Reasonable Doubt

In 2023, Bachelor Star Clayton Eckerd was accused of fathering twins, but the pregnancy appeared to be a hoax.

“"You doctor this particular test twice in silence, right?"”

"I doctor the test once." It took an army of internet detectives to uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. "I'm like a lesbian, I can't imagine it." "My mind was blown.

I'm Stephanie Young. This is LoveTrap." "Lora, scouts their police."

As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences.

Listen to LoveTrap podcast on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. When a group of women discover that they've all dated the same prolific con artist. They take matters into their own hands. I vowed.

I will be his last target. He is not going to get away with this. He's going to get what he deserves.

“"We always say that trust your girlfriends, listen to the girlfriends, trust me babe,”

on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts." Bloodtrills is a true crime podcast born in the outdoors, where the terrain is unforgiving,

the evidence is scarce, and the truth gets buried under brush and silence.

"I've seen something in the road I just laid off was sleeping that there was a full of blood. Somebody somewhere, no shelter." I'm Jordan Sillers. Season two is out now with new episodes every Thursday.

Listen on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On paper, the three hosts of the Nick Dick & Paul show are geniuses. We can explain how AI works, data centers, but there are certain things that we don't necessarily understand. Better version of PlayStupid Games when stupid prizes.

Yes.

Which, by the way, wasn't Taylor Swift who said that for the first time.

I thought it was. I got that wrong. But hey, no one's perfect. We're pretty close, though. Listen to the Nick Dick & Paul show on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever

you get your podcasts. Before we begin, please be aware. This episode contains discussions around infant deaths and other difficult topics. Please take care while listening. Certainty has a reputation for being the finish line.

Whether that's an accriminal trial or a scientific study. You gather evidence, you form a hypothesis, you test it, you doubt it, you stress it from every angle, and only then, if it survives, do you arrive at certainty. There's an old scientific principle that says extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's supposed to be the order of things.

The more explosive the accusation, the more incontrovertible the proof. But in emotionally explosive cases, especially those involving children, something shifts. Certainty can stop behaving like the end result of careful analysis and start behaving more like a social ritual.

Here's what I mean. When something horrifying happens, ambiguity feels intolerable. It feels unsafe, so we reach for narrative closure. The media reaches for a coherent villain, politicians reach for reassurance, institutions reach for control, and slowly, certainty begins to function less like a recent position, and more

like a place of belonging. The narrative about me as a psychopathic sex-craised femme fatale, hardened in the tabloids

“long before appeals courts dismantled key forensic assumptions.”

The certainty was loud. The evidence was not. Now that doesn't mean every high-profile conviction is wrong, what it does mean is that sometimes the volume of certainty exceeds the foundation of evidence beneath it. And when that happens, doubt becomes socially dangerous.

People who ask procedural questions are treated as sympathizers, journalists who probe inconsistencies are framed as insensitive, experts who disagree are accused of undermining victims. The signal shifts from here is why we believe this to everyone decent believes this.

From a psychological standpoint, this is deeply human.

“Accusations of harming children trigger one of the strongest protective circuits we have.”

Disgust narrows our thinking. It sharpens categories, innocent or evil. That reflex is adaptive in evolutionary terms. It's messier in legal ones. Courts are built around structured doubt, reasonable doubt.

There must always be room for doubt, especially in light of new evidence.

Far too often our legal systems fall short of this ideal, and in the court of public opinion, that ideal is hard to imagine, socially, doubt often looks like betrayal and certainty of someone else's moral corruption becomes a badge of honor.

“So what happens when that certainty lands on you?”

I'm Amanda Knox, and from Vespucci and I Heart Podcasts, this is doubt, the case of Lucy Letby episode 10, reasonable doubt. When the headlines were read about myself, I was a villain, from the get-go.

I mean, it was the lowest of the low that you could be the way that I was portrayed.

Yeah. Yeah, just difficult to talk about when it comes to that end. Just hate that. I'm associated with that. This is Anna Vasquez of the San Antonio 4. She spent nearly 14 years in prison after being wrongly convicted of molesting children in her care.

“The prosecution built the case on recovered memory testimony that was later discredited.”

