Murder at the Warehouse | Ep. 19 - Meeting Jake

Summary

Proof: A True Crime Podcast

Episode 19 – Murder at the Warehouse: Meeting Jake

Date: March 17, 2025
Hosts: Susan Simpson, Jacinda Davis (Red Marble Media)
Guests: Audrey McGinn (Innocence Center), Donna Ramis (victim’s mother), Kevin

---

Overview

This episode provides a critical update on the reinvestigation of the 2000 murder of Renee Ramos in Manteca, California. With Jake Silva, her boyfriend, still incarcerated for the crime, the hosts discuss progress on DNA testing that could exonerate him, the involvement of the Innocence Center, breaking developments in relationships with the victim’s family, and the emotional impact of visiting Jake in prison. The episode also illustrates the uphill legal and emotional battle facing those wrongfully convicted, as well as the ripple effects on victims' families.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Innocence Center's Involvement & DNA Testing Status

• Audrey McGinn of the Innocence Center now represents Jake Silva, focusing on overturning his conviction through new DNA testing.
• The season 2 investigation by Proof led to the Innocence Center and Northern California Innocence Project taking on Jake’s case as clients (03:04).
• Recent case developments:
  • After a September 2024 court hearing, the DA’s office in San Joaquin County agreed to allow new DNA testing of Renee’s clothing and jewelry, items which were never previously tested (06:27).
  • All evidence but one item is at a private lab for testing. The high cost and backlog mean results may come in 1–6 months (06:46–08:25).
  • The goal is to discover a redundant (repeated) DNA profile—possibly from the actual perpetrator—that could be uploaded to CODIS, the national DNA database, for a match (08:36–10:16).
• DNA testing in wrongful conviction cases has gotten both more sensitive and more expensive over the past decades (20:12–21:12). Current efforts may cost up to $30,000 given the number of items and hairs being tested.

Audrey McGinn [04:10]: "Jake's case, it was pretty clear that it was a mess from the beginning... there was no real evidence against him… if we can do DNA testing here, it could really, really help him."

Audrey McGinn [21:02]: "We expect this to cost probably $30,000... Everything you test is an opportunity to get the results that Jake needs for his case."

---

2. The Science and Significance of DNA Evidence

• With exponential advances in forensic technology since 2000, labs can now detect minuscule traces of DNA that weren’t testable at trial (04:10–06:02, 17:39–20:12).
• Redundant DNA profiles (the same DNA on multiple items) strongly suggest contact with the perpetrator vs. random or consensual contact.
• Even partial profiles not suitable for CODIS upload may be compared with profiles from alternative suspects.
• Defense attorneys can't obtain search warrants for new reference samples; DA must be involved in further testing against alternative suspects (10:48–11:03).
• DNA’s sensitivity means even precautions like wearing gloves may not prevent DNA transfer (17:27–18:53).

Audrey McGinn [18:56]: "Testing right now is super discriminatory. And of course, it degrades with time. Depending on how it was stored...and I don't want to...mean that DNA testing is so sensitive that anybody who touched her's DNA will be on her necessarily. It just means it's possible..."

---

3. Legal Logistics and Barriers

• Post-conviction DNA testing faces delays because:

  • There’s no constitutional right to a speedy process after trial; pretrial cases take precedence at labs (07:24–08:08).
  • Funding is limited unless taken on by pro bono organizations like the Innocence Center, which depends on grants and donations (22:16).

• Access to case files is restricted by California law; Jake’s lawyers only recently obtained trial file discovery, allowing for deeper forensic review (15:13).

Audrey McGinn [08:08]: "It is the most hard waiting time...the evidence is at the lab...it literally could Be any day."

---

4. Ty Lopes: The Co-defendant

• Ty Lopes, who died in prison, was convicted based on the same questionable evidence as Jake.
• If DNA proves wrongful conviction, Ty’s family may be eligible for posthumous exoneration, if lawyers step forward to take up his case (16:04–16:47).

---

5. The Emotional Toll: Visiting Jake in Prison

• Jacinda and Kevin’s Visit: They describe visiting Jake at RJ Donovan Prison, where Jake has not had non-lawyer visitors in nearly a decade (24:27–25:42).
• Jake is isolated; most family are gone and the prison is far from his former home.
• The hosts grapple with the pain of seeing someone they believe innocent locked away, and comment on the emotional numbness and guarded hope that Jake has developed.

Jacinda Davis [26:46]: "So we just got out of our visit with Jake and I am kind of at a loss for words. It was so good to see him in person and to hug him, but it was also really sad and depressing."

