Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Julius Jones Death Sentence Overturned


Paranoid Android
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
Quote

Oklahoma's governor has halted the execution of prisoner Julius Jones hours before he was due to be put to death.

Kevin Stitt said he was commuting the sentence to life imprisonment without parole.

Hundreds of students earlier walked out of school demanding clemency for Jones.

Jones was sentenced to death in 2002 for killing Paul Howell during a carjacking three years earlier. He maintains his innocence.

His case has attracted the support of celebrities including reality TV star Kim Kardashian and anti-death penalty activists. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59331978

I don't know where I sit on this one. On one hand, I am 100% against the death penalty, therefore I am glad his sentence has been commuted to life without parole. However, a brief look at the facts make it clear that Jones is 100% guilty of the murder of Paul Howell without doubt. As such, unless the governor commutes ALL capital cases to life without parole, I don't see why Jones gets special treatment, there is no doubt in the case records of his guilt and he has demonstrated zero remorse for his crime.

I am glad that it is life WITHOUT parole, otherwise the Howell family would be forced to attend a parole hearing every year for the rest of Jones' life, and that would be even worse. As is, I don't know what the process is for prisoners serving life without parole, but I hope the Howell family don't have to deal with any more disruption to their lives. Jones has already taken so much from them! 

~ Regards, PA

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like this guy got INCREDIBLY lucky.  Hopefully, if the media try to turn him into an "almost martyred" personality and he makes a fortune with a book deal, ALL OF IT will go to the victim's family.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't know where I sit on this one. On one hand, I am 100% against the death penalty, therefore I am glad his sentence has been commuted to life without parole. However, a brief look at the facts make it clear that Jones is 100% guilty of the murder of Paul Howell without doubt. As such, unless the governor commutes ALL capital cases to life without parole, I don't see why Jones gets special treatment, there is no doubt in the case records of his guilt and he has demonstrated zero remorse for his crime.

I am glad that it is life WITHOUT parole, otherwise the Howell family would be forced to attend a parole hearing every year for the rest of Jones' life, and that would be even worse. As is, I don't know what the process is for prisoners serving life without parole, but I hope the Howell family don't have to deal with any more disruption to their lives. Jones has already taken so much from them! 

~ Regards, PA

So if you are a 100% against the death penalty what more do you want in this case ? The guy will not get put down by death penalty but instead will die in jail of natural causes. He will not be not be eligible for a commutation, pardon or parole for the rest of his life. what sticks to me and I think is the most disturbing about this is that Gov. Kevin Stitt announced he'd decided to commute Jones' sentence to life in death without the possibility of parole, saying in a statement on Twitter that he came to this decision after "prayerful consideration." Prayerful consideration ? What does that mean ? Did he and his imaginary God had a conversation about this and therefore he came to this decision ? Whatever happened to the establishment clause that prohibits all levels of government from either advancing or inhibiting religion AKA separation of church and state ?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 hour ago, thedutchiedutch said:

So if you are a 100% against the death penalty what more do you want in this case ?

Abolition of capital punishment in Oklahoma (and every other State that continues to keep the death penalty on its books) would be a good start. Otherwise I don't see why Jones received special treatment, I think any person executed from here on in is going to be hard done by considered how "lucky" Jones got from this one. 

 

Quote

He will not be not be eligible for a commutation, pardon or parole for the rest of his life

I hope you're right, the Howell family has gone through enough without being forced to attend more hearings. 

 

Quote

I think is the most disturbing about this is that Gov. Kevin Stitt announced he'd decided to commute Jones' sentence to life in death without the possibility of parole, saying in a statement on Twitter that he came to this decision after "prayerful consideration."...

....Whatever happened to the establishment clause that prohibits all levels of government from either advancing or inhibiting religion AKA separation of church and state ?

This isn't a separation issue, it's his personal beliefs and his personal beliefs are allowed to play a role. At the end of the day, Stitt's decision was entirely political, it seems. Describing it as "prayerful consideration" was his way of appeasing the conservatives who would be unhappy with his decision, in my opinion. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

However, a brief look at the facts make it clear that Jones is 100% guilty of the murder of Paul Howell without doubt.

Hmm, the wikipedia article and Innocence Project page on him doesn't make it sound so doubtless to me, there seems to be evidence pointing toward his friend Christopher Jordan instead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

 On one hand, I am 100% against the death penalty, 

How about this guy? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Hmm, the wikipedia article and Innocence Project page on him doesn't make it sound so doubtless to me, there seems to be evidence pointing toward his friend Christopher Jordan instead.

You should already know my opinion on wikipedia (I wouldn't be surprised if the Innocence Project was the primary source for the wikipedia article). The Innocence Project is filled with lies about the Jones case. There is zero doubt about his guilt. For example, the following are all based on claims from the Innocence Project itself - original claims: https://innocenceproject.org/julius-jones-death-row-oklahoma-what-to-know/

"1 - 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. His trial attorneys did not call Mr. Jones or his family members to the stand". 
- This is a lie! The family says that Jones was home, but there is testimony and physical evidence that they are either mistaken or intentionally lying. First, Jones' then-girlfriend testified that Jones told her he was near the crime scene. Second, Jones sent her a threatening letter from prison asking her to change her testimony (there is documented evidence of this) and implying that he has family who might get violent with her if she doesn't change. Third, a family friend was identified as being at this dinner, and the family friend testified that she visited Kinko's the day of the visit (the only time she visited Kinko's all week, by her own testimony) - and the receipt was dated to the day before the murder of Paul Howell. Fourth, Jones had two lawyers at different times in the trial, both lawyers testified individually that Jones literally told them that his family was incorrect about the family dinner being that day and therefore they couldn't put this theory in the trial because they had evidence it was a lie.

