Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 532 | The Case Against Julius Jones | Guest: Sean Fitzgerald

Episode Date: December 2, 2021

Today we're talking to journalist and YouTuber Sean Fitzgerald, aka Actual Justice Warrior, about the bizarre insistence that convicted killer Julius Jones is actually innocent. Jones was sentenced to death for murdering a man during a carjacking in 1999, and the facts of the case support the jury's decision to convict, even when new DNA evidence emerged almost 20 years later. Still, the governor of Oklahoma recently commuted Jones' sentence, and he will now spend the rest of his life in prison. The Left still claims that the case was tainted by racism, because of course they do, but Sean is able to debunk any argument that the "Julius Jones is innocent" crowd has. We also discuss the attack in Waukesha, Wisconsin, in which several people were killed when Darrell Brooks drove his car directly into a Christmas parade. Again, the Left is trying to cover this up or water this down because of racial beliefs, but again, the facts paint a poor picture for the suspect. --- Timecodes: (0:00) Intro (3:27) Interview with Sean Fitzgerald (4:43) Is Julius Jones actually innocent? (38:17) How are these convicted felons "picked" by the Innocence Project/celebrities to rally behind them, fighting for their sentence commutations/exonerations? And what is The Innocence Project? (52:47) Media's coverage of the Waukesha Christmas parade massacre --- Today's Sponsors: Good Ranchers has a limited time offer for all our listeners: 10 free bistro filets when you enter promo code 'ALLIE' at checkout. Go to GoodRanchers.com/ALLIE right now! This is a $119 value free with promo code 'ALLIE' at checkout. Reliefband stimulates a nerve in the wrist that travels to the part of the brain that controls nausea & then it blocks the signal your brain is sending to your stomach telling you that you are sick. It's been clinically proven to quickly relieve & effectively prevent nausea & vomiting associated with motion sickness, anxiety, migraines, morning sickness, chemotherapy, & so much more. Go to Reliefband.com & use promo code 'ALLIE' at checkout to receive 20% off + free shipping & a no questions asked 30-day money back guarantee. Alliance Defending Freedom has challenged the private employer vaccine mandate in court & they need your help. Go to ADFLegal.org/ALLIE & make a tax-deductible donation to ADF's Freedom Fund — and right now all gifts from new donors will be matched! --- Past Episode Mentioned: Ep 426: Should Christians Support the Death Penalty? https://apple.co/3DjlQVZ --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Thursday. As promised today, we are talking about Julius Jones. He was the Oklahoma man who was on death row and his death sentence was commuted by the Oklahoma governor after there was a loud proclamation. protest from the criminal justice crowd and specifically the Innocence Project, also Kim Kardashian, NBA stars, Viola Davis, who all advocated on behalf of Julius Jones's innocence, claiming that he was framed. Today we are talking to Sean Fitzgerald. He, or Fitzgerald, maybe that's how he pronounces it. He has a YouTube channel, actual justice warrior, where he breaks down these cases. And he has he has combed through all of the facts of this case.

case and he contends that Julius Jones, way beyond a reasonable doubt, is actually guilty. The conversation that we're having is not about the death penalty per se. I have done a theological episode on the death penalty, and we will link that episode in the description to this episode so you can go listen to it. We are primarily talking about whether or not Julius Jones is innocent and the machine behind trying to contend for someone's innocence that is driven primarily by people like the Innocence Project. The reason why this case came to prominence and why you know Julius Jones's name is because there was a three-episode documentary that was produced by Viola Davis that aired on ABC in 2018

called The Last Defense and it was put together. that's mostly what people who say that Julius Jones was innocent. That's mostly what people are referring to. They're referring to not the court transcripts, not the actual evidence that's presented or not presented. They are looking at this particular documentary. A documentary can be very informative, but it tells a story that is put together by a person who may have a particular narrative.

So it's not actual documentation or a primary source if you're trying to understand a particular case or any particular event. It might be informative in some ways, but it's not enough to tell us what the truth of a case is. And so that's why we are doing, why we are having this conversation today, doing this episode today. And we are also going to talk about what happened in Waukesha with Daryl Brooks, who has been charged with murder of six people. And we're going to talk about the media coverage of that. Why they're not calling it terrorism, why they aren't talking about the motives at all. It's very

strange. Probably it seems like race and social justice and so-called equity are all factors in that. So we're going to get into all of this today. Might be a contentious, controversial episode, but that's what we do. It's a particular perspective. And I hope that you learn something from it and can appreciate it. And without further ado, here is our new friend, Sean. Sean, thank you so much for joining us. Can you tell everyone who you are and what you do? I'm Sean Fitzgerald.

I run a channel called The Actual Justice Warrior on YouTube, where I cover criminal justice-related topics. Yeah. And political topics. Cool. That's about it. It's not a big thing. No, well, actually, it is a big thing,

because there has been such a fierce debate for a long time, but especially over the past year, I would say after the George Floyd incident, people debating what justice looks like. And we've heard this term as JW Social Justice Warrior for a while. And there seems to be such a stark disagreement on what justice actually is. So why did you start your channel and why did you name it actual justice warrior? Well, I started my channel because my background in terms of my education is in criminal justice. Like I hold two degrees in the subject. So it was something that I was always interested in. And as far back as I can remember, the media was really bad at reporting criminal justice related stories. So essentially, a lot of what I do is I'll just read the actual case

documents of a case that's in the media and try to correct terrible reporting. Yeah. So let's talk about some of that terrible reporting, or at least in your estimation, let's talk about Julius Jones, because that's how I found you. I think that maybe I had followed you already, and I had seen some of your tweets, but I watched your videos on Julius Jones, and you were one of the only people I saw that was actually covering this thoroughly. So let's start from the very beginning. Feel free to talk as long as you want to, include as many details as you want to. A lot of people just don't know what this case is, who Julius Jones is, why he didn't get the death penalty when he was supposed to.

