Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Dec. 30, 2022 - Human Events Daily - Jack Posobiec

24:42

EPISODE 355: EXPOSING KIM KARDASHIAN AND THE INNOCENCE PROJECT WITH SEAN FITZGERALD

On today’s episode of Human Events Daily, Jack is joined by Sean Fitzgerald to expose Kim Kardashian and the Innocence Project! Tune in for this cant miss exposé of one of the largest frauds of the last few years! Here’s your Daily dose of Human Events with @JackPosobiec Save up to 65% on MyPillow products by going to MyPillow.com/POSO and use code POSO Support the Show.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	- - All right, we're very excited.
	So we're here at AmericaFest and we're going to be recording a couple episodes, some special interviews to air over the Christmas break for Human Events Daily.
	And I was so excited, literally pulled this guy off the hallway and I said, Sean, we're doing an interview!
	Were we talking about this for years at this point, right, to do this?
	Yes.
	And so I said, finally, because I have the whole setup and your gear.
	And what can I say?
	You know, I've got a squad with me.
	And, you know, we held him in the back room for a little while, worked him over a little bit with a couple of ropes, you know, and now he's here.
	So we've got Sean Fitzgerald.
	He is the actual Justice Warrior.
	If you are not following him on YouTube, you are doing yourself a disservice.
	Please go and follow his channel.
	And Sean, the thing that you and I always chat about, and you do great videos on this, and every once in a while I'll chime in, but I'll go off on Twitter, are these
	These cases, these murder cases, that it's kind of the weirdest thing and I don't even know how to describe it at first, but I'll just say where I came onto it and then you can tell us how you came in and a little bit about your background, but it's Kim Kardashian would get involved in these cases and say, oh my gosh, I found this terrible man and he's been falsely charged and he's convicted and they're going to kill him.
	It's a huge injustice and racism is rearing its ugly head once again, particularly in the South.
	And we need to get involved.
	And I would say, my gosh, that's terrible.
	It's so horrible.
	And I'd look into the case and I'd find that it was fake.
	The whole thing was fake.
	Everything that they were saying was either a lie or some politically racially charged statement that if you just actually looked into the basic facts, it completely turned on its head.
	And I have to fight back against this because she's just out there lying.
	It's not only that they're guilty, but they're ridiculously over the top guilty and it's not even close.
	They're so guilty.
	And we end up finding out they're guilty of more crimes throughout the course of doing the research into these cases.
	The more research I did, and we'll get into it in a second, but on the first case we're going to talk about, the more I found out about this guy, I realized that even if by some act of God you could exonerate him of the one case, there's like 13 more that would put him basically in the exact same spot that he is right now.
	One of which was actually far worse.
	Oh, so my background is in criminal justice.
	to the case that he's in for.
	But Sean, give us a little bit of your background, and why should we listen to you when it comes to law and order?
	Oh, so my background is in criminal justice.
	That's where I hold both of my degrees, one of which is from John Jay College of Criminal Justice out of New York City.
	And I'm really interested in these cases, and I've been really interested in law for the better part of my life.
	I spent my educational life on it, and my post-graduate life on it, and now I'm doing it for a living, I guess, on YouTube.
	And it's just, you know, I guess I wouldn't say you need to take me seriously on it, but just look at the information.
	I always cite my sources and check it out for yourself.
	And you shouldn't take Kim Kardashian seriously on this.
	I know, right?
	So, but there's another angle to this because, you know, me being me, I'm also interested in who are the people behind the people that are pitching this stuff?
	Because suddenly, and there's this particular case that got me into it, and it was Rodney Reed.
	And this guy, Kim Kardashian's talking about him.
	He goes on Dr. Phil.
	Dr. Phil actually goes to Death Row down in Barstow, Texas, interviews him.
	Dr. Oz is talking to the family when he did his show.
	Kim Kardashian's constantly Rodney Reed, Rodney Reed, Rodney Reed.
	And then I find out there's this group called the Innocence Project, and this is a very powerful left-wing group.
	They have received money from the Open Society Foundation at one point, and this is of course George Soros' group, a ton of money from him, and As I pull back, and the Innocence Project, they have their fingers in Netflix and miniseries, in Spotify they have a series out now where Kim Kardashian is the host, and we'll get to that in a minute, but specifically on this case of Rodney Reed, Yes.
	I realize that everything she's saying is just a lie. - Yes. - It's just a lie, and you could play that argument of whether she believes it, or whether they told her to say it, whatever, right?
