← Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey
Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey
Ep 1200 | Exposing the Innocence Project: Fake Evidence, Dark Funding & Protecting Monsters
01:08:07
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:01]
Ali Stuckey
A man who was released from prison because of the efforts of the Innocence Project has now been arrested for the possession of child sex abuse material. This is just the most recent example of criminals who have been advocated for by the Innocence Project who have gone on to reoffend. And actually the Innocence Project has a very long history, history of defending those who, beyond a reasonable doubt, have committed heinous crimes, including the rape and the murder of children. And today, we are exposing the Innocence Project, who is actually funding them, the ideology behind them, the truth behind some of the most prominent cases that they have been involved in, including a recent Texas case of a man named Robert Roberson. He narrowly escaped execution last year. Now his fate hangs in the balance. The media and the Innocence Project would have you believe that he is being discriminated against and he is actually an innocent, grieving father. But what do the facts actually say? We're bringing all of that and more to you on today's special episode of Relatable. It's brought to you by Kexi. Kexi is a family run cookie company rooted in faith, tradition, and real ingredients. Their cookies make an amazing Father's Day gift and they ship nationwide. I am a huge fan of these cookies. Trust me, they are so Good. Go to kexi.com that's K-E K-S-I.com use code ALI15 for 15 off kexi.com hey guys. Welcome to Relatable. Hope everyone is having a wonderful week so far. Today we are finally revealing research that we have done on an organization called the Innocence Project. And I'll just ask you at the top of this episode to please pray for me, pray for our team, pray for this episode. Because there are some very powerful people in politics that don't want this information getting out who have associated themselves with the Innocence Project and, and would much rather you not know the details that we are about to reveal to you today. But if you are a Christian, you care about justice, you care that justice is carried out in a way that is fair, in a way that is truthful. And any organization or individual that is trying to inhibit justice, we need to stand in their way. As Christians, we should be on the front lines of justice, especially on behalf of the most vulnerable. And that means justly punishing wrongdoers. Today we'll go through a few stories of people who have been defended by the Innocence Project and those associated with them. We will give you the facts that have not been revealed to you, and we will compare those facts to. To the narrative that is being spun by the Innocence Project and others. We will talk about how this organization persuades the public and then how they use public distress and public outrage to then influence and even manipulate and bully those in charge to make sure that justice is not carried out for those who have committed crimes. All right, let's start with a recent story, one that you may know or maybe you didn't hear about this. There was a lot going on at this point last year. So maybe you weren't aware of this person named Robert Robertson last year. You may have heard of him. Robert Roberson was in the news. You may have heard that he was an innocent man on death row. Dr. Phil interviewed him. And in Dr. Phil's promotion of the interview, he said that Roberson is on death row for, quote, a crime he did not commit. Prominent figures like Brett Weinstein, who rose to fame as a progressive professor, I've had him on my show. He fought against left wing group think he questioned the COVID vaccine. Last year he publicly on X called on the Texas legislature and Governor Abbott to stop Roberson's execution. He was set to be executed on October 17, 2024. But the cries of the public were effective. There was a judge who granted a temporary order stopping his execution. So now Roberson's fate hangs in the balance. According to the Innocence Project, an organization that purports to get innocent people off death row, Robert Roberson is an autistic man who was wrongly convicted in the death of his two year old daughter Nikki in 2002. The case against Robert Roberson, the Innocence Project claims, was built on assumptions. When Nikki, who had been sick with a fever, fell from her bed in 2002 and later became unresponsive, Robert took her to the hospital. That is how the Innocence Project describes what happened over 20 years ago. Robert was unemotional about his child's injuries, the hospital noted. But the Innocence Project asserts this is because of his autism. Doctors claimed that this was a case of shaken baby syndrome, the Innocence Project says, and that Robert was responsible. But Robert's defenders say that these doctors ignored the clear evidence that Nikki's