Note: episode transcripts are radio scripts - please keep that in mind as you come across notations and errors in the text.
Previously on Bear Brook Season 2: A True Crime Story….
[Judge Delker] To cut you a break // would utterly undermine the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system.
[Lucy Holt] How do you prove something… How do you prove an “I didn’t do it?”
[Cynthia Mousseau] There’s this belief that, when you’re Catholic and the priest gives you communion, that the bread turns into the body of Jesus, like literal human flesh. This is essentially the same thing as what happens – once this conviction happens, it’s like that story is what happened.
[Karen Carroll] All I– All I could think of was, remember the TV detective, Kojak?
[Fabiana Alceste] The system, the culture that our detectives live in and are made to operate in sets them up for this specific kind of failure of not being able to realize that there’s an innocent person in front of them.
…
It’s been seven years since Jason Carroll first wrote a letter to the New England Innocence Project. NEIP, as it’s called, is a small nonprofit – only about a dozen people on staff. And for the first three years after Jason wrote, they didn’t even have an attorney based in New Hampshire who could work on his case full-time.
Then NEIP hired Cynthia Mousseau. Jason’s case was on the top of the pile on her desk when she arrived in 2019.
[Cynthia Mousseau] And I remember thinking to myself, even when I started this job, like, how am I ever going to figure out these cases where people are innocent? I was a public defender for a long time. I've only had a few clients claim actual innocence.
And then Cynthia read the documents in Jason’s case.
[Cynthia Mousseau] The way we want to think about our criminal legal system is that we don't have to rely necessarily on stories that people tell. We want to be able to rely on hard evidence and science and observable, objective fact. // So my hope is that when there is a statement made // that statement can be verified by // objective scientific fact. And in Jason's case, that's just not true. The police tried to do that and could not do it. // They tried to focus on the financial aspect. They got Ken's bank records. Those do not show what they thought they were going to show. // You know, they got the knife. They wanted to prove that that was the knife – that wasn't the knife. It couldn't have been the knife. It's just they don't – they don't line up.
But it’s one thing for an innocence attorney like Cynthia to be convinced Jason didn’t do it. It’s another to get the state of New Hampshire to admit they might have gotten this all horribly wrong.
[mux in]
Remember back in episode one - that hearing where Jason asked for an early release from prison? That was one of Cynthia's first moves. It would’ve been the fastest way out of the prison walls for Jason.
But, as you heard, it didn’t work – in part, because Jason has always refused to take responsibility for the crime.
The prosecutors for the state, and the court system that oversaw Jason’s convictions, both stick firmly to the original narrative.
[Judge Delker] You confessed to your participation in, uh, this murder-for-hire plot and you and your accomplice, Mr. Pfaff, kidnapped and murdered a seven-and-a-half-month pregnant woman and you stood by while your accomplice sexually assaulted her as she lay dying – dead or dying there in that gravel pit. And you were paid $5,000 for those inhuman acts – and I don’t say inhumane, but inhuman acts – by the victim’s own husband.
Despite the fact that Tony Pfaff was acquitted and Ken Johnson was never even tried – in the state’s true-crime story, they’re still killers.
[mux post]
Innocence claims are almost always a longshot. The criminal legal system is built on a bedrock of finality. The courts want criminal prosecutions to end at some point – not be endlessly retried. And there are legitimate reasons for that. Dogmatic ones, too.
But in New Hampshire, a state that has never exonerated anyone convicted of a murder – it can feel like the hurdles are even higher than usual. What Cynthia and NEIP are trying to do has simply never been done before.
[mux post]
And so to help challenge the official narrative, NEIP invited someone from the outside to come tell a new one.
[Rabia Chaudry] A lot of times people will say, “Oh, just read the trial transcripts - you’ll see why this person is guilty or innocent.” (scoffs) What gets brought into a courtroom and what gets left out sometimes tells the story much more fully.
This is Bear Brook, Season 2: A True Crime Story. I’m Jason Moon.