"2 - Mr. Jones did not match the description of the person who committed the crime, which was provided by a sole eyewitness. The person who killed Mr. Howell was described as having 1-2 inches of hair, but Mr. Jones had a shaved head".
- Another lie, the actual description at trial was that he had "half an inch to an inch of hair sticking out" from under his bandanna. Furthermore, the witness who gave this description (Paul Howell's sister) clarified in trial, that she was referring to sideburns and that she was definitely NOT talking about corn rows (as would be indicative of the other alleged perpetrator, Chris Jordan). To this day, Paul Howell's sister has maintained that she was referring to sideburns, that is what was said at trial too. 

Additionally, after the trial was over, DNA tests were run on the bandanna that the murder weapon was found in. The DNA 100% belonged to Julius Jones, and 0% to Chris Jordan. 

I'm not going to bother going over the other six points the Innocence Project would like us to be aware of, but I'm not kidding when I say that every single one of the points raised by this website are just as dodgy as the first two points! Instead of the Innocence Project, why not look at https://www.justiceforpaulhowell.com/ - a website started by the Howell family who know the case better than either you or I. Once you've examined the case and sifted the lies and the truth I think you'll also arrive at the conclusion that he is 100% guilty! 

~ Regards, PA 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
2 hours ago, acidhead said:

How about this guy? 

 

Even that guy. I don't believe any human has the right to take the life of another, life without parole is an acceptable alternative in my mind. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the "Life without the possibility of parole." First off if at a later date there is a massive flaw in the conviction discovered you can fix it. Secondly a life time in prison is almost a worst punishment that just putting them down. Prison is not much of a life. It isn't constant misery but then you never have a family around you on Christmas morning or freedom to do much of anything. They only see their loved ones occasionally and over time those visits tend to fade as their family moves on without them. It, in the end, it would probably be more merciful to kill them...but they don't deserve any mercy.

Edited by DanL
spelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

You should already know my opinion on wikipedia (I wouldn't be surprised if the Innocence Project was the primary source for the wikipedia article). The Innocence Project is filled with lies about the Jones case. There is zero doubt about his guilt. For example, the following are all based on claims from the Innocence Project itself - original claims: https://innocenceproject.org/julius-jones-death-row-oklahoma-what-to-know/

"1 - 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. His trial attorneys did not call Mr. Jones or his family members to the stand". 
- This is a lie! The family says that Jones was home, but there is testimony and physical evidence that they are either mistaken or intentionally lying. First, Jones' then-girlfriend testified that Jones told her he was near the crime scene. Second, Jones sent her a threatening letter from prison asking her to change her testimony (there is documented evidence of this) and implying that he has family who might get violent with her if she doesn't change. Third, a family friend was identified as being at this dinner, and the family friend testified that she visited Kinko's the day of the visit (the only time she visited Kinko's all week, by her own testimony) - and the receipt was dated to the day before the murder of Paul Howell. Fourth, Jones had two lawyers at different times in the trial, both lawyers testified individually that Jones literally told them that his family was incorrect about the family dinner being that day and therefore they couldn't put this theory in the trial because they had evidence it was a lie.

"2 - Mr. Jones did not match the description of the person who committed the crime, which was provided by a sole eyewitness. The person who killed Mr. Howell was described as having 1-2 inches of hair, but Mr. Jones had a shaved head".
- Another lie, the actual description at trial was that he had "half an inch to an inch of hair sticking out" from under his bandanna. Furthermore, the witness who gave this description (Paul Howell's sister) clarified in trial, that she was referring to sideburns and that she was definitely NOT talking about corn rows (as would be indicative of the other alleged perpetrator, Chris Jordan). To this day, Paul Howell's sister has maintained that she was referring to sideburns, that is what was said at trial too. 

Additionally, after the trial was over, DNA tests were run on the bandanna that the murder weapon was found in. The DNA 100% belonged to Julius Jones, and 0% to Chris Jordan. 

I'm not going to bother going over the other six points the Innocence Project would like us to be aware of, but I'm not kidding when I say that every single one of the points raised by this website are just as dodgy as the first two points! Instead of the Innocence Project, why not look at https://www.justiceforpaulhowell.com/ - a website started by the Howell family who know the case better than either you or I. Once you've examined the case and sifted the lies and the truth I think you'll also arrive at the conclusion that he is 100% guilty! 

~ Regards, PA 

 

There's things in Jones favour too. The judge. The convenient release of Jordan. The hair length isn't a convincing argument, by all standards Jones has a shaved head. I can see why some would have doubt.

What I can't get past is two direct eye witnesses. His sister and daughter. The men were different builds and I can't see them both being incorrect particularly at such close quarters. Even regarding the obvious trauma, I think most people would be wanting the real criminal punished. If they had doubt I don't think they would be so adamant. As such I'd have to concur. From a different view but those official police records don't paint a pretty picture either. That's a lot of trouble in a short time. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

There's things in Jones favour too.

Such as? You gave a couple of examples: 

"The judge" - what exactly about the judge is up for debate? I'm not really sure to what you are referring.

"The convenient release of Jordan" - another lie by the Innocence Project! Consider: 

Quote

State’s Alleged Deal with Jordan

FICTION: Jones alleges Christopher Jordan had a secret plea deal with the State.

FACT: Jordan’s release was not at the hands of the State, or even the Pardon & Parole Board, rather Jordan was released due to an updated operating procedure (OP060211), which amended how earned credits were applied to prisoners with split life sentences. The departmental authority responsible for time calculations, sentence interpretations and offender release dates signed an affidavit confirming the details of Jordan release. In fact, in a 2012 letter to the Pardon & Parole Board, the State objected to the parole of Jordan and requested he serve his entire sentence. Additionally, both of Jordan’s attorneys have signed affidavits stating there was no secret deal with the State.