It took nearly 18 years for Anna and her three co-defendants to be exonerated. They were all gay women.

The courts ultimately determined that the crimes they were accused of never even happened.

You know, when I saw images of Lucy in the media, I definitely saw myself, the fear of isolation and this disassociated sense of self. That's Heidi Goodwin. In 2014, Heidi walked out of prison after nearly a decade behind bars. She had been convicted of harming a child in her care under a shaken baby syndrome diagnosis, a theory later challenged in court. Ultimately, the court determined that, again, there

was no crime at all. You're being accused, especially of something that, as a woman, we are designed to nurture, whether that's our own or someone else's. Heidi and Anna are friends of mine, both wrongly convicted of crimes against children, both members and advocates for the Innocence Network, and both survivors of the machinery

of public certainty. For Anna, her prosecution took place in 1994. Her case was one of the last gasps of the satanic panic that gripped the US in the 80s and 90s, a period of intense cultural anxiety about alleged ritual abuse. It was also a time when anti-gay prejudice was still openly mainstream. In that environment, identity became part of the story, and assumption traveled

faster than proof. To be filenized for the person that I am and for them to come up with this narrative of praying on children and having this orgy with myself and my three other friends against these poor innocent little girls, that's just, that's really just detrimental to me. Unfortunately, because of what was happening in society, the climate, and the way they

give you the LGBTQ back then, all of a sudden, this other panic is in called the Satanic panic, and when you have an expert witness coming on and putting that in their notes, and the law enforcement gets, I feel like they got routed up, you know, the Satanic panic was real. I mean, these people were using this in court cases and civil court cases,

19, slightly naive, to the way the system can be twisted and turned, and not before you

anymore, but now they're against you, and they're firing at all rounds, but it didn't matter. There was so many inconsistencies in the trials, but there was no getting away from that expert witness coming in and saying there was signs of sexual trauma. Now, we know years later, of course, it's been 24, 26 years now that, oh, we made a mistake and justified wrong to that. That was an actual proof of signs of sexual assault, and, you know, that

were exonerated, but it took years and years and years, but we had no fighting tents. I mean, and like you said, then a children are vulnerable, we want to protect children. It just sucked to be on the other side of it, and now I'm this horrible person, this horrible monster. It's just a really mind-blowing, that an allegation like that could lead to a conviction on absolutely no bases. Heidi's prosecution relied on a different narrative, one rooted in medical certainty

“rather than moral panic, but the effect was the same. I was, I believe, 22, 23 years old,”

and I was living outside of Portland, Oregon, and I became a caregiver for two children. Over roughly a two-month period, one of them was 15 months old. This little girl lost consciousness in my care. I had to call 911 and then the wave of accusations. Oh, it's shaken baby syndrome. Oh, it had to have happened in this window. So therefore, it had to happen at your house, and you were the only adult there, and only adult could be responsible for inflicting these types of injuries,

and that's basically what convicted me. They had to convince the jury that I snapped because

how else could they get them to believe that someone that looks like me speaks like me. I have no history of violence like you know. Has no history of violence whatsoever, mother, you know, raising her children, all of the things that were supposed to be doing and looking like an acting like,

“that was the only way they could convince them was to say that I must have snapped. And we now know”

that none of that is actually true. Our experts were able to determine that there were pre-existing conditions, and those could possibly have led to the loss of consciousness. I think for me

finally realizing that I don't have to be the one to figure that out. That has been a struggle.

Like, I feel like I've had the answer. I've had to be the one to answer for what happened and figure out what happened and explain what happened to defend myself. When I am not a professional that would know those things. You know, I know it's that I wasn't responsible for farming anyone and so that was it's been over 20 years of my life now. In my case, things went off the rails early. The story exploded internationally and suddenly the

police were operating under enormous pressure to produce answers and to produce them fast. I've had to ask myself how much that urgency influenced their decisions. Do you think the fact that our cases were all highly emotionally charged fed into how law enforcement

“went about investigating the case and all of the shortcuts and mishandling that took place?”