So let's start from the beginning. Who is Julius Jones? Why are you interested in this case? So from way back in the beginning, Julius Jones is a serial carjacker who attempted to carjack one Paul Howe on July 28, 1999. And when Paul Howe opened his door in his parents' driveway, way Julius Jones shot him in the head one time killing him in front of his children. And that is what is being, let me just say, that's what's being contended.

That's you believe that the evidence points to that. But of course, the Innocence Project, Kim Kardashian, a lot of people on the other side, they would say, they say that it's not Julius Jones. But this is your assertion based on what you've looked at, correct? Right. Based on the evidence. This is what was laid out by the prosecution way back when they tried Julius Jones and convicted him for the murder.

So after Paul Howe was shot and killed, the Howell family, which is Megan Toby, Paul Howe's sister, and the two daughters fled into the home. Julius Jones fired upon them as they were fleeing into the home. Then he got into the suburban, backed out, crushed Paul Howe's legs, and drove away. Now, the Jones defense team contends that it was not Julius Jones, that it was actually who was ended up being his co-dependent, uh, defendant Christopher Jordan, who shot Paul Howell as. and stole the car. But the evidence against Julius Jones is overwhelming. And the evidence is actually greater today when he got the, the commutation than it was back in the day.

So there was a red bandana that was worn by the shooter that was described by Paul Howell's sister. And the Jones defense team contended the whole time that Jones wasn't the shooter. There's even a clip of him. His sister or his daughter? His sister saw the bandana. Okay, got it. She was in the passenger seat because Megan Toby is the only adult.

eyewitness to the case. Like, uh, the, the two daughters did unfortunately see what happened to Paul Howe, but they weren't testifying in court or anything like that. So the sister, uh, identifies this bandana. They find the bandana inside Julius Jones's bedroom. The murder weapon is wrapped in it. They also find a white shirt with black trim on it, which was like black trim around the neck, which is very underreported.

It's a very distinct shirt that was described by Toby. And it was also found in Julie. Jones's bedroom. And the defense, like one of their big proponent, one of the things that they argue in their documentary, which is called the last defense, is that the banana should have been tested for DNA back in 1999. It was tested for DNA in around 2017, 2018. And despite what the defense claimed about Jones never wearing bandanas and having nothing to do with this crime, the DNA actually did match Julius Jones, which should have confirmed the verdict and ended all this, but it didn't.

And they continue, they just don't even talk about the bandana anymore. It's one of the most amazing things. That's what I was going to say. What do they say when DNA evidence proved that it was his bandana or that he had been wearing the bandana, at least at some point. What did the defense argue? So they have two strategies or they had two strategies. The first was to ignore the existence of the bandana. So if you look at any of the innocence project propaganda, it always starts with Julius Jones maintains his innocence, which is like, okay,

The guy says he didn't do it. The DNA says he did, but Julius says he didn't. And they don't bring it up. And then when you push them on the bandana, they start playing games with their like, oh, well, that was the major profile. There's these minor profiles that our DNA science could not, like, it could only detect was human. Like, it couldn't detect who it was.

And they'll make the case that that could have been the actual real killer on some of the minor profiles there. But it's like, it's, it's nonsense. because Jones claimed and as recently as in his pardon and parole hearing that he didn't even wear any bandanas at the time of the shooting. So the fact that he's the major contributor is like to me that locks it up for him. Also it was the type of DNA that you couldn't test for back in 1999, which means that Chris Jordan, his his very, his lacking in intelligence co-defendant could not have planted this type of DNA. It's like contact DNA, like touch DNA, let alone removed it. because DNA scientists didn't know this existed in 99.

But it's not just that. There's like eyewitnesses that saw Jordan and Jones 15 minutes before the murder. And these are like independent eyewitnesses. There are witnesses that saw him like 30 minutes after the murder. He's seen on surveillance dumping the car. Like there's a bunch of different things that would lead us to believe that Jones is guilty. And yet the campaign just progresses. Now, does the Innocence Project maintain that it was actually Jordan who could,

committed this crime. It was not Julius Jones? Yes, they do. Okay. And is that how they say, well, that's, you know, did they say that Jordan somehow framed Julius Jones? Is that the, is that the argument? Yeah. So in, in the documentary, they make the case that Christopher Jordan planted the bandana and the firearm in Julius Jones's bedroom because they spent the night together. But the thing is, is, again, he would not have been able to plant and remove his own DNA. from the bandana.

So that's ridiculous. So Chris Jordan's DNA was not found at all on the bandana. No. He was excluded as a contributor. And the match for Julius Jones, the other trick that they'll use is to say that Jones didn't, his DNA wasn't technically a match because DNA nerds like the scientists don't actually say match. They give you odds of whether or not it could be somebody else. Right.

And they'll say the odds of another African American contributing to the sample besides Julius Jones are one in 110 million in the African American population. In 1999, the African American population was 35 million people. So you would need something like four times the African American population and for the real killer, quote unquote, to have access to Julius Jones's bedroom to plant it. So it's statistically ridiculous. But they'll harp on like little things like that. And they'll say, oh, the DNA wasn't technically a match because the lab doesn't use the term

match. But for all intensive purposes. It's a match. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort.

