to ask you some questions.

I know. I know.

Thanks.

Roy Harris told me that the morning of the murders, he did see a man running across the street, a block or two from Tardy Furniture. But he also told me that when he saw that man, it was much earlier in the morning and that he was alone in the car. Clemmie wasn't with him. Roy said he didn't take Clemmie for a ride until later that morning after he'd seen the man and that when he was in the car with Clemmie, they didn't see anyone running.

But she didn't see nobody running. The only time I've seen somebody running is when I was by myself. She wasn't with me when I'd seen the fellow running. And when I took her, we didn't see nobody running.

Nine months or so after the murders, law enforcement told Roy Harris they wanted to talk to him. Roy didn't know how they'd found him. He figures that somehow, someone must have told someone about the man he'd seen running. Roy said he went down to the police station and just like so many of the other witnesses, he ended up in a room with John Johnson, the investigator for the District Attorney's office.

So, what did he say when you met?

What did did he say when you all met? When he took you to the police station, what did he say to you?

He showed me Curtis Flowers' picture, like a school picture.

Oh. And how many photos did they show you?

How many pictures did they show you?

One.

Just one.

Mr. Flowers' picture. He asked me was that the fellow I'd seen running and I told him no. I told him that wasn't the fellow.

Roy Harris said that John Johnson pushed him on this point. Wasn't it Curtis Flowers he saw and wasn't Roy in the car with Clemmie when they saw the man?

And so, he kept on and kept on and kept on. He tried to make me, you know, say you did, you know, she was with me. But I told him she wasn't.

So, he he kept questioning you?

Kept on, kept on, kept on. and I didn't want to agree with it.

But eventually, Roy said, he broke down and told John Johnson. "Fine. I saw Curtis Flowers with Clemmie on the morning of the murders." Roy said he did it because he wanted to get out of there. He just wanted it to be over.

I was sort of afraid of Johnson.

Why were you afraid of Johnson?

Afraid he'd go have somebody do something to me or something like that, you know, because he was trying to get me all messed up anyway. So…

Oh. Okay.

What did you think he might do?

What would you think he might do?

I don't know. Anything. Aint no telling what.

But you was afraid of him.

Yeah, because he knew what I couldn't hear good and he was trying to get me in trouble, you know, like you know, by saying the wrong thing, you know, and stuff like that, he'd get me locked up, you know.

But it sounds like you felt threatened.

Yeah, I did. I sure did.

I tried to talk to John Johnson about this, but he did not respond to my request for an interview. Roy testified in the first trial that he and Clemmie saw Curtis that day, but after that first trial, Roy Harris went to Curtis' lawyers and told them that the testimony he'd given was not true.

After Roy Harris recanted his testimony, the prosecutor, Doug Evans, had a problem. The story of Roy and Clemmie had been one of the strongest pieces of evidence about Curtis' route at the first trial. Now, that story was falling apart. If Clemmie also changed her story that would be even worse. If that happened., Doug Evans would no longer have a story of Curtis running away from downtown. All he would have would be some stories of Curtis walking around. And so, after Roy changed his story, Doug Evans' investigator, John Johnson, moved to lock down Clemmie's story.

And this thing's recording. Clemmie, for the sake of the record, my name is John Johnson. I also am [inaudible].

I managed to track down the video that John Johnson took of Clemmie Fleming after Roy had recanted.

Today's date is February the 8th, 1999. We're in the District Attorney's office in Winona, Mississippi and we've asked you to come in and make another statement to us concerning Curtis Flowers [inaudible].

Clemie looks young in the video. She's just 22 then. She's barely talking above a whisper. She's wearing white spandex-y shorts and a long-sleeved striped polo shirt. Her hair is straight and down to her ears. She's wearing silver earrings. She's in a room with John Johnson and another investigator. Both of the investigators are off camera Clemmie is sitting in a blue office chair and she keeps swiveling left and right.

[inaudible] where were you going and what were you trying to do that morning?

[inaudible].

John Johnson and the other investigator take Clemmie through a whole story.

All right, Clemmie, from that point on, when you first saw him, what was his actions? What was he doing?

He was running.

Okay. In which direction?

He was running like toward the [inaudible].

Toward or… Okay. In other words, it would have been away from Tardies.

Mm-hm. Yeah.

Okay.

Throughout the interview. John Johnson and the other investigator keep guiding Clemmie back to the statements she gave at trial. They keep reminding her of what she'd said in the past.

I think in your statement or testimony, you had [inaudible] he was running like somebody was after him.

Mm-hm.

Then John Johnson tells Clemmie why they wanted to make this recording.

Basically, what we want to know this morning, Clemmie, the day that you came in and made this statement, did I lead you to say anything?

No.

Was your statement free and voluntary?

Yes.

Did I offer you money or any reward or any gratitude at all if you would make the statement?

No.

And also, you know, I didn't guide you as to the facts of what you saw that morning?

No.

It goes on like this.

Were you truthful in your statement that day, Clemmie.

I wouldn't be lying like that. Mm-hm.

And you've been unfaithful in your testimony. Under oath, you've raised your hand and swore to tell the truth. Is that correct?

I wouldn't be lying.

And in fact, you told the truth then, did you not? I think that's all that we need, Clemmie. We just want to record the fact that, you know, you've the truth, that we hadn't guided you as to what to say, that your statement's free and voluntary and that, you know, you have not backed away from being a truthful witness.

Yeah.

And thank you very much. And that will conclude the statement.

I've talked to a lot of people who know Clemmie:, her friends, her family, and they all said that despite what Clemmie has told law enforcement and despite Clemmie's testimony in all six trials, they do not believe that she actually saw Curtis that day.