Justice For Paul Howell Site

Supporting Document DA Letter

Supporting Documnt Affidavit

"The hair length" - you say yourself this isn't convincing, and the hair length actually matches Jones if you actually read the transcript. 

I'm glad we agree on the overall view that he's guilty, but there is nothing to support they have the wrong guy! Jones is guilty!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Instead of the Innocence Project, why not look at https://www.justiceforpaulhowell.com/ - a website started by the Howell family who know the case better than either you or I.

And of course since they are emotionally involved, would be more likely be more biased than you or I.

8 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Once you've examined the case and sifted the lies and the truth I think you'll also arrive at the conclusion that he is 100% guilty! 

Doubtful, I don't usually do '100%'. Is there a refutation of the 4 people, who were not offered any break on their sentences, who testified that Jordan confessed to the killing in jail and I think maybe at least one said he confessed to framing Jones?  I saw a reference too that maybe Jordan was at the house where Jones was staying on the night of the killing, maybe he put the gun in a bandana of Jones'?  Not sure, but sure seem like there are some questions here.  If the case against Jones was so strong and '100%', then why did they offer a plea deal and give a break on the sentence to Jordan to confess against Jones?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
8 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

And of course since they are emotionally involved, would be more likely be more biased than you or I.

True, I cannot deny they are biased. However, the facts also back them up!

 

Quote

Doubtful, I don't usually do '100%'. Is there a refutation of the 4 people, who were not offered any break on their sentences, who testified that Jordan confessed to the killing in jail and I think maybe at least one said he confessed to framing Jones?  I saw a reference too that maybe Jordan was at the house where Jones was staying on the night of the killing, maybe he put the gun in a bandana of Jones'?  Not sure, but sure seem like there are some questions here.  If the case against Jones was so strong and '100%', then why did they offer a plea deal and give a break on the sentence to Jordan to confess against Jones?

https://www.justiceforpaulhowell.com/the-last-defense

There weren't four, but scroll down to "alleged confession" for more information on those folks. Alternatively, I would recommend a YouTuber named Actual Justice Warrior, he's done about half a dozen videos about Julius Jones, I'm pretty sure all of them include information on the alleged informants. Those videos are about 30-40 minutes each, though, so maybe you don't have that level of time to invest. Here's one below (I'm pretty sure it was the first video he made on the topic). I'm not sure where in the video he specifically discusses the witnesses, but he does and he goes into a bit more detail than the other site. 

That said, maybe you "don't do 100%", and maybe in a purely scientific world that is the way to go. However, "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is definitely applicable, and the evidence is so overwhelming I would argue it is close enough to 100% as makes no difference! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

However, "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is definitely applicable, and the evidence is so overwhelming I would argue it is close enough to 100% as makes no difference! 

Thanks for the link, I most likely won't watch it unless there's something specific, videos can be tough for me to hear.  So leaving all counter evidence aside, here's the evidence I see so far for his guilt (to be clear, I haven't looked into this as much as you have):

  • Attempted identification by eyewitnesses of a black man wearing a bandana.
  • Gun used in crime found in Jones' home in a bandana that has a dna on it.
  • Alleged accomplice testifies against him in exchange for a plea deal.

What major evidence am I missing above?  Because I can drive a truck through all the doubt I see there so I assume I'm missing something.  If this is 'overwhelming' then what is the scenario where the cops roll up and find Jones with the gun in his hand, 'super-overwhelming'?  Just to test your certainty let's break it down, how certain are you that Jones is the one that shot Howell?  What evidence here rules out that Jordan did?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't been keeping up with this person.  

Why have so many celebrities gotten behind this guy.   It seems like it is apparent that he was guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
5 hours ago, Myles said:

I haven't been keeping up with this person.  

Why have so many celebrities gotten behind this guy.   It seems like it is apparent that he was guilty.

In 2017, an actress named Viola Davis made a 3 part documentary called "The Last Defense" which basically stoked all the fake talking points. The lies in that documentary were enough to convince Kim Kardashian, and then it just spiralled...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks for the link, I most likely won't watch it unless there's something specific, videos can be tough for me to hear.  So leaving all counter evidence aside, here's the evidence I see so far for his guilt (to be clear, I haven't looked into this as much as you have):

  • Attempted identification by eyewitnesses of a black man wearing a bandana.
  • Gun used in crime found in Jones' home in a bandana that has a dna on it.
  • Alleged accomplice testifies against him in exchange for a plea deal.

What major evidence am I missing above?  Because I can drive a truck through all the doubt I see there so I assume I'm missing something.  If this is 'overwhelming' then what is the scenario where the cops roll up and find Jones with the gun in his hand, 'super-overwhelming'?  Just to test your certainty let's break it down, how certain are you that Jones is the one that shot Howell?  What evidence here rules out that Jordan did?

 

  • Attempted identification by eyewitnesses of a black man wearing a bandana.
  • Gun used in crime found in Jones' home in a bandana that has a dna on it.
  • Alleged accomplice testifies against him in exchange for a plea deal.