We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over. chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this T-Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. I want to go through some of what the Innocence Project is positing because if you just listen to what you say, it seems really clear. And then I think the natural question is, well, then why? Why push back on this verdict at all? If it is so clear, if there seems to be some video evidence, at least of what happened after. If there's DNA evidence,

why even try to raise any contention about this verdict? So here's what the Innocence Project says on their website. And I'll just, I'll let you respond, maybe not to all of them, because there's a lot of contingents. But they say that Julius Jones was at home having dinner with his parents and sister at the time of the murder. And that his legal team failed to present his alibi at his original trial. His trial attorneys did not call Mr. Jones or his family to the stand. So what do you have to say about his alibi and perhaps why his defense attorneys

didn't even try to bring this alibi to light? So this alibi is the alibi that I call the big cookie alibi because it basically makes Julius Jones to be a child. They say that he was at home eating spaghetti at 9 o'clock playing Monopoly and they were having a birthday cookie. So his attorneys, one of which I've spoken to, David McKenzie actually signed a sworn statement and his other attorney did as well that Jones told them independently that he was not home that evening. On top of that, they tried to produce

an independent witness, a woman called Brenda Cujo to back up this alibi because they were like, she's, you know, they're not going to believe just the family, especially against all the other evidence. And this woman was like a teacher of the year. She had like impeccable credibility in terms of the court of wall. So she told the investigators for the Jones defense team that she went to Kinko's before going to this party. So they asked her if she had anything to verify that. She produced a receipt dating her trip to Kinkos, thus dating the alibi to the day before the murder, not just the murder. On top of that, I was recently sent an article from August 1st. So let me just reemphasize what you're saying. So there was a teacher who says that she went to the celebration of Julius

Jones's birthday at his house, right? Who had that incredible credibility. As she said, she remembers this because she went to Kinko's before the celebration. She produced a receipt from her trip to Kinko's, but the date of that receipt, it was before

the day that Paul Howell was shot and killed, which means that if we're to trust her alibi, that the celebration that his family and Julius Jones is saying is his alibi, because that was you know, allegedly where he was when Paul Howell was shot. That actually happened before the day

before Paul Howell was shot. So the timing doesn't work for the alibi. That's what you're asserting. Yes. And it's even worse because I was recently sent an article from the Oklahomaan from August 1st of 1999, which is just three days after the murder. This is when it would be the freshest in the Jones family's minds. And in that version of the alibi, because there's four different versions of the alibi, they actually say that Christopher Jordan, the person they accuse of being the shooter now, was with Jones. So it was an alibi for both people at the time of the murder, which is something that the Jones family doesn't allege anymore. And according to their theory of defense is not possible because they claim that Jordan was the shooter and Jones had nothing to do with anything. So they've been lying and changing up this alibi all the way through.

the attorneys for Jones signed sworn statements saying that they knew that this alibi was false. Their independent witness not only said and produced a receipt showing that it's false, but she also claimed that she was threatened by the Jones family for coming out against the alibi. So this has already been adjudicated. It's nonsensical. He was not home. And his family's lying. Got it.

Okay. Okay. So say they say all right. Well, that's fine. We won't, we won't argue with you there. but the Innocence Project would say Mr. Jones did not match the description of the person who committed the crime, which was provided by a sole witness. This is from the Innocence Project. The person who killed Mr. Howell was described as having one to two inches of hair, I think, outside of the cap that they say he was wearing. But Mr. Jones had a shaved head. So how do you respond to something like that? So what they're talking about is Megan Toby's description of Julius Jones. And that's the sister of Paul Howell who is sitting in the passenger seat.

Yes. And you could just ask her what she said or read the court's transcripts. So she was asked at trial. The person they're saying committed the crime is Christopher Westside Jordan. He had corn rows, like long hair that are that are braided. So they asked at trial because this was the theory of defense at trial if what she was talking about when she was describing the hair was corn rolls or braids. She specifically said she did not see cornrows or braids at trial. When she talks about the hair, she's talking about a stocking cap that goes over the eyebrows

and over the ear. And if you listen to her description or read it at trial, she says that the hair that she's talking about is the inch or half an inch in and around where the ear connects to the head. And she's talking about the space between that hair and the stocking cap. So what she's describing is a sideburn. It's two dimensional space. It's not three. three-dimensional space. Gotcha. And it's not like I'm speculating on this. Megan Toby did an interview in early October where they asked her specifically about

her description and she explained it. Megan Toby also went to both the clemency and the pardon and parole board hearing for Julius Jones. And even though this is like the big thing for their defense and the members of the part of the parole board are in the tank for Julius Jones and they could have asked her questions about her description. they didn't ask one question after she brought up this highly contested fact because people aren't really interested in the facts of the case. They're just interested in glomming on to whatever

little pieces of whatever they could find in the transcript out of context to make the case for innocence. And what do you say to the to the contention that three people incarcerated with Mr. at different times have said in sworn affidavits that Mr. Jordan told each of them that he committed the murder and that he actually framed Mr. Jones. None of these three men, The Innocence Project, says, have met Mr. Jones and they do not know one another. None of them have been offered a shorter sentence or incentive in exchange for disclosing Mr. Jordan's confessions. Well, jailhouse confessions often come up in high-profile cases. And the character and credibility of the witnesses are in question to say the least. One of them is a convicted murderer. He murdered a child,

his stepchild, or his girlfriend's child by pouring scalding hot water. I apologize for everybody in the audience. Yeah. I see with kids. You might, well, you might not want to listen to this episode with kids, but especially this description. But go on. It's fine. He poured scalding hot water on his girlfriend's child's genitals. That's how he murdered that person. He's also been adjudicated. He's also been adjudicated a sociopath, the pathological liar. And you'll see this pattern over and over again with the people that Jones's attorneys would bring forward. On top of that, this is very depressing for everybody out there. When people come out in support of Julius Jones in prison, no matter how bad their story is, no matter how loose their connection with Christopher Jordan is,

their prison commissary accounts get flooded with money. So there is an incentive to lie for Christopher Jordan. And there are confessions from Julius Jones that were never brought up against him in trial because they were adjudicated to be uncredible, even though they supported the prosecution's case. So the idea that there's confessions here and there, like these jailhouse confessions, they always show up. A bunch of them have been adjudicated. There's one that was recent that wasn't adjudicated. But again, it's another situation with a pathological liar, a history of crimes of dishonesty that they don't add anything new that's not in the headlines to the case. So they're not really credible confessions. Unlike one of the confessions that Jones gave, where he described a girl

waving to him in the back seat of the vehicle, which was in that description from somebody who said Jones told him that he shot Howe. And it was given to the police by Rachel Howe, which is the daughter of Paul Howe at the time. Right. So there's no connecting information from any of these confessions that give us anything new. Right. So you're saying that the pathological liar was one of the three people incarcerated who apparently signed a sworn affidavit saying that Mr. Jordan confessed to committing the murder.