[mux up & out]
…
Rabia Chaudry is an immigration attorney, an author, a podcast host. But there’s a good chance you already know her as an advocate for Adnan Syed. In 2013, Rabia brought the story of Adnan’s murder conviction to the people who made the podcast Serial – a series that alerted millions to the existence of podcasts and arguably created a genre of true-crime ones. Not long after, Rabia decided to make her own podcast called Undisclosed. All to try and force the court system to revisit its original narrative in that case – a process that, so far, has taken almost 10 years.
[Rabia Chaudry] It’s like everything that happens in a courtroom is like… it’s like, you know, a fly trapped in tar from hundreds of years ago. Like, that same rotten piece of tar, keeps getting passed from courtroom to courtroom to courtroom as if noth– as if the entire world is static and nothing has changed and no technology has changed and no witnesses have come forward, but we’re just like stuck in time.
[mux in]
As you probably know, the true crime genre ranges widely. From exploitation of personal tragedies to high-minded journalistic exposes to direct advocacy.
I think Rabia’s work is probably the best example of what you might call the soft-power of true crime.
Rabia started her podcast Undisclosed with two other attorneys, Susan Simpson and Colin Miller. At first, it was all about Adnan’s case. But then, they started looking at others. In each season of their show, they reinvestigate what they believe is a wrongful conviction. They reinterview witnesses who may have changed their story; they track down witnesses police never spoke to; they look for evidence of legal foul play – whatever they can find.
By now they’ve looked at over 20 different cases and by Rabia’s count, they’ve played a role in overturning convictions in about half of them. About a month before Jason Carroll was back in court in the fall of 2022, Adnan Syed walked out of prison. He was a free man for the first time in 22 years, though his legal battles still aren’t over yet.
In another example in Georgia, Undisclosed worked alongside the Georgia Innocence Project and found evidence of juror misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct that recently helped vacate the conviction of Joey Watkins. He’d also been in prison for 22 years.
[Rabia Chaudry] I mean, look, true crime has always been big, but when I was growing up, true crime, it was a different angle, right? It was like getting the bad guy, and investigators getting it right, and the police getting it right, and you know, everything being resolved. But I think after Serial, suddenly it’s shifted a lot. Between Serial, between movements like Black Lives Matter, suddenly folks are like, “Well, maybe it’s not all wrapped up in a nice little bow like that all the time.”
Undoing nice little bows.
That’s exactly what the New England Innocence Project had in mind when they invited Undisclosed to look at Jason Carroll’s case.
[mux in]
In the summer of 2021, Rabia arrived in New Hampshire to start investigating – and I went with her.
[driving ambi]
[Jason Moon] Rabia, do you want to just explain, like, what we’re doing today? Like, what you’re up to?
[Rabia Chaudry] So, today, we’re going to be trying to find some of the original investigators in the case… (fade under tracking)
Rabia brought with her Sarah Cailean – a former police officer turned private investigator, cold case consultant, and true-crime personality.
The two of them followed Google Maps down winding back roads across New Hampshire to reach some of the witnesses in Jason’s case. I sat in the backseat of their rental car with my microphone, getting a little car sick.
[Rabia Chaudry] Where did you say I was turning again? I’m sorry, do you remember?
[Sarah Cailean] Ope, right there where we just passed on the right. (laughs)
I recorded Rabia and Sarah as they recorded interviews.
[Rabia Chaudry] So I kinda want to start at the top and ask you, like, what your relationship was with the Johnsons.
[Unidentified Voice] Well, like I said, I was a coworker with Sharon…
And of course, we talked about true crime podcasts as we happened to drive past the entrance to Bear Brook State Park.
[Sarah Cailean] …that the idea becomes to produce something that has value to society, not just retelling gorey stories. To me, it’s…
[Rabia Chaudry] Although, like, the straight reporting also can have, has plenty of value…
[mux post]
It’s all very meta. I know. But that’s exactly why I was there.
Podcasts like Serial, Undisclosed, and lots of others don’t just reflect reality. They help change it.
I had my own experience with this, when someone who listened to season one of this podcast discovered the names of three of the people found murdered near Bear Brook State Park.
[Becky Heath] And I kept stopping and going back. I was like, // you know what, listening to this podcast makes me think it is this person – this… these… these girls!