I would reword your first statement to be "successful identification by eyewitnesses". I would also clarify that Jordan's plea deal was still a 30-year prison sentence (see my previous post to psyche), so it's not like he was given a slap on the wrist. But other evidence you have missed includes: 

  • Jones' then-girlfriend testified that Jones told her he was near the scene of the crime. He even sent her a letter from prison asking her to recant her story and implying that others in his family might get violent with her if she doesn't change her story (it's interesting watching Jones explain to the court of appeals why he sent a letter that in retrospect he admits looks bad). 
  • Jones pleaded guilty to similar carjack by gunpoint crimes in the days before the murder
  • Ammunition for the gun that was used in the shooting was found in Jones' car.
  • CCTV footage exists of Jones following the Howell's the night Paul Howell was murdered

In short, there is eye-witness evidence from the victim's sister that Jones was the murderer, there is DNA evidence that Jones was the killer (before the bandanna was tested, Jones claimed it wasn't his bandanna at all, he changed his story when they actually DNA tested it), there is testimony from his accomplice that he is the killer (even with a 30-year plea deal). There is testimony that he told his girlfriend that he was at the scene of the crime, and evidence that he threatened her to keep her quiet after she testified. Moreover, above and beyond all these facts, there is objective proof that Jones lied repeatedly about the events.

And lastly, there is no evidence linking Chris Jordan with the murder. All up, that's a water-tight case! 

Quote

What evidence here rules out that Jordan did?

Eye-witness testimony, to this day Paul Howell's sister says she saw Jones, not Jordan! The description of the hair specifically denied corn rows, and explicitly agreed that there was "half an inch to an inch of hair sticking out" from the base of his stocking cap to the ear line (aka, a short side burn). The Innocence Project (or The Last Defense, one or the other or both) twisted that to "1-2 inches of hair", but the trial transcript is there for all to see - Scroll down to "Eyewitness Testimony".

There's also the question of how the murder weapon came to be wrapped in Jones' bedroom in Jones' own clothing and having zero DNA evidence from Jordan to support this. At trial, Jones claimed that the bandanna was not his. If the weapon was planted there by Jordan why would he deny owning the bandanna? This links back a little bit to Jones pleading guilty to other carjackings, because eye-witness testimony in those cases do put Jones as the culprit but more importantly shows that he did in fact wear a red bandanna despite Jones' own lies. 

In short, every piece of evidence that exists supports Jones' guilt, there is none that contradicts it, and it's as close to 100% certain as I think it's possible to get in a case like this. 

~ Regards, PA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I would reword your first statement to be "successful identification by eyewitnesses".

Maybe I misunderstood, were the bandanas over their faces? 

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

I would also clarify that Jordan's plea deal was still a 30-year prison sentence (see my previous post to psyche), so it's not like he was given a slap on the wrist.

If the case was 100%, there would be no need to give him a deal at all.  I think the rule might be, as taught by the esteemed university of Law & Order on the tube, that even if you did not pull the trigger you are still equally culpable as the person who did.  If it was 100% he should have gotten a death sentence also possibly.

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

There's also the question of how the murder weapon came to be wrapped in Jones' bedroom in Jones' own clothing and having zero DNA evidence from Jordan to support this.

Was Jones' DNA on the gun?  Wasn't there evidence that Jordan was at Jones' place giving him opportunity to plant the gun?

2 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

In short, every piece of evidence that exists supports Jones' guilt, there is none that contradicts it, and it's as close to 100% certain as I think it's possible to get in a case like this. 

It's a good distance from 100% in my view, there are so many points here where the evidence could be better.  We could have a video of Jones shooting Howell with his face unobscured and him again being caught in the act.  To me even though this seems more likely than not, I think we're several percentage points away from 100%.  Think of it this way, would you be utterly baffled if we had proof that Jordan actually did the shooting?  It outright conflicts with very little of the evidence here.

What I really don't get is why wouldn't they just destroy or ditch the gun, if the bandanas were covering their faces then the gun is the most compelling evidence here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Maybe I misunderstood, were the bandanas over their faces? 

If the case was 100%, there would be no need to give him a deal at all.  I think the rule might be, as taught by the esteemed university of Law & Order on the tube, that even if you did not pull the trigger you are still equally culpable as the person who did.  If it was 100% he should have gotten a death sentence also possibly.

Yes, but they were identified following Paul Howell in the parking lot before he drove home. Jones was also charged and plead guilty to other carjacking robberies in the days leading up to this shooting. 

And yes, felony murder is the same as murder and Jordan should have been guilty of that too by virtue of being a co-accused. However, taking a plea deal does not invalidate the facts. Jordan and Jones were both there, but the description of "half an inch to an inch of hair sticking out" from under the stocking cap fit Jones much better than it fit Jordan. 

 

Quote

Was Jones' DNA on the gun?  Wasn't there evidence that Jordan was at Jones' place giving him opportunity to plant the gun?

Jones' testimony is all over the shop on this one. He claimed that he barely even knew Jordan, so by that testimony he shouldn't have had access to his property at all! 

I don't think they tested the gun for DNA. 

 

Quote

It's a good distance from 100% in my view, there are so many points here where the evidence could be better.  We could have a video of Jones shooting Howell with his face unobscured and him again being caught in the act.  To me even though this seems more likely than not, I think we're several percentage points away from 100%.  Think of it this way, would you be utterly baffled if we had proof that Jordan actually did the shooting?  It outright conflicts with very little of the evidence here.

What I really don't get is why wouldn't they just destroy or ditch the gun, if the bandanas were covering their faces then the gun is the most compelling evidence here.

I would be surprised if Jordan was the shooter. Very surprised. Eye-witnesses in the parking lot where Howell was followed home state that the driver of the car definitely had corn rows. As there was a driver who stayed in that vehicle and drove away, and someone else got out and shot Howell and drove away in his car, it would require an extreme level of scepticism to assume that somewhere between the parking lot and Howell's home the two in the car swapped seats. Not impossible, but highly improbable.  Our justice system only needs "reasonable doubt", swapping seats in the moments before the murder stretches any semblance of reasonableness. And that's before we consider all the other lies and inconsistencies surrounding the case. 

It wasn't smart to keep the gun, though, I do agree with that :) 

~ Regards, PA 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2021 at 11:31 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Such as? You gave a couple of examples: 

How about we address those first of you'd like to discuss it?

