Furthest Right

How To Make Kim Kardashian Cry

Leftists do not deal with reality, but with symbols. For them, if the symbols could arrange a certain way, that might be real, if you want it to be. They are the ultimate “life is whatever you want it to be” people.

Consequently, they think that saying “it could be argued” is a valid reason to presume that the argument is correct, and that finding an exception to a rule, no matter how minor, means that the whole rule goes into the fire.

Like Leftism, its adherents represent the classic “thesis looking for data” approach. They want to argue for no restrictions on their behavior, so they discover egalitarianism, and then twist the facts to support that.

Neurotic Leftists recently had a bit of a fit over a Texas defendant — from Bastrop, outside hippie nexus Austin — named Rodney Reed. Even Kim Kardashian descended from her Hollywood throne to speak for his release.

This provides an object lesson for us in hiding the elephant, or how Leftists attempt to conceal the big obvious truth from us by burying it under a stream of whataboutism, exceptions, could-bes, and the assumption that their Narrative is absolute and universal.

It involves a case that is controversial because it has two bad guys. One killed an innocent bride, and the other, years after the fact, got caught having sex with people that he arrested. Neither are good, but one raped and killed, while the other only conned people into sex, depending on your view.

Let us look at a summary of the case from a Supreme Court petition:

Stacey Stites was a happily-engaged nineteen-year-old just eighteen days shy of her wedding. She lived in an apartment complex with her police-officer fiancé, Jimmy Fennell, and her mother, Carol, who lived in the apartment below, and with whom Stites spent her last days planning her upcoming nuptials.

Stites worked at a Bastrop, Texas grocery store — about thirty miles from her residence — and was scheduled for a 3:30 a.m. shift. When she did not show, a fellow employee became worried and called Carol around 6:30 a.m. Carol then called Fennell, who went to look for Stites while Carol notified authorities.

Before Carol was alerted to Stites’s disappearance, a Bastrop police officer had, at 5:23 a.m., discovered the pickup truck Stites took to work, which was seemingly abandoned in a local high school parking lot. Because the truck was not reported stolen, the officer took no further action, but, before he left, he noticed a piece of a belt lying outside the truck.

Later that day, Stites’s body was found off a rural road. Texas Department of Public Safety Crime Laboratory (DPS) personnel processed the scene. They observed a partially clothed Stites — her shirt removed, bra exposed, and missing a shoe and an earring. Her pants were undone, the zipper was broken, and her panties were bunched at her hips. She was discovered with her work apparel — a nametag and a large knee brace. On the side of the road was another piece of belt.

Because of obvious signs of rape, a DPS criminalist took vaginal and breast swabs from Stites’s body. On-site chemical testing signaled the presence of semen. Around 11:00 p.m. that night, microscopic analysis showed the presence of intact sperm, which indicated recent seminal deposit — based on published scientific articles, sperm remains whole within the vaginal cavity for usually no longer than twenty-six hours.

DPS personnel conducted DNA testing on the vaginal, rectal, and breast swabs, and the results indicated that the foreign DNA came from a single source. They also “mapped” Stites’s panties, which showed little movement after seminal deposit. This too connected the timing of the seminal deposit with the murder.

Reed became a suspect in Stites’s murder after he was arrested for kidnapping, beating, and attempting to rape and murder another nineteen-year-old woman, Linda Schlueter.

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 Rivas. Reed’s DNA profile was compared to the foreign DNA inside and on Stites’s body — the two were consistent.

The rape and murder of Stites was hardly Reed’s first or last foray against women. First was Connie York, a nineteen-year-old who had come home late one evening after swimming with friends. York was grabbed from behind and told “don’t scream or I’ll hurt you.” When York did not listen, she was
8 repeatedly struck, dragged to her bedroom, and raped multiple times. Reed was interviewed, and, while he admitted that he knew York from high school, he denied raping her. When confronted with a search warrant for biological samples, Reed had an about-face, “Yeah, I had sex with her, she wanted it.” The case went to trial four years later, and Reed was acquitted.

Next was A.W., a twelve-year-old girl, who was home alone, having fallen asleep on a couch after watching TV. A.W. awoke when someone began pushing her face into the couch and had blindfolded and gagged her. She was repeatedly hit in the head, called vulgar names, and orally, vaginally, and anally raped. The foreign DNA from A.W.’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 A.W.’s rape kit.

Then came Lucy Eipper, who Reed had met in high school, and whom Reed began to date after her graduation. Eipper had two children with Reed. Throughout their relationship, Reed physically abused Eipper, including while she was pregnant, and raped her “all the time,” including one time in front of their two children.

Afterwards, Reed began dating Caroline Rivas, an intellectually disabled woman. Rivas’s caseworker noticed that Rivas was walking oddly and sat down gingerly. Rivas admitted that Reed had, the prior evening, hit her, called her vulgar names, and anally raped her. The samples from Rivas’s rape kit provided the link to Stites’s murder.

Shortly thereafter, and about six months before Stites’s murder, Reed raped Vivian Harbottle underneath a train trestle as she was walking home. When she pleaded for her life for the sake of her children, Reed laughed at her. The foreign DNA from Harbottle’s rape kit was compared to Reed; he could not be excluded, and only one person in 5.5 billion would be expected to have the same foreign DNA profile.