One of those people was a pathological liar. You're saying? No, no, no, no, not one of them. All three of them have been either adjudicated with some kind of mental or sociopathic disorder and multiple of them have been adjudicated as like pathological liars. like they have crimes of dishonesty in their past. One of them actually had a personal vendetta against Julius Jones's prosecuting attorney. But there's like different things that you can go through all of them.

But they, it's actually a miracle. And maybe it's not a miracle because these are people coming out for attention that they've been adjudicated in such a way with all these different. I don't want, I don't know if disabilities the correct word, but all these different mental issues. Does Mr. Jordan have, um, mental disabilities that are, have been cited? Christopher Jordan? I don't know. I don't know about him personally. He's been very quiet. You mentioned that he, you mentioned that he was an unintelligent co-defendant. I didn't know if you were implying that he has some kind of cognitive disability. When they claim that Christopher Jordan, who was 19 years old, uneducated, that he planted DNA not known to exist in 1999 with one day's notice, that's when I'm making fun of his intelligence. Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. So you're saying that we can't really rely on these sworn affidavits from the people who apparently said that Mr. Jordan said that he committed the murder. Now, they also contend that in exchange for testifying that Mr. Jones was the shooter, Mr. Jordan, was given a plea deal for his alleged role as the getaway driver. He served 15 years in prison and today is free. What do you say to that?

So he is free and he did testify against Julius Jones and he did get a plea deal. Now, he didn't get 15 years. He actually got 30 years with a life sentence on top of it. So it was a full life sentence with 30 years suspended. And this is because in the state of Oklahoma, like many other states, if you participate in the underlying felony and somebody dies, you can be charged with felony murder and that's not a discounted charge. So Christopher Jordan was facing the death penalty, which by the way,

is a key point because one of the jailhouse confessors has Jones as the driver, which would have made him guilty of felony murder, which would have made him up for the death penalty anyway, which is one of the reasons why they didn't present that at trial. So Jordan did plead guilty and he did testify against Julius Jones. But the idea that he got 15 years, that's not really true. He got 30. And then after the fact, the Department of Corrections in Oklahoma changed how they calculate their sentences, and that's how he got early. So what the Innocence Project often alleges is that there was a secret deal between the district attorney and the Jordan camp, and it was not disclosed well enough to the jury, therefore they didn't know how to treat the testimony. But the

thing is, is that if you read the transcripts, Jordan's testimony was not key. The testimony from people like Megan Toby or Julius Jones's own girlfriend were far more crucial in convicting him in this case. And in the state of Oklahoma, everything the co-defendant says has to be verified by a third party. So, like, everything Jordan would have brought to the table had to be verified by somebody else. Right. Anyway. Right. And what's interesting as well, and as you describe the, um, the alleged cover up and framing and collusion, uh, between Mr. Jordan and the defense. I am thinking about the fact that the Innocence Project obviously says that the verdict was based on racial bias. They talk about the fact that Mr. Howell was a white man.

This happened in a predominantly white neighborhood. District attorney Bob Macy, who I'm guessing is white. He racialized this crime right away, 11 out of the 12 jurors in Mr. Jones's trial were white, which, by the way, is not strange. The jury is chosen based. on the population of, you know, where the crime took place and where it's being adjudicated. But so they say that this is, this is racist. But in order to claim that, in order to claim that, you also have to, you have to claim, I don't know, that it would also be racist against Mr. Jordan, who was also black. So it confuses me that they think that the prosecution, I think I said

the defense earlier, the prosecution, they're saying colluded with. with Mr. Jordan, right? Right. Okay. So the same prosecution that they are saying racist or racist colluded with Christopher Jordan in order to convict Julius Jones. I'm trying to get this all straight. And I guess I'm just failing to understand how then the prosecution is racist because

either way, they would have been trying to convict a black man. So can you help me unpack their argument there that this has something to do with? guess white supremacy when the person that they are saying actually committed the crime is also black and would have gotten the death penalty if he had been found guilty of murder. Right. I mean, I call this the, and I apologize for the vulgarity in this statement, but I call this like the farting in a room effect is if you just fart in a room and then people smell it, they'll be a little bit off put by it. But it's not really key to what's going on everywhere else in the room. So all the allegations of racism in this case are

are pretty ridiculous. They, they allege that even portraying a black man as coming into a white neighborhood like Edmund and killing somebody for a car, this is actually in the documentary for Julius Jones's defense, which is produced by the Innocence Project and is presented as something more neutral than it actually is as, as a racist stereotype.

But again, the, as you pointed out, the defense's theory of the case is that it was, not Julius Jones, but the other black guy involved Christopher Jordan, who came into the white neighborhood and shot Paul Howell and killed him. Like, their arguments for the death penalty are absurd. They'll claim that even pursuing the death penalty in this case, I'm sorry, their arguments for racism are absurd.

They'll claim that even pursuing the death penalty in this case is a mark of racism against the prosecution, which makes no sense. They do the almost all-white jury. If it was an all-white jury, they'd say all-white jury. but again, Edmund was 85% white as they lay out in their own, like, little hit piece on the city. And I find it incredibly disgusting that somebody can come into your community and murder a member of your community in front of his family. And then your community goes on trial as being evil and racist. Because apparently in the 1960s, people move there to get away from crime in the city.

