I just.
Oh. What?
So there's a couple other boxes
down here that you'll see.
John is one of our
engineers that will help make sure
we have quality. So I'm going to
step up because they may start
talking to you and give you some
directions, and then they'll let me
know when we can start.
Okay. Can you hear?
Are you good to help?
I just realized I wanted to move a
different to a different place.
Can get light.
Maybe a little bit of light.
Make maybe better.
I'm not on audio.
This is a dumb question, but is
there. Is it just audio we're doing?
No, we'll be recording video.
Okay.
Oh, yeah. John just chimed
into the chat.
We used to do
all of our interviews this way
during Covid, the early days.
Yeah. So we we developed these
techniques. And then obviously as we
came out of them, some of them were
like, well, let's do it the way we
did. And I was like, that was two
years ago. How do we do that?
So yeah.
Yeah.
I, I like to bring in our engineers
because I am terrible at like
recording and doing high quality
things and that's their specialty.
That makes sense to me.
So how do I pronounce.
Is it Eli?
It's Ilsa.
Ilsa. Okay.
Yeah.
All right. That's why we.
Oh, yeah, I know.
And is it net.
Connect like connects.
Yeah.
Okay, I suppose.
I get every I get every version of
that, you know, so.
I'm sure.
I'm on audio now.
I'm not a video engineer.
I just sort of was asked to do
this recording, but,
I mean, the picture looks good to
me. I'm.
I've already started recording, so I
think you can start whenever you
like.
Okay. Do you want me to turn off my
video or are we okay?
Just recording.
Elsa, I have her
pin, so we're just recording our
video again.
Okay. Wonderful.
All right, well, we'll get started.
Okay. Sorry. Some videos just
started playing on my laptop, and we
fix this.
Okay.
Okay. That was weird.
Yeah, and we'll edit will be
added. So if something pops up or
the phone rings, make sure my
phone's actually on.
Yeah. Me too.
Mention that.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
We're good.
All right. Well.
Thank you. Thank you again for for
making time. I'm glad we could, you
know, juggle the schedules.
Yeah. Sorry about that.
Oh, no, I understand.
But give me a let's
start with what is it that you do in
your organization?
Give us that background of what your
mission is.
Sure. So the Joyful Heart Foundation
was founded in 2004
by Law and Order Special
Victims Unit actress and advocate
Mariska Hargitay
to help survivors heal
and reclaim joy in their lives,
to help survivors
get rights and and resources
so that they can pursue
justice, you
know, and find a path to healing.
And in 2010,
we decided
that ending the rape kit backlog
would be our top advocacy priority.
So ever since then, which now
is 15 years, we've been
doing that.
We launched a nationwide campaign
in 2016 to
make sure that every state across
the country adopts our six
pillars of rape kit reform,
and those are generally legislative,
but not always.
And those pillars are designed to
end the backlog and also make sure
it never happens again.
So was your group instrument
that was around the same window of
time when Wisconsin was became
aware of like, oh my gosh, we have a
huge backlog sitting in hospitals
and police stations.
Was your group largely the one that
was making us aware or was that
coincidental? How did that timing
work out there?
We were involved, definitely.
In 2014, we issued a Freedom
of Information Act request to the
Milwaukee Police Department
to find out what the number
of their on testing kits were at
that time.
And that request, you know,
uncovered about 2600
untested rape kits there.
There was around the time across the
country that
a lot of jurisdictions were just
determining what they had on the
shelves. And we
issued a series of 25 boyos
across the country.
And that's when we started really
raising the issue and kind of
shining a light on what was going
on. So I think we had something
to do with it. And, you know, kind
of we've been
very instrumental in
sounding the alarm on this issue.
So what was it like
trying to get states to take action?
Because in that time span,
you I'm sure the states realized
this was a thing.
We've heard we've had the debate
here in Wisconsin about what
happened, and we're kind of
revisiting it now again.
But there was a lot of concern
about, okay, what is the official
process and who pays for this?
How fast do we have an obligation
to take care of that?
So what were the how would you
prioritize? How would you approach
prioritized. And then as to how this
should be handled?
This is a very complex issue.
