← Gone South
Loading summary
Transcript98 lines
- [00:02]
A
I love how easy summer feels, especially when the days get relaxed and I can just reach for the same comfortable go anywhere clothing over and over. That's why I'm always turning to quints. They focus on well made essentials that naturally become those everyday staples you actually live in all season long. For me, the piece that changed how I get dressed this summer is their 100% European linen shirt. It's so breathable and effortless, making it a total wardrobe upgrade starting at just $34. Their T shirts are soft enough to live in all day and have been wearing their lightweight cotton sweaters when the summer nights cool down. Because they partner directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, Quint's prices everything 50 to 80% less than similar brands. They also do amazing home and travel gear make your summer wardrobe easier. Go to quint.com GoneSouth for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's quince.com GoneSouth for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com GoneSouth
- [01:19]
B
there's never been a better time to get outside and experience the benefits of nature, discover nearby trails and explore the outdoors with alltrails. Download the free app today and find your outside.
- [01:38]
A
The term junk science began appearing in courtrooms in the US sometime in the mid-1980s. It refers to forensic evidence that looks scientific but isn't. Junk science includes things like microscopic hair comparison, where analysts claimed a hair could be matched to a single person. It can't. At best, it can tell you a hair is consistent with someone's and millions of other people's blood spatter analysis, the practice of reading a crime scene's blood patterns to tell investigators what happened, is another form of junk science. Even fingerprint comparison turns out to be wrong more often than anyone used to admit. In One FBI study, one false match in every 300 or so. In another one in 18. For decades, courts relied on these and other debunked forensic techniques to determine guilt or innocence. Many still do. They can mean the difference between someone going home to their family or or spending the rest of their life in prison. One of the most egregious examples of junk science is bite mark evidence, the idea that a wound on someone's skin can be traced back to one person's teeth. Today, close to 40 people have been wrongfully convicted through the use of bite mark evidence alone, but back in the 80s it was considered legitimate forensic science. Mark Loudon Brown is an attorney with The Southern center for Human rights. Back in 2019, he was handling a few wrongful conviction cases that involved bite mark evidence. The cases were based in Georgia, but Mark's office also practices in Alabama. One afternoon, he ran a simple Google search for bite mark evidence in Alabama. That's how he came across Charles McCrory, an Alabama man who was convicted of killing his wife back in 1985.
- [03:42]
C
And I started to pull some of the documents, pull the file, and pretty quickly realized that it was based pretty much exclusively on this bite mark, alleged bite mark evidence. And so I thought, well, this is precisely the kind of case that is subject to attack. If you can undo the bite mark, you can undo the conviction.
- [04:05]
A
Charles McCrory was serving a life sentence at Easterling Prison in southeast Alabama. And as Mark read, the conviction was based almost entirely on a pair of marks on his wife's left arm. Marks that a forensic dentist said were caused by Charles teeth. Charles had been locked up for the past 34 years. So in the fall of 2019, Mark wrote him a letter.
- [04:33]
C
And so I believe I wrote to Mr. McCrory and I said, hey, you know, my name is Mark. I work at the Georgia at this office, and curious to talk to you about your case, and is it okay if I come see you? And he said, sure. And so I went down to talk to him for a while. And I was immediately struck by him, by his demeanor, by his resilience, by his knowledge of the case, knowledge of what was going on in the world surrounding his case. And I immediately thought, well, we're definitely taking this case.
- [05:04]
A
There was no question Mark suspected Charles was innocent. But proving it in an Alabama courtroom 30 years after the conviction wasn't going to be easy. I'm Jed Lipinski. This is gone south. The Charles McCrory case began back on May 31, 1985. Charles and his wife Julie had been married for five years, though they'd been together since high school. They had a three year old son, Chad, and lived in Andalusia, Alabama, a small town in the southern part of the state. But the couple had been going through a rough patch. They'd separated after Charles had an affair with another woman. Charles had moved to an apartment on the other side of town.
- [06:04]
D
But it was a very amicable separation, if that makes any sense. I mean, we were together, you know, most every day. Not every day, but we had been to the beach, in fact, the weekend before.
