All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 22, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
35:09
The Truth About Rodney Reed and Stacey Stites
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everybody. Stefan Molyneux from Freedom, Maine.
Hope you're doing well. I run the world's largest philosophy show, and boy, there is a lot of philosophy in the question of Rodney Reed.
Is he innocent or is he guilty?
Now, of course, the purpose of philosophy is not to tell you what to think, but rather teach you how to think.
So I'm going to provide the evidence, and you'll see where it leads exactly.
So In this terrible, horrible, ghastly story are two main characters, one alive for the moment and one deceased for many years.
The first is Rogney Reed, the man on the left, and the second is Stacey Stites, the young lady on the right.
Now, what happened? April 23rd, 1996, a 19-year-old woman named Stacey Stites, who was engaged to be married to a police officer in just a few weeks, was found dead In a field in Bastrop, Texas.
It's about 45 minutes east of Austin.
Now, before being murdered, Stacey had been brutally beaten, raped, and sodomized.
Her fiancé, Jimmy Fennell, fell asleep at 9 p.m.
She left for work at 3 a.m.
Her mother, who was a bit of a night owl, I suppose a bit of a worrywart, heard her leave.
So that is confirmed by the mother's evidence.
She and her fiancé had only one car, and she drove 35 miles to go to work.
She had a very early morning shift at a store, and she wanted that because it gave her a little bit of extra pay.
She was saving up for her wedding in a few weeks, which she was very excited about.
Now, her body was found, of course, and her truck, the pickup truck, was found abandoned at the town's local high school, only a few blocks from Rodney Reed's grandmother's home.
Her official cause of death was asphyxiation or strangulation with a belt.
Now, she was officially reported missing at 6.45 in the morning because her mother, whose name was Carol, received a phone call from one of Stacey's co-workers saying that Stacey had never shown up And also that this red truck she was supposed to be driving was found abandoned in the school parking lot about 10 miles from her body.
So Carol, the mom, immediately called to inform her daughter's fiancé, this fellow Jimmy Fennell, the cop, that the daughter was missing.
She says that Jimmy was upstairs.
She lived downstairs. Jimmy was upstairs sleeping in the apartment that the couple shared above the main floor.
So then the police officer, Jimmy, then went out to aid in the search for his girlfriend.
And just by the by, I mean, there aren't many good actors in this entire tragedy.
Jimmy Fennell himself, 10 years after the trial, found Reed guilty of the rape and murder of Stacey Stites.
He, the police officer, pled guilty to charges of improper sexual activity with a person in custody and a kidnapping in Georgetown, Texas.
And a woman he had detained accused him of rape.
He was sentenced to 10 years.
I think he got out last year.
So there's that aspect to his personality as well.
Now, of course, when a woman in a relationship, or a man in a relationship for that matter, goes missing the first...
People or the first person that the police want to talk to is the boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife, and particularly if that person was the last person to see the deceased person alive.
So her fiancé, this Jimmy fellow, was the first suspect, and the police began to talk to him.
But there's a basic problem here.
So there's the house they were sleeping in, there's the murder scene, and then there's where the truck was left at the school.
So she drove, she was going to drive 35 miles, but the truck was left abandoned at a school that was 30 miles away from her fiancé's home.
And although the police questioned him, and although this fellow Jimmy, the fiancé, did fail a polygraph test where he was asked about his whereabouts in the morning and whether he had strangled his girlfriend, the police could not put his movements in any rational context.
In other words, how could he...
Given that there was one car between the two of them, how could he get, like getting into the truck, dump her body, leave the body at the school, and get back home, which was 30 miles, within just a few hours, to answer his landline at 6.45 a.m.
when his fiancée's mother, who lived downstairs, Called him to say that the fiancé was missing.
And that is really, really important.
And you could say, well, maybe he took a cab, but he couldn't run that fast that quickly.