Finally, and about six months after Stites’s murder, Reed convinced nineteen-year-old Linda Schlueter to give him a ride home at about 3:30 a.m. Reed led her to a remote area and then attacked her. After a prolonged struggle, Schlueter asked Reed what he wanted and Reed responded, “I want a blow job.” When Schlueter told Reed that “you will have to kill me before you get anything,” Reed stated “I guess I’ll have to kill you then.” Before Schlueter could be raped, a car drove by and Reed fled.

Remember: look for the hidden elephant. We see a pattern of behavior here.

In the Stites case, Reed was identified by his participation in a similar crime and matched by DNA; allegations that Stites had a relationship with Reed were rejected by all who knew her, and rested on a couple of distant acquaintances making claims. Their political affiliations, and therefore sympathy to getting Reed acquitted by any means necessary, were never investigated.

The defense, on the other hand, claimed that Stites had killed her, and even cooked up a racial retaliation angle:

Arthur Snow, a former member of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang, signed an affidavit saying Fennell admitted to killing his fiancée in 2010 while the pair were in jail together.

Snow states that Fennell approached him at the Stevenson Unit in Cuero seeking protection from the white supremacist gang from the “blacks and Mexicans” at the prison.

Snow said during one conversation, Fennell started talking about his fiancée with “a lot of hatred and resentment” because she was having an affair with a black man. Towards the end of the conversation, Fennell allegedly told Snow: “I had to kill my n*****-loving fiancée.”

The language used by Fennell towards Snow echoes what he is said to have told fellow Bastrop Sheriff’s Officer and friend Charles Wayne Fletcher years earlier.

They have also advanced the Narrative:

The inmate’s brother, Rodrick Reed, told the Dr. Phil show in October that he believes race also played a role in his conviction. Reed was convicted by an all-white jury in 1998.

“I think right out of the gate, my brother didn’t have a shot,” Rodrick Reed said. “I think this case is a prime example of why we should abolish the death penalty. It is so corrupt, it is racist, it is basically all those things that have played a major role in my brother’s case.”

Fennell — Stites’ fiance — would have had difficulty killing Stites because of a lack of sonic privacy in the apartment:

Immediately, Carol Stites yelled up to Fennell through the thin apartment walls to let him know. He came running down the stairs to her apartment, and they called the Giddings Police Department.

In addition, there was an issue of how Stites would have returned from a crime scene thirty miles away (Stites was commuting from Giddings, TX to Bastrop, TX) without having someone pick him up:

Attorney General Prosecutor Lisa Tanner said they could not figure out how Fennell would have traveled the 30 miles from Bastrop back to Giddings if he had dumped her body in the woods.

On the other hand, Reed managed to get himself noticed by committing a sexual assault in a manner consistent with his prior criminal history:

According to prosecutors, earlier in the night, a Bastrop police officer had noticed Reed – a man who had been arrested several times in Bastrop before – hanging around Long’s Star Mart.

When officers got a description of Schlueter’s attacker, they realized he matched the description of Reed that night, including what he was wearing.

Here is what The Innocence Project wants you to think about this case:

The murder weapon has never been tested for DNA evidence.

One could see wanting this done, but also the lack of utility in doing it, since there was no credible evidence of an affair between Stites and Reed, and no way for Fennell — who the defense accuses of the crime — to have gotten to and from the site.

The State’s forensic experts have admitted to errors in their testimonies, which led to Rodney’s conviction and death sentence.

In any case, there will be errors. In this case, the errors were not material. They go on:

State witnesses from Rodney’s original trial have since submitted affidavits stating that testimony given related to Stacey’s time of death was inaccurate, making the prosecution’s timeline of Rodney allegedly killing her implausible.

No, since the time of death is an estimate creating a window, during which he cannot be excluded.

Rodney Reed and Stacey Stites were having a consensual sexual relationship.

No evidence supports this. They claim:

At the time of the trial, no one came forward to corroborate their relationship. But today, new witnesses including Stacey’s own cousin and co-worker have corroborated Rodney’s claim that they knew that he and Stacey were romantically involved.

The rest of Stacey’s family rejects this idea, as does commonsense evidence about her schedule and a lack of any knowledge by Rodney about her. One co-worker saw Stacey talking to a Black person who may have been a customer.

Renowned forensic pathologists have concluded that Rodney’s guilt is medically and scientifically impossible.

Add a “some” there, and note that these are the usual suspects, i.e. career Leftists.

The prosecution’s only forensic evidence linking Rodney to the crime was semen taken from Stacey’s body, which was attributed to the consensual relationship between them.

Attributed by you, with zero evidence for this at the original trial and ginned-up testimony since.

The prosecution used this to connect him to the murder and refute their consensual romantic relationship, but the testimony supporting this theory has since been recanted, completely discrediting the State’s case.

This is the same “the testimony was not perfect, therefore throw it all out” argument from above.