- [06:14]
A
That's Charles speaking to me on a recorded line from prison. At the time, Charles was a tech worker at the local power company and a volunteer paramedic. The night before the murder, he left work and met Julie for a couple's therapy session. He stopped by the house afterwards and they had dinner together. Charles left around 10:30pm here's Charles attorney Mark Loudon Brown again.
- [06:41]
C
The morning on which Julie was found, you know, was a morning, I think, like any other. Mr. McCrory went to work often. Julie would bring him breakfast on the way to her work. He called her a couple times to try to reach her. No answer. Didn't think much of it.
- [06:58]
A
Since Julie worked too. She typically dropped their son off at Charles's parents house in the morning, but Julie never showed. Charles mom called the house, but Julie didn't answer.
- [07:09]
D
They called her work once and there was no answer. So when, you know, that happened, my mom had called me, you know, pretty upset, said, you know, your dad's going over to check on her, you know, you need to go to her. And so anyway, I leave work and, you know, went to the house.
- [07:25]
C
Mr. McCrory was also a volunteer paramedic for the rescue squad in Covington County, Andalusia. So he had a radio and he heard over radio that there were folks responding or emergency personnel responding to his neighborhood. And so he joined the response and by the time he got there, some people had discovered that Julie had been murdered in her home.
- [07:50]
A
Charles father got to the house first. He'd found their son Chad sitting in another room unharmed and brought him to the next door neighbors. Julie's body was lying by the front door with visible wounds to her head and chest. Charles says he was in shock.
- [08:07]
D
People often ask, you know, what do you think at that point? And you're in such disbelief that, you know, it's just like it's not even real. It's surreal at that point. It's just, you know, you could think of all the things in the world that would ever happen that was not even on the list. And then it kind of unfolded from there
- [08:25]
A
as the husband, Charles, was the cop's first suspect.
- [08:29]
C
So the police start chatting with him a little bit about what was going on. And at one point they see what they believe to be a speck of blood on his shoe. And it turns out to not be blood. They take his shoes, they test it, they confirm it's some sort of food product or something, and that's, you know, ruled out as blood. But I think their initial leads to him were like, well, it's this ex husband, they're going through a divorce, there's a Motive there. And then there's this red speck on his shoes. Shoe which turns out to not be blood.
- [08:59]
A
But the cops didn't have any other leads, so they continued investigating Charles. With his consent, they searched his apartment, his car and his clothing and found nothing connecting him to the scene. They also took him in for questioning. Charles cooperated fully explaining he'd been at home at the time of the murder. He had no criminal record or history of violence. So in the end, Charles, they let him go.
- [09:24]
C
What's always been astonishing to me is this was a brutal murder. I mean, somebody really brutalized Julie. Blood would have been everywhere. And there's not a trace of blood anywhere ever found on him, in his car, in his home, nothing. But notwithstanding that, they don't pursue any other leads. And a day or two later, he basically gets a call saying that, you know, he's going to get arrested and he quit. He gets arrested and he gets charged with the murder.
- [09:56]
A
When Mark first heard the story, his first question was, if nothing connected Charles to the scene, why was he arrested? The answer came down to two pieces of evidence. The first was something Charles said shortly after arriving at the scene. After looking at Julie's body, he'd asked the cops if she died from blows to the head.
- [10:18]
C
And they found that suspicious, like, how would he know that she suffered a head blow? And, you know, our response is, well, because everybody looking at her would have seen that. But they were, I guess, alarmed by that question.
- [10:31]
A
The other piece of evidence came from the next door neighbor.
- [10:34]
C
His grandson was visiting around the time of the murder and believed that what might have been the morning of the murder. He went out to check the garden around 4 or 5am and saw what looked like a white Bronco that could have been the one that Charles owned in Julie's driveway.
- [11:01]
A
Charles spent the next five weeks in the Covington County Jail. During that time, the sheriff's office failed to generate any more leads tying him to the murder. With only flimsy circumstantial evidence to go on. Mark says the district attorney was reluctant to bring a case against him. But Julie's family wasn't satisfied with that. They suspected Charles had something to do with it. So under a quirk of Alabama law, they were able to hire a pair of private attorneys to help prosecute the case.