And that was somehow code for moving away from black people. It makes no sense. It's absurd. The social justice side always does that. If something that they don't like happens in the present, then they say, well, this is connected to something that happened 50 years ago without actually logically or factually laying out how those things are connected. Of course, that's the whole thing with a 1619 project, this unbroken legacy of slavery that they say, you know, leads to every disparity between white and black Americans today. Thomas Sol has completely, has completely busted that myth. But it's the same thing that you are saying. They're saying, well, this case obviously was tried and decided upon based on racial animus

because of this thing that happened in Oklahoma in the 1960s. And so this is their version of justice, which is, it's completely unjust because you're basically punishing people who did nothing wrong by exoriorating them like he just said in the press for being too white, being white supremacist, and also taking justice away from Paul Howell's family, right? Yeah. 100%. Yeah.

And again, like the Howe family, the more you learn about them, the more this story becomes heartbreaking. And like, that's why I've done so many videos on it because, like, they have not had this press arm, these people advocate for them in the way that the other side has. The other side is Kim Kardashian. I was talking about how they had something like 400 followers on Facebook at the time that I discovered the case. And Kim Kardashian is on the other side of this. She has 39 million followers on Twitter, something like that.

Viola Davis is there. All these different celebrities, Baker Mayfield, like athletes are in this. And they all just paint this propaganda of Julius Shillens being this great student at Oklahoma University. He was kicked out of Oklahoma University. They'll talk about him as an athlete. He'd never played for any OU team. And everything that apparently, according to them, ruined Julius Jones's life is all external when in reality, if you look at his criminal record, if you look at his pawn receipts, if you listen to his own girlfriend who he threatened when her testimony was so damning for him at trial, like in letters, he threatened this woman. It's Jones destroyed his own life.

This has nothing to do with racism. He destroyed Paul Howe's life and his family's lives. This is nothing to do with white flight in 1965. Like it's about the facts of the case. It's about a family that lost their father and had to witness that loss. I want to get into how this starts. Like how does this start to snowball with something like the Innocence Project? But I first want to ask you, you mentioned his girlfriend's testimony.

I'm just interested to hear what did she say? So Julie's Jones contends consistently that he had no serious criminal record. And the Innocence Project, you might see that he was never convicted of anything violent at the time of his trial. it's because they convicted at the time of his arrest. It's because they convicted him after the fact. So what his girlfriend does is essentially tie him to a bunch of jewelry store robberies where Jones wore the suspect in that case, which was Jones, wore bandana, stocking caps, etc. By pointing out to the court that she discovered the gun that Julius Jones used in the Paul Howe murder

in his car. And Jones claimed that he did in fact have the, that that gun was him. that gun belonged to him and he used it for protection. So she also ties them to the Julie store robberies because Jones gave her four chains from one of the robberies and he took back three immediately and there's three specific pawn receipts that coincide with that date and he left her with one and then he took back the one on a later date and there's a pawn receipt that coincides with that in Julius Jones's name. So her testimony out of all the different testimonies that were put forward is one of the

devastating, which is one of the reasons why Julie's Jones actually sent her threatening letters throughout the course of the trial. And the Innocence Project was making the case that these letters didn't exist, that the prosecution just made them up, which is ridiculous. And in Jones's clemency hearing, Jones admitted to sending these letters because Jones never testified up until this very, like, recent hearing. So they just lie consistently, but they can't really get around the fact that Julie Jones's girlfriend,

who had every reason to lie for him, produced probably absent Megan Toby, the most devastating testimony against him. Right. And remind everyone where you get this information, like how do you read and garner all of these facts that seem to be lost on those people in the media? Well, I've actually had the entire trial transcript sent to me.

They are available, but Oklahoma has like an older system. So you have to request them in person or have somebody request them in person for you. So all I need is somebody to go to Oklahoma on my behalf and send me the whole transcript because they're paper records. But also the prosecution puts out like bullet points for this. Like a praetor, he'll put out his whole theory of the case and they'll go in and dispute every single aspect of Julius Jones's story in like a succinct document. I link to it under every single one of my videos on the case because it's about 12 pages. And all you would have to do is be willing and interested and knowledgeable that there is another

side to a case like the Julius Jones case. And you could find this evidence out there. Yeah. Like one of the things that we've discovered is that people and not just far leftists, unfortunately, don't even consider that another side of this case exists, which is ridiculous. Well, people don't want to consider that because the last thing, of course, that you want to be called. And it's almost tiring to even say. but the last thing that people want to be called is some kind of racist spigot that is just, you know, bloodthirsty and wanting an innocent man to walk to his death. And plus I think a lot of people think, well, this doesn't really affect me. It doesn't affect me that this person isn't getting the death penalty or maybe they're just against the death penalty. So they don't really care about the death penalty. That's good. And they don't really care about the truth because it puts them in this uncomfortable position of being against the Kim Kardashian's, even being against a lot of people. This is a Christian podcast.

a lot of people in the church who are saying, yes, this is justice, yes, this is great. You don't want to be the lone voice to raise your hand and say, well, actually, the facts don't point to the conclusion that people like the Innocence Project are asserting. And I want to talk about that. Like, how does this happen? Who picks the people who are on death row and, like, who scouts them out and says, you know what, like I'm going to pick this person. I'm going to try to get them exonerated.

I'm going to, you know, make a documentary about this person and get Kim Kardashian and Viola Davis to talk about this. So this becomes this big PR effort towards this person so that there seems like there is no other side to it. How does how does this start? Tell us a little bit if you know about the Innocence Project and what their process is. Well, the Innocence Project, I can tell you about the inner workings of their organization. But what I can tell you is that one of the founders of the Innocence Project, and I forget which attorney it was, and I apologize for not knowing the name offhand, was one of O.J. Simpson's attorneys. So, like, that's, that was the impetus for this person starting the Innocence Project.

Now, if you know anything about the O.J. Simpson case, he's 100% guilty. So from its inception, the Innocence Project is all about getting guilty people off for these crimes. But what they really are as an organization fundamentally is an answer. anti-death penalty organization. But one of the things that they found out through their time working these cases is that arguing against the morality of the death penalty isn't as effective as making the case that there's all these innocent people that are on death row that shouldn't be executed. So they've kind of shifted focus in their advocacy.