I talked to Clemmie's sister, Mary Ella, who told me that Clemmie couldn't have seen Curtis Flowers on the day of the murders because, she said, Clemmie was with her the whole day. She said she remembers it because that morning, she and Clemmie had planned to go down to Tardy Furniture together, so that Clemmie could pay her furniture bill. But while they were getting ready to leave, someone came by Mary Ella's house and told them that there had been a shooting at Tardy Furniture.

Mary Ella said she and Clemmie went to the crime scene together to check it out.

And when we get down there, they had it all taped off and I told Clemmie, I said, "I'm glad we didn't go down there because we probably would have been, you know, caught up in there," and she said, "Sure would have."

Mary Ella didn't find out that Clemmie had given a statement to law enforcement until the first trial. Mary Ella wasn't at the trial. It was being held in Tupelo, about 100 miles away but someone passed along word to Mary Ella that her sister, Clemmie, was up there on the stand, testifying under oath that she saw Curtis on the morning of the murders.

Mary Ella's first reaction was to race to the courthouse to tell the jurors exactly what she told me that Clemmie's story couldn't possibly be true. But by the time she got there, the trial was almost over and the defense decided not to try to call her as a last-minute witness. Mary Ella did end up testifying for Curtis' defense in the second trial.

And it was like they were using me and Clemmie against one another. It like Clemmie's word against mine and Clemmie won.

I went to talk to one of Clemmie's best friends from back then, her cousin, a woman named Latarsha Blissett. Latarsha and Clemmie still live just a block apart. Latarsha lives in a trailer with her husband. It's in the backyard behind her mother's house. Latarsha said she remains convinced that Clemmie made up the story and that she did it because she felt pressured by law enforcement and because she thought she might be able to get some money.

And Latarsha said the reason she thinks this is because of what happened to her. Back in 1996, Latarsha was 19 years old and she said she was at high school one day when the cops showed up and told her she needed to come with them.

I was scared, but it was the police, so I'm going to go. I know I aint did nothing wrong because I will never do nothing that gives me no trouble, but I don't know. I just went. I was just doing what a kid's got to do.

Latarsha said she was taken to a police station and put in a room with two investigators. She said one of them was John Johnson. She doesn't remember who the other person was. She said they asked her about Curtis Flowers, whether she'd ever dated him, whether she knew what kind of shoes he wore, whether she knew anything that would connect Curtis to the murders at Tardy Furniture. She told them no, no and no. But she said they also asked her this other kind of question.

They were asking me was I trying to buy a mobile home. They asked me if I knew what $30,000 dollars could buy. "If, you know, you're trying to get a mobile home do you know what, you know, this amount of money could buy?"

Well, every time they were asking me something, they always would ask me do I know what this certain amount of money could do. So, they didn't just say, "Well, hey, we'll give you blah-dy, blah-dy, you go buy that trailer, or we'll give you…" They didn't do that, but they ended everything with this money to let me know that it's on the table. So, I didn't pick up on that.

Latarsha said that although the investigators implied that she could get money, they never actually said that if she connected Curtis to the crime, she would get a reward. Latarsha said she didn't tell them anything because she didn't know anything, but when she found out that her cousin, Clemmie, had talked to law enforcement and that Clemmie had told them that she had seen Curtis that day, Latarsha did not believe Clemmie's story. Not at all.

It was time to go talk to Clemmie. Natalie and I went to see her late one afternoon. Clemmie is now 42. She still lives in her childhood home in Winona. It's a small, one-story house about a block from where Curtis grew up.

Hi.

Hi.

Clemmie opened the door. It was hot out. She was wearing red shorts and a T-shirt and she was holding a plastic bag of lettuce in one hand. She looked at me with suspicion. She didn't invite me inside. Our entire conversation took place with her in the doorway, sometimes sort of closing the door a little bit, then opening it a little bit, like she was going to end this conversation at any moment

I just want to know like what this has been like for you.

I don't like it. Everytime you look up, somebody's saying negative stuff and say I lied and why did I lie on him and I got him killed, I'm about to get him get killed and all kinds of negative stuff. And I don't like it.

Clemmie told me more or less the same story that she testified to in court about seeing Curtis running away from the Downtown on the morning of the murders, although some of the details had changed. Clemmie told me she never wanted to get involved in the investigation in the first place. She told me that she would have never come forward by herself and that the only reason she talked to investigators is because someone overheard her talking about it at work and turned her in.

Why didn't you want to tell anybody about it, do you think?

Becuase I didn't know was going to get this, you know, this [inaudible] and I had to go to court and, you know, and people criticize you, you know how they…

How important do you even think what it is that you have to say is?

I don't know. I ain't the only one testifying. Yeah, other people testified, so…

Yeah. Do you have a sense of who's the most important witness?

No.

Yeah.

Who is that?

I don't… I mean, I think you're placing him closest to the store, you know.

So. Uh-huh.

Yeah.

When I tried to ask Clemmie more questions about her testimony and what she saw, she got annoyed.

So, then, like what happened after that?

I don't know. I don't know. Did you even read it in the paper?

Well, like, I…

I know you all saying my statement [and still] because I don't testify when [inaudible] world with this stuff. [inaudible] I had it happen and I'm not going to let nobody criticize me. Back then, I let you do anything you ever said to me. I ain't going to do it no more. I ain't going to let nobody just walk up and shit and me. So, they just like I'm not going to let no body just criticize me. So, I won't… I just wish that I… This shouldn't have happened. I hate my [inaudible]. I don't like it and I just want to live a normal life. I don't care nothing about it. It had to happen.