Or maybe he borrowed the mother's car, but the mother was the only person who had the keys to her own car.
And so the only way that he could have done that is if the mother had somehow been complicit in the murder, which again starts to stretch credibility.
Quite a bit. So the fact, why the police gave up on questioning this guy, however nasty he turns out to have been, and the answer is pretty nasty.
It's because they could not get him from home to 30 miles away where the red truck was left abandoned in the school parking lot and then back home by 6.45 a.m.
Now, the police, of course, checked cab records to see if her fiancé took a cab.
Also checked all the mileage on the cars belonging to the police to see if they had changed or altered or anything like that.
Maybe he took a cop car or something and that's not the case.
Now, a newspaper delivery worker said that Stacy's body was not on Blue Bonnet Drive at 4 a.m.
when she was found. But a patrolling officer noticed the truck at 5.23 a.m.
He'd not seen it in his past patrol.
So, there's a short window for the car to be dumped at the parking lot in the school.
And again, they could not fit the fiancé into that possibility.
How does he get from the school back home 30 miles in the middle of the night through dirt roads, back roads, whatever, with no cab, no car, or anything like that?
Over the following 11 months, police investigated 28 male suspects, got DNA and you name it, and they just couldn't find a way to make a case.
And it was, of course, in danger of slipping over the cliff edge of time into cold case territory.
And then... They ended up looking into Rodney Reed, the fellow that you saw at the beginning of the presentation.
Now, let's do a little bit of backstory.
Who is Rodney Reed? Well, he's a lot of things, but what's most relevant to what we're talking about here, according to information on the Supreme Court's website, and of course the sources to all of this will be below, Rodney Reed is responsible for a number of sexual assaults, and he only became a suspect in his 1998 conviction because he attempted to rape another woman named Linda Schluter six months after Stites' rape and murder.
And it was three o'clock in the morning, same location, same route, and same M.O. Now, according to page 5 of the U.S. Supreme Court's report, and I quote, Reed became a suspect in Stites' murder after he was arrested for kidnapping, beating, and attempting to rape and murder another 19-year-old woman, Linda Schluter.
Schluter was abducted by Reed approximately six months after Stites' murder, near both the route Stites typically took to work and the time she disappeared, 3 o'clock in the morning.
Moreover, Reed was regularly seen in this area by Bastrop police officers in the early morning hours, and his home was close to where both Steitz's and Schluter's vehicles were abandoned, right?
So Reed, Rodney Reed, lived just a half a mile away from where the car was dumped.
Now, Reed was already known to police for reportedly raping his intellectually disabled girlfriend, Caroline Rivas, he was also known by authorities to roam the streets at night, sometimes walk along the railroad tracks.
He also occasionally sold drugs, which led to his arrest for delivery of cocaine in April 1997.
So this is from Corcoran.
Reed bounced between Bastrop, where his mother lived, and his father's hometown of Wichita Falls, where he was accused of another vicious attack in 1991.
The day after his girlfriend and mother of his two children, Lucy E., ended their relationship, Reed broke in and raped and sodomized her in front of the kids, the woman said.
but after contacting police and filing a report, she decided it wouldn't be worth it to press charges.
The other two assaults were more damning to Reed's claims of innocence, as the first was six months before the Stites murder, and the other was six months after.
In both cases, the women were abducted from Bastrop Cedar Street, which is on Stites' route from her apartment in Giddings to her job at HEB.
The first rape in October 1995 was a cold case until the DNA match was made 18 months later.
The February 97 attack was an attempted rape that could have followed the Stites' scenario.
Victim Linda Schluter stopped in at Longstar's Mart for something, and there was Reed asking for a ride, please.
She hesitated because she didn't know him, but Reed can be charming, convincing.
He hopped in, but instead of guiding him to his house at 806 Martin Luther King Boulevard, he had her turn down a series of dark roads where he demanded sex, then beat her up when she declined.