This is actually how I first became interested in Jason Carroll’s case. Before I’d read thousands of pages of police reports and trial transcripts, before I’d heard the interrogation tapes, before I fell down the scientific rabbit hole on false confessions – all I knew was a famous true-crime podcast with millions of listeners was about to land in my backyard.
The official narrative was about to be challenged by a new story. And more than a year later, it is still changing things – in ways I never expected.
[mux out]
Rabia and Sarah ended up speaking to more than a dozen people connected to Jason’s case. Some of whom you’ve heard from in this podcast, and some who wouldn’t talk to me – like one of the detectives who investigated the case before Roland Lamy took it over.
And they talked to Lamy, too. Who told them he was a: surprised Jason was still in prison, and b: had no problem with the idea of DNA testing in Jason’s case.
But in the end, Undisclosed did not find new evidence to test or new legal grounds for Jason to appeal on. No smoking gun alternate suspect and no airtight alibi for Jason on the night of the murder.
After all, more than 30 years had passed in between Sharon’s murder and Undisclosed’s investigation. People’s memories had gotten hazier every passing year. And it was unclear whether the physical evidence in the case still even existed.
But with the facts they did have, Undisclosed put forward a new theory.
[mux in]
Or actually, it was an old theory: the one the original investigators had before Lamy took over the case.
Rabia and Sarah think that Ken Johnson was responsible for Sharon’s murder. But only Ken.
[Sarah Cailean] I think he did it and he acted alone. It was just him. // He killed her by himself and brought her to that site and dumped her there and then couldn’t get his story straight.
The theory is partly based on the same things that made police suspicious of Ken back in 1988. Ken changed his story about where he was the night of the murder. His gambling debts were a plausible motive. His ex-wife said he’d been violent with her.
But Undisclosed also points out major oversights in the police’s investigation of Ken. Like how in the days following the murder, police got a search warrant for Ken’s car – but there’s no record they ever made any attempt to search the house Ken and Sharon shared.
Rabia and her team also offer an alternate explanation for how Sharon ended up at a construction site.
It’s an idea based on what Ken and others told police about Sharon and Ken’s sex life. Ken told police he and Sharon had a very active sex life. He said they’d often meet during the middle of the day and drive to a gravel pit to have sex. Ken called it a “noonie.” The Undisclosed theory is that Ken took Sharon to the construction site where her body was found under the pretense they were going there to have sex.
[mux out]
…
When the Undisclosed season on Jason Carroll came out in the fall of 2021, I waited in the wings, ready to document the fallout.
I was a little naive. The podcast came out. Millions of people did listen. But if you weren’t one of those listeners, it would’ve been hard to tell that anything had happened. There was no local outcry. No op-eds in the local papers or local politicians making Jason’s innocence their cause, and no pushback from the state.
All seemed quiet. At least on the outside… But not for the people closest to the story.
For Jason, Undisclosed was exciting. It was validating. For the first time in decades, a new version of the story had been told. And people believed in his innocence.
[Jason Carroll] And then you know, like, the response, from people around the world on whatever it was, Spotify or Twitter, whatever they were responding to, to have the people out there and them being like, “Holy shit, you know, how come we’ve never heard about this before?” Or, “How does this even happen?” Or, like, you know, “It’s horseshit, let him out!”
Ironically, Jason hasn’t actually heard the podcast himself. He doesn’t have access to podcasts in prison. But he also told me he doesn’t want to hear it – or this podcast for that matter. He doesn’t want to relive any of this again.
[mux in]
I expected Jason’s lawyer, Cynthia Mousseau, would feel excited about the podcast, too. After all, her office pitched Jason’s case to Undisclosed. But for Cynthia, it wasn’t that simple. Of course, she likes that this new narrative says Jason is innocent. But, as a former defense attorney, it also raised questions for her about when it’s OK for true-crime storytellers to say someone else is guilty.
[Cynthia Mousseau] We’re very appreciative of the attention Jason’s case has gotten from Undisclosed. And I would never underestimate the impact of the support to Jason. // I think the podcast is on the whole been beneficial for Jason. But I'm always very skeptical of… You know, Jason, you and I have been talking for a long time. You know that I always say it's just like, I'm anti-hunch.