- [11:33]
C
And it was a father son duo, Harvey and Frank Tipler. And they were well known in the area as a powerhouse private lawyers. And so Julie's brother and family hired them.
- [11:47]
A
The Tiplers looked at the autopsy report among Other injuries. The pathologist had noted four wounds to the back of Julie's head, fractures to her jaw and puncture wounds to her chest. But he also cited two small marks on the back of her upper right arm.
- [12:05]
C
It looks like two little circular poke marks. The pathologist said something about this maybe being a bite mark, the mark on
- [12:13]
D
her arm, what they call bite marks. But when you see the picture, you realize it's really only two 4 millimeter scratches really on the outside of her arm. And that's the extent of that. I think a lot of people hear of these kind of cases and they think bite marks, they're picturing what you know, I guess we would all picture as bite marks, rows of marks and so forth. But when you see the picture, many people have seen the picture and it's like, you know, is this it?
- [12:38]
A
When I saw the picture, I thought the same thing. The two scratches or poke marks on Julie's arm don't look like bite marks, but the pathologist said they could be. And so the private attorneys retained a forensic dentist to take a closer look. And not just any forensic dentist, but a man considered a celebrity in the field. His opinion would send Charles to prison for life. What do you get when you combine bingo style bonuses and slots? Kashingo DraftKings Casino is the exclusive place to play Kashingo slots. New casino players play $5 and get 1000 Flex spins. Claim 50 spins a day for 20 days on your choice of over 100 slots, including the exclusive Kashingo Collection. Download the DraftKings casino app and sign up with code gonesouth to claim your flex spins and experience Kashingo. The feature you can't play anywhere else. The crown is yours. In partnership with DraftKings Casino Gambling Problem
- [13:50]
E
call 1-800-GAMBLER in in Connecticut. Help is available for problem gambling. Call 888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org Please play responsibly. 21 and over physically present in Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia. Only Boyd and Ontario. Eligibility restrictions apply. Non withdrawable spins issued as 50 spins
- [14:07]
A
per day for 20 days.
- [14:08]
E
Valid for select games only and expire each day after 24 hours. See terms@casino.draftkings.com promos ends July 22 at 11:59pm Eastern Time.
- [14:18]
A
History that Doesn't Suck is a legit, hard hitting American history podcast told through entertaining stories as we approach America's 250th anniversary. Now might be the time to go back and learn how we got here with more than 200 episodes. You can binge your way decade by decade, defining event to defining event from the founding into the 20th century. Join me Professor Greg Jackson for History that Doesn't Suck. An Odyssey Podcast available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [14:48]
B
Summer break is here. I want my kids to have fun, but I also want them to keep their skills sharp between vacations and sports. I need something that fits our busy schedule without adding stress. That's why we use ixl. IXL is an award winning online platform that helps kids truly understand what they're learning. Whether they're building math confidence, strengthening reading and writing skills, or reviewing science concepts from Pre K through 12th grade, IXL offers personalized interactive learning that adapts to each child's level and pace. It's proven to improve grades and one subscription covers every child in the home, saving us time and money. It's trusted nationwide and in fact, IXL is used in 96 of the top 100 school districts in the U.S. make an impact on your child's learning. Get IXL now and listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up today at IXL. Visit ixllearning.com audio to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price.
- [15:59]
A
It's fair to say that people who go into dentistry don't imagine they'll become a celebrity. But in 1985, that's what Dr. Richard Suveron was. Six years earlier, Souvaron had helped convict serial killer Ted Bundy by matching Bundy's crooked teeth to a bite mark on the body of a sorority student in Tallahassee. Prosecutors had a witness who'd seen Bundy fleeing the house. They also had his history of escapes. But the bite mark was the thing the jury could see. It was the sort of evidence that felt like proof. The case made Dr. Suviron a star. It also made bite mark analysis look like settled science. It wasn't. Even Souviron, under cross examination, admitted his conclusions were a matter of opinion. Souverin went on to testify in more than 50 cases across a dozen states. So when private attorneys Frank and Harvey tipler learned that 2 marks on Julie's arm might be bite marks, they knew exactly who to call.
- [17:07]
C
And so they called him up and asked him if he would look at this bite mark and see if it matched Charles Dentition. What's interesting is initially Dr. Suviron's position was a little hesitant. He sort of said, well, I think you need more evidence than this in order to support the conclusion that this is Mr. McCrory's bite mark.