It is also
sort of complex to to determine
how it happened.
But I will say the overarching theme
of why the backlog happens in the
first place is because sexual
assault is just not taken seriously
as a violent crime that it is.
And so that factors
in at many, many levels of
government, including crime
labs and down to
law enforcement, where for
a long time decisions about,
excuse me, long time decisions
were made about when to test
a rape kit were made by one person,
and that was whatever detective was
on the case.
And, you know, there are a lot of
things I can tell you about that,
but that's not a good way to make
this really important decision.
And it turned out to be very clear
that that did not work in
every state in the country.
So, you know, the issue is,
once you determine that you have
6000 plus untested rape
kits, what do you do about it?
And that is definitely very
complex.
I will say, you know, the first
thing to do is to have an inventory
done and to make sure that every,
every kit in every corner of the
state is counted.
And there are many states that have
done that and really uncovered
from corner to corner, top
to bottom of the state.
The kits that are sitting on
shelves.
It took Wisconsin a long time to do
that.
And at that point, at that
point in time, we were very
concerned about why I was taking so
long.
And, you know, it kind of
from there.
The next steps sort of flow
from that.
And so that delay initially
in the inventory was sort of a
harbinger of things to come.
I don't know if I.
Know that that was good.
And I would encourage
you to keep going in the timeline
there, because obviously
we're we looking at this because
Brad Schimmel was the attorney
general in that time frame from 2016
or 2014
election through 2018 election,
and he's now running for Supreme
Court again. It's becoming an issue
politically and through ads, and I
don't want you to get Wade into
territory that you're comfortable
speaking. But just in terms of
from your group's point of view,
he was the attorney general at that
time. It was a political issue at
that time.
And it sounds like inherently this
was a political issue in terms of
how important is this?
Where do we spend money?
What is the process of how this
happens?
So could you weigh in on and
how Wisconsin did maybe
in their own status, and then maybe
compared to other states that maybe
took it more seriously or had more
urgency.
Sure.
You know, we actually were very
concerned at the time about the
timeline. I was
just starting at Joyful Heart
Foundation ten years ago
when a lot of this was starting to
happen. And, you know, we we
kept sort of asking, what
is going on?
Why is it taking so long?
There were, you know, years when
very, very few, I think it was even
less than ten kids were tested.
And so we were engaging with folks
in the state trying to find out, you
know, exactly what was happening.
But it was a big concern in our
office. What is going on in
Wisconsin?
And so, you know, from there,
I think the federal grant
really sort of injected a little bit
of energy
into the into the process, which it
takes money to test rape kits.
Let's be clear, you know, but we
have seen other states across
the country find the money.
You know, even if it's not in their
budget for that year to find some
money to start this process, because
it is so critical to
get these tests done quickly.
And so there was
that kind of
delay was very concerning
to us.
The other issue that we we talked
a lot about was the
decision of which kits to test
out of the 6000 kits, I think there
were, you know,
gosh, what was it, 3000 something.
In the end, that were tested.
And I shouldn't be saying that
number unless I know.
But I can look at it real quick if
you give me a second.
Do I have that number right here?
Yeah.
So basically, out of the 6841
kits that were determined
to be previously
on submitted to the crime lab for
testing, there were about
4004 hundred that
were determined to be sent forward
for testing.
That's a concerning
number to us. That's a lot
that results in a lot of kids still
sitting on the shelf.
And we have heard every
excuse in the book why
not to test these kids?
And Wisconsin came up with the
top two.
And one is that the cases were
unfounded, which,
you know, through a lot of of
research and
kind of picking apart these old
cases that were deemed unfounded
in many other states across the
country.
That was often a
label that was put on
investigations that
the detectives didn't want to deal
with. Right.
They there's at the victim was not
credible.
They just didn't believe the victim.
You know, it was it was too
difficult of a case.
You know, there were so many
reasons why these kids
were or the cases were deemed
unfounded.
And going into other
communities where they have
taken these old kits off the
shelves, tested them and
the ones that were unfounded,
you know, in many cases were the
ones where they did
find it was a serial rapist.