They're kind of hiding the ball. And so they make these cases, so these cases a lot ideologically are about oppositions to the death penalty. And that's one of the reasons why you can watch attorneys and these documentary films just skew so much information and leave so much out that you could never get away within a court of law because it's activism. It's not about actually proving somebody innocent. Like the Jones clemency push was never about actually demonstrating innocence. It was about just getting enough signatures, getting enough people hyped on that side in order to basically force the governor's hand. Gotcha. And so they just get people like Viola Davis and Kim Kardashian on board by saying, look at this innocent black man who is a victim of our white supremacist system. And we need your voice to basically amplify his innocence. And for most people who don't spend a lot of time reading the transcripts like you do, I mean, you know, like I said, they're not going to go up against those kinds of voices. And it sounds like such an honorable pursuit. And I mean, I am for obviously the exoneration of people.

who are innocent or who are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't want someone, gosh, to be executed or spend the rest of his or her life in prison who didn't commit a crime that they were put in jail for. I am absolutely for that. What I am not for is the propaganda effort that purposely leaves out facts in order to stir people's emotion and removes from people seemingly their mental faculties, their ability to think logically and use reasoning and actually sift through real facts. That's what I'm not for.

I'm not for the propaganda effort that seems to be behind this because justice is not going to be accomplished with lies. Lying and deceit is not justice. Do you agree? Yes, 100%. And I do want to make the point that the Innocent Project is overall like an anti-death in a organization. But the Kim Kardashian and these other celebrities,

Part of the reason, and by the way, Kim Kardashian is connected to the Innocence Project because her father's Robert Kardashian. And he was a great friend of OJ. And he actually helped recommend and assemble the dream team for OJ to beat his case at the time. So like that's her connection to that. But the celebrity push is a lot about like they've taken a step further because not only the anti-death penalty, but they're specifically anti, and this looks like it's one of the parameters that they pick for these cases, is anti-black people getting. convicted or the death penalty when they kill white people. Like if you look at the cases that Kim Kardashian has highlighted specifically, like this appears to be what she's targeting.

So whether they, whether they frame somebody or try to paint it as, as they're innocent in the way that the Jones team did, where they point to somebody who's already been tried and convicted in relation to the crime, therefore they can't be tried again. Or they're trying to frame other people that have nothing to do with this. Like it has a real impact and there's other cases out. there and I would be remissed if I didn't mention the fact that Kim

Kardashian also appears to be hiring not all up highlighting not only cases where black people kill white people but cases where the black person has an alliterated name like it's a weird pattern Julius Jones Roddy Reid Crystal Kaiser um Brendan Bernard yes it's Kevin Cooper it's very it's very creepy and odd and I do believe what for sure that there's some, yes, it's called the illiterati, my friend Devin Tracy, has taken note of this. Is it because we think it's easier for the public to, it rolls off your tongue better, it's better for PR.

I mean, I hate that sounds so cynical and evil, but I mean, we're talking about a propaganda effort in some of these cases. I'm not saying all just because I don't know the details of all of the cases of the people that you just listed. But, I mean, there are a lot of people on death row. And so the fact that a lot of, a lot of the people, that she is choosing apparently have these alliterations in their names. It seems like that could be because it rolls off the tongue better.

It's easier to remember. And that would be a public relations win, right? I think there is marketing. But I also think that Kim Kardashian, obviously the Kardashian family is kind of obsessed with the alliteration. Like that's where they're all named KK and all that. So I do think there's like just a dumb childish element to it. And like, I don't want to get too conspiratorial or anything of the reason behind it.

But so I'm just going to say it's a dumb childish element to it because it's really weird that you found 10 or so people that are all black people that killed white people all have rock solid cases by the way. Like a lot of them like the DNA tested in Julius Jones. They have requested DNA testing, which by the way, I 100% agree with if we didn't have the science to to determine whether or not your DNA was on something back in the day. and you on appeal want that tested, I'm in support of that for sure. But when the DNA matches the person that was convicted, you should drop the case. So a lot of them have that pattern along with it.

But yeah, the alliteration, maybe it's a marketing thing. Maybe it's just something that makes Kim Kardashian feel connected to it. But it is noticeable, especially when you get to this many cases, that this is a pattern for her specifically and her involvement in this. The Innocence Project should just,

to be honest, that they're anti-death penalty. But I understand why they're not, because like you said, if you say, hey, we know that this person, I'm not even talking about Julius Jones, Brandon Bernard, whoever, we know that this person committed this heinous crime. Here's what they did. I think that there was someone who was executed last year, federally executed for a brutal murder. He was a black man. He brutally murdered his, like, two-year-old daughter in the front seat of his truck. It was terrible, terrible case. If you say that, like if you describe to people what these people actually did or what was proven against them beyond a reasonable doubt, people are less likely to say that they shouldn't get the death penalty. I mean, in theory, people are against the death penalty, but when you read people

the terrible crimes that were allegedly committed by a lot of these people, they say, okay, I might be against the death penalty, but I don't really care if that person dies. And so it's a lot more persuasive for the Innocence Project to say, not only are we against the death penalty, but this person didn't even commit the crime. That is not palatable, understandably for most people to have a possibly innocent man be executed or a woman be executed. So it makes sense why they do that, but it's dishonest. If you're just against the death penalty, just be against the death penalty. Like Julius Jones is going to still spend the rest of his life in prison, right? Yeah. I mean, hopefully. There's always a chance that you can

get out of prison, even though Oklahoma has a weird quirk in their constitution that once the governor gets clemency once, it's basically impossible, according to their current constitution, for you to get out in the future. But I'm of the belief that there's no such thing as life without parole. Eventually, a lot of these people will get out, whether they become elderly and they can't be really cared for in a prison, they'll get out eventually. But you're 100% right. The push for claiming that these people are innocent is all about practicality and undermining the institution that is the death penalty because most Americans are still in favor of the death penalty, especially when you give them specific cases and details related to these cases.