death was the result of natural causes. Her pneumonia and the accidental fall from her bed actually caused her death. And a grieving father, the narrative goes, was labeled a monster because he didn't grieve the way that they thought he should. That the hospital and his family members thought he should. Those on Roberson's side say that he was a quiet man, that he had a kind heart. He was often compared to Forrest Gump. For his sincerity, his childlike innocence. But the Innocence Project says the state didn't care about these things. He was arrested. He was prosecuted. He was sentenced to death cruelly. And for over 20 years, Robert has lived in this tiny cell on Texas death row, awaiting execution for a crime they say never happened. Many scientists, doctors, and even faith leaders now say they believe that Robert was wrongfully convicted. Even the Autism Society of America and the Autism Society of Texas have pleaded for mercy, urging the state to recognize the injustice here of putting an autistic man on death row for a crime that apparently never occurred. Last year, Robert narrowly escaped his execution. And this year, he may or may not. For now, he waits. He waits for the courts to recognize what so many already say they see that he is not a murderer. This is the story the Innocence Project would have you believe. But the question is, the really only question that matters is, is it true? Is it true? God gives us a picture of what justice looks like, especially when it comes to. To trials, especially when it comes to law. Giving Leviticus 19:15, God says, you shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great. But in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. In truth, in integrity, in rightness, in correctness, you judge your neighbor. We've talked about this many times, but at least four characteristics of God's justice that we see in his law giving to Israel in the Old Testament that gives us a model for what justice should look like today. Even though we are not an ancient Israel, we don't have to take all of the laws of ancient Israel and put them here in America today. But it would be wise of us to look to the God who created justice to tell us what justice should look like. And we see that justice is at least four things. It is true, it is impartial, it is proportional, and it is direct. So it is based on truth. It doesn't defer to the poor. It doesn't defer to the great. It direct deals with the person who is involved in this case. You're not punishing someone's cousin for what they did. It is proportional. The punishment should fit the crime. And what is relevant here is that facts matter. And to know the facts, we have to dig beyond the headlines. And as we'll explain later, we have to dig beyond what the Innocence Project says. We have to look at the court documents. This is sourced from the judicial opinion from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in the case Roberson vs. The State 2007, and Roberson vs. Stevenson 2015 as well as a statement from the Office of the Attorney General and the statement from the Office of Attorney of Attorney General is based on the facts in these cases. Now we're not talking about the opinion of the Attorney General. We are only looking at what these court cases actually say. We are looking at witness testimony, we are looking at expert testimony that is completely left out of the narrative that we are seeing spun by the media. Quick pause to tell you about our first sponsor for the day and that is We Heart Nutrition. I have been taking We Heart Nutrition supplements since the beginning of 2024 and honestly I have never felt better and I think my supplement regimen from We Heart Nutrition is a huge difference maker. I recently added in their new product the Wholesome Balance vitamin into my daily regimen and it has helped so much. It helps with cramps and pms, all types of symptoms associated with your cycle. But also if you are pregnant and you're dealing with nausea, you're trying to recover postpartum, if you're going through per perimenopause or menopause and you want to make sure that all of your hormones are balanced the way that they should be so that you feel your best, this Wholesome balance product is for you. It's filled with clinically backed ingredients in just the right amount. It's got saffron, ginger, curcumin, ki B vitamins, all in research supported doses. This one product covers so many much We Heart Nutrition has even more information about the science behind it on their website. So go to weheartnutrition.com use promo code ally. You'll get 20 off your order when you do. That's weheartnutrition.com code Ali Nikki Curtis was the daughter of Robert Roberson and his girlfriend Teddy Cox. The week of Nikki's death, her mother Teddy was in the hospital for a hysterectomy. Nikki's grandparents babysat her because Cox didn't want to leave her daughter alone with Roberson. She was very troubled by his behavior. She didn't trust him so she left her daughter alone