- [17:31]
A
In Souviron's initial written opinion, he said the two marks, one six millimeters, the other four millimeters, were from teeth and could have been made by Charles McCrory. But he also wrote that it was impossible to make a positive identification from two teeth of a bite mark. Souveran added that the marks could have come from whatever had caused the puncture wounds on Julie's chest. Here's Charles.
- [17:58]
D
And then in the very last paragraph, he says that he does not feel like it would be in the interest of justice to attempt to use this to identify anyone.
- [18:07]
A
In other words, Souviron said the marks alone weren't enough. They'd only be useful in conjunction with other physical evidence like fingerprints, blood or DNA, none of which investigators had. But before Charles trial, Harvey Tipler flew to Coral Gables, Florida to speak with Souviron in person. And when the trial finally rolled around, the dentist's opinion had changed.
- [18:34]
C
And he testified that the injury to Julie was a bite mark, that it was inflicted by Charles McCrory, and that it was inflicted at or near the time of her death.
- [18:45]
A
And do you have any idea why he changed his mind?
- [18:50]
C
We don't, we don't know why that changed. We know that from speaking to one of Charles's defense lawyers that he was completely shocked, taken aback, did not anticipate the change in testimony.
- [19:02]
A
Charles remembers the look on jurors faces as Souviron made his presentation.
- [19:07]
D
He comes into the courtroom, you know, he's a polished guy, he's done it a lot and really just blew the jury away with his big blown up pictures and you know, his testimony. And I can, you know, to some degree I can see why. I mean you're small town jury. Here comes a guy from Coral Gables, Florida, you know, supposed forensic expert. And it was extremely damaging. It was the trial we knew at that point, I mean it's just kind of like we knew, we thought things were going well until that happened.
- [19:37]
A
Earlier in the trial, the state's head criminologist had taken the stand. Charles defense team knew that Julie had been found clutching hairs in her hand, presumably from a struggle with her attacker before she died. But for whatever reason, they had not been given the results of the hair sample analysis. So during cross examination, Charles lawyers asked
- [20:01]
D
him about it while he's on the stand. We asked the guy in open court, in front of the jury about the results of the hair sample analysis. So obviously we have Nothing to hide or you wouldn't dare do that. And that's what he said. The hair samples found in her hand did not match me. Now, again, that was something that you would think would carry a lot of weight.
- [20:23]
A
But the testimony of a famous forensic dentist seemed to outweigh everything else. Based largely on Souviron's account, the jury convicted Charles of killing his wife. As I said before, by the time Mark Loudon Brown discovered Charles McCrory's case, he'd already handled some wrongful conviction cases based on bite mark evidence. He was familiar with a few others. And what struck him about Charles case was the complete absence of other corroborating evidence.
- [20:57]
C
What you see in wrongful convictions is the bite mark is really the linchpin. But maybe there's some other circumstantial evidence that just unfortunately didn't look great and it was used to corroborate the bite mark. And so that helped with the wrongful conviction. Right? You don't have that here. I mean, it is an inexplicable lack of corroborating evidence. The case rose and fell with the bite mark. And you could understand why a juror would convict based on the bite mark.
- [21:27]
A
Mark was also struck by something that happened after the conviction. Charles was due to be sentenced a few weeks later, but rather than send him back to jail, the judge just let him go home.
- [21:40]
C
Mr. McCrory had been convicted of murder. He was facing a mandatory life sentence. And the judge said, go home, have a couple weeks, get your affairs in order. I trust you to come back to turn yourself in for a life sentence. That doesn't happen. And so I was dumbfounded by that. And I was like, charles, the judge let you go home? And he sort of said, yeah, I mean, I guess he trusted me. And, you know, he kind of knew of my reputation in the community. And sure enough, a couple weeks later, Charles walked himself back into court and got sentenced to life. And there we have it.
- [22:20]
A
34 years would pass before Mark Loudon Brown discovered Charles McCrory's case. In that time, bite mark evidence, once considered a reliable indicator of guilt, had been largely discredited. The turning point was DNA.