There's quite a few things like the racial slurs, but really considering two direct eye witnesses I think they are just talking points. The witnesses seal the deal. 

On 11/19/2021 at 11:31 PM, Paranoid Android said:

"The judge" - what exactly about the judge is up for debate? I'm not really sure to what you are referring.

Robert H. Macy

He was nationally known for his impassioned performances in capital murder trials, sometimes followed by reversals on appeal, and in three cases, exonerations.

The sort of bloke who really shouldn't be a judge.

On 11/19/2021 at 11:31 PM, Paranoid Android said:

"The convenient release of Jordan" - another lie by the Innocence Project! Consider: 

Consider this. 

No deals yet Jordan only served fifteen years of a thirty year sentence. He's free.

Bit too convenient I think, particularly in retrospect, but that's just my opinion. 

On 11/19/2021 at 11:31 PM, Paranoid Android said:

"The hair length" - you say yourself this isn't convincing, and the hair length actually matches Jones if you actually read the transcript. 

If your talking about from the stocking to the earline bit, that doesn't change what I said. Jones would appear bald, Jordans corns are 'hair'. Again, it's a description that's as likely to be argued as possibly misinterpreted as much as it can be argued completely accurate. It's just a talking point. 

On 11/19/2021 at 11:31 PM, Paranoid Android said:

I'm glad we agree on the overall view that he's guilty, but there is nothing to support they have the wrong guy! Jones is guilty!

I didn't say that. I said I can see why some would have doubt of the original sentencing. Not that he wasn't guilty. Two direct witnesses is just too much to overlook IMHO. If it was me I'd want the right person to be punished. The sister and daughter are pretty certain they have the right person. I'm sure if they thought it could be Jordan, they would want to know. But they don't seem to have any doubt. I don't like the idea of the death penalty either, but this family was promised justice. It's not right to pull their closure out from under their feet either. I'd say they have sufficient cause to pursue the decision further. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
22 hours ago, psyche101 said:

How about we address those first of you'd like to discuss it?There's quite a few things like the racial slurs

Yet more lies by Jones! There was no "racial slur". At least there was none reported until 2017 when Viola Davis put out "The Last Defense" documentary series. This was literally the first time Jones claimed a racial slur, and he accused the arresting officer of using a racial slur. Literally no one reported it or made a claim at the time, so why should we believe this claim when he didn't make a claim 20 years ago? 

On another instance, during the trial a juror notified the judge of a comment overheard by another juror. But it was NEVER reported as a racial slur, and there is transcript of the judge specifically asking the nature of the claim. And if that wasn't enough, the complaining juror who reported their colleague on the jury maintains (direct quote) "to this day, that Mr Jones is guilty of shooting and killing the victim". 

 

Quote

, but really considering two direct eye witnesses I think they are just talking points. The witnesses seal the deal. 

Robert H. Macy

He was nationally known for his impassioned performances in capital murder trials, sometimes followed by reversals on appeal, and in three cases, exonerations.

The sort of bloke who really shouldn't be a judge.

District Attorney, not judge. That was why I was confused. And once again, this is another lie from the Jones' camp! Robert Macy had NOTHING to do with Jones' case. Wes Lane was the DA at trial. 

 

Quote

Consider this. 

No deals yet Jordan only served fifteen years of a thirty year sentence. He's free.

Bit too convenient I think, particularly in retrospect, but that's just my opinion. 

If your talking about from the stocking to the earline bit, that doesn't change what I said. Jones would appear bald, Jordans corns are 'hair'. Again, it's a description that's as likely to be argued as possibly misinterpreted as much as it can be argued completely accurate. It's just a talking point. 

I don't see how it's up for debate. She describes seeing "half an inch to an inch of hair" sticking out. As in, sideburns. Jones had sideburns, short sideburns, and that is what she described seeing!

 

Quote

I didn't say that. I said I can see why some would have doubt of the original sentencing. Not that he wasn't guilty. Two direct witnesses is just too much to overlook IMHO. If it was me I'd want the right person to be punished. The sister and daughter are pretty certain they have the right person. I'm sure if they thought it could be Jordan, they would want to know. But they don't seem to have any doubt. I don't like the idea of the death penalty either, but this family was promised justice. It's not right to pull their closure out from under their feet either. I'd say they have sufficient cause to pursue the decision further. 

Considering you are (or until this post, hopefully WERE) working under the assumption that there was a "racial slur" and that the DA was Bob Macy, I can see why you might see some doubt. As both of these are lies, to add with all the other lies that have been discussed in this thread so far (see my first reply to LG, for example), I do not see any doubt! 

If there was actual doubt in this case, I would think that Jones and his supporters wouldn't need to lie about basic facts that are easily cross-checked! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Yet more lies by Jones! There was no "racial slur". At least there was none reported until 2017 when Viola Davis put out "The Last Defense" documentary series. This was literally the first time Jones claimed a racial slur, and he accused the arresting officer of using a racial slur. Literally no one reported it or made a claim at the time, so why should we believe this claim when he didn't make a claim 20 years ago? 

On another instance, during the trial a juror notified the judge of a comment overheard by another juror. But it was NEVER reported as a racial slur, and there is transcript of the judge specifically asking the nature of the claim. And if that wasn't enough, the complaining juror who reported their colleague on the jury maintains (direct quote) "to this day, that Mr Jones is guilty of shooting and killing the victim". 

No, one thing at a time. I'm referring to the courtroom. It doesn't matter if the person who made the slur retains their judgement to this day. There's little doubt it happened and wasn't acted upon. It doesn't change the outcome but it's sloppy and the sort of thing that could be called into question. The person who made the slur simply should have been removed immediately. Sloppy work. 

