Jim’s Case

No Positive Role Models: Growing Up in Prison

The cops got me at age 18, at work. I had, by chance sat next to a punk that they were chasing, to get my free meal, which was part of my wage. He was their drug snitch, trying to work off having been caught with drugs. He hadn’t given the, any “Mr. Bugs” because he didn’t know any. The cops pressed him too hard, so he robbed to get money enough to escape them. Then I sat next to this idiot while he begged a waitress he knew for a place to hide. The cops found him, decided that I fit the description and dragged me away at gunpoint, threatening to blow out my spine. Normal people cannot believe that innocent children can be convicted, but DNA proves that jurors convict innocent persons 16% of the time. This only counts death sentence trials, which are other trials; the failure rate has got to be higher. As more data is gathered, the failure rate continues to climb.

My shift manager at the restaurant, Billy Gibson, wrote me in jail: he was the only one who was not fooled by the lies that the cops were spreading about me through their media lackies. They like to call themselves ‘investigative reporters’, but they could not be made to investigate anything. All they did was repeat and add to whatever the cops told them to say. For all their self-promotion as “fair and balance” or as “objective” reporters, I saw no one of the media fit to be anyone’s role model.

Billy knew me and, being Black, he knew the cops too. He taught me how to bus tables, take orders, cook, do inventory, run the cash register and satisfy the health department. If those fanatical drug money chasing cops hadn’t pressed their drug addict so hard, and left me alone, Billy would have made me an assistant manager. He had taught me all about the restaurant business, but he could not teach me all of the tricks that the cops, media and prosecutors use to funnel their victims into prison.

The cops beat me until I signed their paper. My civics and gov’t instructors taught me that innocent people have nothing to fear from the police or the lawyers. They were great role models; idealistic and forthright. They would have been much better role models if they had taught from experience rather than from books. They were very wrong. They had made me very gullible and too trusting of authority. It turned out that power corrupts, and that the justice system should be more accurately named the conviction system. When the cops finally realized that their drug snitch had simply parroted back to them what they wanted to hear and that they had beaten an innocent juvenile, they didn’t care. The most important thing to them was escaping having their work records blemished by another brutality report. The easiest way for these cops and lawyers to maintain the myth of their professional purity was to frame me for a spare murder that they could not solve and bury me alive in their prison. Their cunning plan worked easily and perfectly.

Soon as they got me to prison, the prison kops wanted my hair. They had my head shaved by an inmate pet of theirs who talked me out of my wristwatch for about $1.50 in cigarettes, paper, pencil and stamps. I could have easily gotten twenty times that much for it, had I known, but instead I learned about flim-flam men. Almost every inmate was street smarter than me, and they were running multiple scams. Most prevalent was door-to-door mooching, using a sob story: “My granny’s dying of cancer! Give me a stamp so I can write her!” an hour later, you could see these guys cashing in their loot at the dope cage. Showing any kind of compassion was like putting out sugar for cockroaches. People who saw you giving charitably would come running to get some too. Worse, they guy whom you befriended would often send his pals to you with instructions on what to say and how to act to get the most reward.

The kops were even worse. TV and movies portray them as father figures. University studies prove that power corrupts. The media and society teaches them to hate us for being convicted of something. The state has learned that its kops are less cruel toward us if they are not allowed to easily search its records for our specific crimes. Even so, the kops often act as instigators of violence anyway. They want to see fights, same as any other under-educated men trapped in boring, unchallenging, thankless jobs. Out of thousands of them that I’ve known over the decades, fewer than ten would qualify as role models. The tragedy here is that prisons attract dirt, and dirt soils the clean. Most good kops are quickly run off by the bad ones, or become soiled themselves. The inmates assist this process too with their endless exploitative scamming for dope, tobacco and anything else of value.

One would think that appeals judges should make worthy role models. They do not. Over decades of explaining to them, in minute detail, how the cops and prosecutors got their two witnesses to help them lie the jurors into convicting me, each and every one of over 40 judges pull the same trick to dodge my proof of innocence. They simply ignore the facts, make up their own fantasy version of what happened, then conclude overwhelming guilt out of thin air, based upon nothing. Police records prove that they and their witnesses are liars who got caught in the act of lying. The cops are caught in the act of destroying and planting physical evidence. The judges simply go blind to it. They get away with this flagrant chicanery every time, because no one ever checks their legalize for accuracy or logic but other judges, exactly as arrogant and self-righteous as themselves. All Lawyers spend inordinate amounts of time in self-promotion and in obscenely petting themselves and their sacred profession for good reason: to cover up the fact that they are the most corrupt of all. No informed person would ever mistake a judge, prosecutor or Lawyer for a role model. In concept they are good: in practice they are not.