I told Clemmie what I'd heard from her friends and family, how they thought her story about seeing Curtis wasn't true and how a lot of them figured that she'd been pressured by law enforcement into saying it. Clemmie said all those people had it wrong. She told me that her story is the truth, but she also told me that even if her story wasn't true, coming forward now and saying that probably wouldn't help Curtis' case anyway.

It ain't going to help nothing. If I did say it, it ain't going to help him nothing because you've got other people testifying saying they'd seen him. So, what will my testifying help?

I think a great deal.

So, what they want me to do? Tell a lie and say I didn't see him? I'd seen him and like I can't erase it make it go away. If it happened, it happened. That's the truth. So, now you know the truth.

What do you think you'll do if there's a seventh trial?

You know, I ain't going to be [inaudible] caring about this stuff. I just wish it will go away. And I ain't [inaudible]. I ain't going to go [inaudible].

You're not going to do it?

Mm-mm. I don't want to and ain't nobody going to force me. I just ain't going to do it.

Clemmie wouldn't tell me exactly why she would refuse to testify if she was called for another trial and she wouldn't answer any more questions.

I was at the end of the route. By the time I was done, I talked to every person who's still alive, who testified about seeing Curtis Flowers on the morning of the murders. And after having done all that, I thought back on how Doug Evans had presented these witnesses to the jurors, how he described them as reliable, credible, as people with excellent memories, people with no reason to lie.

I thought about how Doug Evans had emphasized how many witnesses there were and how their stories have seen Curtis all fit together. It was supposed to be damning evidence. And at trial, it certainly was. It helped lead jurors to convict Curtis and sentence him to death. When I look at it now, I agree with the prosecutor, Doug Evans, that all of these witnesses do add up to solid evidence, but not evidence that Curtis Flowers walked around town that morning.

Instead, when I look at all these witnesses, all of these people I'd spent so much time with, I see evidence of a different kind, evidence that law enforcement was willing to rely on testimony from people who couldn't plausibly remember what they saw in any kind of detaile, evidence that law enforcement was willing to pressure people and evidence that so many of these people were just plain scared. So, yes, these witnesses were evidence, but not the kind of evidence the jury had ever heard.

Coming up next time on In the Dark.

You don't want to walk in the grass near here.

Oh, no? What's there?

No. You've got all kinds of snakes in the grass.

Snakes?

Mm-hm.

There's a lot more information about these route witnesses and how some of their accounts contradict each other, how their testimony has changed over the six trials. It's way more than we could ever get into even five episodes of this podcast, but it's worth checking out. We have it all on our Web site, inthedarkpodcast.org.

In the Dark is reported and produced by me, Madeleine Baran, Senior Producer, Samara Freemark, Producer, Natalie Jalonski, Associate Producer, Rehman Tungekar and reporters, Parker Yesko and Will Craft. In the Dark is edited by Catherine Winter. Web editors are Dave Mann and Andy Kruse. The Editor in Chief of APM Reports. is Chris Worthington. Original music by Gary Meister and Johnny Vince Evans. This episode was mixed by Veronica Rodriguez and Corey Schreppel.

Automatically convert audio to text with Sonix


New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!

Popular Transcripts Full Transcript: In the Dark – S2 E1 July 16, 1996

Sonix is an automated transcription service. We transcribe audio and video files for storytellers all over the world. We are not associated with the In the Dark Podcast. Making transcripts available for listeners and those that are hearing-impaired is just something we like to do. If you are interested in automated transcription, click here for 30 free minutes.

To listen and watch the transcript playback in real-time πŸ‘€, just click the player below.

In the Dark: S2 E1 July 16, 1996

So, this is the tunnel.

Should we go through?

Sure.

It's kind of slippery. Don't fall.

You can walk right through.

It's been that way since I was a kid.

Wow. It goes straight through.

Long before I ever went into that tunnel, before I’d ever even heard of the town where the tunnel was, I heard about a man named Curtis Flowers. Curtis was from a small town in Mississippi called Winona, but he now lives in a one-man cell in Parchman Prison.

Back in 1997, he was convicted and sentenced to death for an awful crime, maybe the worst in the town's history, the murder of four people in a local furniture store. But what got my attention about Curtis Flowers was something else.

It was the fact that Curtis had been tried not once, not twice, but six times for the same crime. Six trials over 21 years. All along Curtis Flowers has maintained his innocence. Curtis kept appealing his convictions. He kept winning and he kept getting tried again all by the same prosecutor.

Trying someone six times is incredibly unusual. It almost never happens, but it happened here.

This is season 2 of In the Dark, an investigative podcast from a APM Reports. I'm Madeline Baran. This season is about the case of Curtis Flowers, a Black man from a small town in Mississippi, who has spent the past 21 years fighting for his life and a White prosecutor, who spent that same time trying just as hard to execute him.

If you try a man and go six for the same crime, well, something is wrong about the Constitution, or something is wrong about the law, or something is wrong about the prosecution, or something is wrong about the defense, or something is wrong about the entire system.

For the past year, I've been working with a team of journalists looking into what happened in the case of Curtis Flowers.

It's too long, way too long and Curtis Flowers is still in prison and they're still dragging it on.

We talked to hundreds of people, who live in this part of Mississippi. And it's clear that the way people think about the Curtis Flowers case, for the most part, depends on whether they're White or Black.

You know, when everyone basically knows the guy is guilty, how much more evidence do you need?

They got the wrong person. That's what I feel.