I do for specifically, I think that there was pressure. I think that the county that I was convicted in has a lot of these types of cases actually litigated or tried and has a high rate of conviction. Now, whether they're all innocence cases, you know, I can't make that claim, but I know that it also has a high rate of innocence cases that have been overturned with some of the guys as well. So, I think that there was pressure on the child abuse intervention detective unit to

do what it does. There were terms used at the time like she's being railroaded, they're making an example out of her things to that nature. It was crazy because the judge in

Dr. the verdict of the jury. Wow. What about you and I mean, clearly the headlines were

picked like taking advantage of the case to sensationalize it. Do you think that that impacted the

“investigation? Yeah, I think it was something that somebody could, you know, climb the ladder on”

because it was just the way that it read, you know, it was just so horrific that yes, we have to get a conviction and yes, it could put me in, you know, as a judge, it's a matter of fact, in Liz's trial. She's referring to one of her co-dependence, Liz Ramirez. Yeah, that prosecutor did become judge. It was almost like they were just subtly focused on us. No, there was no investigation.

There wasn't anything, you know, it was just us. So, one of the things that

really threw me through an existential loop was when I was convicted, like the jury comes down, you are a monster definitively. This is the rule of law. And like I felt like my entire sense of

“self completely splintered apart because it was like this idea of a person, this story of a person”

had now more reality around it than me, right? Like this idea of an evil sex crazed murder or g person was now the official truth. And everyone was now going like, all, all reality was now around this official truth. And that, you know, that idea of a person was sentenced to this many years in prison. And that was now the story that they were telling my friends family. Her surviving family is now like, okay, we got the bad guy, the bad guys put away. But, but it's me,

it's me that's being sent to prison, not the bad guy. That's not the truth. For me, like, I had this really existential crisis moment because in that moment, I realized the truth didn't matter. And as a part of that, I didn't matter. And what do I do with that? And that was like a

“really dark moment for me as a 22 year old kid. Do you guys remember what that was like for you?”

Yeah, I, it ruptured like my sense of identity and autonomy and it, you know, we have layers of childhood traumas, things that happen, you know? And it, it's surface all those insecurities and fears, right? That told me, I'm not good. Something must be bad enough about me that makes this thing happen. I knew that I wasn't responsible for hurting a child or anyone, but I'm bad because this is happening. And I have to go away and accept this somehow. It was this like really defeated feeling.

I really was convinced that I was bad somehow and that this was supposed to be happening to me. Totally. And you know what's interesting. I don't know if you guys know this. There are post-it notes that Lucy let be wrote where she was like, "I'm not good enough. I am evil." Wow. Yeah. What about you, Anna? It wasn't so much. I'm thinking I'm a bad person, but what it did make me do is let questioning my fate. And I'm going through this because

God doesn't like it. You know, am I going against my faith? And what I should be, right, living as a woman, getting married, hadn't children. I mean, it's a crazy thing that's happening to us, right? Like, it's a crazy thing that is happening and your brain is trying to make sense of it. I like, how do you make sense of it? It just does not make any sense. Yeah, I was like clinging on to things, like, what did I do in my past life? You know, totally karma. But ultimately, you know, feeling like,

I'm just, this is where I belong. From how, this is where I belong. Yeah, that's funny that you say that Heidi, because I felt that same way after, you know, a certain time all the way in prison.

I was like, you know what? I need to stop asking why, because I'll never know.

In 2023, former Bachelor Star Clayton Eckard found himself at the center of a paternity scandal. The family court hearings that followed revealed glaring inconsistencies in her story. This began a years-long court battle to prove the truth. You doctor this particular test twice in selling stretch. I doctor the test once. It took an army of internet detectives to crack the case. I wanted people to be able to see what their tax dollars were being used for. Some

who'd been through the same thing. Greg Olespiand, I command you in it. My mind was blown.

“I'm Stephanie Young. This is Love Trap. Laura, Scottsdale Police.”

As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Ladies and gentlemen, breaking news at AmeriCorps Accountia's Laura Owens has been indicted on fraud charges. This isn't over until justice has served in Arizona. Listen to Love Trap podcast on the iHeart Radio App, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. There's two golden rules that any man should live by.

Rule one, never mess with a country girl. He plays stupid games. You get stupid prizes.