with her parents. However, when Nikki's grandmother got sick, Roberson was then told that he needed to come pick up his daughter, which made him very angry. Angry. According to Teddy Cox's testimony in court, this was the first time, according to Teddy, Nikki's mom and his ex, Robert's ex, this was the first time that Robert was ever left alone with Nikki as her sole caretaker. The next morning, Teddy, her mom, was discharged from the hospital and she called Robert to ask for a ride from the hospital. He responded reportedly that he probably needed to come to the hospital anyway because their daughter Nikki wasn't breathing. Well, obviously her mother, Teddy, was freaked out by this and begged him over the phone to take their daughter to the hospital as quickly as possible. And there are some questions within that. How long would it have taken Roberson to actually take Nikki to the hospital if Teddy hadn't ask him for a ride? Teddy testified that Roberson wasn't upset at all about the situation. He didn't seem flustered. He didn't seem like he was in a hurry. He didn't even pull up to the front door of the hospital. Instead, he took the time to find a parking spot. There was a nurse there that day, Kelly Garganis, and I think I'm pronouncing her last name correctly. She testified in court that she was working in the ER in Palestine, Texas when Roberson came in and he was pushing Teddy in a wheelchair. And so Teddy, remember she had just had surgery and Teddy had Nikki, their daughter, in her lap covered in a blanket, according to this nurse's testimony. And by the time that she arrived at the ER in Palestine, Texas, Nikki was not breathing, she was limp. According to the testimony of this nurse, her skin had turned blue. Blue. Nurse Ganis testified that in all of her years of nursing, she had never seen anyone appear that deep shade of blue, not even a drowning victim. A CT scan showed severe trauma to Nikki's brain. The doctors that were on call that day concluded that she needed to be transported to a different hospital, to Children's Medical center in Dallas for further care. And that is where she ultimately passed away. Now, the Innocence Project asserts that Nikki's death was because she had pneumonia and had also been given some medications such as codeine, and that was standard care at the time. If someone had that kind of illness, but that kind of medication is no longer used in children today. So the Innocence Project is c. Is saying, see, that was dangerous. They shouldn't have given her codeine for her pneumonia, and that probably caused her death. Yet neither an illness nor the medications that she was given can explain the extensive injuries that Nikki sustained. Board certified pediatrician Dr. Janet Squires, who examined Nikki before she died, attributed her injuries to massive head trauma and concluded that she had been a victim of abuse. And when questioned at the hospital, her dad Robert told a nurse that Nikki's injuries were from falling from a bed. She immediately, that nurse immediately had staff call the police as she knew she deemed in that moment that it was impossible for such severe injuries to result from a minor fall. And she knew that he was lying. There was another emergency room nurse. Her name was Andrea Sims. She observed a handprint on Nikki's face and noted that the back of her head. This is disturbing. I'm about to say a lot of disturbing things. But if this little girl endured these things, then we have to be tough enough to describe them, because it's important to know the details here that the Innocence Project doesn't want you to know. So this nurse, Nurse Sims, says that when she felt the back of Nikki's skull, that it was mushy, that it was bruised and it felt like mush. Dr. John Ross, the pediatrician who examined Nikki, testified about this significant bruising. He said that she had a large subdural hematoma. So that is where the blood collects between the brain and its outer covering, and that her brain swelling, this child's brain swelling, was so severe that her brain had shifted from the right to the left. He asserted that these injuries were intentionally inflicted, that there was no way it could have happened from falling from a bed. I mean, a lot of us have children out there. We've seen our child jump from the couch to the floor. We've seen them fall, trip, hit their head, and, yeah, they might have a little goose egg. I remember when I was in kindergarten, I fell hard on the concrete. I tripped, and I fell on this concrete step, and I had a huge goose egg right there. But did I have a hematoma? Did my brain shift from left to right? No, because God created our skulls to protect our brains. And it takes a lot of trauma, especially intentional trauma, to inflict that kind of injury on the brain. Also, Dr. Thomas Kanjoyan, the ER physician that was also there when Nikki was brought in, noted bruising on Nikki's jaw and described something called an uncal herniation. And you medical people out there, if I'm