She was lucky to get out of the car as a pair of headlights approached, and Reed slid over to the driver's side and floored it.
Schluter filed a police report and picked Reed from a mugshot.
That case, following the same timeline and MO, had police looking at Reed as a suspect in the site's Rape Murder.
Now, it's important, and I'll remind you of this later, none of the previous rape charges, nor the attempted sexual assault of Schluter, were brought up to the jury during the guilt for innocence part of the trial against Reed.
So here are some reports, and where the italics are is where I'm reading from from articles.
Reed's DNA has linked him to numerous rapes.
A few of the alleged victims have admitted he assaulted them.
One case involved a 12-year-old girl, another case involved the mother of two of his children, and another involved an intellectually disabled woman, Caroline Rivas.
In court documents which have recently been made public, Reed was acquitted of one sexual assault allegation that involved a woman he allegedly knew from high school.
In another case, he was accused of brutally sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl who was home alone.
His DNA matched positively with that of the girl.
Additionally, the court documents state that Caroline Rivas, a disabled woman who Reed was dating, admitted to her caseworker that Reed would, quote, hurt her, end quote, if she did not have sex with him.
She also later admitted he had raped her.
The Supreme Court petitions reads, quote, the samples from Rivas' rape kit provided the link to Steitz's murder.
Here's a quote. Given the similarities between these crimes, law enforcement inquired with DPS if they had Reed's DNA profile on file.
They did because Reed had raped his intellectually disabled girlfriend, Caroline Revers.
Reed's DNA profile was compared to the foreign DNA inside and on Stites' body.
The two were consistent, right?
So because they had accusations in the past, they had his DNA, and then because of the similar MO of the second attack, They checked to see if his DNA matched what was on Stites.
The DNA results in Reed's case were all considered conclusive.
Now, there is, of course, a story and a tale that is to tell of updates to the expert witnesses, which we'll talk about in a few minutes.
So this is from page 6 of the Supreme Court document, and I quote, Reed could not be excluded as the foreign DNA contributor, but 99% of the world's population could be, and only one person in 24 to 130 billion people would have the same foreign DNA profile, but to be sure, samples were taken from Reed's father and three of his brothers, and they were ruled out as contributors too.
So, it was his DNA on the victim.
So the court document also goes into great detail about Reed's history with women.
Let's talk about Connie York.
So Connie York was a 19-year-old who had returned home late one night from an outing with friends.
According to Supreme Court documents, quote, York was grabbed from behind and told, don't scream or I'll hurt you.
When York did not listen, she was repeatedly struck, dragged to her bedroom, and raped multiple times.
When Reed was interviewed, he admitted that he knew York from high school but denied...
Raping her. When confronted with a search warrant for biological samples, Reed changed his story, saying, yeah, I had sex with her, but she, sorry, yeah, I had sex with her, she wanted it.
The case went to trial four years later and Reed was acquitted.
The jury apparently believed the secret boyfriend story, which we'll of course get back to in this case.
Reid's next reported assault was on a 12-year-old girl known as A.W. While home alone, A.W. fell asleep on a couch and woke up to Reid pushing her face into the couch.
She was then blindfolded, gagged, beaten, and raped.
From page 8 of the Supreme Court document, and I quote,"...the foreign DNA from AW's rape kit was compared to Reed.
Reed was not excluded, and only one in 5.5 billion people would have the same foreign DNA profile from AW's rape kit." Here's a quote,"...that incident as well as an additional four more sexual assaults which have DNA evidence pointing to Reed are all outlined in the document above." Additionally, Texas Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lisa Tanner, who was the lead prosecutor for Reed's case, stood by the court's decision to convict him.
Quote, a large amount of credible evidence, including irrefutable DNA evidence, the testimony of witnesses, and the pattern Rodney Reed followed in committing his other sexual assaults show beyond a reasonable doubt that he raped and murdered Stacey Stites, Tanner said.