- [22:38]
C
Some of these cases with what was once thought to be overwhelming bite mark evidence suggesting guilt also had DNA. And it turned out the DNA exonerated the person. And so people are starting to realize, oh, wait, maybe bite mark, his evidence isn't so infallible after all.
- [22:58]
A
In recent years, reports by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, a federal science agency, concluded that there is no credibility to bite mark evidence. In 2016, a study sent 100 samples to nearly 40 forensic dentists and asked them a series of questions.
- [23:18]
C
And it turned out that the first question is this injury, a bite mark? They couldn't agree on it. Nobody could get it right. There was no agreement. And so they stopped the study because it failed at its most basic part.
- [23:30]
A
In building his case for Charles, innocence, Mark had to do two things. First, he had to show why bite mark evidence in general no longer holds water. And second, he had to document why it was wrong to use bite mark evidence against Charles McCrory. Fortunately, Mark learned that Souviron's opinion on bite marks had changed.
- [23:55]
C
Dr. Suvaran, to his credit, has been willing to go back and review his past work. He has acknowledged that the field has changed, it has evolved, that they know more than they used to. So in some cases, not all, but in some cases, he has reviewed and he has walked back his opinion to an extent. And so my co counsel, Chris, and I decided to approach Dr. Suvaran and say, hey, we have this case from the 1980s. You gave this very certain testimony that Mr. McCrory was the biter to the exclusion of all others. And we're wondering if you'd take a look.
- [24:37]
A
Souviron said sure. He pulled his files from back in 1985. He did a reanalysis, and not long after, he recanted his testimony.
- [24:48]
C
And he said, today, knowing what I know Today, in my 50 years as a forensic dentist, I would not say that Mr. McCrory's bite inflicted this mark. I could not say that to a reasonable degree of certainty. Like I said at the time of
- [25:04]
A
trial, to be clear, Mark had no reason to think Souviron had acted with any malicious intent. He and other forensic dentists who testified about the reliability of bite mark evidence back in the 80s most likely thought they were doing good science, Mark says. And when the science and evidence proved otherwise, they were by and large, more than willing to recant their former statements. Souviron signed a sworn statement and sent it to Mark. Mark, in turn, wrote a petition arguing that Souviron's recantation came counted as newly discovered evidence and that based on that evidence, Charles would have been acquitted if tried today. Charles was encouraged by the news. He felt Souviron's testimony had been the deciding factor in his conviction. Now that same expert was admitting he'd been wrong.
- [25:58]
D
And I think that's an important point, is that the person who recanted his testimony is the same one who offered it. It's not like we went out and hired people to come in and say, no, that guy was wrong. It is that guy saying I was wrong and I think that's a big deal.
- [26:14]
A
Mark sent his petition to the same Alabama court that had convicted Charles 34 years earlier. He asked the judge for a new trial. Then they sat back and waited. This message is sponsored by Greenlight. Every true crime story has money in the mix. The motive, the pressure, the moment everything goes wrong. Financial stress pushes people to desperate decisions and a lack of financial literacy makes kids and teens easy targets. Teaching your kids about money isn't just smart parenting, its protection. Greenlight is an award winning app and debit card for kids and teens that keeps your family's financial and personal safety from becoming another cautionary tale. Parents can send money quickly to a child's debit card, set spending controls and get real time notifications for every swipe. While kids learn to earn, save and invest, parents get peace of mind with safety features like location alerts and SOS signals and identity monitoring to protect against scammers. Don't let your kids navigate the world exposed. Join millions of parents and kids using the one Family finance and safety app. Every day they're handling money without guidance is a missed opportunity. Start your risk free Greenlight trial today@greenlight.com GoneSouth don't wait to teach your kids real world mind. That's greenlight.com gonesouth to get started greenlight.com gonesouth
- [28:00]
E
Queen Carvania stood haloed by the morning sun. An army hung on her every word.
- [28:07]
A
My champions, I have sold my chariot on Carvana. Twas a lovely suv, an inexplicably queenly offer. They're even coming to the castle to collect it. Tonight we feast. An offer you can feast on.
- [28:25]
B
Sell your car today on Carvana.
- [28:27]
C
Pickup fees may apply.