And rule two, never mess with her friends either. We always say that trust your girlfriend's I'm Anna Sinfield. And in this new season of The Girl Friends. Oh my god, this is the same man. A group of women discovered they've all dated the same prolific con artist.

“I felt like I got hit by a truck. I thought how could this happen to me?”

The cops didn't seem to care, so they take matters into their own hands. I said, oh hell no. I vowed I will be his last target. He's going to get what he deserves. Listen to The Girl Friends, trust me babe. On the iHeart Radio App, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I've seen something in the road. I guess McDonald was sleeping then. Then there was a full of blood.

Somebody somewhere knows something. I'm Jordan Sillers. Season two is out now with new episodes every Thursday. Listen on the iHeart Radio App, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can have opinions. You can have like a strong stance. And then there's your body. Having its own program. I'm Dr. Maya Shanker, a cognitive scientist and host of the podcast,

a slight change of plans. A show about who we are and who we become when life makes other plans. We share stories and scientific insights to help us all better navigate these periods of turbulence and transformation. There is one finding that is consistent and that is that our resilience rests on our relationships. I wish that I hadn't resisted for so long. The need to change. We have to be willing to live with a kind of uncertainty that none of us likes.

Listen to a slight change of plans on the iHeart Radio App, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I wish I could tell you that this episode features an interview with Lucy herself. I've written to her in prison and to her family and spoken with her lawyer on several occasions. And she and her team have decided that now is not the time for her to speak out publicly.

No one else knows the stakes of that decision better than them. It would be nice if Vertix were only as strong as the evidence and interpretation reached by a jury. Sadly, that's often not the case. I know plenty of Innocence Project attorneys who have to turn down strong cases for Innocence because there's no viable procedural route to freedom. I get messages all the time from people stuck inside, claiming Innocence. Some of whom

have exhausted all their appeals. There's little I can do to help them. Because, in the US or the UK, there is no right to being free just because you're Innocent. There's only a right to affair trial. As of today, Lucy let these convictions still stand and she's been refused permission to appeal through the court of appeal. But for her current lawyer, Mark McDonald, the case is far from over.

“So there's two elements to this. The first element is the most important element. You don't”

under a conviction unless you have the legal arguments and the expertise to be able to do so. And so that's of all the expert reports and experts have come forward from across the world.

The second is to change the narrative around her. To use that media storm or

we do have a system in this country, post conviction system, which many argue is not fit for purpose.

“The innocent people do remain in prison and the system has let them down.”

According to Mark, Lucy's path back to the court of appeals runs through the criminal cases review commission. The body tasked with reviewing potential miscarriages of justice. He says that in recent years, the commission has faced mounting criticism, particularly after several wrongful convictions were overturned, despite earlier decisions not to refer those cases back to court.

"As a result, a number of people have had to be signed and there's a massive spotlight on them. So there's that and there's a criminal court of appeal. And this is my view that feels a reluctance to go behind a jury's verdict that there's a finality to a jury system. And as a result, I would attempt to really interfere with that. Even when there can be competing evidence or conviction is unsafe and we as defense bounced as I often give in a hard time when we get to

court of appeal by the judges because we're seen as people that shouldn't be interfering with the system or risk. And if you are somebody that has a strong narrative of guilt around you, then you're finding both those bodies really against you right from the beginning.

“And so it's important to get an alternative narrative out of them. They're not false or tempted,”

but I'm not a pretend narrative, but simply tell the truth as to what's going on in exposing the issues."

For Mark, it's clear the media played a powerful role in amplifying the story of Lucy Letbe's guilt.

Now, he's using that same platform to scrutinize the case. "And so, yes, there's been a campaign in the media to which I have prompted and have driven it, intentionally. But as I say, if you don't have the legal argument in the first place, it's a matter about anything else in relation to the media, you're just not going to win. The legal element, the expert element, is the priority."

It's the pairing of expert testimony and media scrutiny that he believes creates momentum. That's where Dr. Xu Lee and the International Panel come in. Independent specialists who's findings challenged the original medical narrative, and who are willing to stand by those conclusions publicly. "He contacted me and said, "Look, if we find that actually she's guilty, then we can say it." "So, Lucy had a decision. Does she go with that?"