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

District Attorney, not judge. That was why I was confused. And once again, this is another lie from the Jones' camp! Robert Macy had NOTHING to do with Jones' case. Wes Lane was the DA at trial. 

Oh potato potatoe.

That's simply not true. He was definitely involved with the case. Macy filled out the charge and stated at the time it was a death sentence. There's information indicating that Macy handed down the case to his then deputy, Lane, but Macy was DA until 2001. By which time Jordan was sentenced. Lane states he worked under Macy at the time and was driven to be a rich lawyer before "he met Jesus". I don't see any moral high ground there. Lane was a quarter of a million in financial trouble not long after that case and his wife is the town drunk. He's got his own problems.

Then consider that Macy conspired with Joyce Gilchrist to commit forensic misconduct and fraud on multiple cases involving death row around that very time.

It's not as simple as it looks. Regardless, considering the mess the law was at the time, second guessing the case is just diligence. A better trial without all these lapses of judgement should still best the same result and give nobody anything to complain about. Should have been done in 2002 after that original courtroom fiasco.

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I don't see how it's up for debate. She describes seeing "half an inch to an inch of hair" sticking out. As in, sideburns. Jones had sideburns, short sideburns, and that is what she described seeing!

He was close cropped at the time. It sounds like Jordans hairdo. Cropped, or bald would be a good description of Jones. Hair is a good description of Jordan.

The shirt however isn't.

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Considering you are (or until this post, hopefully WERE) working under the assumption that there was a "racial slur" and that the DA was Bob Macy, I can see why you might see some doubt. As both of these are lies, to add with all the other lies that have been discussed in this thread so far (see my first reply to LG, for example), I do not see any doubt! 

Well these are grey areas that nether side are completely honest about but as I said. There are two direct witnesses. As such they are all just talking points and can't change that solid evidence. Jordan and Jones were different builds from what I can see. I just can't see both witnesses pointing at the wrong person with such confidence. 

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

If there was actual doubt in this case, I would think that Jones and his supporters wouldn't need to lie about basic facts that are easily cross-checked! 

Well, they aren't as clean cut and you make out. You're a little too quick with your judgement there. You bandy the word lie around just a little to hastily for my liking. Be careful about that.

Thing is a deal has been made. Sentenced. The Howells deserve closure. They aren't getting that and they are the actual victims here. If I buy a car I can't go back ten years later and say, you know what, that car should have been three grand cheaper. Here's the proof, cough up. You would be laughed at. The Howells do not deserve to be laughed at. They lost a family member. 

What I think stinks about the case is Jordans early release more than anything. He should be following Jones all the way down the green mile. To me, that where something's 'not right' about this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
39 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

No, one thing at a time. I'm referring to the courtroom. It doesn't matter if the person who made the slur retains their judgement to this day. There's little doubt it happened and wasn't acted upon. It doesn't change the outcome but it's sloppy and the sort of thing that could be called into question. The person who made the slur simply should have been removed immediately. Sloppy work. 

Did you misread my post - there was no evidence of a "racial slur". None! Jones made the claim of a racial slur as part of "The Last Defense" documentary. There is no other claim of racial slurs. 

The juror who was reported to the judge is alleged to have said "they should place him in a box in the ground for what he has done". That was after the evidence was heard and the jury was deliberating, not a pre-trial assumption. The claim in "The Last Defense" documentary is that what was actually said was "they should have just taken the *N-Word* out and shot him behind the jail". That is not reflected in the trial transcript. In fact, this went up for consideration as part of an earlier appeal, to which the judge at the time said:

Quote

The only perceivable difference between Jones’ original claim and his current claim is Juror V.A.’s new assertion that Juror J.B. made a racial epithet.  Juror V.A.’s recollection of what was said by J.B. on February 27, 2002, was no doubt better on that day when she reported it to the trial court than it is now.  Moreover, Juror V.A.’s concern with Juror J.B.’s alleged comment was obviously significant enough that she felt compelled to report it to the trial court.  Thus, it is highly improbable that Juror V.A. neglected to add, during the trial court’s investigation into the matter, that J.B. used a clearly offensive racial epithet or for that matter, failed to mention that another juror [assuming J.B. was the juror referred to on Facebook] engaged in similar conduct.

Source

 
So no racial slur. It's a lie by the Jones team to muddy the waters!

 

Quote

Oh potato potatoe.

It's potato! But regardless, that was why I misunderstood you.

 

Quote

That's simply not true. He was definitely involved with the case. Macy filled out the charge and stated at the time it was a death sentence. There's information indicating that Macy handed down the case to his then deputy, Lane, but Macy was DA until 2001. By which time Jordan was sentenced. Lane states he worked under Macy at the time and was driven to be a rich lawyer before "he met Jesus". I don't see any moral high ground there. Lane was a quarter of a million in financial trouble not long after that case and his wife is the town drunk. He's got his own problems.

Then consider that Macy conspired with Joyce Gilchrist to commit forensic misconduct and fraud on multiple cases involving death row around that very time.

It's not as simple as it looks. Regardless, considering the mess the law was at the time, second guessing the case is just diligence. A better trial without all these lapses of judgement should still best the same result and give nobody anything to complain about. Should have been done in 2002 after that original courtroom fiasco.

Macy had no hand in the trial. He was the State DA, but that doesn't mean he had a hand in every case being tried at the time. Based on what you wrote, it sounds like if he had anything to do with the case it was simply that the case turned up on his desk and he was required to put his signature on it. This is just an attempt at guilt by association. Macy had nothing to do with the trial! It's all a smokescreen to try and make it seem like there's more doubt than there is!  

 

Quote

He was close cropped at the time. It sounds like Jordans hairdo. Cropped, or bald would be a good description of Jones. Hair is a good description of Jordan.