I know Curtis didn't do it. I would go to my grave believing Curtis didnt do it.

We've tracked down witnesses, lawyers, law enforcement, people who have never been talked to before. A lot of people have told us things about the case of Curtis Flowers that they've never told anyone else. It's been a long year and I want to tell you about it

This story starts on a Tuesday morning, July 16th, 1996, in a Northern Mississippi town called Winona. That morning, a little after 9:00 a.m., a man named Sam Jones got a call from his boss asking if he could come into work.

Sam Jones was 76, but he still worked part time at one of Winona's oldest businesses, a family-run store called Tardy Furniture. Tardy Furniture was right downtown on Front Street. It was a red brick building with big glass display windows at the end of a row of old fashioned storefronts.

For the people of Winona back then, Tardy Furniture signaled respectability. It was the kind of place where you'd go to buy a nice dining room set or a sofa, where the sales clerk would help you match your rug to your lamps. More than one person in town described Tardy Furniture to me as a good Christian store.

When Sam Jones walked into Tardy Furniture the lights were on but he didn't see anyone. "Maybe," he thought, "they're playing a joke on me."

He kept walking further into the store and that's when he heard something. It sounded like someone was struggling to breathe. He looked down and he saw his co-workers, all four of them on the ground. They'd all been shot in the head.

Winona had only a few thousand people back then and that morning, hundreds of them made their way to front street. People started showing up almost as soon as the police got there. The mayor came by. So did reporters. Even the town's dog catcher showed up to see if he could lend a hand.

With shock and disbelief, onlookers stare at Tardy Furniture company, the site of Winona's quadruple shooting.

Some people walked right up onto the sidewalk and tried to peer through the store's windows. Butpolice shooed them away and the crowd gathered up on the train tracks up on a hill on the other side of the street to look down at the scene.

Friends and relatives identified the dead as Tardy Furniture's four…

Everyone knew the people who died at Tardy Furniture that day. There was the store's owner, a White woman named Bertha Tardy, who'd worked there for decades.

Locals describe Tardy as a person who was well known and we'll liked here. They say she was very active in her community and her church. For those reasons, many here are having a hard time believing her family business has become the site of such a gruesome crime.

There was Carmen Rigby, a White woman, who was married with two grown children. She was Tardy's bookkeeper and sales clerk. There was Robert Golden, a married Black man, who also had two children and who had just been hired to work as the store's delivery man.

A friend told us it was Goldman's first day on the job.

And there was a 16 year old White teenager, named Bobo Stewart. He was the only victim who'd survived the shooting.

The fourth victim, Derrick "Bobo" Stewart was taken to University Medical Center in very critical condition. Like the others, the teenage All-Star baseball player was shot in the back of the head, execution style.

Bobo's father, Randy Stewart, was at work that morning.

I was sitting on a bucket at Superior Asphalt repairing a conveyor belt to stack gravel with and a lady pulled up in a white Nissan car said, "Mr. Stewart, get in with me." I said, "Ma'am, I'm in a relationship. I'm not getting in that car with you." She said, "Do you have a son named Bobo?" I said, "Yes, ma'am, I do. Why?" She said he's been shot.

I went and told my supervisor. I said, Jerry, I'm going to the hospital. Bobo has been shot.".

Did you know how bad?

No, not 'till I walked in the emergency room. I reckon the lead surgeon or doctor or whatever told me. He said, "Mr. Stewart," he said, "if you're close to God," he said, "you need to go talk to him." I still see Bobo laying in the hospital when [inaudible] walked in the emergency room.

His head was swelled up like a basketball. And that's something I live with every night, every day, just seeing my child laying there like that. It still hurts to this day.

After Bobo was shot, Randy got a room at the Red Roof Inn near the hospital. Bobo's friends wanted to be there too. So, all of them, Randy, his girlfriend at the time and Bobo's friends piled into one room together.

It was like eight of us. That's what we did.

Were you sleeping much.

No. Mainly I'd go down and just lay down and rest, take a shower and go back and…

Was he able to talk at all?

No, ma'am. No, ma'am. He was on life support. And it was a little conflict between me and my ex-wife, but she finally agreed to go ahead and unplug it. The only brain function he had going was his stem cell and that was all. Had he lived and be on his own, he would have been a vegetable, but had he lived, we would have took care of him.

And how long did Bobo live for?

Six days and seven nights. [inaudible].

So a lot to talk about.

Oh, yes. Twenty-one years later. It's like it was yesterday. Nobody, nobody should have to bury their child.

The quadruple murder at Tardy Furniture was one of the biggest crimes in Mississippi in a long time and nearly every level of law enforcement got involved, the local police, the county sheriff, state investigators.

And it was a strange crime. It wasn't at all obvious why anyone would want to kill four people in a small-town furniture store. All four people had been shot in the head and nowhere else. There didn't appear to have been any missed shots. The victims weren't tied up and they didn't appear to have been lined up before they were shot.

Three of the victims were found within a few feet of each other. One of the victims was a few feet further away. Nothing in the store seemed to have been disturbed. There were no signs of a struggle. No one had witnessed the murders. No one had heard the gunshots. No one had come forward to confess. The case was a mystery.

Weeks passed with no arrests. People in the area came together to raise $30,000 for a reward. The newspaper ran stories about the reward on the front page. Still nothing. Most people in town had no idea what was going on with the investigation. There were very few updates.

People started calling City Hall to complain and after a few months, the case was no longer just a mystery. It was a political problem, for one man in particular, the top prosecutor in the district, a man who would go on to spend the rest of his career on this case, District Attorney Doug Evans

At the time of the murders, Doug Evans was 43 years old. He'd been elected District Attorney five years earlier on a promise to let no crime go unpunished. I found some of Doug Evans' old newspaper campaign ads from back then. Evans has a dark mustache and dark hair. One of his ads quotes a group of lawyers calling evans, quote, a fine Christian man with unquestioned integrity.

Evans' ads promised that if voters elected him, he would make sure that every single case was investigated and that victims and their families would be treated with respect.

Evans needed the Tardy Furniture case solved. So, he assigned one of his investigators to work on it, a man named John Johnson. Johnson started meeting with the families of the victims. But Randy Stewart, Bobo Stewart's dad, said that meeting with Johnson only made him feel worse, that there wasn't much Johnson would tell him about the investigation.

He said he almost came to blows with Johnson more than once, like one time when Johnson came by to see him.

He had a yellow notepad in his lap and I took my finger and I hit Bobo's name about six times. I forcibly hitting that notepad. "John Johnson, all I want is a conviction for that child, right there.".

And John Johnson say?

He told me I needed to calm down.

Bobo was the great love of Randy Stewart's life. There was no one Randy was closer to than his son, Bobo.

I mean, he had the personality of an angel, probably the most lovable human being you'd ever meet in your life. Sixteen years old, 6'1", 195lb and a 92 mile and hour fastball. Super kid.

Randy told me that he and Bobo were more like best friends than father and son. Back then, Randy's marriage had broken up andRandy and Bobo were living in an apartment together.

Randy said he used to own a bar and Bobo would be there with him almost every night. And the two of them had a tradition at the bar back then. Every night at closing time, Bobo would take 50 cents out of the register and put it in the jukebox to play their favorite song.

That was mine and Bobo's song. "My sweet child of mine, crank it up."

When that song would come on 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, everybody started easing out the door.

Randy sighed, he can still picture Bobo, standing next to the pool table at the bar like it was yesterday.

A pool stick, he'd run you off the table with it. Now, I've seen Bobo come out there on Sunday morning and counting out a little over $1,300 he had in his pocket shooting pool, $100 a game.

Wow.

So, yeah, he was a hustler. I know that's not right, but everybody in that bar loved that child.

The idea that someone would kill Bobo and get away with it because law enforcement couldn't solve the crime, that was more than Randy Stewart could take.

Six months passed, then one day in January 1997, John Johnson came to see Randy again. This time, Johnson finally had some news.Llaw enforcement had solved the crime. They knew who killed Randy's son and the three other people at the store. The killer was a Black man from Winona, a man who used to work at Tardy Furniture and was now living in Texas.

And he said, "I'm going to Plano, Texas, and get him." And I hugged his neck and I said, "Bring his ass back down. Go get him. Let's convict him."

His name was Curtis Flowers.

We'll be right back after the break.

In the Dark is supported by Casper. You spend one-third of your life sleeping, so you should be comfortable. The experts at Casper work tirelessly to make a quality sleep surface that cradles your natural geometry in all the right places. The original Casper mattress combines multiple support of memory foams for a quality sleep with the right amounts of both sink and bounce. Breathable design helps you sleep cool and regulates your body temperature throughout the night.

Casper mattresses are designed, developed and assembled in the U.S., delivered right to your door in a small how-do-they-do-that sized box. You can be sure of your purchase with Casper's 100 night risk-free sleep-on-it trial. Get $50 toward select mattresses by visiting casper.com/dark and using promo code, DARK, at checkout. Terms and conditions apply.

Do you remember how you heard that Curtis had been arrested for the murders?

On the radio.

What do you think?

I thought it was crazy.

This is a man named Kittery Jones. He's good friends with Curtis Flowers. He's also Curtis's cousin. I talked to him with our producer, Samara. Kittery actually saw Curtis the morning of the murders back in July of 1996.

When he heard about the killings around 11 or 12 o'clock that day, he rushed over to Curtis' place to check on him because he knew Curtis had worked down at Tardy Furniture and he worried that Curtis had been killed. Kittery was relieved when Curtis opened the door. He was wearing shorts and a T-shirt.

I think he had a piece of chicken or something in his hand. I asked him, "Listen, man, did you hear about what went on down there at Tardy's?" and he said, yeah, he'd heard about it. And I asked him had he been down and he said no. I told him, I said, "Man, I thought you were still working down there," and he said, "No."

And what was he, what did he seem like? Like, did he seem nervous or…?

No, he weren't nervous at all. He was just the typical Curtis.

Typical Curtis. Usually in a story like this, you hear from the person in prison, but that's not going to happen in this story. You're not going to hear from Curtis Flowers because the Mississippi Department of Corrections won't allow it, even though the Department's own policy is to allow for, quote, reasonable access between inmates and reporters.

I tried to talk to Curtis for months. We even got a lawyer involved but the D.O.C. wouldn't budge. They wouldn't even let me talk to Curtis on the phone. I did write letters to Curtis, which I know from talking to his parents that he received. And Curtis' his parents told me that he was grateful that a reporter was looking into his case.

But Curtis' lawyers told him not to write back to me because they don't want Curtis writing letters to reporters while the case is on appeal.

Over the past year, I spent a lot of time talking to everyone I could find who knew Curtis Flowers, trying to get a picture of who he was, not just his friends, but his old schoolteacher, his ex-girlfriend from high school, his friends' friends, even the people who would later testify against him at trial and they all describe Curtis the same way, like how his childhood friend, Michelle Milner, put it.

He was just always very laid back. You know, smiling, laughing, talking, cordial. I've never seen him, you know, be an'gry or upset.