- [28:34]
A
Mark Loudon Brown filed a petition for a new trial for Charles McCrory in 2019. It would be another two years before a judge in Covington county scheduled a hearing. During that time, Mark says he repeatedly reached out to the local district attorney to ask for a meeting and tell him about the case. But the DA never got back to him.
- [28:57]
C
My goal was to ask him his position. Did he think we were wrong? Was he standing by the bite mark evidence? Was he aware of the problem? Problems? Generally speaking, with bite mark evidence, there was never a returned phone call. There was never a returned email. I was never able to have that discussion.
- [29:14]
A
That was not a Good sign. But Mark thought things might be different when he made his case in person. Ahead of the hearing, he and his co counsel, Chris Fabricant, flew to Andalucia. The night before it took place. They got a phone call from the assistant DA who was handling the case,
- [29:33]
C
and she says, we are standing by the conviction. We are opposed to your motion, but if he wants time served, if he'll admit guilt, he can have time served. He can go home tomorrow.
- [29:46]
A
In other words, the assistant DA offered Charles a plea if he admitted that he'd killed his wife. He could walk out of prison after nearly four decades with a sentence of time served, no probation, no parole. He'd still have a murder conviction on his record, but he'd be a free man. With the hearing just hours away, Mark needed to find a way to tell Charles about the deal.
- [30:12]
C
You know, and of course, it's in the middle of COVID and Mr. McCrory's at a prison. I'm in a hotel room in Andalusia, so we can't very well communicate it to him. Can't just, you know, jump on the phone and call him.
- [30:26]
A
Eventually, Mark was able to relay the Assistant DA's message to Charles through his son Chad. He later got on the phone with Charles himself and advised him about the pros and cons of taking the plea.
- [30:40]
C
And so as I sort of did that, he said, mark, no, I'm not taking a plea. I'm not saying I killed her. I didn't do this. It was a pretty short conversation, and
- [30:54]
D
I turned it down. And if it was just, I want to get out of prison, then, you know, I would have been out that day. So when they offered, it really wasn't something. Let me think about it, or whatever, you know, the answer was no, I'm not going to plead guilty. Number one, for a murder, I didn't do it, especially Julie. And two things that would do it would forever seal us, really finding out who did and how and what really happened. I think that would close the door to anything that might ever come up for that. And it would also let them say, see, we told you so all along.
- [31:24]
A
After Charles rejected the plea deal, the hearing went forward. Mark called two experts, both of whom had previously believed in bite mark evidence, but now recognized it was no longer valid science. They each testified that you can't connect Charles McCrory to the injury on his wife's arm. In fact, they didn't believe it was a bite mark at all. The prosecution didn't dispute the expert's statements Instead, Mark says they essentially repeated the state's original argument. They pulled excerpts from the original trial Testimony back in 1985 and read it to the judge. But they did call one live witness, the grandson of the neighbor who'd vaguely recalled seeing a white Bronco that might have been Charles's in Julie's driveway the morning of the murder.
- [32:16]
C
And very shortly into his examination, the judge was so frustrated by his inability to answer a question or give coherent testimony that he struck his testimony, excluded him as a witness, kicked him off the witness stand, and told them to just read his trial testimony instead.
- [32:38]
A
Then in their closing argument, the state took things a step further. Based on no evidence whatsoever, they claimed that the jury itself could have looked at the photos and matched the marks to McCrory's teeth. No expert needed. In other words, the same analysis that trained forensic dentists can't do reliably, prosecutors said a jury could do on its own. Mark was appalled.
- [33:06]
C
What we have shown is that experts who are trained to do this can't do it reliably. So instead we're saying, instead of having experts do junk science, let's let jurors do junk science, and let's base a conviction and life sentence based on a juror's invocation of junk science. And it was. I couldn't believe that they were saying it. To this day, it's one of the most amazing things I've ever heard in court.
- [33:35]
A
After delaying the hearing for two years, the court denied Charles a new trial. What was your conclusion about all this? That the DA at the time, and maybe the judge were just so convinced of his guilt that nothing was going to sway them. They just didn't have time for this. It's Covid, et cetera. We have other things in our mind, like what was the reason why they just didn't see what was obvious to you?