Kevin [27:18]: "He's angry, rightfully so, that he's still there 25 years later. And I think it's hard for him to hear us say, stay hopeful and you're almost there and we're getting closer...because he's living it."

Jacinda Davis [27:37]: "He goes, it's...I get used to being in limbo. You get used to it."

---

6. A Surprising Connection: Jake and Renee’s Mother

• Donna Ramis, Renee’s mother, shocked even herself by reaching out to Jake after season 2 aired and exchanging letters and video calls (29:22–35:15).
• Donna describes being moved by the new information in the podcast, coming to believe Jake’s innocence, and feeling like “a big weight has been lifted.”
• Their relationship has become unexpectedly supportive, with both expressing gratitude for the connection despite the pain.

Donna Ramis [30:10–31:09]: "We were both just crying together. It was just really emotional.... I just let him know that I really thought he was innocent... I wanted to just let him know that I was on his side, that we were rooting for him and praying for him."

Donna Ramis [33:55]: "I feel like a big weight has been lifted off my chest because all these years, I really wanted to talk to him...but I never really reached out because I thought he was guilty...if it wasn't for you and Susan and Kevin, this probably would never have happened."

---

7. What Comes Next

• The host team and Jake’s attorneys are waiting for DNA results, which could take months but are a crucial next step.
• Depending on the results, they hope to move forward with legal action and possibly identify alternate suspects.
• Even with new DNA evidence, legal and procedural hurdles remain before Jake can potentially be released or exonerated.

Susan Simpson [26:27]: "...no matter what those results are, that won't be the end of Jake's journey...but we may soon be a whole lot closer to getting answers to what happened to Renee 25 years ago."

---

Memorable Quotes

• Audrey McGinn [04:10]: “It was pretty clear that it was a mess from the beginning... and that there was no real evidence against him.”
• Audrey McGinn [08:08]: “It is the most hard waiting time is when you know the evidence is at the lab and you could get testing results back at any time. It literally could be any day.”
• Donna Ramis [30:10]: “We were both just crying together. It was just really emotional...I really thought he was innocent...I was on his side, that we were rooting for him and praying for him.”
• Jacinda Davis [27:37]: “He goes, it's...I get used to being in limbo. You get used to it.”

---

Important Timestamps

• [03:04] - Audrey McGinn describes how she learned of Jake’s case and decision to take it on.
• [06:27] - Current status of DNA testing, evidence at the lab.
• [08:08] - Why post-conviction DNA testing is slow and hard.
• [10:16] - Explanation of CODIS and DNA profile requirements.
• [15:13] - Update on new discovery and forensic review.
• [17:27] - Discussion on possibility of DNA lingering despite gloves or precautions.
• [21:02] - Cost of DNA testing and funding barriers.
• [22:16] - Innocence Center’s funding sources and pro bono work.
• [24:27 – 26:46] - Jacinda and Kevin’s emotional account of visiting Jake in prison.
• [29:22 – 35:15] - Donna Ramis recounts connecting with Jake and her journey toward believing his innocence.

---

Tone & Style

The episode maintains a deeply human, empathetic tone even as it addresses complex forensic and legal concepts. The hosts are transparent about their emotions, setbacks, uncertainties, and the gravity of wrongful convictions. Guest voices, particularly Audrey and Donna, inject both hope and heartbreak, making the stakes of the case extremely tangible.

---

Summary Takeaway

Episode 19 is a moving, detail-rich bridge between the ongoing legal fight for Jake Silva’s exoneration and the personal realities behind wrongful convictions. It highlights the technical promise and emotional peril of DNA testing, the bureaucratic and financial obstacles in post-conviction justice, and the remarkable healing that can emerge—even decades later—between a grieving mother and the man once thought to be her daughter's killer. The episode underscores the podcast's driving belief: perseverance, transparency, and compassion can surface the truth, even after a quarter-century.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey, Sal. Hank, what's going on? We haven't worked a case in years. I just bought my car at Carvana and it was so easy. Too easy. Think something's up? You tell me. They got thousands of options, found a great car at a great price, and it got delivered the next day. It sounds like Carvana just makes it easy to buy your car, Hank. Yeah, you're right. Case closed.

[B]

Buy your car today on Carvana.

[C]

Delivery fees may apply.

[B]

This episode is brought to you by Peloton Break through the busiest time of year with the brand new Peloton Cross Training Tread Plus. Powered by Peloton iq. With real time guidance and endless ways to move, you can personalize your workouts and train with confidence, helping you reach your goals in less time. Let yourself run, lift, sculpt, push and go. Explore the new peloton cross training tread [e-mail].