For me, it’s been 44 years studying these hilariously insane legal droppings. Every nanosecond of my conviction has been a complete and total waste of everyone’s time, effort and money except for the ten years that I escaped, found the killer for them, and then returned to clear my name. Even this altruism was wasted on them:  they still preferred to imprison and innocent while assisting the killer in escaping their ‘justice’ forever. But now I’m prison-rich. I live sumptuously off of two pensions that I earned while a refuge in their ‘land of the free,’ finding the killer. It looks like hardship and fortitude made good role models for me, along with the work ethic that I got from my parents, and Mr. Gibson, my boss at the restaurant.



Potential investors may rightfully question why such a bloated sum of money is required to force judges to accept the judges to accept the facts and rule honestly. It is because lawyers receive bloated compensation. Also, it is because the state has nearly infinite taxpayer-paid funds for persecutors to waste in delaying actions seeking to wear out and bankrupt their opponents. They are usually successful in these two tactics, so we must guard against them. It cost O.J. Simpson about two million dollars for his “dream team” to get him away with two murders. I’m not guilty and have proof of this, and can get more, (FMRI Lie detection) yet face the same type of evidence-stealing and evidence manufacturing criminality, so I estimate that $500,000 will suffice to convince the state’s lawyers that bankrupting us with delays plus excess lawyer costs is going to be more difficult than they expect. This is 20 times the usual lawyer fee for one round in the court room.

Additionally, innocence project lawyers are cut above the other lawyers, being of an altruistic bent and possessing more integrity, morality and civic-mindedness than arrogance, greed and self-entitlement. Our cause attracts idealists, who care more for curing the diseasing than getting rich selling snake oil. I have met several fine attorneys like this, such as Jaye Mendros, Richard Ocarroll, James E Wallace and others who would probably want this opportunity to constructively change the system for the better.

More importantly, we do not intend to waste much money on legal rhetoric after decades of discovering that judges can, and do, rule bogusly while they hide in the dark behind the alias of “The Court.” After the exceedingly light touch of quality control of jurors is safely behind them, appeals judges know that they can deny gravity and get away with it. Federal judge Sven Eric Holes did deny the laws of physics in my case (929 by simply refusing to answer the question: “how did I, if guilty, grow 5 inches of wrong color hair in one week?” The first thing that appeals judges do before publishing their opinion of your case is throw away everything you wrote in your appeal. Nothing of yours is published. This way, judges easily dodge your facts and logic, choosing what they wish to address and ignoring what they can’t. Judges garble what you said, mangle your arguments, misinterpret your application of the law, and then rule on the gibberish that they just created out of your appeal.

They get away with this because no one reads the crap after it is buried in their caselaw books. There is no one looking over their shoulders watching what they do. They can depend on every other judge to rubberstamp their opinions. There is no quality control in that they never punish any of their fellows who, like Holmes, consistently used gibberish and nonsense to rule most profitably for his estate and political career.

These facts being so, we find that there powerful and economic pressure points on law are not in feeding these sharks, but in exposing the fact that they are, indeed, sharks so that we little fish may starve some justice out of them by wisely avoiding being eaten by them the appeals judge system is too deep in the dark and insulated when its hatred of being corrected overcomes its duty to provide honest application of the law. The most effective way to move it towards correct behavior is through public scrutiny of its workings, exposure of its chicanery, ridicule of its arrogance, and outrage at its flagrant corruption and criminal rulings.


Why Jim Cannot be the Killer

The killer is left-handed. He bashed out the glass in the back door with his left hand; cutting himself badly in his haste to escape the crime scene. Mrs. Baker saw him running away, looking at his left wrist, as if “looking at his watch”. Jim is right handed.

The killer has permanent scars on his left hand and forearm from slashing himself on this glass. These scars are permanent. Jim doesn’t have any of these scars.

Due to a motorcycle accident that broke his thigh and resulted in months of hospitalisation, Jim cannot walk or run without a limp. One leg is shorter and the quadriceps muscle has shortened, making it impossible for him to run normally or at high speed without tripping. The killer didn’t limp, the killer didn’t wear glasses. Jim wears glasses all the time since age 12. The killer had blond or brown hair. Jim hair is black. The killer had very short hair while Jim’s hair is proven by a newspaper photo a week after the crime to have been at least 5 inches too long. Much too long for him to have been the killer.