- [34:00]
C
It's a difficult question. Judges and prosecutors generally don't like to admit mistakes. They don't like to say that they wrongly incarcerated a man for over 40 years, even though we're not blaming any of them. You know, they don't like to say they got it wrong. People don't like to say they got it wrong. I think that probably weighs heavily on a decision not to grant relief in this case.
- [34:27]
A
And what was that like for Charles when the judge sided with the state and declined the new trial?
- [34:33]
C
It was disappointing, I have to say, Embarrassingly, it was probably more devastating for me than it was for him. He has this incredible wherewithal, and I think I Don't want to speak for him, but he's been in prison for so long for something he didn't do that he sort of anticipates that he's going to lose. But he is so resilient, he's just like, okay, what do we do next?
- [35:00]
A
After losing in trial court in Covington County, Charles team appealed. They lost at the Criminal Court of Appeals, then lost again at the Alabama Supreme Court. Mark then argued for parole, pointing out that the state itself had offered Charles time served, meaning they were basically fine with him walking free and unsupervised. Mark also noted that Charles had done 40 years without a single disciplinary write up, but the parole board denied that too. At this point in the story, you may be wondering if Charles McCrory didn't kill his wife, who did? And was the state of Alabama's refusal to consider Charles innocence based, at least in part on. On the fact that there weren't any other suspects? The answer to that last question is no. A really good one, in fact, and the courts knew about him. On the morning of the murder, police had found a red bandana next to Julie's body. They'd also found an open back window and footprints leading to a construction site behind the house.
- [36:13]
C
And it turned out that there was this guy by the name of Alton Ainsworth who frequently wore sported a red bandana, and he worked at the construction site. And he would have been arriving for work somewhere around 3 or 4am that morning, the morning which she was discovered, which could have been around the time of the murder.
- [36:38]
A
Ainsworth was in jail on other charges, and at the time of Charles arrest, police interviewed him, but for some reason he was never fully investigated, perhaps because the cops were convinced that Charles did it.
- [36:53]
C
What's fascinating about Mr. Ainsworth is just a couple weeks later, after Mr. McCrory had been arrested and charged, Mr. Ainsworth was arrested on a separate breaking and entering and a rape nearby. He was ultimately convicted, and I believe he served something like 20 years.
- [37:13]
A
So to recap, after discovering a red bandana at the crime scene, police identified a man who was known to wear a red bandana and who, according to multiple witnesses, was working at a construction site behind the victim's house at the time of her death. Five weeks later, that same man was arrested for breaking into a house nearby and raping a woman and sentenced to 20 years. To mark and others, he seemed like a pretty good suspect. They mentioned him in their original petition for a new trial, but by the time Mark came around, that red bandana and the hairs found in Julie's hand and some other physical evidence had all been destroyed, which means there was no way to test for DNA that would point to Ainsworth or anyone else. Mark later visited Ainsworth in prison and as you might expect, he denied being involved in the murder. But Charles is still baffled that he wasn't investigated more thoroughly.
- [38:14]
D
It boggles the mind how you don't have these reports. You've got evidence that you've destroyed, you've got another suspect that you know has a history of that and you're not even looking at him seriously. It just doesn't make any sense.
- [38:26]
A
In 2024, after every court in Alabama turned them down, Mark and his team took the case to the U.S. supreme Court.
- [38:35]
C
What we argued was that due process under the United States Constitution requires that you be convicted based on reliable evidence and not junk science, faulty evidence. And, you know, the Supreme Court of the United States gets probably thousands, maybe more of petitions every year. They usually hear something like 40 or 45 cases. Cases, but it's very rare to get their attention. But Justice Sotomayor, our petition got her attention.
- [39:06]
A
Sotomayor delivered the bad news. First, she said they couldn't take the case because the lower federal courts hadn't grappled enough with the question McCrory's case raised, which is, does a person have a constitutional right not to sit in prison on junk science? But then Sotomayor offered a question of her own. What should a court do, she wrote, when faced with a 40 year old conviction resting on science that has now been wholly discredited? Other states like California and Texas, she wrote, have passed laws allowing inmates to challenge convictions based on junk science. Alabama has not, and she urged them to do so. After years of rejections and denials, Charles felt vindicated by Sotomayor's opinion.