In the summer of 1996, the summer of the murders at Tardy Furniture, Curtis Flowers was 26 years old. Curtis didn't have a criminal record. He was living in Winona with his girlfriend and her kids in a house two blocks from his parents. He didn't have a steady job, but he did work for a few days at Tardy Furniture in late-June and early-July

He spent most of his time hanging out with his family, his five siblings and his cousins and uncles. They would go fishing or just drive around. Curtis didn't have big plans for his life. He'd graduated last in his class from high school.

In his high school yearbook photo, he's wearing a suit and Black bowtie. He has a round face and a wide smile. If Curtis was known for anything at all, it was for being a singer in his father's Gospel group.

He joined this gospel group with his dad and he was going to different churches and then they would sing.

I have a video of Curtis performing with a group back then. Curtis sings the lead. He's wearing a gray suit and tie. He's smiling nodding his head a bit to the music.

You know, it was a lot of attention for him and he liked it. He dated the first cousin of my best friend. She said that he was boring because he always just wanted to talk about singing. That's all he wanted to talk about was singing.

In the fall of 1996, a few months after the murders, Curtis and his girlfriend moved to Texas to live with his sister. He found a job at a Kroger grocery store. And every few weeks, he would make the seven-hour drive home to Winona to spend time with his parents.

When investigators came for Curtis Flowers in Texas in January of 1997, Curtis didn't fight extradition back to Mississippi. He just got into a car and was driven back. Curtis was put in a jail just outside Winona to wait for his trial to begin.

Curtis and his family didn't know any lawyers, so his mother asked around. She found out about a father-son legal team from a few towns over, Billy and John Gilmore. The Gilmores hadn't handled many high-profile murder cases, but the family scraped together their savings to pay for them.

In October of 1997, District Attorney, Doug Evans, brought Curtis Flowers to trial for murder. Evans had decided to seek the death penalty. The trial was held 100 miles away in Tupelo. The jury was all White. Doug Evans had been preparing for this moment for more than a year. It was his chance to show the people of Winona that their district attorney would not allow such a horrific crime to go unpunished, and Evans was ready.

There's no recording of that first trial in 1997 because the courthouse where it was stored, burned down. But Idid get a copy of the transcript.

Here's a case that Doug Evans laid out for the jurors. Evans said it all began about two weeks before the murders. Curtis Flowers had just gotten a job at Tardy Furniture. He'd only been there three days when the store's owner, Bertha Tardy, sent Curtis to pick up some batteries for a golf cart.

Curtis loaded these big batteries onto the back of his truck, but he didn't tie them down. And when he drove away, those batteries slid right off and crashed to the ground. And Curtis just looked at those batteries and the damage he'd done to them and laughed.

Bertha Tardy didn't think it was funny. She told Curtis that she had no choice but to dock his pay and fire him. Thirteen days later, on July 16th 1996, Curtis Flowers decided to get revenge for being fired.

He woke up early, walked across town, broke into a car and stole a gun. He walked to Tardy Furniture. When he got there around 10:00 a.m., he walked inside and shot all four people in the head. He grabbed the money from the cash register, maybe $300 or s and then he walked home.

No one witnessed the murders and no one saw Curtis steal the gun. But, Doug Evans said, he was able to recreate the route that Curtis walked that morning, the exact streets he took as Curtis walked to steal the gun, as he walked to Tardy Furniture and as he walked home.

Evans put a series of people on the stand, who testified to seeing Curtis at nearly every point on the route. Investigators never found the gun that was used in the murders, but Evans said they knew from examining the bullets at the crime scene that the gun that was stolen that morning was the murder weapon.

Evans told the jurors that investigators had brought Curtis to the police station on the day of the murders and found a single particle of gunshot residue on his hand. Evans said investigators found bloody shoe prints at the murder scene, made by a Fila Grant Hill basketball shoe.

Investigators never found those shoes, but when they searched the house where Curtis Flowers was living with his girlfriend and her kids, they did find a shoebox for Fila Grant Hill shoes, the same size that made the bloody prints.

And Doug Evans said he had something else, one last piece of evidence that was so strong that it took the case not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt at all that Curtis Flowers had confessed to the murders, not to law enforcement, but to two people he'd shared a cell with while he was in jail awaiting trial. They both testified.

Randy Stewart, Bobo's father, was sitting in the courtroom for all this. And as he watched Doug Evans tell the story of what his team had been doing for all those months, he marveled at how skillful it was.

It was a jigsaw puzzle. They told the pieces in and it fit. They tracked him from the time he left his house, 'til the time he got back. Okay, we didn't find the tennis shoes. We found a tennis shoebox though. We didn't find a gun, but we found the projectile. The evidence was there. You just had to sit down, listen to it with an open mind and then come back and read your verdict.

And was there ever a moment where you thought, "Well I don't know. Maybe Curtis didn't do it"?

Nope. Nope. The evidence was there. The ones that don't believe it didn't pay attention to the evidence.

Curtis Flowers' lawyers tried to poke holes in the case against him. They said those bloody shoe prints at the crime scene couldn't have come from Curtis. Curtis didn't wear Filas. The lawyers said the shoebox at Curtis' house actually belonged to his girlfriend's teenage son and that her son had outgrown the shoes and thrown them out.

They even had the teenager testify before the jury to confirm that the shoes were his, not Curtis'. The defense talked about the particle of gunshot residue on Curtis' hand. They suggested it could have come from sparkplugs, or from fireworks that Curtis had handled over the July 4th holiday.