[C]

There is no greater high as a lawyer than overturning someone's conviction and seeing them walk out of prison to meet their family and loved ones and regain their life. It's just such a long struggle. And those days when it finally does happen are the best days.

[D]

That's Audrey McGinn, a senior attorney with the Innocence center in San Diego, California. Following season two of Proof, the Innocence center, along with the Northern California Innocence Project, decided to take Jake on as a client. They now represent him in seeking to have his wrongful conviction overturned, and they hope that one day in the hopefully not too distant future, Jake too can be one of the clients they get to watch walk out of prison. Recently, Kevin and Jacinda were out in California and met with Audrey to talk to her about where Jake's case is. Now, in this update episode Of Proof Season 2, you'll hear about what's going on in this case and about the DNA testing and why we're hopeful that an even bigger update is just around the corner. I'm Susan Simpson and I'm here with a special Update on season two of Proof. In season two, we covered the murder of 18 year old Renee Ramis in Manteca, California, 24 years ago. Now her boyfriend, Jake Silva was arrested for her murder along with Tai Lopes, the uncle of one of Jake's friends. Proof is a red marble media production in association with Glassbox Media. Kevin and Jacinda's recent meeting with Audrey was their first time meeting her in person, though I'd actually met her before last year when I basically cornered her in a hotel lobby and did my best to convince her to take on Jake's case.

[B]

When did you first hear about Jake's case?

[C]

I first heard about Jake's case at the Innocence Conference for the Innocence Network in New Orleans. My boss came up to me and said, you have to meet Susan. She has this amazing case. And Susan came up to me and we had a drink.

[B]

Are you sure your boss didn't come up and say, there's these annoying girls.

[C]

I'm the one who gets assigned all the DNA cases. And we knew there was going to be a DNA angle here. And I'm not going to lie that Susan and I had a great time at the conference. I remember a brown drink in a short class.

[B]

So we should note that we are. Kevin, we're actually here in person with you, meeting for the first time, which is very exciting. Susan cannot be here because she's recently had a baby. So I know she wishes she could be here. So Susan pitches you this case and I'm sure obviously you did your own research. What stood out to you about Jake's case?

[C]

Jake's case, it was pretty clear that it was a mess from the beginning, that Josh had no credibility and that was seemed to be the linchpin of the case and that there was no real evidence against him. And in a lot of these cases, especially now that we're in 2025, a lot of the DNA cases, the EZ DNA cases have dried up. They were able to do DNA testing at trial. So we're not able to get cases where we can maybe do some DNA testing now to show who the real perpetrator is. And Jake's case is one of those that we're like, oh my gosh, if we can do DNA testing here, it could really, really help him. That jointly with the mess of all the other evidence could just really be pivotal for him.

[B]

Yeah, it does seem like, I don't want to call it a sweet spot, but it does seem like there's this kind of between like 1990 and 2000 maybe, where there's a lot of DNA wrongful conviction stuff going on.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Like, just as DNA is becoming more prevalent and people are starting to understand it more, I guess I'm not sure.

[C]

I think it was really costly. And so if the district attorney's office and the police thought that they could get a conviction without having to do it, I think it was good. I think they did it in really high profile cases. But otherwise, if they thought that they could convict without it, then they didn't seek further DNA testing. And even when they did it was not very discriminatory. They needed large samples to be able to get any meaningful results. And so cases like this, they did some DNA testing and he was found on her clothes. But that wasn't surprising at the time because they knew each other and were in a really intimate relationship. After 2005, it seems like they were really doing some heavy DNA testing whenever they could because juries love it after CSI and all that nonsense.

[B]

So at the Innocence center where you work, are you exclusively DNA cases or you take all?

[C]

Nope.

[B]

Okay.

[C]

There's only three of us on the litigation team currently. We would love to have more lawyers doing it. We've all kind of taken little specialties and I'm assigned a lot of different types of cases, but I am kind of the DNA consultant in the office.

[D]

Following a court hearing In September of 2024, the DA's office in San Joaquin county agreed to allow Jake to submit evidence in his case for new DNA testing, including Renee's clothing and her necklaces, which have never before been tested. And all that evidence is now at the lab awaiting DNA testing.

[C]

All of the evidence, except for one piece is at the lab. They have to catalog all the evidence and kind of sort through it and do some presumptive tests, especially for like items of clothing, because the DNA testing that we have these days is so discriminatory that they have to take little samples from the items of clothing and stuff. And so they have done that cataloging yet, but we have not gotten any results. We're hoping for some results in the next 1, 2, 3 months of whether they or not they were able to get a profile from the evidence that was sent to the lab.