- [39:55]
D
She lists the problems out that we've been saying all along. It was really encouraging to me for a U.S. supreme Court justice to look at this and say, you know, this case has problems. And then she says, Alabama court should have long ago addressed these things.
- [40:12]
A
So where do things stand now? Charles legal team has filed another petition in Alabama's federal district court. They're arguing that Charles is being held unconstitutionally because his conviction is based on junk science. That petition is pending. In the meantime, Charles has the support of his family, namely his two sisters and his son Chad. As I mentioned, Chad was three when his mother was killed and his father convicted of her murder. He was raised by his grandparents.
- [40:46]
D
You know, early on he was three when this happened. So of course he don't really remember anything. But as the years go by, we had asked people about, how do you handle this coming up? And everybody that we talked to said, as he gets older, he'll be asking questions. Let him ask his questions, answer his questions, and then as he gets older, he'll ask some more. And that's kind of what we did to let him form his own opinion.
- [41:09]
A
As a teenager, Chad spoke with lawyers, he reviewed the evidence and the case files, he asked his father questions, and in the end, he concluded that his dad was innocent. He's now Charles biggest supporter.
- [41:25]
D
He's the one now that's kind of my go between, you know, with Mark and so forth and other things. He's doing very well. He married, got two kids of his own and successful businesses and great wife and just some really neat grandkids. So in that regard, I'm blessed because Chad is blessed. And that's something I tell people too, is that I can sit around and mope and sulk and that wouldn't change anything. But when I see Chad doing well, my family doing well, things like that, you know, make my day go a lot better because I know they're in good shape.
- [41:55]
A
Charles McCrory is now 67 years old. His only wish, he told me, is to be with his family again, outside the prison walls. If you have information, story tips, or feedback you'd like to share with the Gone south team, please email us@gonesouthpodcastmail.com that's gonesouthpodcastmail.com for bonus content. You can follow us on Facebook, TikTok and Instagram at Gone south podcast. You can also sign up for our newsletter on substack at Gone south with Jed Lipinski. Gone south is an Odyssey original podcast. It's created, written and narrated by me, Jed Lipinski. Our executive producers are Leo Rees, Dennis, Maddy Sprung Keyser and Lloyd Lochridge. Our story editor is Katie Mingle. Gone south is edited, mixed and mastered by Chris Basel. Production support from Ian Mont and Sean Cherry. Special thanks to Maura Curran, Josephina Francis, Kurt Courtney and Hilary Schuff. Thank you for listening to Gone South. I often talk to fellow creators and small business owners about how they get their name out there. And the secret is often the same. Professional branding. Our partner, vistaprint, helps you achieve that polished look seamlessly by keeping all your custom print needs in one convenient place. We wanted to launch a listener appreciation campaign for this podcast, so we used vistaprint to create a beautiful bundle of gear. We ordered custom canvas tote bags, glossy stickers and insulated travel mugs that look and feel high end. It's amazing to see how affordable it is to get premium custom products that actually reflect the hard work you put into your business every day. From picking the right item to nailing your final design, Vistaprint has you covered. Vistaprint print your possible right now, new customers get 20% off with code new20@vistaprint.com remember, that's 20% off@vistaprint.com using code new20
- [44:18]
E
what is Toyota Affordability? It's buying smart right now. Your local Toyota dealer has great deals available on some of the most reliable trucks on the market, like the Off Road Ready Tacoma, Rugged Full Size Tundra and the legendary 4Runner, each with the space, tech and features to handle it all from the work site to the trails. It means driving for less with efficient hybrid options available, extending your overall driving range and delivering great mpg mpgs, meaning bigger savings at the pump without sacrificing power. And it means trading for more. The Tacoma and Tundra are ranked number one and number two in resale value over all vehicles, according to Kelley Blue Book, which can mean thousands more than average when it's time to trade in. That's Toyota Affordability. Buy smart, Drive for less and trade for more. Shop toyota.com or your local dealer for deals and details. Vehicles Projected resale value is specific to the 2026 model year. For more information, visit KelleyBlueBooksKBB.com Toyota Brand Average resale value is 53% versus the average vehicle at 45%. Toyota let's go places.