It’s true. Cynthia had told me many times how dangerous she feels hunches can be in the criminal justice system. As far as she sees it, everything that went wrong for Jason was the result of a hunch - Detective Roland Lamy’s hunch.
And even though Undisclosed’s theory includes the idea that Jason had nothing to do with the murder, the way it points the finger at Ken… I think for Cynthia it feels too close to the way the finger got pointed at Jason.
[Cynthia Mousseau] And in that way, I don't personally agree with that theory. It’s just not based on concrete observable facts. It's based on assumptions about human behavior and theories about human behavior.
[Jason Moon] You felt that, that their theory was a little too hunch-y? If that's a word.
[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah, a little too hunch-y. Yeah, I think it's based on: Ken is not a good guy, so it must be Ken, because there was really nobody else. And I don't… I don't know Ken. And, uh, I don't know who did it.
But for Rabia, it seemed only natural that their story provide an answer to what happened to Sharon.
[Rabia Chaudry] For me, every innocence case is also a murder mystery. It is justice that still needs to be served for the victim. And so, I think it would be really weird and irresponsible and just bad storytelling to just tell part of it. These are the reasons Jason is likely innocent, but also we're just not going to try to at all figure out what happened to the victim. I think it – you're not telling the whole story then.
What is the whole story? Even for two people who believe in Jason’s innocence, it’s not an easy question to answer.
[mux post & fade out]
Meanwhile, for those who don’t believe in Jason’s innocence, it can feel like the whole story is being missed.
[Jason Moon] So can you just start by telling me your name and who you are?
[Melonie Eaton] Melonie Eaton. Daughter of Sharon – to me, Eaton – but, Johnson.
Melonie Eaton was 14 years old when her mother Sharon Johnson was murdered.
Melonie cherishes the stories she has of growing up with her mom. Like the time she says her mom bought her a few pet mice.
[Melonie Eaton] Well, the people lied to her and it was a boy and girl, not two girls. So we came home one day // and they had babies. And the babies… got out. // And then we saw some on the floor and my mom’s like, “Oh my god!” So we’re hurrying up, trying to catch ‘em. I found some in my bedroom, in my closet, all over the place. They were everywhere!
[mux in]
Melonie remembers the time she woke up to an asthma attack and her mom soothed and guided her through it. She remembers the funny little dances she says her mom would do to make her laugh. The time her mom let her drive the car.
[Melonie Eaton] I think of my mom every time I see a yellow rose. My mom planted – she made a garden box on the side of the house and she planted roses and when she found out she was pregnant with my sister, who I also never got to meet, there was one single yellow rose growing. And so every time I see yellow roses, I think of my mom because to her that meant something special.
[mux post]
Melonie feels like her whole life has been shaped by her mother’s murder. She imagines the different paths it might’ve taken if she’d only had her mom. She’s logged all the moments her mom wasn’t there for.
[mux fade out]
[Melonie Eaton] When my son was born, he was born July 24, 1992. Almost exactly four years to the day. And I was petrified I was going to have him on that day. And I can’t have a happy day on a bad day. Begging the doctors, “Please, I can’t have a happy day on a bad day.” My son was born, he was only born with a 2% chance of life. // It would’ve been really nice to have my mom there, to tell me it’s going to be ok.
For decades, Melonie tried to live with this pain. But now, new stories are reopening the wounds.
In 2021, Melonie got a call from Rabia Chaudry. They talked and Melonie’s voice was included in the Undisclosed season about Jason Carroll. But when the podcast came out, Melonie says she felt duped.
[Melonie Eaton] She didn’t clarify. // She just said, “I’m working on the case, I’m going through it, I have your transcripts from when you talked to the police. Do you mind looking at it and then talking to me about it?” She wasn’t forthright at all, saying, “Hey, I’m actually an attorney trying to get Jason Carroll out of jail and I want you to answer some ques–.” I would’ve been like, “No, screw you, kiss off,” right away. But she wasn’t forthright and then when I found out later on, it infuriated me.
Rabia disputes this. She says she made it very clear who she was and what her aims were.
And Melonie says she didn’t actually listen to Undisclosed. Just like Jason, she said it would be too difficult.