mispronouncing these words, I apologize. And that is where part of the brain gets pushed out of position. So what we just described her brain shifting from one side to the other, and that is a precursor to brain death. He said that it was, quote, basically impossible for such trauma to result from falling out of bed. There was a forensic pathologist, Dr. Jill Urban, who conducted Nikki's autopsy. She concluded that Nikki died from, quote, blunt force head injuries. Now, the Innocence Project claims that Roberson was convicted based on a debunked theory of shaken baby syndrome, but this is not true. That's not what happened. This is a straw man argument. Although Roberson did have a history of shaking Nikki. Teddy's family testified that he would shake Nikki by the arms and had, in one instance, thrown her off the bed. Okay, that was previous to what happened the week of her death. Shaken baby syndrome was mentioned during the court hearings, but the various medical professionals who actually examined her after she died testified that Nikki didn't die from shaken baby syndrome, that she died from head trauma. In 2016, Dr. Urban reiterated that Nikki, quote, died as a result of blunt force head injuries in response to the Innocence Project's attempts to claim that Roberson's convictions or conviction was based on debunked science. She also noted, Dr. Urban noted that a fall from the bed would cause a, quote, single impact rather than the multiple discrete impact sites found on Nikki's head. Another false claim by the Innocence Project is that Roberson has, quote, maintained his innocence since being accused. But that's not true. At Anderson County Jail. Teddy Cox. Teddy Cox. So the Nikki's mom said that she asked Roberson directly if he had killed Nikki. She says that his response was that if he did do it, he didn't remember, but he might have, quote, snapped. Roberson also told Dr. Kelly Goodness, one of the defense's own witnesses, that he did not remember what happened, but then later confessed that he had lost his temper and began abusing Nikki. At the original trial. Even Roberson's own defense team. Okay, his own defense team at the original trial did not argue that he didn't kill Nikki. Instead, they sought to reduce his culpability, citing his low IQ 85, his poor impulse control, impaired decision making, essentially conceding that Roberson fabricated the story of the fall from the bed. Their strategy was actually to argue that Roberson lacked the mental capacity to form intent and so pushed for a lesser homicide charge than capital murder. So this challenges another Innocence Project claim that Roberson was convicted largely due to his autism, and that this was some sort of discrimination and bias against people with special needs. But his mental state was thoroughly examined at the time and central actually to his defense. Yet he was not diagnosed with autism. He wasn't diagnosed with autism until 15 years later. So this raises doubts about the validity of the diagnosis. And I just want to say not. Not everyone who is awkward or who doesn't show emotion has autism. And by the way, even if you have some sort of autism diagnosis, that doesn't mean that you're not culpable of beating a child to death. The Innocence Project has gone to great lengths to portray Roberson as a gentle, childlike man, akin to Forrest Gump, to suggest that he could not have committed such a brutal crime. But his criminal record and family members tell a different story. And by the way, that whole portrayal as Forrest Gump, it might be closer to Lenny from Of Mice and Men. He was also childlike, but he murdered someone. Although I don't even think that you could say that Roberson is in that kind of category. This seems a lot more intentional and malicious. Roberson had multiple felony convictions, so he was with it enough to commit multiple felonies, including burglary and theft. He had been arrested at least 17 times before Nikki's murder. He also had a history of violence and threats toward Nikki. Rachel Cox, Teddy's 10 year old daughter, testified that Roberson had a really bad temper and had even threatened to kill Nikki at one point. Roberson's own mother said at one time, quote, one of these days he's going to kill her and it's going to be too late for anyone to do anything about it. Huh? In the end, the prosecution only sent the murder or only sent the charge of, quote, murder of a child under 6 years old to the jury. And this was enough to give Roberson the death penalty. So that's what they went with. But originally they had included that Roberson had murdered Nikki, quote, in the course of committing or attempting to commit the offense of aggravated sexual assaults. There remains significant evidence that Roberson also sexually assaulted Nikki. And we will get into the disturbing details of that in a second. And like, just take a breather for a second because I will have to describe what they found on Nikki's body that proves this. I just want you to know the kind of person