But, as you heard in the last episode, in our opinion, the medical opinion, the medical evidence doesn't support murder in any of these pages.

But challenging a conviction in public is always a risk. Even if you have the expert testimony to

back it up. Mark's arguments were met with sharp scrutiny, particularly around the families of the children who died. "I often get into views from one about the families. And the one thing I've said now is I have over a thousand pages of expert evidence from 24 separate individual experts. I am happy to get them to the families and they can see it, and I'm happy to provide the neonatologists to sit with them in the room and explain the issues of workings have gone wrong. Number one. But number two,

it's about getting to the truth. What these parents want to know, well they desperately want to

know, is what happened to their child. You see, first of all, they started off with the fact that

their child has died. And they've had to go for the grief of releasing their child. And then years later, somebody has come to them and said, "In fact, we think your child was intentionally hurt and murdered." And then they've had to sit through a trial, and sometimes given evidence in front of the jury, even that trial. And then she's being convicted of it. And then how long

“comes my problem is that I think this conviction might be up safe, but I think she may be innocent.”

Whatever happens next in Lucy Letbe's case, one fact does not change. Parents lost their children and families continue to live with that loss. Legal challenges may move forward. Appeals may be argued. Evidence may be re-examined. But grief does not depend on a verdict.

have to be angry with the right people because if she is innocent, then what has happened? What has

gone so wrong? Both with the police, both the prosecution and the health service that they've been so let down? Because the one thing that she has identified is a systematic poor health care for medical staff towards their children. This is one of the hardest parts of any wrongful conviction case. The families of the victim grasp onto the answer given to them as a source of closure. And then when an innocence claim arises, it's like that closure is being ripped away.

In my own case, the culture family has made it clear through their lawyer that they still doubt

my innocence. I understand why it's difficult for them to let go of the answers offered to them, however wrong they were. And they are not outliers in any way. In most wrongful conviction cases I've studied, the families of the victim hold firm to the narrative originally offered to them by the prosecution. If Lucy let be is innocent, then that means that hospital administrators and treasure police and the prosecutors and judges have denied them closure. And instead, thrown them into

years of having to publicly relive their trauma of having answers given and taken away. That is psychological torture that no grieving parent deserves. In recent months, the Crown Prosecution Service announced it would not pursue several remaining charges against Lucy let be. Prosecutors said the evidence in those cases would not meet the threshold required for conviction, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Some of that evidence overlapped with material

previously examined in court, including in the case of baby K. Peter Elston, a scientist and

reporter, was one of the very first voices to express concern about the case, even before the first

trial had finished. He was arguably instrumental in getting the pro Lucy let be movement started.

“For Peter, this newest decision by the CPS signals to something very important.”

November 2020, but brought by the Mersey side, the regional CPS, whereas this recent announcement was made by the serious crime and counterterrorism unit of the CPS, which is a national part of the CPS. The original decision to bring charges should not have been made by the Mersey side branch of the CPS, or complex serious cases charging decision has to be made by the serious crime division of the CPS. So, why it was made by the regional CPS is a really

important question that needs answering. Because if the strength of the evidence in relation to the recent charges, the chess of police, onto the CPS, to consider was the same as the evidence in terms of strength as the original charges, then it puts into question why charges were brought

“in 2020. I'm not a lawyer, so I do need to be a bit careful, but I think it's quite likely given”

the number of experts who found holes in the evidence had it been the serious crime division EPS. We were asked to bring charges against Lucy that way. They would have said no, they would have looked at the evidence and they would have said, sorry, I just know good enough. The decision to not pursue further charges does not overturn any of Lucy Lattby's convictions, but it has added another layer to the public debate surrounding them. For Peter Elston, the public discourse

around the case is vital. I feel desperately sorry if wrongly convicted people who are not, whose cases don't, for whatever reason, generate the same interest, but Lucy Lattby's case has. And the role that the public has played in driving, interest, driving public opinion,

“getting journalists interested is essential. Because, according to Peter, both the CCRC and the”

