Previously on Bear Brook, Season 2, a true crime story.

I could point out how Jason's statements were so inconsistent with the undisputed forensic evidence in this case

that it was more probable that he was guessing in response to interrogation questions than that he had any actual knowledge.

In fact, looking at these inconsistencies, it is shocking that Jason was ever even a credible suspect, let alone convicted.

I do remember being yelled and screamed at.

And any time I answered the wrong way, like, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope.

I remember being so wiped out I tried to go to sleep under the table.

They wouldn't let me.

But ultimately, did you find, were you convinced that Jason was guilty of the crime?

Oh, yeah.

He admitted to, if I recall correctly,

admitted to stabbing her at least once.

This was a horrible crime.

I mean, that's...

Why would you say that if you didn't do it? The first known wrongful conviction in the United States was based on a false confession.

Actually, two false confessions, one from each of the two co-defendants.

They were farmers in Vermont in 1812, Jesse and Stephen Bourne.

They didn't like their brother-in-law, thought he was lazy, reloading off the family.

So when the brother-in-law disappeared, the born brothers were easy suspects.

Witnesses said they'd heard the born brothers threatened to kill the brother-in-law disappeared, the Bourne brothers were easy suspects. Witnesses said they'd heard the Bourne brothers threatened to kill the brother-in-law.

The brother-in-law's personal items were found in the Bourne's cellar.

Bones were found buried in their field.

...