	But she just hasn't done the actual basic homework, and so here comes me to bash her over the head with the facts.
	So walk us through a little bit, just in a couple of minutes, what was the Rodney Reed case?
	What was he convicted of?
	And how was he fingered?
	Yeah, so in the 1990s, Rodney Reed raped and murdered a woman called Stacey Stites.
	He did this as she was on her way to HEB.
	She was working a graveyard shift because she was married to a police officer called Jimmy, or engaged to a police officer.
	called Jimmy Fennell, and she was working that shift in order to make extra money in order to pay for the wedding.
	So initially, and a lot of what the Kim Kardashian side says, Rodney Reed was not the suspect in this crime.
	Like, there's accusations that he was framed, that there was an affair, that the cops were all in on it.
	Yeah, that because the fiancé was the cop, that he and his buddies, you know, rigged up the evidence and made it look like it was him.
	But it's important to note that even though the fiancé was a cop, he was a cop in a different department than the town she was murdered in.
	And because this involved the fiancé of a cop, they actually involved the Texas Rangers in the investigation.
	So from the jump, in order to have this, like, frame-up job, you need three different departments coordinating, and that just doesn't make a lot of sense.
	But Reid is not the suspect immediately.
	For a year, they suspect the husband because, or the fiancé, because they always suspect the fiancé.
	And they look into him.
	They think, oh, maybe there was an affair.
	They go into all these things.
	The only reason Rodney Reed was arrested is because he attempted to rape another woman.
	Oh, same age, same description, same area.
	And they ran his DNA and then found not only did he match Stacey Stites, but he matched another woman, same age, same profile, raped six months prior.
	And they realized that this was a pattern of behavior, so they bring Rodney Reed in, they ask him if he knows Stacey Seitz, he says no, he never met her, never spoke to her, anything like that.
	They run his DNA again, prove that it's his semen inside her body, and then all of a sudden we're told this tale of a secret affair.
	It's, well, and not only the semen, but also the saliva.
	Yes.
	And I always bring this up when people start arguing about this because they claim that And this is heady stuff, so I apologize, but they claim that the semen is there because of this consensual affair that they had been having.
	However, he was not the murderer and the semen was there because of a consensual sexual act that had taken place prior to the murder.
	Here's the problem with that.
	His saliva is also found on the body.
	Her body, which was raped and then strangled with the belt that she wore.
	Half of the belt, which is found in the car, half of the belt, which is found in the body of Stacey Steith, where she was thrown in the woods.
	And his saliva is found all over her dead body.
	Yes, specifically on her chest.
	Yes, on her chest.
	And in, you know, to skip forward a few years, they actually found more DNA on her back brace and on her pants.
	And her work clothes.
	Yes, what was not found on her body in any of these ways was her fiancé's DNA.
	So, like, this weird idea that her fiancé would have been able, in 1997, to plant this DNA that they couldn't really test for back in the day and remove his own is just an absurdity.
	So, like, this is a guy who is guilty.
	He has a pattern of behavior, multiple different rapes, including a 12-year-old victim.
	And that's the one that I was going to say.
	Not only a 12-year-old victim, but also, in one case, a mentally challenged woman.
	And again, his semen was found in a 12-year-old girl's rape kit.
	This is someone who is a hardened, horrific criminal.
	Just a full-on monster.
	And Kim Kardashian, Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, the brother Rodnick Reed, he's on the board of the Death Penalty Alliance now.
	He's something of a mini-celebrity in the anti-death penalty world.
	And by the way, I have no problem with people being activists against the death penalty.
	That's fine.
	But at the same time, I have a problem with people lying.
	I have a problem with people that are using false charges of racism in cases where it's just not, it's absolutely not warranted.
	And in addition by the way, and this is a part you never hear and this will come up later, The entire family of Stacey Stites, her mother, her sister, she had a young daughter at the time.
	All of them, to a T, all agree that Rodney Reed was the murderer.
	They do not blame the fiancé.
	And he had legal troubles later.
	Yeah, 10 years later on a completely separate case that has nothing to do with something that happened 10 years prior, obviously.
	And there's no evidence whatsoever of a secret affair.
	And you have to knock every piece down.
	They have, so you know they have the other clerk from the HEB that came forward.
	Do you want to tell this?
	Oh yeah, go ahead.
	There's a woman who worked with Stacey Stites back in the day, and to be clear, HEB stepped up when Stacey Stites was murdered.