[Melonie Eaton] For me, Jason Carroll is where he belongs, where he deserves to be, and he needs to stay there. He has no… no… Why- why should he be out and have his life to live when he was part of taking away my mother’s? He took away my mother’s life, my life, he took away the chance for all my children to meet their grandmother. // Took it all away. Why should he have a life?
My colleague Lauren Chooljian was in the room with me and Melonie for this conversation. And as we talked about Melonie’s experience with another true crime podcast, Lauren asked a question.
[Lauren Chooljian] What’s different about what’s Jason doing from what they’re doing?
[Melonie Eaton] I’m not entirely sure because Jason is, from my understanding, trying to get the entire story, in its whole, out to everybody, which includes how we all feel, the victims.
I’m not playing you this tape of Melonie as a way to suggest my story is somehow morally superior to Rabia’s. And I’m not even sure Melonie would agree that it is.
I did tell Melonie that I thought what she and others who loved Sharon are going through was an important part of this story. And I hope I’ve honored that.
But no matter how carefully we craft our stories, we can’t fully control how people hear them… or what they’ll lead to.
…
By the fall of 2022, about a year after the Undisclosed season on Jason’s case came out, I had begun to think that the impacts of the newest version of this true-crime story had all played out.
Undisclosed had brought new attention to the case. It had reopened wounds and stirred hopes. And maybe that would be it.
And then I got an unexpected call from Jason’s lawyer Cynthia.
[Jason Moon] Um, so, can you just tell me what happened again?
[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah, so I went to court today with Jason’s sister, Jackie because…
(fade under)
This was in October 2022, about a month before Jason had his hearing where he requested early release. Cynthia explained that this day, she took Jackie Carroll, Jason’s sister, to the courthouse for a kind of dry-run. Just to show Jackie the courtroom, the judge – so it wouldn’t be all new to her the day of Jason’s hearing.
[Cynthia Mousseau] So we were sitting in the courtroom and I haven’t been there in years because I, you know, I was a public defender years ago. So the clerk, who I know, came over to chat with me, and she said that she had been listening to Undisclosed //
[mux in]
[Cynthia Mousseau] She’s like, “You know what, there’s a big box in our basement with Jason Carroll’s name on it.” And I was like, “Like an evidence box in the basement?!” And she said, “Yes!” And so Jackie and I looked at each other and my mouth was wide open. Like, I was shocked! // It is standard practice in criminal cases for the court to issue a letter to the state and the defense after trial’s over, saying come get these evidence exhibits or we’re going to destroy them. So for them to be there after 30 years is… a small miracle!
A small miracle. For months, Cynthia – and separately I – had been asking the state what evidence remained from the investigation into Sharon’s murder. The fingerprints taken from the car. Photos and video of the crime scene. Sharon’s belongings. The alleged murder weapon.
And especially important: Sharon’s fingernail clippings. The nails with blood under them. Blood that could belong to Sharon’s attacker. Blood that was never DNA tested. I asked the state in June of 2022 if those fingernail clippings still existed. They still haven’t responded.
But what public records requests did not reveal – a true-crime podcast had. A mystery box of evidence in a courthouse basement. What was inside?
[Cynthia Mousseau] My pie-in-the-sky hope is that the fingernails are there. My realistic belief is that they are not. But my hope is that they are. But there is– anything that’s evidence in this case is useful to me. //
[Jason Moon] I’ve never heard you this excited, Cynthia.
[Cynthia Mousseau] (laughs)
[mux post]
After the break: the box.
[mux out]
A quick reminder: Bear Brook Season 2 took more than a year to report and lots of resources – and as you’re about to hear, this story is not over. If you’re in a position to do so, please consider making a donation to New Hampshire Public Radio. To give now, click the link in the show notes – and thank you for supporting local, longform investigative reporting.
************************MIDROLL***************************
In my mind, I pictured Cynthia brushing aside cobwebs and blowing off years of dust in a dank basement to see what was inside the box.
Instead, when we arrive, we’re shown to a quiet, mostly empty courtroom. And the mystery box had already been unpacked – its contents spread across the two tables attorneys would sit at during a trial.