The shirt however isn't.

Sideburns, sticking out from between the stocking cap and showing around his ears. That's 100% sideburns, that's 100% short hair, and that's what Paul Howell's sister has said not just at trial but in interviews afterwards too.

 

Quote

Well these are grey areas that nether side are completely honest about but as I said. There are two direct witnesses. As such they are all just talking points and can't change that solid evidence. Jordan and Jones were different builds from what I can see. I just can't see both witnesses pointing at the wrong person with such confidence. 

Well, they aren't as clean cut and you make out. You're a little too quick with your judgement there. You bandy the word lie around just a little to hastily for my liking. Be careful about that.

Thing is a deal has been made. Sentenced. The Howells deserve closure. They aren't getting that and they are the actual victims here. If I buy a car I can't go back ten years later and say, you know what, that car should have been three grand cheaper. Here's the proof, cough up. You would be laughed at. The Howells do not deserve to be laughed at. They lost a family member. 

What I think stinks about the case is Jordans early release more than anything. He should be following Jones all the way down the green mile. To me, that where something's 'not right' about this. 

Which is why I'm definitely glad Governor Stitt went for the "without parole" part of the sentence. I also agree, Jordan shouldn't have been released. However, his release has NOTHING to do with a plea deal he made. His plea deal should have kept him in prison for another ten years (it was a 30-year plea), until an unrelated change in the law gave him a loophole out, and the State strongly opposed freeing him! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Did you misread my post - there was no evidence of a "racial slur". None! Jones made the claim of a racial slur as part of "The Last Defense" documentary. There is no other claim of racial slurs. 

The juror who was reported to the judge is alleged to have said "they should place him in a box in the ground for what he has done". That was after the evidence was heard and the jury was deliberating, not a pre-trial assumption. The claim in "The Last Defense" documentary is that what was actually said was "they should have just taken the *N-Word* out and shot him behind the jail". That is not reflected in the trial transcript. In fact, this went up for consideration as part of an earlier appeal, to which the judge at the time said:

 
So no racial slur. It's a lie by the Jones team to muddy the waters!

Again, your far too hasty to scream guilty. 

From your link:

When Jones submitted his commutation application in October of 2019, he provided the Board with a copy of the purported Facebook exchange.  However, on April 14, 2020, Jones supplemented his application with additional exhibits.  One of those exhibits is an affidavit from Juror V.A. 

The affidavit confirms the authenticity of the Facebook messages.  V.A. indicates that she told the bailiff about the alleged comment and also reported it to the judge.  V.A. also states that the comment was “said aloud in a group setting.”  At trial, Judge Bass questioned every juror—regarding V.A.’s report at that time—and none reported hearing a juror express any opinion as to the appropriate punishment.  DA Op. at 535.  Further, V.A. asserts that she “paraphrased” the comment, but fails to explain why she omitted the racial epithet she now claims was used.  This is particularly striking because V.A. states that she “felt this juror had a bias that needed to be brought to the court’s attention” and that she “felt that there was racism on the jury

 

At the time at least, one person felt racism was a genuine concern. I doubt the jury would dob in someone they quite possibly knew. 

There's admission of a softer threat as you note above as well. It's a tainted jury regardless if the decision was official or not, there were people who were apparently racist and biased. And let's face it, that's certainly not outside the realms of possibility here considering the judge and that he was embraced for his racist views.

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

It's potato! But regardless, that was why I misunderstood you.

 

Macy had no hand in the trial. He was the State DA, but that doesn't mean he had a hand in every case being tried at the time. Based on what you wrote, it sounds like if he had anything to do with the case it was simply that the case turned up on his desk and he was required to put his signature on it. This is just an attempt at guilt by association. Macy had nothing to do with the trial! It's all a smokescreen to try and make it seem like there's more doubt than there is!  

He set the charge. He was DA at the time. Wes Lane was an assistant DA in 1999. He only finished what Macy had been working on. Macy didn't retire untill 2001. And even then through disgrace brought about by charges for deliberately tampering with death row evidence. 

How did Macy and Joyce not end up in jail? Lane was Macy's deputy. It's hard to believe he didn't know about a whole lot of wrongdoing. I can't help but wonder how many of his fifty four death row sentences were actually murder. 

There some really dodgy characters on both sides here.

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Sideburns, sticking out from between the stocking cap and showing around his ears. That's 100% sideburns, that's 100% short hair, and that's what Paul Howell's sister has said not just at trial but in interviews afterwards too.

 Cropped hair looks shaved or not there at all. That just doesn't hold water. That's Jordans all day long. If that was what the case hinged on instead of direct witnesses, I'd be pointing at Jordan. With his alleged confession to another inmate, he looks every bit as guilty as Jones does. 

Build seems to be another thing altogether. I wonder why they would focus on something so ambiguous when something as blatantly obvious as build should tell them easily apart. Lots of strange things about this case. 

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Which is why I'm definitely glad Governor Stitt went for the "without parole" part of the sentence.

I feel considering that there is enough doubt to stay execution, and the poor way the trial was carried out, with law enforcement embroiled in controversy at the time, that a retrial would be the best option. I don't think it would change the outcome but perhaps people might be more comfortable if it was done better. As it is some think he is innocent. That record should be set straight for Paul Howell at the very least. 

There's nothing wrong with admitting the system isn't perfect. That builds confidence rather than detracts from it. 

35 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I also agree, Jordan shouldn't have been released. However, his release has NOTHING to do with a plea deal he made. His plea deal should have kept him in prison for another ten years (it was a 30-year plea), until an unrelated change in the law gave him a loophole out, and the State strongly opposed freeing him! 