Court of Appeals do not exist in a vacuum. That is very political institutions who will look

in Lucy's favor, that they're far more likely. The decides in her favor. The reality is,

this is the way things have to happen. If you've got a lot of public voice behind it to send

“a wrongly convicted individual, then I think that makes things a lot quicker. But it really”

is absolutely essential for public opinion to play a role in these cases. Whether or not public pressure should influence legal institutions is a matter of debate. But in Lucy Lattby's case, the legal fight now unfolds alongside an increasingly vocal and heated public conversation. We've been talking about courts, you skill-t it. And we sort of all know our heads and think, oh well, you know, she must be,

must be guilty of all of that. Parents of the convicted baby killer Lucy Lattby have told good morning Britain their daughter is innocent and the victim of a horrendous miscarriage of justice. Big day for Netflix today they have a Lucy Lattby documentary and it features unseen footage from her arrest day. Police went out to tender with documentary companies for this footage and actually it's completely backfired on them because it was a PRR exercise on behalf

of the Cheshire Police. The people on Reddit have been insane. I've always thought she was guilty,

merely from the media coverage, I guess. Something feels really off about this case. I'm nowhere near as convinces I used to be. I now have reasonable doubt to be perfectly honest. Hopefully we'll get to the bottom of this once and for all. If she's the monster we were told, then she's where she needs to be. If not, then that means we have monsters loose. Other was no monster and she's the scapegoat for systematic failings. I don't buy into any of

“all this loosing. Let me was innocent, sick of it right in the board of it. I think she's as guilty as”

sin. I suppose I don't care that much about the privacy of Lucy Lattby. She killed babies. I don't really care about her welfare. The crowd prosecution service that she won't face any further charges. When Lucy Lattby was convicted back in 2023, I was sure she was a baby killer. I now believe that she's an innocent woman. A scapegoat was subconsciously looked for. British justice needs to write that wrong. Justice may be blind in this country,

but it's not infallible. And I do think the armchair detectives online don't help at all with this kind of like, oh well I think she's there so I think she's that. It's like no, we need to look at facts. Make no mistake in the eyes of the law. The facts are Lucy Lattby as a convicted murderer. The noise surrounding the Lucy Lattby case only continues to increase.

“It's something that Anavazquez and Heidi Goodwin will never forget. It shaped how they were seen”

and how their cases were later reconsidered. In 2023, former bachelor star Clayton Eckard found himself at the center of a paternity scandal. The family court hearings that followed revealed glaring inconsistencies in her story. This began a years-long court battle to prove the truth. You doctor this particular test twice in selling stretch. I doctor the test once. It took an army of internet detectives to crack the case. I wanted people to be able to see what their

tax dollars were being used for. Some like the greatest disinfectant. They would uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. Greg O'Wespie and I guarantee it. My mind was blown. I'm Stephanie Young. This is love trap. Laura Scottsdale Police. As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Ladies and gentlemen, breaking news out of Maricopa County as Laura Owens has been

indicted on fraud charges. This isn't over until justice has served in Arizona. Listen to love trapped podcast on the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. There's two golden rules that any man should live by.

Rule one, never mess with a country girl. He plays stupid games. You get stupid prizes.

And rule two, never mess with her friends either. We always say that trust your girlfriends. I'm Anna Sinfield. And in this new season of the girlfriends. Oh my god, this is the same man. A group of women discover they've all dated the same prolific con artist. I felt like I got hit by a

into their own hands. I said, oh hell no. I vowed. I will be his last target. He's going to get what

“he deserves. Listen to the girlfriends. Trust me, babe. On the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts,”

or wherever you get your podcasts. We're the terrain is unforgiving. The evidence is scarce. And the truth gets buried under brush. And silence. I've seen something in the road. I guess it's late on. It was a sleeping neck that there was a full of blood. Somebody somewhere. No shelter. I'm Jordan Sillers. Season two is out now with new episodes every Thursday. Listen on the iHeart

Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. You can have opinions. You can have

like a strong stance. And then there's your body having its own program. I'm Dr. Maya Shunker, a cognitive scientist and host of the podcast, a slight change of plans. A show about who we are and who we become when life makes other plans. We share stories and scientific insights to help us all that are navigate these periods of turbulence and transformation. There is one finding that is consistent. And that is that our resilience rests on our relationships. I wish that I hadn't

resisted for so long. The need to change. We have to be willing to live with a kind of uncertainty that none of us likes. Listen to a slight change of plans on the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I know that my relationship with public scrutiny is a little complicated because I do think that at a certain point the public scrutiny and the public fascination

with the case both hurt and ultimately helped me because it got a lot of people to automatically

assume that I was a horrible monster. But it also introduced the case to people who otherwise would not have heard about it. Who are knowledgeable about these things and who came out and became advocates and started like turning the like turning the tide and like introducing a new narrative. And so I'm wondering like what is your personal relationship with public scrutiny and how it helped or hurt your path to freedom and exoneration? For me personally, it's that puzzle piece.

“Why do we rely so much on what media is saying or science that can be absolute until it's not?”

How can we do these things better and how can they be reported better? Yeah. Like we we want to rely on experts, especially in the world of the medical field. We want to rely on media professionals to be giving us true information. Yeah, I feel like the media helped to put me away and it actually helped to exonerate me. It's all about the narrative, right? Anna's case was covered in an award-winning documentary called South of Salem, the story of the San Antonio

4. Her face sits front and center on the poster. That was fearful when they introduced the possibility of doing a documentary about the case. It wasn't until, you know, I actually sat down with Deb Esponazi, who is the director of the documentary that we had a conversation face to face while I'm still in prison, that I felt like comfortable with thinking that this this lady is going to tell my story, the truth of it. I didn't know after seven and a half years

of filming, Amanda, I didn't know what to expect out of all that years. What are you actually going to put into this film? And what narrative are you going to present, right? So it wasn't until I actually, you know, we actually viewed it that I was like, wow, I made the right choice. And yeah, I mean, there's documentation in our court of criminal appeals ruling where it, you know, has selfless

“asylum in there. So I think it was very powerful. I think that, you know, going out in the public”

and having to speak and engage events and, you know, all these different things that it helped to really tell my story the right way, the truth. But of course, just because a conviction is overturned, that doesn't mean that certainty simply disappears. It shifts. The verdict may change, but

if this happens to you guys, what still happens to this day is if somebody hears from another person that they know me or they've interacted with me before, inevitably, someone will ask them, oh, do you think she did it? Like, this happened 20 years ago and like, still to this day, people are like, oh, do you think she did it? Like, if that's like, this is when we talk about how

“you have to prove your innocence every day for the rest of your life? I had for the most part,”

tremendous support from everyone that knew me. There were a couple of one-offs I found out later on the road that behind closed doors would say, do you think, you know, but I mean, I guess that's to be expected. I've now experienced people questioning my integrity and my involvement in the case. They believe that they can use it to their benefit. I'll just be honest. I've not spoken about this publicly, but my ex-husband used it in our divorce to try to leverage it to

discredit me. And that probably hurt more than anything else. That sucks. Yeah. What about you, Anna? The documentary was rolling out, you know, all these different

things were happening surrounding my case. And one of the things that I first went through was

the comments. Don't fucking read the comments, guys. I mean, you know, it doesn't even matter, but it was heartbreaking to hear what they were saying. You know, I had to just let it go. Like, I know what happened. I know the truth and I'm stint with it. So I can't be concerned what other people are going to be. Anna's conviction was not only overturned. It was formally expunged from her record. Heidi is still fighting to have her conviction fully vacated and cleared.

I want it gone so that no one can use it to hurt me or hurt my family. What it will never do is

give the time back or shielding. You know, for me, it's one speaking with exoneration and

“expungement. It's like reaffirming what I've always said. I'm innocent, right? But I think it's”

still can be used against us. And that's my fear too, right? Just the accusation. Only because like, you can't tell me that it can't happen because it's fucking did. That's the issue that I can't rep my mind around and can't stand when people say, get over it, move on. You can't. After being defined by this, like we all know that we still live with a stigma of it, so what does freedom even really mean? Hmm. That's a great question. I think that it's about

reclaiming our own power. That's as close as to freedom as we're going to get. The freedom physically, yes, right? I feel the freedom, obviously. Except that you still have this policy of not being around little kids. It's funny that you say that Amanda, because that's where I was going to say, I'm not free. Yeah. And, you know, there's so many of my closest friends at have children. I don't know how to get past that when I wish I could. Yeah. That if I were to get

“that back, I think that's when I would feel freedom. You have a lot of fear that's totally justified.”