There’s a clerk and a bailiff in the room keeping an eye on us. This evidence is in their custody, so it’s not like Cynthia can take anything with her.
[Jason Moon] Alright. Want to just describe what we’re looking at here?
[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah, so // when we got here the box was open and the exhibits are out, so we’re taking a look at all the stuff that’s on the table. (fade under)
There were stacks of documents, a pile of plastic zip-lock bags with things inside, large brown paper bags, photographs, a vhs tape. More than I ever expected.
(fade up)
[Cynthia Mousseau] Do you have a garbage can somewhere?
[Clerk] Yes.
[Cynthia Mousseau] I’m just gonna… I’m going to be throwing out glove after glove after glove here.
(fade down)
Cynthia knows DNA is Jason’s best shot. She doesn’t want to contaminate anything, so she wears gloves and changes them between each piece of evidence that she touches. The clerk brings over a trash can. I decide I’m not touching anything.
Cynthia reaches for one of the large brown paper bags.
[Cynthia Mousseau] I want to know what’s in here. So we’re going to look at DJE-4. (rustling) That's – that’s the jeans.
[Jason Moon] That’s Sharon’s jeans?
[Cynthia Mousseau] That’s Sharon’s jeans.
[Jason Moon] Wow.
Sharon’s jeans. With an elastic waistband and an ‘80s acid wash. Still covered in the dried mud her body was found in. I wasn’t expecting this. To be this intimately close to Sharon’s death.
[mux in]
The room feels heavier. Cynthia becomes methodical. She’s brought with her a large roll of white paper. She rips off big sheets of it to put underneath pieces of evidence to catch any dirt or dust that falls off.
(sound of paper ripping)
The jeans are just the beginning. Inside another bag is the bra Sharon was wearing when she died. Cut open in the front, still stained with blood. There were Sharon’s shoes: Tan, moccasin-style slip-ons. There was the watch she was wearing. Bits of paper found in Sharon’s car, like a shopping list for coffee and cheez-its. A ziploc bag full of cigarette butts from Sharon’s car.
(sound of paper ripping)
Then, there was Jason’s pocketknife. Small, with a brown handle. Like any old pocketknife you might take camping or have in a junk drawer. Cynthia carefully placed it on a new sheet of white paper, unfolded the blade, and then photographed it next to a ruler.
There was a yellow spiral notebook that belonged to Ken Johnson. Full of handwritten scores to sports games from the ‘80s. Evidence of Ken’s gambling habit.
There were the fingerprint cards taken from Jason and Tony at age 19. On one side, every finger was printed individually, on the other side their full hand print was taken.
[mux out]
For about 30 minutes, Cynthia has been making her way through each piece of evidence. Examining them, taking pictures of them, carefully placing them back how they came.
Then, she opens a large ziploc bag with a bunch of other ziploc bags inside of it. Inside each of the smaller bags are tubes and slides and other things that look like they belong in a lab.
[Cynthia Mousseau] Sand from abdomen… Sand from back… // What are you?
[Jason Moon] “Medical specimen, please rush.”
[Cynthia Mousseau] Alright, we’re going to look at that in a minute.
(both gasp)
[Cynthia Mousseau] That is the nail clippings.
[Jason Moon] Oh my gosh.
[Cynthia Mousseau] This is the nail clippings. This is the nail clippings. (gasps) // I need to stop for a second.
Cynthia walks away from the table. Her eyes are filling with tears. She takes out her phone and calls her boss at the New England Innocence Project.
[Cynthia Mousseau] Hey. The fucking nail clippings are here.
[voice on the phone] What??
[Cynthia Mousseau] The nail clippings are here.
[voice on the phone] (gasps) Amazing!
[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah.
Cynthia abruptly hangs up and then walks back to the table. The nail clippings are in two normal-size paper envelopes – one envelope for the nail clippings from each hand. Each envelope has a strip of red tape with the word EVIDENCE printed three times in all-caps.
Cynthia holds one envelope up to the light. I can see the silhouettes of the nail clippings inside, like tiny crescent moons.
[Cynthia Mousseau] I don’t know if I’m shaking, Jason.
[Jason Moon] A little bit.