They said that Curtis had an alibi. He'd started off his morning at home watching his girlfriend's younger kids before they went to their grandma's house. Then, around 9:00 a.m., about an hour before the murders, Curtis walked to his sister's house and hung out for a few minutes with some people there. Two of them testified about it.

Unfortunately for Curtis' defense that time he spent at his sister's house didn't cover the time that investigators said the murders happened. And finally, the defense decided to call Curtis himself to testify.

On the stand, Curtis denied killing anyone. He said he wasn't fired from Tardy Furniture. He just stopped showing up to work. He said Bertha was nice to him, that she even loaned him $30 to tide them over until his first paycheck.

After the defense was done questioning Curtis, the prosecutor, Doug Evans, had his turn and this questioning of Curtis would be the longest conversation the two men would ever have. Doug Evans said, "You were going to show Ms. Tardy. You were going to go down there and you were going to take a gun and you were going to get any money that you could get your hands on, wasn't you.".

"No, sir," Curtis said.

It went on like this. "You shot everybody in there in the head, didn't you."

"No, I didn't."

"But you made some mistakes, didn't you?".

"No, sir. I didn't do it.".

"You didn't wash all the gunshot residue off your hands.".

"I didn't do it.".

"And you forgot and stepped in the blood.".

"No, sir. I didn't."

"That is just a few of the mistakes you made, isn't it?".

"No, sir. I didn't do it."

The jury deliberated for just 66 minutes. They reached a verdict. Guilty. And they sentence Curtis Flowers to death.

The evidence showed that he was guilty.

We talked to the jurors who were on that first trial. They told us it wasn't difficult to reach that verdict.

There's no doubt in my mind that he did it. It's pretty cut and dry.

And it was obvious that Curtis Flowers was guilty.

The prosecution [signed]. They presented all the evidence, I thought, in a very sequential matter. That's what we call walking the dog, you know, just one step at a time, moving forward. It was well done.

The judge thanked the jury for their service. The trial of Curtis Flowers was over and Randy Stewart left the courtroom thinking justice had finally been served.

Curtis Giovanni Flowers murdered those four people. There's no doubt in my mind. I don't care how many choirs he sang or nothing. I believe in tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye. And I think he needs to fry in hell, where he's going.

If he was executed, would you go watch?

You're damn right, I'd go watch. I will stick the needle in him. I owe that to my son.

Randy Stewart is still waiting for that moment because that verdict in that courtroom in 1997, that was only the beginning of a court battle that so far, lasted 21 years with no sign of ending.

After that verdict in 1997, Curtis Flowers appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court and he won. But he didn't get out of prison. He didn't have that moment that you see on the news, where you win your appeal and the prison doors open and your family rushes past the TV cameras to hug you because the prosecutor, Doug Evans, just decided to try the case again, and again, and again.

In 1999, Curtis Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death for a second time. Again, he appealed and he won.

A death row inmate will get a new trial. Curtis Giovanni Flowers accused of killing four…

Doug Evans just tried it again. In 2004, Curtis Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed and he won.

Yesterday in a five to four decision, Justices agreed with Flowers' his attorney that prosecutores can't…

The reason that Curtis Flowers kept winning his appeals is that the Mississippi Supreme Court kept finding that the prosecutor, Doug Evans, had broken the rules. He'd misstated the facts. He'd asked improper questions not in good faith. He'd even violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by striking most Black people off the jury

… and disqualifying Black potential jurors. And Flowers wasn't…

But it didn't matter. Doug Evans tried it again. The case kept going. In 2007, the jury hung. They couldn't decide on a verdict.

The fourth trial of Curtis Giovanni Flowers has ended in mistrial with a hung jury. Flowers…

Doug Evans tried it again. In 2008, another hung jury.

Jurors deliberated more than 10 hours, when the judge declared a mistrial.

Doug Evans tried it again and again, Curtis Flowers was convicted and sentenced to death.

… Furniture store, Curtis Flowers was was sentenced to death on four counts of capital murder in June of 2010. That conviction actually marked the sixth time Flowers have been tried in the case. Flowers…

In case you're wondering, this isn't double jeopardy because double jeopardy would be if you're tried again after you've already been acquitted. And Curtis Flowers has never been acquitted. That last conviction was in 2010.

The verdict is still under appeal. Curtis Flowers has never gone home. The exit from one courtroom was just the entrance to another.

Six trials, over 21 years. Randy Stewart, Bobo's father, has been to every one. He's watched as the case went on, and on. As Curtis won appeals and avoided execution, Randy got more and more frustrated as the years passed.

Randy told me that at a certain point, he decided to take matters into his own hands, to do what the State would not, or could not.

I was planning on murdering Curtis Flowers. I even had it planned out. I was going to assasinate him [inaudible].

So how are you going to do it?

I was going to shoot him in the head with a 270 rifle. Oh, I even had a guy who was going to get me the gun.

Randy said his plan was to watch for Curtis to arrive at the courthouse and to kill Curtis as he stepped out of the van.

If you go to so many trials and if you go paying attention and watching, you can, you know, premeditated or plan it out. Yeah, I had it out in my head. And I would have carried it out. There's no doubt in my mind. It make me no difference. I was going to get rid of him.

Why did you wanted to kill him?

Huh?

Why did…?

Because he killed my son, an eye for an eye. I probably went straight to hell, at the time, it wouldnt make me no difference. I was in it for revenge. And if it hadn't been for God, I wouldn't be sitting here now. Bobo came to me in a dream said, "It's all right, Daddy. [inaudible] your life."

Randy resigned himself to waiting. I found a TV news clip from 2007 where he's talking to a reporter about Curtis's fourth trial.