And I I'll say that one
of the things that's really
important to understand is that many
rapists are serial rapists,
and it's more common
than we thought. And we know that by
testing all of these kids across the
country, because all these cases are
matching from decades and decades.
And, you know,
it's.
Often sort of the most vulnerable
people in our society that these,
these offenders target because
they do know they can get away with
it because these people
in the eyes of society and
sometimes, you know, truly too
unfortunately, too high, too much of
a time is the kind
of person that law enforcement isn't
going to care about.
So, you know, they target people
that are very vulnerable and that
society won't believe.
So the unfounded category
is a very big
concern for us.
And when we heard that, you
know, just really it made us very
worried about what the process was
going was going to be like.
Another category was that the case
had already been charged or, you
know, the person had already been
adjudicated,
but they but again, importantly, you
still need that DNA into the
DNA database so that cases can
match together.
And so there were a lot of very
it seemed to us very uninformed
decisions going on
that, you know, that we were very
uncomfortable with. And there were a
lot of people inside of Wisconsin
who were also uncomfortable with it,
too.
So I think you've explained
something that's kind of quick.
I have a question, but I want you to
clarify again, is we've heard two
different numbers. We've heard about
more than 6000 kids in
a backlog, but we've heard 4000
kids, you know, in the backlog
cleared.
So it sounds like that
almost moving.
The numbers are shifting the numbers
to get us to make sure that the
backlog is clear.
But that doesn't mean every kid
was tested in that process.
Some of some of them were cleared
without being tested.
Right?
They really.
Picked. And how
do I put this?
The decision making.
Let me think about this for a second.
It's like.
At the time, I felt like we
just don't have the energy and the
resources to test all of these kids.
And let's figure out
what we can
put aside for now.
And, you know, we had a lot
of information about what could be
done with all these various cases.
Like we couldn't find the survivor
or we couldn't tell the survivor
had consented to
testing kits.
And, you know, we understand
sometimes you have to triage and
say, well, these these kids will go
first, but maybe we'll put these on
the backburner and do a little bit
more work on them. But they never
came back to those kids, the older
kids that maybe had
some more difficulties attached to
them. But there are communities
across the country who did a
forklift approach and just tested
them all.
And that was really what the federal
government was saying was the
most promising practice at that
time.
And Wisconsin did not do it.
So is it fair to say
that our backlog was cleared?
But, you know, that's a difficult
question. It is a difficult
question. You know, there's only
so far we
can push
and.
To get, you know, to get buy in on
testing. Every single kid
is what we wanted to do.
You know, so while we might say on
our website
that Wisconsin tested their backlog,
you know, it was because what
was approved and accepted by that
state
was tested.
But I think, you know,
we'll always wonder
what would have happened if those
other kits were tested.
And hey, you know, maybe a an
a new administration or somebody
will come along and say, let's pull
a sample of these, let's test them
and see what we find.
But you know it.
I can just reiterate that
we were very uncomfortable with
that carve out of saying,
these kids don't matter.
And, you know, these kids do.
And the number was so big
of the kids that it didn't matter
that it was it was very
uncomfortable.
So one of the arguments that Brad
Schimmel has made was that his
priority as attorney general was
he didn't think it would be fast
enough to ask the state for more
money, to hire more analysts at the
state crime lab to test the kids,
and that would be more efficient to
find a grant, federal money
or some other nonprofit to send
the kids to private lab that's out
of state.
He claimed that that actually worked
in that by the time he did leave
office, the backlog was cleared.
Whether, you know, including the
process we were just describing.
Is that a fair way of describing it?
I mean, is he justified in that
point of view because the liberal
point of view is. Well, at the same
time he did go to the state, he
asked them for new positions to like
fund a, an office to go
after, like the ACA lawsuits and
joint big, you know, conservative
lawsuits around the country and that
they're saying that his priorities
were we're screwed up and that he
really only cared about the backlog
when it came time for it was causing
him election problems.
So I don't and yes,
please feel free to weigh in or
comment on when what on that part
of the argument is as best you can.
Right, so so when a community
or when a state
prioritizes this issue,
I've seen it again and again.
It it gets done.
Sometimes it does take time,
but I have seen state
after state find the money.
And I've seen cities find
the money when they didn't
plan on it.