[Cynthia Mousseau] A lot. (laughs) //
[Jason Moon] So the answer to who killed Sharon Johnson is very likely in that envelope right there in front of us?
[Cynthia Mousseau] It is possible that the answer to who killed Sharon Johnson is in this envelope in front of us. These two envelopes. And we have been looking for these. And now we know where they are. And we only know where they by a chance encounter in court… (sighs, laughs) I feel like I’m going to cry.
[Jason Moon] These have just been sitting here for 33 years.
[Cynthia Mousseau] I am going to cry. (laughs) Yep, these have been sitting here for a long time.
[Bailiff] Take some tissues?
[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah, I’m gonna – yeah, I’ll take some tissues.
[mux in]
The bailiff, who’s been looking over with an interested expression ever since Cynthia found the envelope, comes over to offer a box of tissues. The clerk is on her feet, too. She’s writing down the exhibit number of the nail clippings to make sure they’re preserved.
The courtroom is now filled with excitement. A feeling that’s reaching across the professional boundaries in the room. The bailiff says out loud, “This is incredible!”
[Bailiff] This is incredible.
[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah, and you guys were here for this. This was history in-the-making.
[Bailiff] This is like what you see in a movie.
[Cynthia Mousseau] Yeah. Maybe your job is boring sometimes… Not today.
[Bailiff] No, not today.
[mux post & out]
A few weeks after that day at the courthouse, Cynthia filed a motion with the court for DNA testing.
She asked the court to order testing for the nail clippings and six other pieces of evidence found in the box that have also never been DNA tested. Those include fingerprint lifts from inside Sharon’s car, the cigarette-butts from Sharon’s car, and Jason’s pocket knife.
Cynthia had hopes prosecutors for the state might agree to the testing. After all, it could prove Jason’s guilt or his innocence. She waited days to hear whether they’d agree. Then weeks.
Finally, the state filed a document with a court. They were objecting to DNA testing.
[mux in]
The state’s objection to DNA testing in Jason Carroll’s case begins with yet another re-telling of the official narrative.
The state then argues there is NO scenario under which DNA testing would exonerate Jason. I had to reread that sentence a few times when I first saw this document. No possible scenario where DNA testing proves Jason’s innocence.
This means that even if DNA tests on the evidence came back and there was no DNA of Jason’s and there was, say, DNA from a known serial killer, the state’s position is that that would not exonerate Jason.
I tried to talk with Charles Bucca, the prosecutor who wrote the objection. I wanted to ask what makes him so absolutely certain of Jason’s guilt. But he declined.
It seems for Charles and the state of New Hampshire, they already know what happened, Jason is guilty. He confessed. And it seems nothing – not even a DNA test – can undo that story. Like bread becomes flesh, that story is now their truth.
As of this moment, the decision on whether or not DNA testing will happen is in the hands of Judge William Delker. The same judge who denied Jason’s request for early release.
[mux out]
Even if DNA testing is granted it will likely still take a long time to play out. There could be fights over which items get tested, which kinds of tests get run, and which lab should do the testing.
Then, of course, the results could be argued over. If the DNA tests come back as not-Jason, but don’t point to anyone else, a judge might decide that’s not enough. If the DNA tests come back as Ken Johnson, the state could argue that confirms Jason’s conviction.
It could all take months, if not longer.
And in the meantime, Jason Carroll is inside the New Hampshire State Prison for Men, about five minutes from me.
I talked to Jason again in January of 2023. His lawyer, Cynthia, was in the room with me.
[Jason Carroll] I am tired of being looked at like I’m // some fucking kind of animal. And I’m just tired of being looked at like, you know, “Oh yeah, well, you were convicted.” And I get how the court systems work, but people don’t understand the shoddiness and shittyness that happened with this.
Jason has been riding an emotional roller coaster the past several months. Appearing in court again for the first time in decades, having his request for early parole denied, learning about the discovery of the evidence box, and now finding out the state is objecting to DNA testing. It’s been a busy time.
Still, Jason seems clear-eyed about the road ahead. He says they’ve lost some battles, but the war can still be won. He tells Cynthia he’s ready to keep fighting. Ready to be the first man in New Hampshire to ever be exonerated after being convicted of murder.