You honestly find nothing strange about serving half a plea sentence? Especially when a plea deal was done to lighten the sentence? I can't seem to find anything official other than that the records state he was released after fifteen years. Considering that and the alleged three confessions to other inmates is certainly reason to cast doubt. If not for first hand witnesses, I would have thought Jordan was the shooter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
15 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Again, your far too hasty to scream guilty. 

From your link:

When Jones submitted his commutation application in October of 2019, he provided the Board with a copy of the purported Facebook exchange.  However, on April 14, 2020, Jones supplemented his application with additional exhibits.  One of those exhibits is an affidavit from Juror V.A. 

The affidavit confirms the authenticity of the Facebook messages.  V.A. indicates that she told the bailiff about the alleged comment and also reported it to the judge.  V.A. also states that the comment was “said aloud in a group setting.”  At trial, Judge Bass questioned every juror—regarding V.A.’s report at that time—and none reported hearing a juror express any opinion as to the appropriate punishment.  DA Op. at 535.  Further, V.A. asserts that she “paraphrased” the comment, but fails to explain why she omitted the racial epithet she now claims was used.  This is particularly striking because V.A. states that she “felt this juror had a bias that needed to be brought to the court’s attention” and that she “felt that there was racism on the jury

 

At the time at least, one person felt racism was a genuine concern. I doubt the jury would dob in someone they quite possibly knew. 

There's admission of a softer threat as you note above as well. It's a tainted jury regardless if the decision was official or not, there were people who were apparently racist and biased. And let's face it, that's certainly not outside the realms of possibility here considering the judge and that he was embraced for his racist views.

 

"At the time at least, one person felt racism was a genuine concern." - THERE WAS NO RACISM!!!! No juror ever "felt racism was a genuine concern". Not at the time, and only 15 years in retrospect! The quote you quoted even makes it clear: "none reported hearing a juror express any opinion as to the appropriate punishment"! The issue at trial was commenting on punishment, not racism! And if you go back to the quote I showed, what was originally reported to the court was that the juror is alleged to have said "he should be put in a box in the ground for what he did". Note how there is zero mention of racism. The claim of racism didn't come until 2017! And that was brought up at appeal, the judge dismissed it by saying what I quoted in my post above - her memory of events in 2002 was undoubtedly more reliable when they happened in 2002, and not what she remembers now in 2017! 

Yes, I know that the juror submitted a sworn affidavit in 2017, but this sworn affidavit does not resemble the facts that happened at trial in 2002. As the appeals court judge ruled, "it is highly improbable that Juror V.A neglected to add, during the court's investigation into the matter, that J.B used a clearly offensive racial epithet". If you disagree, you must satisfactorily answer this - why did Juror V.A  care enough to bring to the court's attention that there was a comment about the appropriate punishment but didn't care enough to add that there was a clearly offensive racial slur? And why should this testimony 15 years later be more reliable than 2002?  

 

Quote

He set the charge. He was DA at the time. Wes Lane was an assistant DA in 1999. He only finished what Macy had been working on. Macy didn't retire untill 2001. And even then through disgrace brought about by charges for deliberately tampering with death row evidence. 

How did Macy and Joyce not end up in jail? Lane was Macy's deputy. It's hard to believe he didn't know about a whole lot of wrongdoing. I can't help but wonder how many of his fifty four death row sentences were actually murder. 

There some really dodgy characters on both sides here.

He was the State DA - that means he was in charge of every case in the State, overall. That doesn't mean he had direct hands in any of them! Like I said, IF he had anything to do with the trial, it was only peripheral - as in, the case went across his desk, and he signed his name to it, the actual case was tried by others who were not him. It's classic guilt by association! Macy had zero to do with the trial. 

 

Quote

 Cropped hair looks shaved or not there at all. That just doesn't hold water. That's Jordans all day long. If that was what the case hinged on instead of direct witnesses, I'd be pointing at Jordan. With his alleged confession to another inmate, he looks every bit as guilty as Jones does. 

Build seems to be another thing altogether. I wonder why they would focus on something so ambiguous when something as blatantly obvious as build should tell them easily apart. Lots of strange things about this case. 

I think we shall simply agree to disagree on this one. Perhaps you are getting hung up on the description of Jones as having a "shaved head". Keep in mind that shaved head does not mean bald (eg, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Professor X), it means 0 or 1 or 2 on a shaver for really close cropped hair is still "shaved", and that is what is described as seeing. The witness testimony is that she saw a sideburn sticking out. That's Jones. Not Jordan. 

Like I said, let's agree to disagree on this one. 

 

Quote

I feel considering that there is enough doubt to stay execution, and the poor way the trial was carried out, with law enforcement embroiled in controversy at the time, that a retrial would be the best option. I don't think it would change the outcome but perhaps people might be more comfortable if it was done better. As it is some think he is innocent. That record should be set straight for Paul Howell at the very least. 

There's nothing wrong with admitting the system isn't perfect. That builds confidence rather than detracts from it. 

You honestly find nothing strange about serving half a plea sentence? Especially when a plea deal was done to lighten the sentence? I can't seem to find anything official other than that the records state he was released after fifteen years. Considering that and the alleged three confessions to other inmates is certainly reason to cast doubt. If not for first hand witnesses, I would have thought Jordan was the shooter. 

But the reduced sentence had nothing to do with the case, that was an unrelated change in the law (I quoted this to you above, note how there was literally a change in Oklahoma's legal code, and as a result of this some people got reduced sentences, and the State objected to the law being applied to this case because it scuppered the intention of the original plea deal which was supposed to be 30 years. 

That's not an indictment on this case, it's a legal loophole that was opened and Jordan drove his freedom through. That doesn't therefore mean the rest of the trial should be tossed out! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.