And at least, you
know, start this process.
So it really does come down
to where your priorities are.
If this is a priority
for a governor and attorney
general.
I have seen them move mountains
to get this done and to get
it done, you know, relatively
quickly.
You know, making sure that
the kits are being outsourced,
potentially to a private lab to get
it done.
It is just it really does
often come down to
I've found one person
in a position of power who
takes this on and
has, you know, kind of the lights
and sirens approach to it.
And in that situation, I've seen it
move very quickly.
So it's really, you know, does come
down to priorities and where you
are putting your focus.
So when you look at the timeline for
Wisconsin, considering
when the backlog was identified,
when your group started really
raising the alarm bells on this.
And the backlog being
cleared, quote unquote, by
the end of 2018.
Would you consider that an efficient
process?
Was it 2018?
Well, that was that's what the he's
calling. He's claiming that the
backlog was done by 2018.
I want to say that the numbers on
your website reflect that.
The what we found, I'm looking at
now, according to a report
by Wisconsin Department of Justice,
there was zero untested kits in
2021.
Let me say something
to to to its
concern.
And they kept getting they got some
more money in 2022
to investigate
the cases.
This tracking system came into
place.
I so
the according to so
there's a from whiskey
said as a kite
a.org/wisconsin.
There was a link from your website.
One of the press releases here
is that the Attorney General
Schimmel announces
testing completed and all sexual
assault kits.
September 10th, 2018.
And that was a headline leading into
the right before the 2018,
his reelection in that time that
they had completed testing on all
sexual assault kits, initially
inventoried and designated for
testing as part of the Wisconsin's
Sexual Assault Kit initiative.
So that was the claim at the time.
And really, I haven't seen too much
pushback from from
liberals, even at the time that his
Democratic opponent for attorney
general wasn't saying no, they're
not all tested.
The argument was they weren't done
fast enough and efficiently enough,
and they were prioritized in the
proper way.
But I guess, you know, I,
I love to hear your response to
that.
I well, I, I think I'd like to look
into that because I, I'm just saying
my memory was that it took longer
than that.
And I and I feel like there was a
point when they
somebody that he said it was done,
but it actually wasn't really done.
And then they came back later and
said, now it's really done.
And I could be just totally
misremembering. But I remembered,
I feel like I remember that
happening. And it was.
Sometimes what will happen
is,
you know, we've seen this other
other states to say, like our
backlog is at zero.
Well, it means they've shifted it to
the private lab, you know,
and so I don't know, but I'd have to
look a little bit more into that
before.
Okay. Yeah.
And feel free to follow up with an
email or. Yeah, information on that.
I will say that I do know that.
So he lost his election.
Josh Kaul became the Democratic
attorney general of Wisconsin.
He was fighting with the Republican
legislature over funds to
increase staffing at the crime lab.
And so there was another backlog
that was created in that time
as that became a campaign issue.
Eventually that was resolved as
well. And more funding came in.
I think Wisconsin is still
at a standard of keeping up.
There isn't a a backlog at this
time. From what I understand.
So that that could be part of it.
But yeah. So please feel free to
follow up with that if there's a
different I
guess I'm going off of what happened
at the time in the press releases
that are still linked to the
websites, and certainly
what he was announcing.
Oh, sorry. Go ahead.
And certainly what, you know, the
attorney general was announcing at
the time, which is that the backlog
had been cleared.
Okay. You're reading I don't know
why that says as of four,
seven 2021,
testing complete on 4472
three. We're still in the process of
being tested. And then,
you know, they were saying they were
breaking it down after that.
But yeah, I'd like to
I'd like to look more into that.
Okay.
So I guess
and and this is once again, whatever
you're comfortable and able to say
to talk about the Supreme Court
briefs that we're having here, which
is what this story is focused on,
is how appropriate is
it for this issue to be
part of a conversation
about whether the person who was
the attorney general at that time
did a good enough job, or had enough
urgency and deserves a spot
on the Supreme Court because he's
saying this isn't relevant.
This isn't an issue that matters.
I did this well. It's just a
campaign. It's a Partizan attack.