	They offered a $50,000 reward for anyone with information in 1997 dollars.
	That's not worth a lot today.
	That's huge.
	But in 1997 dollars.
	That's not worth a lot today. - That's huge.
	- But in 1997 dollars. - I'll take 50 grand today, you can.
	- But with inflation, you know.
	So she didn't say anything.
	She didn't say anything about it.
	Says not a word.
	Concurrently.
	Then, years later, when she hears about it in the paper, after it has Kim Kardashian's attention.
	When Kim Kardashian's talking about it.
	She says that she had this most inhuman conversation ever that no two humans have ever had, where she said she noticed her engagement ring of her very close friend, asked her how she was feeling, and she said she was upset because she was having an affair with a black man named Rodney.
	See, so the clerk says to her co-worker, who by all accounts isn't any good friend or anything like this, that, oh, by the way, I'm having an affair with a black man and I don't want anyone to know.
	A black man named Rodney, specifically.
	Named Rodney, specifically.
	It's all the key notes.
	It's all the key, yeah.
	No, that's very believable.
	And the other one they have is the prison confession of the fiancé, which comes from a known informant, a guy who has given false testimony in other cases and is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood.
	And those jailhouse conventions, again, all these people come forward because what we find in other cases is they get flooded with donations to their commissary accounts.
	They get their commissary accounts.
	By people that have bought into the innocence movement.
	And this this is why we call this we're still going back and forth over what we should we should call these this umbrella of cases, because it's so new.
	But, you know, what was yours was?
	Innocence fraud.
	Innocence fraud.
	I was thinking something like Injustice Project.
	There's something there.
	I don't know.
	There's something there.
	But let's let's go into the next case.
	In terms of this because Julius Jones and this is what so I'll put a put a pin on Rodney Reed because he's lost all of his appeals at this point and it's gotten so bad for them.
	The Innocence Project put out a white paper on me and basically on you too trying to refute some of these points that we're making and I pulled it out of one of their Google Drives that they had accidentally left not unprotected and Kim Kardashian doesn't even talk about him anymore.
	It's gotten that bad.
	Oh, and she blocked me on Twitter because it got so bad.
	But there's another case, and that's the case of Julius Jones.
	So very briefly, walk us through what's the Julius Jones case.
	So the Julius Jones case is a murder out of Oklahoma, again, from around the 90s.
	I forget the precise year.
	But the way this worked is that Jones and his friend Chris Westside Jordan were a carjacking duo.
	They spotted a Suburban in a Brahms parking lot in Oklahoma.
	That Suburban belonged to a man named Paul Howe, who took his kids out for school supplies and took his kids to go get ice cream, which is what Brahms is for.
	He follows them home.
	Paul Howe opens his car door.
	Jones open fires without saying a single word, kills Paul Howe instantly with a gunshot to the head in front of his two daughters and in front of his sister.
	they flee he fires upon them as they enter the house jones takes the suv on the daughters yes the daughters and the sister jones takes the suv crushes paul house legs as he backs off steals the suv and through the course of events it is determined that he is clearly and obviously the killer witness statements surveillance video uh all these other factors like the fact that he is no alibi and when he tries to produce one it's a bad alibi it's a slam dunk case it's obvious julius jones did it
	pattern of behavior you even catch a um i believe there's a there's a bandana in that That he was using to cover his face somewhat.
	And then they, they get the bandana.
	They test, again, saliva.
	They test the saliva.
	Who's saliva?
	Saliva is later.
	What's interesting is that the, the, the sister who's Megan Tobey is a costume designer.
	So when she describes what he was wearing, it's like to a T. It's incredibly detailed.
	Yeah, so it's not only the bandana she describes, but it's also the shirt with the black trim, which is very distinct, and it doesn't sound like that in the court transcripts.
	I recommend you look at this.
	So she describes that they find that when they search Jones's home days later, the bandana is wrapped around the gun and hidden in his room.
	They find the shirt, all the evidence that they would need.
	They get his friend to turn state's evidence.
	It's a slam dunk.
	However, they do a trick where they try to pin it on his associate, who is the getaway driver, rather than him.
	And as you pointed out, for a while, they said the whole case hinged on DNA.
	Right.
	Because whoever was wearing the bandana was clearly the shooter.
	Right, right, right.
	I remember now.
	So they make this whole deal out of, and this is Kardashian and the Innocence Project, these scam artists, they say, you got to test the bandana.
