August 29, 2013
How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

During nearly 25 years as a reporter at the Chicago Tribune, I received hundreds of requests for help from convicted defendants. None was more compelling than the hand-printed letter from Daniel Taylor, a 25-year-old inmate at Stateville Penitentiary in Joliet, Illinois. In neat block letters, Daniel explained that he was serving a life sentence without parole for a double murder in Chicago in 1992. Even though Daniel had given a court-reported confession, he said he was innocent and he had police records that proved it.
The letter was addressed to Steve Mills, my reporting partner on numerous stories about wrongful conviction. When Steve brought it to my desk, I was as intrigued—and skeptical—as he was. Why had this man confessed? How had he been convicted? Was he delusional about what the police records really showed?
But Daniel’s timing was fortuitous. It was the summer of 2001, and Steve and I, along with fellow reporter Ken Armstrong, were deep into an investigation of false and coerced confessions in the city of Chicago. Perhaps, we thought, Daniel’s case would provide a window into a world we suspected—and later proved—existed: a world where defendants were said to have confessed to crimes they did not commit.
Read more. [Image courtesy of Maurice Possley]

How Two Newspaper Reporters Helped Free an Innocent Man

During nearly 25 years as a reporter at the Chicago Tribune, I received hundreds of requests for help from convicted defendants. None was more compelling than the hand-printed letter from Daniel Taylor, a 25-year-old inmate at Stateville Penitentiary in Joliet, Illinois. In neat block letters, Daniel explained that he was serving a life sentence without parole for a double murder in Chicago in 1992. Even though Daniel had given a court-reported confession, he said he was innocent and he had police records that proved it.

The letter was addressed to Steve Mills, my reporting partner on numerous stories about wrongful conviction. When Steve brought it to my desk, I was as intrigued—and skeptical—as he was. Why had this man confessed? How had he been convicted? Was he delusional about what the police records really showed?

But Daniel’s timing was fortuitous. It was the summer of 2001, and Steve and I, along with fellow reporter Ken Armstrong, were deep into an investigation of false and coerced confessions in the city of Chicago. Perhaps, we thought, Daniel’s case would provide a window into a world we suspected—and later proved—existed: a world where defendants were said to have confessed to crimes they did not commit.

Read more. [Image courtesy of Maurice Possley]

  1. streetcornerlove reblogged this from theatlantic
  2. daveyboygoliath reblogged this from theatlantic
  3. anindiscriminatecollection reblogged this from theatlantic
  4. noteaforme reblogged this from mountainpass
  5. ashwindle reblogged this from kasuchi
  6. kasuchi reblogged this from broadlybrazen
  7. laurellas reblogged this from fuckyeahdiomedes
  8. fuckyeahdiomedes reblogged this from broadlybrazen
  9. misterracoon reblogged this from broadlybrazen and added:
    read it and weep.
  10. broadlybrazen reblogged this from theatlantic
  11. injuriosa reblogged this from theatlantic
  12. ednapontellier reblogged this from truth-has-a-liberal-bias
  13. isagrimorie reblogged this from ruedesarchives
  14. ruedesarchives reblogged this from pasunepomme
  15. pasunepomme reblogged this from fallintoyourarmstonight
  16. thereissomegood reblogged this from randomactsofchaos
  17. byappointmentonly reblogged this from theatlantic
  18. ignum reblogged this from poeticallyflowing
  19. ertum reblogged this from loloharla
  20. loloharla reblogged this from miss-revolt
  21. miss-revolt reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president
  22. laddiemort reblogged this from findingmydreamlands
  23. grey-sloan-memorial reblogged this from reagan-was-a-horrible-president