And the you know, the Liberal
candidate in this case is saying
this needs to be part of the
conversation. Again, this is part
of, you know, his history and his
record in public service
and is warranted for us to be
bringing it up again.
This is a justice issue.
I mean, I will just say overall,
the rape kit backlog
exists because of a failure
of the criminal justice system as a
whole to take sexual assault
seriously and to prioritize
the testing of rape kits.
So any conversation about justice
in a state
that has had a backlog, I think
it makes total sense
to talk about this issue.
You know, I, I can't speak to
all the history that happened there,
but I can say once again that,
yeah, I mean, I think I think what's
most important to understand is
bringing it back to individuals
and thinking about that.
Each one of these kids represents a
survivor who went through so much
to have this evidence collected.
Their body became a crime scene.
They did everything that the
criminal justice system and society
asked them to do, which is to report
the crime to police and have the
evidence collected.
And they do that with the
expectation will be tested.
So there was a breakdown,
you know, in Wisconsin, as there
were in many state, most states
of the the
system keeping
their promise to survivors.
And I think in any conversation
about justice and who will lead
justice in a state.
This is certainly
an issue that that could be
rationally factored in.
Okay. And then finally
I was looking through your pillars
on your website in Wisconsin beats
five of the six criteria.
Believe the one is a victim
notification or right to know.
So I guess if you would just kind of
sum this up, give us where where
does Wisconsin stand today in terms
of your assessment of how we handle
this process?
We have given Wisconsin five
pillars.
We were always
a little bit concerned
or cautious about
the, you know, having ended the
backlog pillar because
of those kids that didn't get
tested.
But, you know, there is a report
tracking system in the state, which
is really wonderful.
That's one of the key
elements of moving forward and
making sure our backlog doesn't
happen again.
It also allows survivors to check
the status of their online,
which is very central to their
healing and their well-being, as you
know, to know where that information,
where that kid is, they really feel
like the kit belongs to them, and
that part of them is in that kit.
So it's a great way for survivors
to find out where their kit is.
Before that, many left the hospital
and never heard again.
And it's you know, I always say,
can you imagine if you went in for
some kind of cancer screening and
nobody ever called you back and told
you what the result was,
and you couldn't get anybody on the
phone, and every time you called,
you had to say the same story.
And it was just delay, delay.
And, you know, it's
it's very disheartening.
And it does negatively
impact survivors well-being.
You know, there's been
the mandate to test newly collected
kits, which is great.
And that makes sure also backlog
doesn't happen again.
The one pillar that we have been
trying to pass for
many years in Wisconsin is the
victims right to know the status of
their kid.
This is a victims, right?
We like to see it in law because
not every survivor feels comfortable
using the tracking system.
They're logging online.
You know, people have different
feelings about that.
Somebody might want
to call or walk into their local
precinct and ask, I want to know
where my rape kit is and have that
right in law. So they can't be
ignored.
You know, it's it's it's it's
actually the easiest pillar.
And it's just
been a while trying
to get that done.
You know, frankly we haven't tried
that hard in the last couple of
years. But it is actually
the last pillar that we'd
like to see. Wisconsin passed.
So.
Yeah. All right.
Anything else that you'd like to
add?
Yeah. I'll say there are some
really wonderful people in Wisconsin
who have worked on the backlog and
did take it seriously and did
prioritize it, you know, from
victim service agencies to people
at the crime lab, you know, across
the board. So, you know,
the the delay in testing was
concerning to us.
But there are very, very hard
working folks in
the system in Wisconsin who
wanted to do the right thing.
Can I get you to say and spell
your name and give your title to say
that correct on this recording?
Sure. It's Elisa Connect
and it's Elisa, e
k and e c
t.
I'm the policy and advocacy
director for the Joyful Heart
Foundation, and I direct are
in the backlog initiative.
All right. Thank you so much for
your time. I really appreciate you.
I appreciate it.
Let me know if there's anything
comes up and, you know, if you need
a thing filled in.
Yeah. And if you have any more
clarification on on Wisconsin
and win it officially, I would love
to hear that.
I'll look back at some notes that I
have from before.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you. Thanks.
Bye.
All right. Thank you.
John.
No problem. Thank you.