Same day, 10-24-72, cops exclude long hair in report while the newspaper and television station spent three days spreading photographs and film of police parading Jim around like a trophy one week after the crime, no one called police and told them “He did it!” Not Mrs Hunt. Not Mrs. Baker. Not Ms. Connors. Mrs. Hunt was led to Jim by police 78 days later at a line-up that they had engineered. 94 days after the crime, Police went to Mrs. Baker’s home and tried to get her to sign on with Mrs Hunt. She would not sign a receipt for testimony against Jim. Instead, she told them: I don’t care what Mrs Hunt signed. Even though you brought an image with short hair on him, I remember seeing this kid in the newspaper one week after the crime. His hair was too long to be the kid I saw. I will not sign you statement. Police had already given up on trying to get Ms Connor to change her description to fit Jim. Police simply decided to conceal her from the defence, and her description of the killer. (Exhibit B) Her testimony would have helped avoid false conviction at trial. Police and prosecutor concealed her from jurors.

Jim sent 3 PD’s to police, trying to get the killer’s blood analysed. Instead of doing the right thing and identifying the killer through analysis of his blood, police lied to each PD in turn, in order to prevent them from analysing the killer’s blood. This is theft of evidence. Stealing evidence is a crime. Concealing evidence, such as a witness or blood, is also a crime. There is only one reason for Tulsa Police to conceal and steal evidence, particularly blood evidence that would lead them directly to the actual killer with 100% accuracy. They had decided to let the killer escape and decided to use fraud, deceit and evidence theft to convict an innocent teenager instead.

At trial, Tulsa police changed their story from “Nobody collected any of the Killer’s Blood” to “Somebody collected some blood, but we don’t know who.” Chief investigator McCullough “Forgot” that he had ordered yarborough to collect killer’s blood and give it to Hinkle. Yarborough also “forget” that he was one of the cops who had collected the Killer’s blood, Lewallen/Peyton not testify.

At the last second of his 2nd closing statement Prosecutor Truster suddenly began testifying to the Jurors about evidence that he had hidden from the defense about the blood. This is theft and concealment of evidence. All this time, he and his police have concealed the fact that Don Peyton sent 8 killer’s blood samples to the FBI, and that yarborough gave one sample to  Dr. Hinkle. Prosecutor Truster now lies to the Jurors, making these eight blood samples sent to the FBI into “The” blood sample. He claims that the FBI sent back a report saying that ‘insufficient’ blood was sent to them for analysis.

Years later, we manage to finally pry these secret records out of Tulsa police and the FBI. We uncover a conspiracy by Tulsa police and the FBI lab to make plenty of blood look like too little. First, they destroy evidence by changing Peyton’s blood evidence into “stains”, “scrapings” and “glass”. Next, they pretend it could be blood from eight different animals. Last, they pretend that there is not enough blood for them to test it for eight different killers. They send the blood back to Peyton, and no force on earth can make him or the Tulsa police reveal what they did with it or the chain o custody records. Prosecutor Truster also concealed the fact that the FBI sent the blood back. It disappears back into Tulsa police hands

Ex in Transcript P.2111

The PD makes an objection to the DA suddenly blurting out evidence that he has hidden from us. The Judge lets him get away with it. The PD lets him get away with it too, by saying nothing further. When I object, the PD tells me, “Be Quiet! We’re winning!” The Jurors are completely fooled. They eat this up. Two pointing fingers all they ever needed. The total lack of physical and scientific evidence means nothing to them. They were only waiting for the Lawyers to shut up so they could slap their “guilty!” buttons like contestants on “Family Feud.”

In 1997, New DNA Technology made fingerprints into sources of DNA. Jim appealed to get this DNA tested. His attempt to get this evidence analysed caused all 23 of the Killer’s fingerprints to disappear out of police vaults, same as the Killer’s blood had vanished. Also, same as with the blood, all the “Chain of custody” records vanished out of Tulsa police vaults too. There is only one reason that we can think of for the blood, prints and chain of custody records to vanish out of police vaults.

DNA technology is a disaster for the Judges, Prosecutors and Police, proving that, in death sentences alone, they convict innocent people at least 13% of the time.* an even bigger disaster for then is FMRI brain-scanning lie detection. This is inconclusive only 3% of the time, making it far more accurate than their death sentence convictions. They are fighting FMRI technology tooth and nail, but stealthily. They want to quietly suppress it. The fewer citizens who learn of it, the longer before it is used on politicians, prosecutors and cops. The exact last thing these people want is their lies detected!

Citizens who want some quality control on these people who have made themselves immune to the laws that they impose on the rest of us may do well to begin by forcing then to apply this technology to Jim he’ll pay for it himself.* We will find out, with 97% accuracy, the answers to many questions that the Lawcrats do not want Jim to answer, such as “no, I’ve never killed anyone. No, I’ve never been in the Hunt’s home. No, I never cut myself bashing through a glass door, never left a trail of blood 5 blocks long, never saw Mr. Hunt in person, never shot him, never left a bloody palm print on his fence, never been in that neighborhood…”

Yes, the last thing they want is for FMRI technology to uncover the liars… but you can make this happen.