So, but Americans have pause and they should have pause when we're discussing somebody potentially being innocent executed for no reason. So that's why they frame all these stories as like, oh, racial bias led to this innocent person being put up on death row. And there's a feeling that if they can get enough people on death row, reduce sentence, which they always call exonerations, which we could talk about how they pad the numbers of exonerations another time. But they get all these people reduce.

And the idea is to create enough doubt in the American population's mind with how our justice system works so that they can undermine the death penalty because most people, if you ask them, is the death penalty worth it if you execute an individual? and people will say no. Right. So that's why they're trying to artificially boost the number of innocent people on death row. Yeah. Which, you know, I think that there are, there's a political, there practical cases to be made

against the death penalty. That's fine. I don't, I don't hear that's not necessarily your contention with this whole thing. It's the propaganda behind whether or not he is innocent. And I do think that the governor of Oklahoma, his choice to say, okay, he's not going to get the death penalty, does seem to. add fuel to their, to their fire. Because he's not just saying, okay, we're against the death penalty in Oklahoma. He's saying that this guy is probably innocent. And it's just interesting how, I mean,

propaganda really can change policy. It can change the course of someone's life because people, like I said, they just don't have the effort or the energy, rather, to push back against it because who wants to be against this mammoth movement? of exonerating people who are on death row. No one wants to be on the side of injustice. Right. I will say just really quickly, and I'm sorry for interrupting, but Governor Kevin Stitt did affirm Julius Jones's guilt in his commutation of Julius Jones.

Okay. And that's why he put in his parameters that Jones can never seek any more of these hearings or anything like that. He has to be removed from death row and put in general population like a normal inmate. his reasoning for, what was his reasoning for taking the death penalty off the table, then? I mean, he was lobbied heavily, not just by lefties and, but by some conservatives, there's rumors from according to Julius Jones's original lawyer at trial, who I spoke to the day that they got clemency, David McKenzie, that the, that Kim Kardashian contacted former president

Trump and former president Trump are one of his advisors asked for the commutation of Jones. So there's people who are generally right about this, Trump resume federal executions that can be swept up in these propaganda campaigns. I just think they put so much pressure that Kevin Stitt went for a compromise, but the compromise because of the way Oklahoma's constitution works is a compromise that's 90% in favor of the Jones's guilty side and 10% in favor of the Innocence Project side, because the way Oklahoma has laid it out, he's basically going to be more disadvantaged now than he was. on death row. And, you know, that sucks for people who are on death row and they don't have an alliteration for their name and they don't get the attention of Kim Kardashian, who maybe the

same case could be made for them that they don't deserve to die, but they're not going to get the favor of the Oklahoma governor, who says he did this by prayer, by the way, not because he was lobbied. I guess in his prayer he didn't, he didn't feel led by the spirit to commute the sentences of other people who are on death row. And so was it Kim Kardashian and Trump or was it God? We don't really know. We don't really know. But that seems a little bit, that doesn't seem like justice because it seems unfair. It seems like he is getting favorable treatment simply because he had Viola Davis and a, you know, a large organization behind him. Okay. I want to talk about just We don't have very much time, but I haven't talked about yet because I took a couple weeks off for Thanksgiving.

What happened in Waukesha with Daryl Brooks. You already know this, but for people who don't know, he's 39 years old, he drove a red SUV through a Christmas parade and he killed six people, including eight-year-old Jackson Sparks. He also seriously injured his 12-year-old brother. He's a registered sex offender. He has a very violent criminal history. he actually recently tried to, he's charged with running over his girlfriend with the same red SUV that he used to plow through this Christmas parade. He was let out on a thousand dollar bail after he was charged with that crime. There now, of course, saying that that was inappropriately low, but that's a pattern throughout the country of criminals being released on low bail and then going out and murdering or committing some kind of act.

of violence. And really the thing that I think is stunning about this is not just that. That piece is stunning that he was released on a thousand dollar bail, but how the media is describing this. CNN said that they tweeted on November 28th, that it has been one week since a car drove through a city Christmas parade. The Washington Post tweeted on November 24th that there was a walk-a-shaw tragedy caused by an SUV. and then there was, it's not on my sheet, but there was another CNN tweet that also said that this was caused by an SUV. So you've even got celebrities like Deborah Messing saying this was not an accident, call it by its name, it was a domestic terror attack, which I happened to agree for the first time, perhaps, with Deborah Messing. So tell me your thoughts on this.

Why is the media covering this the way that it is? Are these victims going to see justice? What do you think? I mean, I think the guy's going to be convicted. So in that sense, the victims will receive justice. I don't want to, you know, the guy, the guy's basically on video driving his SUV that appears in his music videos through through this crowd committing this crime. So like whatever amount of justice our system can deliver in the state of Wisconsin he should get.

But I just want to point out that there is no known motive at all. And you shouldn't look at any of his social media posts. Yeah. And we should talk about these. these fully automatic assault SUVs. Right. Because apparently they just, yeah, and they just take off. And on their own, they just attack crowds.

So it's really unfortunate. Yeah. But yeah, while we don't actually know the motive and we can speculate on the motive, we'll have to wait for the trial. Hopefully he doesn't plea out. And we actually can see what he has to say at trial because I do want to know what the motive is behind this. What we do know for sure is that this soft bail kind of.

of criminal justice reform where you just let everybody out is a system that does not work. This guy attempted a serious aggravated assault against his girlfriend like a week and a half ago, two weeks ago, and he was let out on a thousand dollars bail. And the district attorney for this area is one of these George Soros-backed, Sean King back, DAs. And I hate to, I mean, I hate to invoke his name. But always, when you see these kinds of cases and you see this kind of history with the district attorney.