Tanner went on to tell CNN that more than 20 judges have reviewed Reed's case over the past two decades, quote, and found no reversible error and no credible evidence that someone other than Mr.
Reed might have been disposed toward committing this heinous crime.
So, Reed's DNA, his semen, was found inside...
The broken body of a 12-year-old girl.
That is, as far as I can see, beyond refutation.
Reads, DNA of his semen was found inside the blindfolded gagged broken and bruised body of a 12-year-old little girl.
So, this is how it worked out.
During the investigation into the murder of Stites, DNA samples were taken from many, many potential suspects, and each suspect was ruled out.
And after almost a year, Reed was identified as a suspect, and only after he had been implicated in other sex crimes.
It was the DNA that was collected during those investigations that tied him to Stites' rape and murder.
Reed's semen was found in her body, and his wet saliva was found on her breasts.
Now, at trial, prosecutors recounted how Reed initially told investigators he, quote, didn't know her, never met her, never talked to her, had no idea who she is.
Until they told him they had DNA linking him to the crime, at which point he subsequently claimed, oh no, that he was in a consensual, although conveniently secret, relationship with Stites.
And this was a defense he'd actually used in 1987 on another investigation.
Rape charge. So that's important, right?
So then, of course, the investigators say to him, well, we basically have your semen in her body, and he's like, oh, yeah, okay, maybe I did know her.
Yeah, I did know her.
Yeah, we were having a secret relationship, and it was consensual.
So Reed's defense team, of course, tried to prove a romantic relationship.
They called on a friend of Reed's mother who said that a woman named Stephanie had come by looking for Reed.
The friend later said maybe it was Stacy.
She first said she thought they might be dating.
Later, under cross-examination, she admitted she had no such actual knowledge.
She also got the color of the car wrong.
Color of Stacy's car wrong.
So... Now, there were other people who said, oh yeah, no, I know that they had a relationship, but the court-appointed attorneys did not want to put them on the stand because they had significant criminal histories that would be cross-examined and would put doubt on the truth of their claims that they knew for sure that Reed had had a relationship with Stacey.
So, that is...
That is the claim. Now there are of course no phone records or any records in fact of Reed and Stacey communicating during this month's long secret relationship.
Reed said he took calls from Stacey at a particular payphone but there are no records from Stacey showing those calls.
And Stacey's sister, Crystal Hefley, this is quote, told Crime Online that not only had her sister never once mentioned Reed, but she also was obsessed with her upcoming wedding to Fennell.
Hefley said Stacey was working late shifts at an HEB grocery store in Bastrop to save up extra money to put toward the wedding.
She was in love with Fennell, according to Hefley, and had no interest or time to pursue an affair.
Right, so this is the claim, he says.
Reed says, well, the reason why, My semen was in Stacey Stites was because we had consensual sex more than 24 hours before her body was found.
And to believe this, because of course her body was found with the DNA, that she had sex and, you know, there's all of this implication out there that her boyfriend, the southern cop, you know, the racist southern cop, that her boyfriend was racist and so on.
So, the argument would be that she had sex with Reed, she went home, and she just didn't bathe, didn't even shower, and didn't even have a bowel movement, right?
Because, of course, if she was anally raped and there was semen in her bowels, then I would assume, not stuff I particularly know about, but I would assume that that would mean no particular cleanliness, and that just seems very strange, right? And Stites had actually even met, let alone that they had a month-long secret relationship.
And, you know, where are any notes, any photographs, any little gifts that might have fingerprints on them, anything, nothing, of course, is put forward other than a bunch of ex-criminals who probably have significant beefs with the cops who are willing to say that there was a relationship.
But they weren't even put on the stand, as I mentioned before, for pretty obvious reasons.
So here's how you know whether somebody is being honest in reporting about this or not.
Because we need to talk about the saliva, right?
But let's talk about the forensic experts.
They've all slightly altered their testimony surrounding the crime.