	Test the bandana, check the DNA, it will prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he was not the trigger man, he was the getaway driver, it was his friend, and then his friend planted the shirt, and the gun, and the bandana, everything else.
	So, tell us, pre-tell, what happened when they finally went back and tested that bandana?
	So when they tested the bandana at a laboratory chosen by the Innocence Project, they discovered that the odds of another person not named Julius Jones contributing to this DNA sample were 1 in 110 out of the African-American male population.
	Now, in 1999, when this crime took place, there were only about 35 million African-American males.
	110 million.
	Yeah, 100 million African American males.
	There were only 35 million African Americans in the in the country at the time.
	So it's him.
	Right.
	And so for folks and this is, by the way, and we should talk about that for a second, because when people hear statistics like that, they need to understand that's a DNA match.
	Yeah.
	And so this is the way DNA matching is done.
	It never comes down and says, oh, this person is, you know, this is this person's DNA.
	It comes down to it statistically must be this person because it could not match someone else.
	It's the way that the nerds talk, which doesn't help us because, you know, people can use that and exploit that like they have in this case.
	So they say it cannot be excluded.
	And then they give you odds.
	So they're like, oh, well, that's not a match.
	That just means cannot be excluded.
	But it's like, look at the odds.
	That means it's a match.
	That's that's actually how you would describe it being a match.
	And yet they will sit.
	But however, let's go forward, because what happened in that case?
	Well, eventually, Jones, who was sentenced to the death penalty, got his sentence commuted by the governor based on a political campaign from actually both sides of the aisle.
	Yes.
	That supported him and bought into this narrative that Julius Jones was the innocent man.
	Well, it's not the only thing they bought into.
	Because the Innocence Project and people associated with this were running around with bags of money and they were just showering people with donations and their associated organizations, showering donations everywhere they could to put pressure from both sides of the aisle on the governor.
	And in this case, the governor of Oklahoma, Governor Stitt, does end up buckling.
	And again, by the way, I have no problem if there is a serious question about the case And if you want to commute something, if you have an issue with the death penalty, et cetera, because obviously we should not be using the death penalty lightly.
	Right.
	However, I have a huge problem with organizations like this running around and playing these racially and politically charged issues, throwing them in into obviously we're in a highly charged political environment and then using these woke justice points to try to win over criminal cases.
	I think I think that's a crucial point, because in these cases, a lot of the pattern that we see are black people killing white people and then them trying to get them off with some kind of racism justification.
	And for the Jones case, it's absurd on multiple fronts.
	First and foremost, Jones chose to go into a majority white neighborhood and commit that crime.
	But secondly, the Kardashian Innocence Project defense is that it was the other black guy.
	Great, so they're still blaming a black guy.
	Yeah, so they're like, oh, systemic racism and all these biases lead into this when a white person is murdered in front of his children.
	But also, it's this other black guy.
	We're blaming the next closest black guy to the crime.
	So the Reid case is done, essentially.
	The Julius Jones case is done.
	She's got a Spotify out now, so tell me about the Spotify and tell me about the story of Kevin Keith.
	So, Kevin Keith, you know, Julius Jones is a bad guy, Rodney Reed is a bad guy, but as far as we know, they only killed one person.
	Kevin Keith is a mass murderer.
	Kevin Keith was a drug dealer back in the 90s and essentially he got, you know, what happens to drug dealers a lot, one of his friends sold him out.
	So he decided on a fateful night that he was going to go over to the friend's home who sold him out.
	He shows up.
	That friend's not there.
	His ex-girlfriend, who's that friend's sister, is there with two kids, or actually three children, and her boyfriend and some other people that were in the house.
	So after waiting for a little while, Kevin Keith decided that because he couldn't kill the person he was looking for, to just try to kill every single person there.
	So he pulls a gun out and he shoots each and every single one of them after ordering them to the ground.
	This includes killing a four-year-old child, wounding a four-year-old child and a six-year-old child, and killing two other adults.
	Now, the boyfriend, I believe his name is Richard Warren, ended up escaping the scene with critical injuries, but Keith fled.
	Then Keith ended up trying to escape and he got his license plate caught in a snowbank.
	He took off.
	And then when these people woke up, most of them immediately said it was Kevin Keith.
	So.
	So what what is what possible defense is she giving in this entire web of a Spotify podcast that she's done before?
	Because she's putting her entire brand on the line.
	Spotify, by the way, is fully behind this podcast.