Like, they're always someone who was funded by George Soros every single time. The same thing happens in Texas, in Houston, in Austin, in San Francisco, in L.A. You look at all of these major cities where they're, you know, pretty new DAs, Chesa Boudin in San Francisco. They're always funded by George Soros. And this is part of the social justice, criminal justice movements. and it is fueled by their newfangled version of equity that they can't have too many people of color in jail. And so there needs to be lighter sentences.

There needs to be ways for them to be let out of prison. They want bail reform. They want to get rid of the bail system altogether. We've seen the detrimental effects of that in places like New York City, obviously now in Wauksh. And so it's the exact opposite of justice. And so, yeah, we're seeing this is just another effect of that. but continue. Yeah.

And to your point about about the bail reform, it's actually New York State. So the whole state, everybody gets out on everything, basically. And a lot of people who backed New York State's bail reform law, they considered it a model, are now talking about how they wouldn't have, that Darrell Brooks, he shouldn't have been let out of, out of jail. He has a history of bail jumping. He committed a serious crime, assault, aggravated assault with the motor vehicle and all that. The thing is, is that all these activists are full of union.

know what because every crime that Darrell Brooks committed in the state, if he would have committed them in the state of New York under the new bail reform law that they champion that they say as a model would have released him and he wouldn't have even had to pay the $1,000 bail. So aggravated assault with the vehicle in the state of New York, there's no bail for that crime. In fact, aggravated manslaughter with a motor vehicle is something that you don't get bail for in the state of New York. You can't get bail for your past history. jumping bail, which is something that Daryl Brooks had a history of doing, not showing up for court and all that. All the normal rational reasons why you would put a high bail on somebody are all banned

in New York State. And this is the same, like the DA in, in, in, in, in a Wisconsin. He's cut from the same exact cloth. These are the same exact principles. The same people who supported him in, in his pursuit of office, supported the law in my state. So like, they're all full of garbage. There, there's no way that any of these people are legitimate and serious, they just see the consequences of the policies that they're advocating for, which by the way, when they were implemented by the district attorney in this area, he literally said, well, we know for a fact that this is going to cause more people to die, but it's about like some greater form of justice. So we have to accept that. We have to pay. Yeah, exactly. Man, that is like all democratic. That seems like it's so much of

democratic policy that, you know, once we achieve this grand vision of cosmic justice, it's, you know, it's the same thing with a lot of the economic issues that we're seeing today that it's going to accomplish in the end the kind of society that progressives want, or they think so anyway. And so the lives that are lost are the livelihoods that are lost in the process, well, that's just collateral damage and it's still going towards the greater good. And so I'm afraid that a lot of so-called criminal justice advocates, which is, or it's an Orwellian name, the same way that Ministry of Peace or Ministry of Truth is in 1984, they are okay with the loss of life, with danger, with violence, with chaos in the meantime, because I guess they think that having fewer people

in jail will somehow lead to some form of utopia, which of course means nowhere. It's never going to get here. I don't know how, though, they think that these means will lead to that end. How will more violence like what we saw in Waukesha? How will more death and more robbery, more looting, and more murder lead to a more peaceful society that criminal justice advocates say is worth the cost that we're seeing right now? Well, when you're not connected to reality and you don't have any idea how our institutions in our criminal justice system are.

are built up, you make absurd claims like the reason there's so much violent crime is because we give violent criminals too long of sentences. We hold them too much on bail. So they actually legitimately believed that if you let these people out on bail or you don't give them bail at all, you just release them on their own recognizance, even when they're not, they've shown repeatedly that they're not the kind of people who will even show up to court, which is the whole point of having a cash incentive like bail, that they'll actually behave better because what our criminal justice system does is hard in all these criminals.

So when you have something so basic as cause and effect backwards, this is the kind of policy that you end up advocating for. And these are the kind of results that you would expect. Like everybody, I like the analogy of you see a fence in the middle of the woods and you don't exactly know what the purpose is, and you could do two things. You could tear down the fence and just wonder what happens, or you could try to discern its purpose before you act. A lot of people on the far left tear it down immediately, and then they find out that that's the fence that cages in all the tigers, and then they get tackled by tigers. Right. And yeah, people on both sides

of the aisle, they're not going to tolerate this kind of thing for long because human beings, it's just human nature. We don't like anarchy. We don't like violence. We like to be able to leave our home and be able to rely on the fact that we'll be pretty safe. We don't like chaos. And so the progressive ideologues who think that most of the country is going to tolerate this kind of violence and injustice, it just doesn't like we've already, the history tells us this. If you look at the history of New York City, for example, how it was riddled with crime in the 1970s, people didn't want to tolerate that. And then you can see the reforms that were made because Rudy Giuliani was so tough on crime, it became a place where people actually wanted to go. History tells us how this is going

to go. Unfortunately, we don't know how many lives are going to be lost in the meantime because of these DAs and other local officials that have been put in place. There's so much, there's so much more that I want to ask you. We'll have to have you back on to talk about the criminal justice system or criminal justice movement in general in our justice system since you have such an extensive background in that. But we have to end. Can you tell everyone where they can find you,

how they can follow you? Oh, okay. You can find me on YouTube.com slash actual justice warrior. That's where I primarily post all of my content. I'm also on Twitter

at I am Sean 90, spelled the traditional Irish way, S-E-A-N. And I can be found on Instagram, new Instagram, at actual justice. I know that's not the best brand integration, but it is what it is.

I actually have the same thing. I have a different Twitter handle. it's fine, it's fine. People can duck, duck, oh you and they'll figure it out. Thank you so much, Sean, for taking the time to come on. I really appreciate it, and we'll provide the links to all that stuff in your previous videos on Julius Jones in the description to this podcast. So thank you so much. Thank you. Hey, this is Steve Deast. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we

believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about

where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this Steve Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.