[Jason Carroll] I’m kinda like the, uh, I’m kinda like the plow right now for people that are behind the wall.. in a sense.
[Cynthia Mousseau] What do you mean by that? Say more about that.
[Jason Carroll] Well, for what you and I have got going on, you know, with your organization, which has never been done before, there are people in here who need it. There are people in here, like me, that don’t belong here. There’s not many. But there are some here. And the thing is, the state’s never had it before. So, I mean, you and I are like, you know, we’re trying to make history. It’s tough. But, like I said, we’re the snowplow that’ll open up a path for everybody else.
For a few moments, I stopped interviewing and just listened as Jason and Cynthia talk to each other. They’ve known each other a few years now.
[Cynthia Mousseau] Jason, can you talk about, like, how – What’s it been like, like, you put your faith in the system originally, right? And then the system fails you.
[Jason Carroll] Of course.
[Cynthia Mousseau] How have you felt about trying to put your faith in the system again? Like, how has that been?
[Jason Carroll] You know, it’s not putting my faith so much into the system. It’s putting my faith into you.
Cynthia fights back a smile. A look of embarrassment, pride, heartache, and heavy responsibility blooms across her face.
[Jason Carroll] That’s what I put my faith into. It’s not the system. System sucks, let’s just face it... System’s trash.
[mux in]
A word about that system that Jason just mentioned. The public institutions that are supposed to act on our behalf. The ones we pay for with our taxes.
That system is not always built on science.
The number one recommendation of false confession experts is that interrogations should be recorded in their entirety. More than half of all states in the U.S. require police to do this. New Hampshire is not one of them.
In response to our question about this, a spokesperson for the New Hampshire Department of Safety said they do consider it “best practice.” We talked to more than a dozen defense attorneys and local police officials, who told us interrogations with suspects in New Hampshire are often recorded, though not universally. A bill to require recording police interrogations in most circumstances is pending in the state legislature.
Since 2002, close to 100 so-called conviction integrity units have opened across 27 states. These are units within prosecutor’s offices tasked with revisiting their own convictions to make sure they still hold up. Less than half of those units have actually recorded exonerations, but across those who have, 668 people have been cleared of crimes they did not commit. A conviction integrity unit played a role in the exoneration of Huwe Burton, who you heard from in the last episode. There are no conviction integrity units in New Hampshire.
Some law enforcement agencies are abandoning the Reid technique because of the risk of false confessions. In 2015, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, sort of the Canadian-FBI, said they were switching to a less accusatory technique. And believe it or not, a sergeant with the RCMP described the new technique to a reporter this way: “Less Kojak and more Dr. Phil.”
[mux post]
For now, this is as far as I can take you. The road to answering who killed Sharon Johnson – and whether Jason Carroll will be exonerated ends here, for the moment.
In my true crime story, I can’t tell you whether Jason is truly innocent. The truth is, I don’t know – at least not yet.
I do know this: In the late 1980s all we had to go on were a few clues and words on tape. Today, in 2023, with a box full of evidence that can now be DNA tested, and more than 30 years of science on confessions, we finally have a real shot at getting to the truth. The only question left is whether our system of justice is willing to keep looking for it.
[mux up & out]
A True Crime Story is reported and produced by me, Jason Moon.
It’s edited by Katie Colaneri.
Additional reporting and research by Paul Cuno-Booth.
Editing help from Lauren Chooljian, Daniela Allee, Sara Plourde, Taylor Quimby, Mara Hoplamazian, and Todd Bookman.
Our News Director is Dan Barrick. Our Director of Podcasts is Rebecca Lavoie.
Fact-checking by Dania Suleman.
Sara Plourde created our original artwork, as well as our website, bearbrookpodcast.com.
Additional photography and videos by Gaby Lozada.
Special thanks to Maria Savarese, Mary McIntyre, Gaby Healy, Sarah Nathan, Dan Tuohy, Zoey Knox, Jeongyoon Han, and Ruby Baer.
Original music for the series was created by me, Jason Moon.
Bear Brook is a production of the Document team at New Hampshire Public Radio.