	Spotify, this is the heavily promoted, constantly featured.
	The Kardashians are also, by the way, on Disney.
	Yeah.
	In addition, they have a new deal with Disney.
	What possibly could she be saying?
	Well, it's it's it's there are absurd conspiracy theories that they go to and they do produce them.
	These are all conspiracy theories.
	Yes.
	There's no evidence that backs up any of this.
	But my favorite one is is that it was just somebody else for some other reason.
	But the problem is, is that Warren, the boyfriend who didn't know a lot about what her brother was doing, one of the victim's brothers was doing, the one who snitched on Kevin Keith, said that Kevin Keith said that this was because your brother is a rat.
	He snitched on me.
	And we find out that his brother did turn state's evidence one month prior.
	So part of what you have to buy into if you believe that this is...
	Which, by the way, that's why things like the Witness Protection Program exist, because of situations like this.
	But in order to buy into this theory that somebody else did it, you would have to believe that somebody was just as mad that Kevin Keith got snitched on, or coincidentally, they knew about the indictment and they used this as their opportunity, And by the way, you have to ignore the fact that the children knew who Kevin Keith was, and they say it's Kevin Keith as well.
	The children who survived.
	Yes, you have three surviving people who were shot by Kevin Keith, who say it was Kevin Keith.
	The neighbor says it was Kevin Keith.
	The license plate evidence in the snow says it was Kevin Keith.
	There's also tire tread evidence that says it's Kevin Keith.
	But don't worry about it.
	Kim Kardashian thinks he's innocent and, you know, maybe racism was involved.
	Concerning to me, though, is that you will get these people, and I've said before, this is why the true crime community is cancer, because they will have these highly produced podcasts.
	I mean, look, we're recording this at AmericaFest.
	We've got people running around, Lauren Chen's walking around behind us with her baby, a beautiful baby.
	And You know, they've got bells and whistles and sound effects and little snippets of interviews here, but what they don't have is evidence and the truth on their side.
	And so many people, because of the heavy featuring and promotion of these episodes, will just listen to that.
	And by the way, you know, I put also some of these authors like John Grisham, who's been heavily involved in this, he should know better.
	He just should know better.
	There's a bunch of these guys that make their bones knowing, writing about this stuff that And by the way, John Grisham, I'm pretty sure it's John Grisham, he's come out and even said that in some instances he's done stories that were based on true cases from the South, Andy Nose walking around behind us here, where he's switched the races to give you a false impression of what was actually going on.
	And, you know, we're coming down to our last minute, but just give us a quick understanding of why is it so dangerous to go in with this?
	I mean, isn't it just all in good fun?
	I would say it's dangerous because one of the things that my friend Devin Tracy, who's very into this topic, says all the time is that the problem with the Court of Public Opinion is that it's not a court.
	Anything goes.
	Was he the one saying that it's always the alliteration?
	Yes, the alliterati.
	Julius Jones, Rodney Reed, Kevin Keith, yeah.
	And Kim Kardashian.
	Yeah, so he says that the problem with the court of public opinion is that it's not a court.
	There are no rules.
	And basically, the person with the bigger bullhorn ends up winning.
	So it's one thing to talk about these cases in terms of the facts, what's admissible in a court of law where we have standards.
	It's another thing to talk about this as a form of entertainment and inject mystery into it in order to make it more consumable.
	And then people believe it and then they act on this.
	That's right, and that's what we're seeing.
	And they sign these petitions, and they're at home drinking their wine coolers, and they're hanging out with their cats, and then they'll go to their friends, oh my gosh, I heard this crazy podcast, Kim Kardashian, we have to save this girl.
	Actually, I'm not gonna dime out who it was, I actually had a friend, she texted me about the Rodney Reed, and said, oh my gosh, Jack, she'd seen it on Dr. Phil, you have to come in, you have to help this guy, and I said, fine, I'll look into it.
	So I got him into all of this thinking that Rodney Reed was innocent.
	I look into the facts and I had to go back to her and said, I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong.
	Sean, thank you so much for your time.
	I appreciate you doing the Ambush interview like this.
	You know, not quite James O'Keefe Ambush style, but you know, we'll get there.
	Tell people where can they go to follow you and just all your coordinates.
	So, first of all, thank you for having me.
	You can find me on YouTube at ActualJusticeWarrior, on Twitter at IamShaw90, on Instagram at ActualJustice, and I have a website, actualjusticewarrior.com, where everything is also linked.

▲