So at the time, back in the day, the sperm in Stacey's vagina still had tails, so one guy said, oh, less than 26 hours, and this has now been extended to 72 hours, right?
So you understand why this is important, obviously, right?
So if the sperm in Stacy's vagina was there for less than 26 hours, then that makes Reed much more likely to be the killer, right?
But if it could be a couple days in the past and so on, then, I mean, it's still within 26 hours.
So 26 is less than 72, but it gives some possibility that they had sex further back in time.
And I've heard it reported it was 24 hours.
I've also heard it reported it was a couple days, but that is something that is mentioned.
So Reed said he and Stacey slept together a couple of nights before the murder.
Some reports are shorter, like 24 hours.
But here's the...
Here's the crux of the matter, which is the saliva.
So the police found Reed's saliva across Stacey's chest.
Why is this important? Well...
If you have semen inside your body, or a woman, and you bathe, sure, okay, you're not going to get rid of all the semen.
But if you bathe, then...
You will remove the saliva, right?
You would wash soap yourself and so on, and you would remove the saliva.
So that's really important.
So let's say it's important that it was longer than 26 hours.
Let's say it was 72 hours.
So then that's 72 hours that this kind of preppy, kind of squeaky clean looking girl who was having an affair with a black guy.
There's this maybe racist cop, fiancé, boyfriend or whatever.
So the argument then is that for 72 hours...
She did not bathe after having sex with Reed.
That is not credible.
That's not credible. Now, also, the saliva that they found on Stacy's chest was wet.
That's, in fact, how the investigators noticed it, right?
Because if you lick your arm and leave it for an hour, it dries up, you wouldn't even know anything's there to test.
The saliva was wet.
And that's how the investigators noticed it.
And there were 16 separate samples that matched Reed's DNA. Come on.
People, I mean...
So anyone who's not talking about the saliva evidence, who's only talking about the sperm in her vagina and in her anus and on her chest and kind of like all over the place.
But anyone who's talking about the sperm and is not talking about the saliva is to me not somebody to take particularly seriously in this matter because the saliva...
Proves that Reed was with Stacey much closer to her murder than he claims.
To have wet saliva on someone, that's not 24 hours or 26 hours or 72 hours.
And the idea that a woman this tidy, a woman this presentable, who's having an affair with a black guy who maybe has a racist as a fiancé, that she's just not going to bathe.
She's not going to bathe for days.
Come on. All right.
What else? So one of Stacey's co-workers now says Stacey said she was sleeping with a black guy named Brodney and was scared of her fiancé finding out.
Now this, again, is kind of...
So this is hearsay 20 years after the fact.
But this is a co-worker at the grocery store, and the grocery store itself offered a $50,000 reward at the time for any help in finding the murderer, right?
Now, yeah, I mean, I don't know if you've ever lived in a small town, but, you know, when there's a big crime in a small town, that's all people talk about for the most part, right?
So she's working in this grocery store.
This woman, she says, oh, Stacey was a good friend of mine, and she didn't say anything at the time, despite the fact that she cares about Stacey, wants to find this killer.
There was a $50,000 reward.
She said nothing at the time about this conversation that's so convenient it hits on every key point that the defense needs, right?
So her co-worker says she had no idea the information was important, despite, of course, the murder being the entire talk of the entire town.
The co-worker also claims she didn't know who Stacy's fiancé was, but then also says that they were close friends, and, I mean, come on.
And the way she's talking about it, you'll find it online, the way she's talking about it is just kind of giggling and laughing, and it's like, well, I mean, if you've had a guy sitting on death row for 22 years because you didn't...
One to help the police find who killed your close friend whose fiancée you didn't know the name of, and you could have picked up a cool 50 grand back in the day for doing this.
I mean, you wouldn't be giggling about it.
I'm just telling you, it doesn't make much sense to me.
Now, there's another former inmate who served time with Fennell, right?