[B]

And so help us understand why it takes so long.

[C]

In post conviction cases, there are no longer constitutional speedy trial rights. And so in any case, pre trial is going to come first. Sadly, we are at a private lab and they are obviously a for profit lab and they just have a huge backlog of cases and we can try to expedite it, but everybody asks for expedited testing and these things just take forever. And especially in Jake's case when there are many, many items that we're seeking to test and the items have been in storage for a long time. The lab has just like a lot of policies that they need to do that take a long time. Right.

[B]

So it is a matter of just time and being patient.

[C]

It is the most hard waiting time is when you know the evidence is at the lab and you could get testing results back at any time. It literally could Be any day.

[B]

Right.

[C]

We just don't know. And any day could be six months from. I can't rush them.

[B]

What's the process? It doesn't end there, though. Let's say you get a call from the lab tomorrow and they're like, okay, we have the results, then what? What are we looking at timeline wise?

[C]

The results will come back in a report. Sometimes they call us with preliminary results, but they'll write an official report. We're hoping that the testing comes back with the same profile on multiple items. And they call that a redundant profile on various items. That means it's not just a rogue profile from somebody sneezing on her or somebody hugging her a week ago if she was wearing that shirt. So a redundant profile where we believe the perpetrator would have touched is ideal. And having that be a singular male profile would be amazing. And then we would have to seek further litigation for them to upload it into codis.

[A]

Can you just explain what the CODIS database is for people who might not know?

[C]

There's statewide and nationwide DNA database where they store people's profiles. For example, here in California, anybody arrested for a felony over the past several years. I can't remember when that legislation took effect, but anybody arrested for a felony, they will take their DNA sample and upload it to codis. And there are really stringent requirements on what profiles later can be uploaded to be searched. And so you have to make sure that it is the perpetrator profile, because we don't want to be uploading victim profiles into the database. Right. And it has to be a good enough profile to upload in there. So if we get results of only a partial profile, those are not uploadable into codis.

[B]

So there's a benchmark. It has to meet certain.

[A]

There's got to be certain enough good DNA from the. From the evidence to be able to search it.

[C]

Correct? Yeah. Yep. That doesn't mean it can't be compared. If we have other known suspects. And so if. Then we could convince the DA's office, like, listen, if it's a partial profile, we don't know who it is. We can't upload it into codis. Why don't we get some reference sample from some other known suspects and compare it to them. We could still do that, and we have some other good suspects in this case to try to do that. But if it isn't them, then we're just.

[B]

And where does that.

[C]

It's a different game, like, legally, is.

[B]

That something that I don't know, do you need like a search warrant or probable cause?

[C]

We wouldn't be able to do it. The DA's office or one of their investigators could do it. We could have them voluntarily. We could go ask them to voluntarily submit a sample.

[B]

Okay.

[C]

They don't have to. I don't have the ability to get a search warrant. As a private defense attorney, Even public defenders can't get that. The DA's office or the sheriff's department or somebody could get that. And I think in this case, hopefully they would be motivated to do that. Right.

[B]

So it's a long. Could be a long road ahead.

[C]

It could be a long road ahead.

[A]

The DNA results come in and then as an attorney, you decide what's going to happen after that. Because you could speculate all day long. You just don't know until you get the right results.

[C]

Right.

[D]

This summer, when Jacinda and I were investigating out in the field, we basically both lived in Quint's clothes.

[B]

It is so true. I think everything I packed came from quints.

[D]

Luckily, I wear color and you don't, so we didn't end up being twinsies, which would've been awkward, but, you know.

[B]

Oh, you don't wanna be twinsies with me, Susan?

[D]

No, I prefer to have colors other than grayscale.

[B]

Well, it's good you have quints then, because they have both black stuff for me and colorful stuff for you.

[D]

The problem is it is now cold as heck and we need new clothes to go out in the field or I'm not going.

[B]

Well, go back to quints. I just ordered some cashmere sweaters that are super warm and super comfortable.

[D]

That's funny because I'm actually literally about to buy the Mongolian cashmere sweatshirt.

[B]

You should totally do that. I splurged and I got my husband the Mongolian cashmere pullover hoodie, which is really nice.

[D]

And you're going to steal it, I'm sure.

[B]

I was going to say I'm going to start wearing it for myself.

[D]

Quince is all about elevated essentials that feel effortless. They're designed for layering and mixing, and each piece helps build a timeless wardrobe made to last winter or summer.

[B]

And Quince works directly with safe ethical factories and cuts out the middlemen. So you're not paying the brand markup, just high quality clothing.