I was going to school for early childhood development. My goal was to have a daycare or be a

foster parent. I will never want to run a daycare. And, you know, even with my children, when they

have become babysitters or for caring for other children, like, I have to tamp down that fear that I have for them, you know, what if something happens? For Peter Elston, in some ways, I've been a bit disappointed that there hasn't been more anger expressed by the general public. And I guess, because, you know, people have busy lives. They may think that she's innocent, but they don't think that this could happen to them. They're very much mistaken.

very much mistaken. This can happen very easily. That may be true in some cases. I know from personal experience, but in Lucy Letbe's case, the question remains deeply contested. For many, the verdict is settled. Lucy Letbe is guilty, case closed. But for others, including Peter Elston

“and Mark McDonald, it's not a question. Lucy Letbe will be freed. Is convictions will be overturned?”

The only question is wrong. Oh, without a doubt, they will be overturned. Wait, that's a doubt. For now, that remains a prediction. Lucy Letbe is serving whole life sentences in prison. Cases like this don't just test a defendant. They test the system that judged her, because if the convictions are sound, the system worked. And if they are not, it failed in ways

that can never be fully undone. The implications of this case go far beyond just Lucy herself.

The justice system, the medical system, the media, as Dr. Phil Hammond put it. If this turns out to be well, every single level of the British establishment will be torn to shreds. If we want any of these systems to be better, we have to be willing to embrace the feeling of doubt, however uncomfortable it is.

“Thank you for listening to doubt, the case of Lucy Letbe.”

Doubt, the case of Lucy Letbe, is brought to you by the Spucci, I-Heart Podcasts, and Knox Robinson Productions. I've been your host, Amanda Knox. This episode was written by Natalia Rodriguez. The co-producer was Lucy Ditchman. The assistant producer was Ami Gil. Senior producer is Natalia Rodriguez. The sound designer is Tom Bittle. The theme music was written by Tom Bittle. Legal advice was provided by Jack Browning.

The producers at I-Heart Podcasts are Chandler May's and Katrina Norville. The executive producers were Joe Meek, Amanda Knox, Christopher Robinson, Daniel Turkin, and Johnny Galvin. Thank you for listening.

“In 2023, Bachelor Star Clayton Eckard was accused of fathering twins,”

but the pregnancy appeared to be a hoax. "You doctored this particular test twice in silence, correct?" I doctored the test once. It took an army of internet detectives to uncover a disturbing pattern. Two more men who'd been through the same thing. "My mind was blown. I'm Stephanie Young. This is LoveTrap."

As the season continues, Laura Owens finally faces consequences. Listen to LoveTrap podcast on the I-Heart Radio App, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. "When a group of women discover they've all dated the same prolific con artist. They take matters into their own hands. I vowed. I will be his last target." "He is not going to get away with this. He's going to get what he deserves."

"We always say that trust your girlfriends. Listen to the girlfriends. Trust me, babe.

On the I-Heart Radio App, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts." Blood Trails is a true crime podcast born in the outdoors. Where the terrain is unforgiving, the evidence is scarce, and the truth gets buried under brush and silence. Played on it was a sleeping bed, then there was a full of blood. "Tomorrow, somewhere, no something."

I'm Jordan Sillers. Season 2 is out now, with new episodes every Thursday. Listen on the I-Heart Radio App, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. "On paper, the three hosts of the Nick Dicken poll show are geniuses. We can explain how AI works, data centers, but there are certain things that we don't necessarily understand." "Better version of play stupid games when stupid prizes."

"Yes." Which, by the way, wasn't Taylor Swift who said that for the first time.

"I actually thought it was. I got that wrong." "But hey, no one's perfect. We're pretty close, though."

"This isn't I-Heart Podcast." "Garen T.D. Human."