The wheels of justice turn slow, but I'm willing to wait on the wheels of justice.

Curtis Flowers is now 47. He spent nearly half his life in jail or prison. He continues to insist that he's innocent. If a case has been tried six times, something has gone wrong.

When I started looking at the case of Curtis Flowers, I read the transcripts of the trials, all the appeals, all the motions. And right away, I learned that the prosecution's case against Curtis Flowers wasn't built on any one piece of evidence. There was no DNA match, no video surveillance footage, no witness to the murders, nothing that would absolutely prove that Curtis Flowers committed this crime.

Instead the prosecutor, Doug Evans, had lots and lots of smaller pieces of evidence, pieces that wouldn't mean much on their own. But Evans had managed to put all those pieces together, so that each one looked like part of a bigger story, a story that was clear and convincing. It was like Randy Stewart had said. It was a jigsaw puzzle. So, I wondered how this case would look if I pulled those puzzle pieces apart and held each one up to the light.

One of the first pieces I looked at was something Doug Evans had talked about in that very first trial. It was something the jurors heard right before they had to decide whether to sentence Curtis Flowers to death.

Doug Evans told them that when Curtis was a teenager, he'd done something that sounded really bad. He'd pointed a gun at another teenage boy, said, "I'm going to shoot you," pulled the trigger and shot him in the chest. The way Doug Evans described, it it sounded intentional.

Our producer, Samara, tracked down the boy who Curtis had shot. His name is James Douglas and he's now 46. The address she had for him turned out to be the address of his mother, Willie Mae. James lives in Chicago now, but Willie Mae called him.

Hello.

Hey, James. Hey, Woody.

Yes.

Okay, it's a lady here. She just wants to talk to you about Curtis Flowers.

[Inaudible]

Wait a minute, Woody. She just wants to… Okay, what did you say your name was?

Samara.

Tamara.

Samara, yeah.

Okay, I'm going to put you on the speakerphone, okay?

Okay.

Oh, hi. Hi, James. James?

Hello, yes.

Hi. Can you hear me?

Yes.

James told Samara what had happened. He said that one day, back in high school, he'd gone to Curtis' house between exams. Curtis' parents weren't home.

We was on the front porch and he was like, "Do you believe my daddy's got a gun?" I said, "Yeah, he probably do." And he went in the house and got the gun and he…

James said Curtis was playing with the gun, whipping it up and down, like he was pulling it out of a holster in an old Western.

And then it just boom. The gun went off. He pulled the trigger.

James said Curtis never told him what Doug Evans claimed he did, that line, "I'm going to shoot you." And he said he and Curtis weren't an argument or anything.

And so, were you guys having a fight at the time, like when he did it?

No. No, that didn't happen.

That didn't happen.

No, we didn't have no beef. We didn't have no problems at school, no problems.

And he just went and do something ignorant, I say. He was just ignorant.

Curtis had shot James in the chest, but the boys decided to just go back to school. James zipped his windbreaker over the bullet wound and they headed back. James sat down at his desk. It didn't take long for another kid to notice he was bleeding and James was sent to the hospital.

The shooting was investigated by the Police Chief of Winona at the time. The Chief said it appeared to be an accident, not intentional. And it seemed like Doug Evans should have known this because the Police Chief back then, who made the determination that the shooting was most likely an accident was John Johnson.

John Johnson, the same man who by the time of the flowers case, was Doug Evans' investigator. The story that Doug Evans had presented to the jurors that made the shooting seem intentional didn't seem to be true. That made me wonder about what else Doug Evans told the jurors.

The entire story that Doug Evans had used to try to convince them over six trials that Curtis Flowers was guilty, the story that had cost Curtis Flowers his freedom, that led to Curtis spending the past 21 years in a cell far away from a family, the story that could even cost Curtis Flowers his life. What about that story, the whole story the entire case? Was that story true?

In June of last year., I moved to Mississippi to find out. Coming up this season on In the Dark…

First of all that is confidential. We're not supposed to talk about that.

[Inaudible] full of empty filing cabinets and this one is full of records.

And he said that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that's how he got caught up in that.

I was young and stupid, that they're like, "Were you putting a gun to that man's head and blowing their brains out."

Did I lead you to say anything?

No.

Was your statement fre and voluntary?

Yes.

Mississippi and Mississippi, you know, we all know what goes on in Mississippi. Once we get to you in the courtroom, you're out. If you're Black, we've got you.

You have a sickness, probably. You have not been [inaudible]. I don't know who you think you are to storm out of this court and…

Don't anybody want to see justice? I mean it would be anybody. I want to see justice for anybody.

Are you confident that you have the right person, that Curtis Flowers is guilty?.

That I will answer, definitely. No question at all.

Okay, so I'm going to wrige, "I am not setting you up. I am a reporter. We just want to talk to you."

In the Dark is reported and produced by me, Madeleine Baran, Senior Producer, Samara Freemark, Producer, Natalie Jalonski, Associate Producer, Rehman Tungekar and reporters, Parker Yesko and Will Craft. In the Dark is edited by Catherine Winter. Web editors are Dave Mann and Andy Kruse. The Editor in Chief of APM Reports is Chris Worthington. Original music by Gary Meister and Johnny Vince Evans. This episode was mixed by Corey Schreppel.

Archival news recordings, courtesy of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History WLBT, WABG and WJTB. You can see photos and videos and check out documents from the case on our website, inthedarkpodcast.org. We'll be posting new stuff every week.

Automatically convert audio to text with Sonix


New to Sonix? Click here for 30 free transcription minutes!