Remember I said that he ended up in jail for 10 years, Fennell.
He said in an affidavit, That Fennell confessed to killing his fiancée.
So this guy, Arthur Snow Jr., is a member of the Aryan Brotherhood.
I'm fairly positive that Snow is not his real name.
And he wrote, quote, Jimmy said his fiancée had been sleeping around with a black man behind his back.
Toward the end of the conversation, Jimmy said confidently, I had to kill my N-loving fiancée.
I don't know how you feel about jailhouse snitches, but...
I don't know that it's particularly credible.
The reason being, of course, that you can get positive attention.
You might get some sort of benefits or some sort of break in something if you end up with this kind of stuff.
It's a conversation reported from years ago with a guy from the Aryan Brotherhood and all of that.
We'll see. All right.
So here's some more quotes.
Other circumstantial evidence is also compelling, such as Stites' truck having the seats and mirrors adjusted to a 6'2 person reads height, and the fact he lived near the area and was often seen outside walking around in the middle of the night, right?
So, of course, Stites was not 6'2, so, you know, you get into a car and you adjust the seats and mirrors and all that.
So the fact that it was adjusted to reads height is somewhat important.
The quote goes on. And there was zero corroboration for his far-fetched claim until claimed remembrances two decades after the murder.
Does that fall within reasonable doubt to me?
Certainly does.
I'm no lawyer, but it certainly does to me.
Prosecutors reject the idea that Reed is innocent and point to indictments alleging he brutally raped a 12-year-old girl, repeatedly raped the mother of his two children once in front of them, repeatedly raped and assaulted an intellectually disabled woman he was, quote, dating, whose rape ultimately provided the DNA a sample, connecting him to the Stites Capitol case, and the rape of another woman who was walking home in a secluded area.
Just to reiterate, the quote goes on, Reed also attempted to rape yet another woman six months after the rape and murder of Stites in very similar circumstances to hers.
The woman who narrowly escaped also provided details that led to the initial suspicion of Reed in the Stites case, later bolstered by DNA evidence inside and outside Stites' body.
It is important to note that the jury didn't know any of these other allegations about Reed during the trial, only that the police, quote, had reason to suspect him.
The jury found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based upon the evidence presented at trial.
It is this evidence that his advocates and supplicants in the media would have you believe has either been untested or insufficiently tested.
They claim there could be, quote, new, end quote, evidence and investigators have recanted their statements at trial.
But is any of that true?
No. It is not.
There isn't any new DNA evidence.
But an argument over whether existing evidence, primarily a belt fragment alleged to have been the murder weapon, should be tested for touch DNA, a technique that was not available to investigators at the time.
Reed's defense claims the DNA of the real killer could be found on these items with the new technique and thus exonerate Reed.
But the problem is, right? So there was a belt fragment alleged to have been the murder weapon.
And they couldn't test it at the time in the 90s for touch DNA. And now they say, well, we've asked for this murder weapon to be tested for DNA, and they've refused.
They've refused. And then, of course, you say, well, that's bad.
Why would they refuse and so on?
Well, come on.
Most will argue that evidence should be tested for DNA and when new scientific methods become available during the course of an appeal, it is reasonable to expect prosecutors to accommodate a new testing technique.
However, in this case, even Reed's experts concede that the evidence in question was contaminated because it was not controlled in a way necessary for the modern testing technique to be fruitful.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed that the items in question were touched with ungloved hands.
By trial attorneys, court personnel, and even potentially jurors.
There is no allegation that the evidence was intentionally mishandled.
It's simply that best practices have matured over the past 20 years as new DNA testing methods have provided rationale for better preservation techniques.
The criminal appeals ruling notes that even if there were other DNA found on the belt, it wouldn't meet a preponderance of evidence standard to change the guilty verdict against Reed.
What about the time of death?
The Travis County medical examiner also doesn't actually admit an error or recant as others have portrayed it in his supplemental affidavit.