For months after the murder, Jimmy Fennell, Stacey’s fiancé, was the prime suspect in the case. A recording of one of the police investigators indicates that Jimmy was suspected in Stacey’s murder, and he was believed to be motivated by her relationship with another man.

One recording, involving one theory, which was thrown out the window when they realized that it was impossible for him to have committed the murder.

Jimmy’s best friend at the time of the crime, Bastrop Sheriff’s Officer Curtis Davis, has now revealed that Jimmy gave an inconsistent account of where he was on the night of the murder. Jimmy had told his friend he was out drinking on the night Stacey was murdered. But he later stated he was with Stacey in the apartment they shared during what we now know was the actual time of her death, based on Dr. Michael Baden’s updated testimony, which contradicts his initial claim. When asked to explain this discrepancy, Jimmy declined to testify because his answers might further incriminate him.

People misspeak all the time, and sometimes want to distance themselves from an event. We know from other witnesses that he was there with her (remember, she lived in apartment above that of her mother, with sisters floating around as well).

Two witnesses have recently come forward and submitted signed affidavits that add to the mounting evidence against Jimmy Fennell. These affidavits include testimony from an insurance salesperson who stated that Jimmy threatened to kill Stacey while applying for life insurance. The second witness was a Deputy in the Lee County Sheriff’s Office at the time of the murder to whom Jimmy made an alarming and incriminating statement regarding Stacey’s body at her funeral.

Witnesses who come forward late in the game, among a media blitz, while potentially receiving payment and public acclaim for doing so, are less credible. We also have a potential problem with political bias here.

Jimmy later served a 10-year prison term for a sex crime and kidnapping he committed while on duty. Law enforcement records also document a pattern of violence against women perpetrated by Jimmy.

Actually, we have no evidence of bias, which is why he got away with these incidents initially: there were no bruises on the victims. Jimmy Fennell may also be a bad guy, but he does not have a record of actual violence and threatening to kill people, unlike Reed.

This case was racially charged. Rodney, a Black man, was found guilty of murdering Stacey, a white woman, by an all-white jury.

The Narrative returns. If race does not bias people, then an all-White jury would not be a problem; if race does bias people, then any Black people on the jury are going to do as they did during the O.J. Simpson trial and vote against the evidence.

A confession by Jimmy Fennell has come to light. On Oct. 29, 2019 Arthur Snow, a former member of the Aryan Brotherhood and Jimmy’s prison mate, disclosed that Jimmy had confessed to murdering Stacey stating, “I had to kill my n*****-loving fiancée,” in a conversation.

Not a confession, but a jailhouse informant. These are frequently wrong, which is why law enforcement refuses to rely on them unless corroborated by physical evidence. The most common use of jailhouse informants is to get warrants to go look for evidence or to identify suspects who are then investigated.

So what does that leave us with? The hidden elephant:

  • No prior evidence of affair with Reed by Stites; all but two of her friends and family reject this assertion, and no one came forth until The Innocence Project intervened to speak of it.
  • Reed’s semen in Sites, with signs of rape, and likelihood that it was deposited at about the same time she was strangled to death.
  • No other suspects, since Fennell lacked a means of getting to and from the body drop-off site, and he was thoroughly investigated for a year.
  • No evidence of racial bias by the jury.
  • Reed has a past record of attacking, raping, sodomizing, and then brutalizing women, including a 12-year-old and a mentally disabled adult woman.
  • Reed has no alibi that places him away from the murder scenes.

When you have one guy who is clearly a violent rapist who preys on women with the same type of attack that most likely, based on all the evidence, lead to Stacey Stites dying, and no other suspects, Occam’s Razor says it is that guy.

When his only defense is one that he used (successfully) in a prior case, namely claiming a past relationship, and there is no credible evidence of this, the only possible logical conclusion is that he did it.

When a multi-million dollar private NGO gets involved and throws money around, and likely pays witnesses:

But two witnesses to the 1978 shooting death cited in the students’ evidence now claim the students flirted with them and offered them money in exchange for interviews, according to court filings by the Illinois State Attorney’s Office in Cook County Circuit Court this week.

and has lower investigative standards than the law:

The problem, as Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez said in a statement after Simon’s release, was that the “investigation by David Protess and his team involved a series of alarming tactics.” Those tactics, “were not only coercive and absolutely unacceptable by law-enforcement standards,” Alvarez said, “they were potentially in violation of Mr. Simon’s constitutionally protected rights.”

…then it seems likely that their fragile case is indeed fragile. For a final kick, we should look at The Innocence Project successes by year:

We can notice a trend here: as DNA evidence becomes more mainstream, the success rate of The Innocence Project drops rapidly. In other words, in cases like this, they are mostly incorrect because the DNA evidence trumps whatever methods were used before it.

It then makes sense to class The Innocence Project as a political or ideological endeavor, not an actual quest for innocence, that is attempting to prove the Narrative, given its notable failures and tendency to avoid evidence in its quest for headlines.

Rodney Reed is guilty. Only that pattern fits all of the facts. If you start only with Narrative-approved facts, and discount all of the others, buying witnesses as necessary, you might end up at a different conclusion, but that is ideology, not reality.

Tags: , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn