Source: Bigstock
Today’s story is about Shaurn Thomas, Innocence Project poster boy.
The New York Times did not cover Thomas’ 1994 conviction for second-degree murder at the time — but celebrated his “exoneration” in 2017. The paper also reported on Thomas’ intention, in 2019, to pursue a civil rights lawsuit against Philadelphia for his “wrongful conviction,” which would soon net him a cool $4.1 million.
(Big thanks to his mother for naming her baby boy “Shaurn,” making stories about him easy to search.)
So you can imagine my surprise when the Times neglected to mention that, just last December, the “exonerated” multimillionaire pleaded guilty to murdering a guy over a $1,200 drug deal. It’s enough to make you think people convicted of murder are guilty.
“It’s remarkable how many people in prison say they didn’t do nuthin’.”
It’s not a walk in the park to out-woke The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Root and World Star HipHop. And yet all these covered Thomas’ subsequent confession to murder. Not the Times! (Perhaps its reporters got a hot tip about Russian collusion.)
Thomas decided to accept responsibility for his latest murder in an act of stunning magnanimity — and also because the evidence against him included surveillance footage clearly showing him pulling a 9-millimeter pistol out of a pizza box and blowing away Akeem Edwards.
But the most intriguing evidence came from Thomas’ girlfriend, Ketra Veasey, who drove the getaway car after the pizza box murder. She testified that Thomas told her, “It’s his third homicide. He said he can’t go back to jail.”
The possibilities aren’t endless here. Either, out of three murders, the only one Thomas didn’t commit is the one a jury convicted him of; OR we have the 1 millionth example of the Innocence Project putting a remorseless killer back on the streets and winning hosannas from the media for doing so — until he kills again.
This makes Thomas’ 2017 alleged exoneration a wonderful case study of the deceptions used to spring the guilty. (I’m assuming you did not choose the brain-dead alternative above.)
- THE SURPRISE ALIBI
Twenty years later (24, in Thomas’ case), convicted criminals always seem to have airtight alibis that, for some reason, were not believed by the jury. This is often because the alleged alibi wasn’t even presented to the jury.
As the Post began its article on Thomas’ 2017 exoneration for the murder of 78-year-old Domingo Martinez: “Shaurn Thomas had claimed for 16 years that … he had been at a juvenile court proceeding for trying to steal a motorcycle when the daylight slaying occurred.”
Why wouldn’t anyone listen to him???
If you’re waiting for the catch, the Times‘ version of the alibi was somewhat more descriptive:
“Mr. Thomas, who was 16 at the time, and his mother swore they were at a processing center for juvenile offenders on the day of the murder. … [H]e was at the center awaiting his initial appearance at the same time Mr. Martinez was killed, his lawyers said.”
So his rock-solid alibi was supported by: 1) his mother and 2) his lawyers.
It was not, however, supported by anyone at the juvenile processing center, none of whom remembered seeing Thomas that day. In addition, as was established at trial, Thomas could have shown up any time before 4 p.m. and signed his name — including, for example, hours after the 10 a.m. murder, for the express purpose of establishing an alibi.
- RECANTED TESTIMONY
Any Innocence Project lawyer worth his salt will produce reams of affidavits from witnesses recanting their trial testimony. The moment a convicted killer falls into their lap, criminal lawyers start browbeating, threatening and bribing witnesses to recant. No matter how fishy it sounds, the sudden recantation will be ballyhooed throughout the media.
Recanted testimony is the least believable evidence, proving only that defense lawyers managed to pressure some hapless witness to alter his testimony — conveniently, decades after the actual trial. Even the criminal’s BFF, former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, ridiculed post-trial recantations, saying they are “often unreliable and given for suspect motives.”
In Thomas’ case, the main witnesses against him were his co-conspirators in the robbery-murder scheme, brothers John and William Stallworth.
Idiotically, the Post summarily dismissed their testimony, sneering that Thomas was “[c]onvicted almost completely on the testimony of a co-defendant.” Eyewitness testimony from people who not only personally knew the defendant, but conspired with him to commit the crime, belonged to the same criminal gang (the “G Street Boys”), confessed their own role and went to prison for it is not insignificant. Thomas could have gotten the same deal for a reduced sentence, but he didn’t take it.
The Times simply asserts that a co-defendant “gave false confession,” putting “Mr. Thomas at the murder scene.” (And it only took the Innocence Project eight years to get him to recant!)
Close readers will notice that both papers neglected to mention that the evidence against Thomas included the testimony of two co-conspirators — not one — but only one recanted.
- HE ALWAYS INSISTED HE DIDN’T DO IT!
The Times on Thomas’ 2017 exoneration: “[A] Philadelphia man [was freed] from prison after 24 years for a crime he steadfastly maintained he did not commit.”
The Post: “Shaurn Thomas had claimed for 16 years that he didn’t kill a popular Philadelphia businessman in a street robbery.”
It’s remarkable how many people in prison say they didn’t do nuthin’.
Now we know the truth. The media’s “exonerated” murderer was such a committed killer that even after pocketing $4 million, he blithely blew away a guy over a thousand bucks. Ironically, this makes Thomas the perfect exemplar of the “wrongfully convicted.”