He does say his testimony shouldn't have been portrayed by the prosecution in the way it was about the accuracy of time of death.
Findings related to how long sperm would remain in body cavities.
His trial testimony pinned the time of Stites' death at approximately 3 a.m. and used a narrow estimate for the length of time sperm remains detectable in body cavities to discount the defense's argument of prior consensual sex.
Quote, Reed says that he and Stites were in a casual relationship and had consensual sex the day before her disappearance, recounts the Texas Tribune uncritically, adding, quote, Reed's sperm could have remained in Stites' body for more than a day after consensual sex.
It is true.
That more recent science shows that sperm can be detected longer than previously thought inside body cavities, but just because evidence could be older than initially thought doesn't prove it actually is.
Also, this argument conveniently leaves out the fact that investigators also found Reed's DNA on Stites' breasts, saliva, and in her panties.
And both pieces of evidence are inconsistent with the prior consensual sex narrative and not subject to the same time window arguments for DNA inside a body, right?
So again, forgetting the sperm inside her body, again, saliva on...
The chest and also in her panties, what?
It's been 26 to 72 hours and she hasn't changed her panties after messy sex with her boyfriend?
Oh, come on. The award for the most wildly speculative and unsupported reporting surely goes to Reason magazine, which claimed, quote, several experts have concluded it's scientifically impossible, end quote, for Reid to have been the killer.
Neither the updated medical examiner's testimony or Reid's own expert suggested it was impossible.
They just said their conclusions weren't necessarily ironclad.
So, those are the facts.
I think we can be fairly brief with the conclusions.
Okay, come on. Okay, this guy seems like a really, really bad cop.
I mean, he stalked people.
He went to jail for this monstrous attack on a woman in his custody.
So, yeah, bad cop.
Could have been a whole bad situation.
But this is not...
This is not rational. The idea that you can just have this magic secret boyfriend defense for this kind of stuff is to me pretty dicey and it's a pretty slippery slope to go down.
The fact that Rodney Reed did a similar attack, similar MO, similar location, similar time of night, that he was a known rapist, and that his semen, Rodney Reed's semen, was found in the broken body of a 12-year-old child is...
And it's just important to know this is who these celebrities and these pundits and Dr.
Phil and Kim Kardashian and this is who they're defending.
And this is not speculation.
Rodney Reed's sperm was found inside the bruised and battered and broken body of a 12-year-old little girl.
No question of that.
Now, what's fascinating to watch...
In the slow-motion death spiral of the American Republic, let's compare, just very, very briefly, let's compare the defense of a child rapist with the attack upon Trump and this whole Ukrainian phone call quid pro quo, hearsay innuendo garbage that is going on at the moment.
These two standards are completely opposite.
That you've got solid DNA, a time of death window.
You have a history of sexual assault.
You have wet saliva on the chest.
You have similar MO. Come on.
This is not racism.
Oh, it's an all-white jury.
Come on. This is not racism.
This is just the usual kind of thing where you sort of gin up the Democrat base with cries of police misconduct and racism.
Is there police misconduct and racism?
I'm sure there is.
I'm sure that there is.
And this guy who went to jail for 10 years, the fiancé, the cop, horrible guy, all around.
But horrible guys can't magically put DNA saliva on a woman's chest or in her panties.
There's no record of any kind of secret relationship between the two.
And she would have bathed.
Particularly if she was scared of her racist boyfriend finding out she was having sex with a black guy.
Come on. And it's interesting...
I'll leave this to your discussion.
I look forward to your feedback on this.
So rape actually used to be a capital offense.
Used to be a capital offense until, well, it depends where you look in the U.S., early 20th century, later in the South.
Child rape used to be a capital offense even after rape was no longer a capital offense, but the Supreme Court didn't actually invalidate execution for child rape until 2008.
Now, he seems to be a child rapist beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Used to be a capital offense.
▲
Export Selection