[D]

Refresh your wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.comproo for free shipping on your order and and 365 day returns now available in Canada too.

[B]

That's Q-U I N C.com proof to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quint.com proof.

[D]

So we're obviously in the middle of the podcast season now. Things get hectic and sometimes trying to figure out and shop for dinner is the bane of my existence.

[B]

I think shopping and planning for dinner is the bane of your existence on any day. But yes, especially during the middle of our podcast season, I do not have.

[D]

The emotional bandwidth or labor to be able to plan out healthy meals. Which is why Green Chef is amazing.

[B]

I agree. If it wasn't for Green Chef, I don't think we'd be eating dinner at night.

[D]

We would not have eaten last night. But we had salmon and couscous and it was hands down the best couscous I've ever had in my life.

[B]

It's funny because I had the same one yesterday and it was really good. It was so good. So if you're like us and finding time to make meals and planning is a nuisance, or you just want to eat healthy, try Green Chef.

[D]

With Green Chef you can trust every bite with over 40 clean, customizable weekly recipes designed to give you peace of.

[B]

Mind and you can reach your wellness goals with options like Mediterranean, high protein, high fiber, plant based and more.

[D]

My wellness goal is not starving to death. So right now go to greenchef.com proofgraza and use code proofgraza to get started with 50% off Green Chef plus free Graza olive oil set in your second and third boxes. This 50 off offer is only available for a limited time, so don't wait. That's code [e-mail] proofgraza. One thing Jake's attorneys have done in the meantime, though, while waiting for DNA results to get back, is to file a discovery motion requesting access to the trial file in his case. That's something that we weren't able to obtain when we were investigating Jake's case due to California's restrictive laws regarding public access to case records. But now that Jake has counsel, his lawyers were able to get access to that file.

[C]

So we just got a lot of that discovery from the District Attorney's office and we're going through it and have found a medical examiner to go through and see if it's even medically possible for the crime to have occurred the way Josh describes it. For example, we have had a consult with a forensic entomologist, which is essentially a forensic bug doctor, but what they needed was better photos of the crime scene and better photos of any of the insect evidence on the body from the time, and we just didn't have those photos to be able to give them. And even now, if they don't have the opportunity to inspect a body at the time and collect that evidence themselves, it's difficult. But we're trying to pursue everything that we can with while we're waiting in case we need it.

[B]

So another question we get is about Ty and what options his family has, if any. And I know you don't represent Ty or his family, but are there options for them?

[C]

I mean, I'm really hoping the DNA results come back in a really conclusive way, that the DA's office is persuaded that this was a wrongful conviction for both, not only Jake, but for Ty. In an ideal world, that would mean a posthumous exoneration for Ty. Also, I haven't really explored an option because I'm not Ty's attorney, but if it could help him and help his family in some sort of closure, that would be amazing. Yeah.

[B]

So if any lawyers are listening and have the time and would like to take on a case.

[C]

Yeah, for sure. And we have a ton of contacts who would be able to do that also. And we might be able to do it jointly, depending on how the results come back. But Lauren and I are doing our best to go through the case file, which is extremely large, go through all the witness interviews that you all have done, and seeing what we can do in the meantime, while we're waiting for DNA results to be ready to kind of hit the ground running if they're not what we want them to be. Right. And then this case is just really interesting because it's not gonna be surprising at all if Jake shows up on any of these cases.

[B]

Yeah, it'd be surprising if he doesn't show up in a way.

[C]

Right? Yeah.

[A]

It's. Who else shows up?

[C]

Who else shows up? And if it's just Jake, that still doesn't mean that he did this. It just means that the other. That the person who did this didn't leave any DNA behind.

[B]

Whoever did it could have been wearing gloves.

[C]

Yep. Even then, like, I just filed a DNA motion today in a different case, and I got an expert declaration because in that case, the perpetrator was wearing gloves and a condom, strangely. And in that case, I was able to talk to some DNA experts, and the act of putting on the gloves can leave your own DNA on the outside of the gloves. So when you touch somebody else can leave trace amounts of DNA. Also, the act of putting on a condom can leave DNA on the outside of the condom that could then be transferred to someone else, whether it's a victim or a consensual partner or whomever. And so that doesn't mean there isn't DNA on the gloves, because you can touch your face after putting on gloves. You can touch your hair, you touch outside of parts of your clothes. If you sneeze into your gloves, there's a ton of saliva and DNA on that. And so you'll leave behind less DNA than probably than bare hands. But it doesn't mean that there won't be DNA even if the person used gloves. I mean, the DNA right now is just so crazy. There's cases now where if you just take a shirt and you don't touch the surface of a table, you just kind of shake the shirt over the table, that. That your DNA could be on the table.

[B]

Really? Yes. That sensitive?

[C]

Yes.

[B]

Wow.

[C]

Testing right now is super discriminatory. And of course, it degrades with time. Right. Depending on how it was stored, depending on how it was left, depending on what happened to that evidence after the DNA was put there. And I don't want to. I don't want anyone to interpret this as meaning that DNA testing is so sensitive that anybody who touched her's DNA will be on her necessarily. It just means it's possible that the person who touched her.

[B]

It's possible that even if the perpetrator took precautions, that, yes, they would still show up.

[C]

Yes.

[B]

And they would. Right.

[C]

Not as likely, but possible. Yeah.

[D]

DNA testing is a lot more sensitive than it was 25 years ago when this crime occurred. That opens up a lot of new possibilities for Jake. And the first step for the lab is to figure out what parts of the evidence testing needs to be focused on.

[C]

So that's like what the lab is doing now. So they'll go through and see where there's the highest concentration of DNA. And for clothing, especially, because they think that she might have been sexually assaulted in this case, they'll take the cuttings from the clothes, from the places that are most likely to have left perpetrator DNA.

[D]

Okay.

[C]

Or, for example, if they're trying to do DNA testing from a shirt, I have another case where the shooter discarded their shirt while fleeing a crime scene. And so, like on a shirt, the likelihood of higher quantities of DNA in certain spots of the shirt. And they call it wearer's DNA. Like, it's not the technical, but just kind of like the common term. So around your neck is where it rubs on your collars, on your armpits.

[B]

I was Gonna say armpits.

[C]

Yeah. And in sexual assaults, like the hem of a shirt where somebody would have pulled up buttons on pants where they would have taken pants off. So they'll look at those places first and do some presumptive sampling to see if there's quantities of DNA, to see if it's a good spot for DNA testing. Because every spot that we test cost thousands of dollars.

[B]

Oh, wow.

[C]

Yeah. Wow. Yeah. I mean, we expect this to cost probably $30,000. Wow.

[B]

I didn't realize it was that much.

[A]

It's a scary figure. And it's so cost prohibitive. And you all have to pay for it. That's how you get the state to.

[C]

We've offered to pay for it.

[A]

Right. That's because it's easier to get the state to agree to the testing if you're paying for it.

[C]

Right. Otherwise, you claim that you're indigent and that the state will pay for it, but then they're really choosy about what they're going to allow you. Right.

[B]

They might not test as much.

[C]

They might not test as many things. And in this case, there are many hairs. And so every hair that you test costs money.

[E]

Wow.

[A]

And everything you test is an opportunity to get the results that Jake needs for his case.

[C]

Yeah. And so we're testing everything. Everything that we can test, we are testing. And again, we're hoping for a redundant profile between a bunch of the items to show that this isn't a rogue profile.

[D]

Most defendants in wrongful conviction cases can't afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars for DNA testing, let alone for the attorneys required to seek such testing in the first place. Jake is no exception to that. Without groups like the Innocent center that take on such cases pro bono, there'd be no way for him or for others in his position to ever challenge their convictions.

[C]

We are grant and private donation funded. If you are interested in doing that, go to the innocencecentcentcenter.org, we would love your donations, especially in these times where we don't know if we'll be able to continue having federal funding like we have depended on for the past 20 years. So we depend on private donations and then state and federal grants to be able to do this work without having to charge any of our clients any money.

[B]

Well, it was very nice to finally meet you and carry you guys, too.

[C]

You guys, too.

[B]

And thank you so much for taking Jake's case and keeping us updated and can't wait for that phone call to come with the news.

[C]

I know. And I hope it's soon.

[B]

I do too. We all have that dream trip we've.

[E]

Been wishing we could go on.

[B]

But too often, life or usually price gets in the way. That's why Priceline is here to help you turn your dream trip into reality. With up to 60% off hotels and up to 50% 50% off flights, you can book everything you need for your next adventure. Don't just dream about that next trip, book it with Priceline. Download the Priceline app or visit priceline.com and book your next trip today.

[C]

Go to your happy price Priceline Building.

[A]

Remodeling or updating your home. Don't miss the Regional Home and Garden Show February 13th through the 15th at.

[C]

The Happo center in Pasco.

[A]

Find the ideas and experts you need as you explore two buildings packed with more than 200 exhibitors. Admission is $9 for adults, no charge for kids under 12. Readmission and parking are free all weekend. Learn [e-mail] presented by the Home Builders association with sponsors Yakima Federal Savings and Loan and Non Stop Local.

[D]

Jake's attorney, Audrey McGinn was not the only person that Kevin and Jacinda were able to meet with on their recent trip out to California. There was someone else that they were finally able to visit as well.

[B]

Kevin and I are at the RJ Donovan Prison in Southern California and we are sitting here in the car waiting until it is our time to go in to visit Jake.

[A]

And this prison is literally at the end of the day, Earth. You pass the US Mexico border wall on your way into the prison and somehow makes it even more depressing.

[B]

It does make it depressing. It's such a weird thing cuz, you know, we're sitting here in the parking lot and what we see is barbed wire fences and palm trees. Right. And when you think of palm trees, you think of paradise. And this is so far from paradise.

[A]

Yeah, this is not paradise. Happy and excited to finally meet Jake face to face.

[B]

Yeah, the first time I spoke to Jake on the phone, we were still in the midst of doing Proof Season 1.

[A]

Yeah, it's been a number of years and happy to finally meet him, but I believe that this is the first time he's had a visitor at the prison other than a lawyer in over a decade.

[B]

Unfortunately, most of Jake's family is gone and it's so far away from where his life was.

[A]

Yeah, I mean it's a good sort of eight, nine hour drive from Antika.

[B]

Yeah, it's bittersweet. I'm excited to see him, but I wish I was seeing him walking out the doors.

[A]

Yes. I think it'll be a tough visit in many ways.

[B]

Alright, you ready?

[D]

Kevin's math was wrong there, but not by much. It had actually been nine years since Jake last had a non attorney visit and in all that time he's only had one attorney visit. That was last year when new attorneys came to see him. So Jacinda and Kevin having a chance to meet with him in person was a big deal for Jake. Unfortunately, the California prison system does not allow recording in person with specific inmates. So Jacinda and Kevin were not able to record anything with Jake for the podcast, but they were able to speak with him for a few hours.

[B]

So we just got out of our visit with Jake and I am kind of at a loss for words. It was so good to see him in person and to hug him, but it was also really sad and depressing.

[A]

Yeah. Because you know that he shouldn't be inside and he is. And although we're doing everything we can to help change that, I think he was really happy to see us. But it's also sad for him.

[E]

Right.

[A]

It's painful for him, I think too.

[B]

It's painful for him and he's angry, rightfully so, that he's still there 25 years later. And I think it's hard for him to hear us say, stay hopeful and you're almost there and we're getting closer. Like he, he doesn't want to hear that because he's living it.

[A]

Yeah. You know, he said something to me towards the end, which, he goes, it's. He goes. I. I get used to being in limbo. You get used to it. So I think that's his like, mechanism. Like he doesn't get too hopeful. It was great to see him. It was, it was hard, you know?

[B]

Yeah, it was really hard. And it was hard to leave.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

Because we don't know when we'll see him again.

[A]

And so we'll try and get back and see him soon and you know, hopefully he's getting closer to the day where he can walk out the door.

[B]

Yeah, I think we sound very like down and depressed. But Jake, you know, it seems like he's doing okay.

[A]

You know, we had a really good time talking to him and we had a lot of laughs. But it's also, you know, it's emotionally tough for him and.

[B]

And it's emotionally tough for us too. Like we know the truth, right? We know the truth. And so seeing him behind bars is so painful. Like it seems like it should be such a simple solution. At some point over the course of our reporting, we become responsible, or I.

[A]

Feel like I become responsible because nobody else has been. And you know, I think that's why we, we take these on you and I know it full well now that's what happened with Lee and Cain and that's what happened with Jeff. Now it's what's happening with Jake and you start to feel responsible. That's right. But everybody have a good thought for Jake and hopefully we're going to have some legal updates on his case soon.

[D]

Because Jake's prison is so far away from home, it had been a long time since he had any visitors. But he told Jacinta and Kevin that after season two of Proof aired, people from his old life, Manteca, had begun reaching out to him, including one person he'd been very surprised to hear from. Renee's mother, Donna Ramis. After getting back from California, Jacinda caught up with Donna to hear from her what that had been like. Donna said that a few months after the podcast aired, she'd written to Jake and had exchanged some letters. And then before long, she did something that she never imagined she'd find herself wanting to do. She arranged for a video visit with the man who was convicted of her daughter's murder.

[E]

Him and I talked to each other and the first day he called me on the, you know, on the video call.

[B]

Uh huh.

[E]

We were both just crying together. It was just really emotional. We've had several video calls since probably the end of January.

[B]

Wow. So what was your letter to him back in May? What, what did you want to say to him?

