Should The Innocence Project Lose Its Non-Profit Status? (2)

Let us now take a look at the case of Julius Jones, who like Reed was convicted on absolutely overwhelming evidence. At present, along with Reed, his is the most high profile case the Innocence Project is wilfully lying about.

Julius Jones, who is not to be confused with a retired American football player of about the same age, was just nineteen when he murdered a stranger purely to steal his car. This was in 1999; like Texas, Oklahoma has the death penalty, and after he was convicted in 2002, Jones was sentenced  to death. The campaign not simply to spare Jones from execution but to exonerate him has been so successful that to date nearly six and a half million people have signed a petition on Change Dot Org. It remains to be seen how many of these people know the true facts of the case. Here is what the Innocence Project says.

“Julius Jones was at home having dinner with his parents and sister at the time of the murder; however, his legal team failed to present his alibi at his original trial.”

This isn’t true. Jones attempted to procure a false alibi; a defense attorney is supposed to defend his client to the best of his ability, but he is also an officer of the court and cannot present perjured evidence. Like Rodney Reed, Jones didn’t take the stand at his trial. What does that suggest in a case like this?

“Mr. Jones did not match the description of the person who committed the crime, which was provided by a sole eyewitness.”

This is half-true. Identification evidence is notoriously unreliable, especially in a situation like this when the encounter is sudden, violent, and traumatic. If a witness claims the suspect was wearing a black jacket and the accused was wearing a green one at the time, does that make the identification invalid? The answer is no. Paul Howell was murdered in front of his two young daughters and his  sister, who were lucky Jones didn’t murder them too.

“A man named Christopher Jordan matched the eyewitness’ hair description, but claimed only to have been the ‘getaway driver’ and not the shooter at trial. He was the State’s star witness against Mr. Jones.”

Jordan was his co-defendant, (he was released in 2014). The evidence of a co-defendant must be supported by other evidence, and there was plenty of that.

“Three people incarcerated with Mr. Jordan at different times have said in sworn affidavits that Mr. Jordan told each of them that he committed the murder and framed Mr. Jones.”

Here we go again – snitch culture.

“The impact of racial bias in Julius’ Jones’ case…”

And here we go yet again, because the dude is black, he must be innocent, only this time the Innocence Project is attempting to put another black rather than a white individual in the frame.

“Mr. Howell, a white man, was killed in a predominantly white neighborhood. Immediately, then District Attorney Bob Macy characterized the crime as an act of violence committed by Black men, fueled by drugs.”

Does the motive matter? If this was a predominantly white neighbourhood, two black men in a car would have been more visible.

“The officer who arrested Mr. Jones called him the n-word and dared him to run, then implied he would shoot him if he did.”

Here we go yet again, yet again. What n word might that be? But here is how Julius Jones was really arrested:

“Upon arriving at Jones’ parents’ house an officer called the phone number for Jones that King had provided, and Jones answered. The officer told Jones that the Oklahoma City Police Department had surrounded the house and wanted to talk to him about Howell’s murder. Jones agreed to come out and talk, but instead left the house through a second-floor window, evaded officers attempting to secure the perimeter of the house, and fled…Two days after the shooting, officers arrested Jordan. After an extensive citywide search, officers found and arrested Jones the following morning.”

Does that sound like the behaviour of an innocent man to you?

“Eleven out of the 12 jurors at Mr. Jones’ trial were white, and one juror referred to Mr. Jones by the n-word, and suggested that he be taken out behind the courthouse and shot.”

The n word again. Oklahoma must be full of bigots. The only problem with these sorts of claims is that taken to the logical conclusion, you can’t convict any defendant, certainly any black defendant. Or is that the point?

Another thing the Innocence Project won’t tell you is that in spite of his youth, Jones was a career criminal who had no problem with using violence. He may not be as odious as serial rapist Rodney Reed, but this is a man who should be kept off the streets for the foreseeable future, whether or not he is executed.

This article by the Attorney General of Oklahoma tells you all you need to know and then some about who Julius Jones really is, things his supporters seldom if ever mention.

The criminal justice system is indeed imperfect, not only in the United States but the world over. That does not excuse people who should know better, including Innocence Project attorneys, from wilfully misleading the public the world over on a massive scale.

The Innocence Project has a donate button on every page. In view of all the above – just two of its most high profile cases – the big question is should an organisation that is so flagrantly dishonest be allowed to peddle its lies on the public dime?

Back to Part 1.