[E]

Oh, I just let him know that I listened to the podcast and I was just overwhelmed by everything that all of the information that came out and, and that I'm gonna start crying. I cry every time I think about it, but I just let him know that I was, you know, I really thought he was innocent, that I was. All these years have gone by and I, you know, I didn't, you know, I thought he was guilty of, of murdering Renee and I wanted to just let him know that I was on his side, that we were rooting for him and praying for him. It makes me emotional. I'm sorry.

[B]

No, don't be sorry. It is. Don't be sorry.

[D]

I cry.

[E]

I cry just thinking about it. But yeah, so yeah, I wrote the letter and then he wrote me back. He said, sorry it took so long. He was very shocked when he got my letter. He just said he Just cried for days, rereading it and looking at it, and then he finally wrote me back. You know, I'm really glad that him and I are. Are able to talk.

[B]

How Does Jake sound 25 years later? Does he sound the same to you?

[E]

I never really talked to him 25 years ago. I really never had any conversations with him.

[B]

Right.

[E]

So when I heard his voice, you know, for the first time on the podcast last year, when the podcast came out, that was, like, the first time I listened to his voice. Right back when he was dating Renee, I really never had any conversations with him. We never really. We were able to. We didn't really hang out together because, of course, I didn't like him, and Renee knew I didn't like him, so he didn't really come around me very often.

[B]

And I'm sure talking to Jake now brings back a lot of stuff, you know, with Renee as well.

[E]

Yeah. Yeah. I like it because I feel like him and I have this connection that we probably had for a long time but just didn't know it, you know?

[B]

Yeah.

[E]

I just. We have a good connection. A good. I don't know if he said anything, how he felt when he talked to me, but I feel like we're. We're friends.

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

Yeah.

[E]

He looks a lot different now. He's big. He's got tattoos all over. And, you know, I saw the picture when he sent me the picture of him, and I said, wow, you know, he's. He looks a lot different than he did back in. When he was 18. He's just bigger all the way around. And he was tall and thin, like a skater. He was tall and thin. He didn't have any fat on him back then, and he's big now, but his head is really what I was like, wow, he's got tattoos. All his whole head is tattooed.

[B]

I think part of that is, you know, for protection. He bulked up, and he's strong, and he said something to us about the way he looks and how he became the monster everyone thought he was physically. Like, he made himself the monster everyone thought he was. Yeah.

[E]

And, yeah, that's sad. Yeah. Well, I mean, he spent his whole adult life in. In prison.

[B]

Are you glad you reached out to him? Are you glad you've renewed this?

[C]

Or.

[B]

I guess not. Renewed is not even the right word. Are you glad you're building this friendship? Friendship?

[D]

Yes.

[E]

Yes. I have this feeling, like. How do you explain it? Like, I feel like a big weight has been lifted off my chest because all these years, I really wanted to talk to him. You know, I, I really deep down wanted to, but then I, I never really reached out because I thought he was guilty. But deep, even though I knew he was guilty, all these years I felt like he was guilty. I still wanted to reach out. And some, something inside of me wanted to just talk to him or just see him. I think years ago, I think I remember one time I said something to, I think I said something to my daughter. I said I'd, like just go see him and just like go see him someday. But I just never, I never like reached out to try to do it.

[B]

Yeah.

[E]

So due to the podcast, this is, I mean, if it wasn't for you and Susan and Kevin, this probably would never have happened, you know.

[B]

Well, I'm glad that, I'm glad that it's helpful and that you feel like the weight's been lifted a little bit and.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

And I hope we can get Jake out.

[E]

Oh, I hope so. Yeah. We're all hoping.

[B]

We're all hoping.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

We don't know when the call is going to come in from the lab with the news that DNA testing has been completed. And no matter what those results are, that won't be the end of Jake's journey. Even if we do find out that someone's DNA has been recovered from the evidence, then the process will begin to find out whose DNA it is. But we may soon be a whole lot closer to getting answers to what happened to Renee 25 years ago. And when that happens, we'll be back to update you.

[B]

You've been listening to Proof, a podcast by Red Marble Media in association with Glasses Box Media. Send us your questions and [e-mail] follow us everywhere with the handle roofcrimepod and on our website, proofcrimepod.com thanks so much for listening.

[C]

If you're the purchasing manager at a.

[A]

Manufacturing plant, you know having a trusted partner makes all the difference. That's why, hands down, you count on Grainger for auto reordering. With on time restocks, your team will have the cut resistant gloves they need at the start of their shift and you can end your day knowing they've got safety well in hand. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.