that Innocence Project is protecting and that people tried to defend, especially last year. Share the arrows 2025 is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Y' all. I am so pumped. We only have four months until Share the Arrows. I'm wearing my little gold Share the Arrows bracelet from Carly Jean Los Angeles right now to remind me that we are so close. I am so excited, y' all. I. Thousands of you have already signed up, but if you haven't signed up, now is the time. This week you will also see speakers releasing their promo codes for 15% off. So if you want to go ahead and purchase right now, I'll just give you one promo code and I'll change every time I promote. You could use Abby 15. That's a B, B I E. 15. When you go to Ticketmaster you just press the unlock button and then you type in that promo code and it will automatically discount all of the price. On all general admission tickets we have Hillary Morgan Ferrer, Elisa Childers, Ginger Duggar, Volo, Abby Halberstadt, Shauna Holman, Katie Faust, Taylor Dukes, Francesca Battistelli. There is not a Christian Women's conference like this anywhere else. Solid theology, challenging teaching, so much encouragement and community and amazing worship. Go to share the arrows.com get your tickets right now. That's share the arrows.com when Nikki arrived at the hospital, there was a nurse who examined the child and she noted injuries consistent with not just abuse, but sexual assault. Namely, this is so hard to imagine and so difficult to say, but again, if she suffered it, we have to talk about it. Namely, there were three tears to this child's anus and abnormal rectal laxity, which means she was raped. In addition, Roberson admitted to another cellmate that he had sexually assaulted his daughter. Roberson told him of, quote, putting his penis in the baby's mouth and rubbing his penis against her vagina. Roberson's history of abuse was not confined to Nikki. His ex wife, Della Gray also testified that once she left him in a room with her two year old daughter Victoria for 30 minutes and Victoria was screaming and upset and had, quote, a hickey on her neck. When Roberson finally let her out of the room, she also recounted leaving their young son alone with Roberson. Maybe not the best decision here, only to return and find his face covered in bruises. And as in Nikki's case, Roberson explained that the injuries were the result of the child, quote, falling off the bed. Huh. Gray herself was abused by Roberson. He strangled her with a coat hanger, reportedly broke her nose with a punch while she was pregnant, beat her with a shovel, allegedly. Further evidence of Roberson's guilt was that he repeatedly changed his story. He first claimed that Nikki fell off the bed and then that she hit her head on the table, later asserting that he didn't know what happened and she was simply clumsy. She must have somehow injured herself. At one point he even suggested that she hit her head on the brick floor, although the bedroom had only carpet. Robert Roberson was ultimately convicted based on extensive medical, forensic and testimonial evidence. Nikki's injuries could not be explained by a simple fall or illness. Multiple doctors, nurses and forensic experts. Experts concluded that she was the victim of intentional violent abuse. Roberson's personal testimony, along with testimony from Nikki's family, portrayed him as a man capable of horrific violence. The Innocence Project's efforts to recast the case, overlook these facts, and more importantly, they shift the focus away from the true victim, which is Nikki. This is the worst and the most deadly form of toxic empathy. We have a whole chapter in toxic empathy dedicated to how social justice cherry picks facts, purports and upholds one victim, purported victim, to ignore the person on the other side of the equation, to ignore the real victim. That is exactly what seems to be happening here. The Innocence Project's narrative, which is amplified by this empathetic media, including state legislators, to intervene in the judicial process. Just as Roberson was scheduled for execution on October 20, 2024, these legislators issued a subpoena requiring his testimony before a House committee after his execution date. 90 minutes before Roberson was put to death, a Travis County District Court judge issued a temporary stay of execution. The state was quickly overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, but legislators have attempted the subpoena tactic again. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton blocked Roberson from testifying, however, refusing to cooperate with what he viewed as a blatant attempt to undermine the justice system. And I completely agree with the Attorney General on that. As of February 2025, Roberson and the Innocence Project are again asking Texas to overturn his conviction entirely, claiming that the verdict was based on debunked science of shaken baby syndrome. Again, that's not what the verdict was based on. While the Innocence Project garners these kind of celebrity endorsements for Roberson, they disregard the voices of the person who was most affected, the actual victim, which is this baby girl who is now dead, her brother, Nikki's brother, whose name is Matthew Bowman. He has consistently called for Roberson's execution. He actually traveled to witness the execution in October 24, only for it to be delayed. Bowman remains firm in his stance, stating that this case is about the baby. Here's one. It seems like everybody has forgotten Nikki and that if we don't speak, you know they're going to make it all about him and people have lost that. This is about that two year old baby that didn't get to live her life. He's absolutely right about that. Absolutely right. So the question is, why would the Innocence Project support someone who looks like a monster Roberson? And why do so many, even in right wing and libertarian circles, buy these phony narratives? For example, we have Bret Weinstein, who I mentioned earlier. He put out this post on X12:30pm October 17, the day that Robert Roberson was supposed to supposed to be executed. He posted Please look into the Case of Robert Roberson. I'll provide links in the replies. Please don't wait. He is scheduled to die tonight in Texas. It is a clear, he says miscarriage of justice with pharma corruption as a central element of the story. He is referring to this child taking codeine as a central element of this story of how he was falsely convicted. We can stop this if we actually now the Texas State Legislature has subpoenaed Robert Roberson to testify on Monday. The subpoena does not alone have the power to halt the execution, but sufficient public pressure can save him. This is in our power. We have only hours. Okay, this post has 1.8 million views and then we also have RFK who is currently the head of the CDC. Obviously we like a lot of things that he's doing, but he reposted Bret Weinstein with his own commentary saying Robert Roberson is scheduled to die tonight in Texas at 6pm Central Time. His execution would compound an already serious miscarriage of justice. Governor Abbott needs to step in. Sometimes I just wonder if these people are even looking into the cases that they are talking about. Just this week there's another man that the Innocence Project championed who was actually arrested again after he was released from prison. I saw this story first reported by journalist Andy no. His name is Marvin Lee much. He's now 68. He was convicted in 1975 at 18 years old for murdering 13 year old Cassie Riley in Union City, California. Cassie was found dead in 1974 in a creek bed, beaten and drowned. Trial evidence included Much's sister saying that he came home late, muddy, washed his clothes right away. A police officer saw Much near the crime scene. Much admitted being with Cassie, but he just denied killing her. Much served 41 years in prison before the California Innocence Project took an interest in his case and helped him get out of state prison via a parole program. He went on to become a prison reform activist insisting that he was wrongly convicted for murdering Cassie Riley. And actually PBS recommended his documentary to show to teachers for teachers to show their students about the injustice of the criminal system. And so he was released on parole in 2016 after the innocence Project insisted that he had been wrongly charged and convicted for this murder, citing all different kinds of technicalities in a very similar way that they did for Robert Roberson. And so he was released on parole February 2016. And then last week on May 22, 2025, Much was arrested in in California for possessing child sex abuse material, drugs and having a loaded firearm. And he is held at Solano county jail on $300, $300,000 bond, and he's facing more felony charges. The Innocence Project has not made a statement. So why? That's the question. Why? Why does the Innocence Project choose people that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of heinous crimes? What is their end goal? Who is behind the Innocence Project? What really is going on? And how are they getting so many celebrities into their web? To understand this organization's corrupt motivations, its success in deceiving the public, we need to look at its background and the ideological underpinnings and what I see as very dishonest and manipulative legal tactics. So the Innocence Project presents itself as a champion of justice, working to exonerate the wrongly convicted and reform the legal system. And that sounds virtuous, but behind that virtuous mission statement lies an army of activists recruited to manipulate public sentiment, exploit emotional impulses, and push an extremely left wing radical agenda. At its core, the Innocence Project thrives on what we call toxic empathy, the kind that preys upon people's fear of appearing unkind and unempathetic. And the Innocence Project doesn't just seek justice, or it doesn't at all seek justice for the wrongly convicted. They actually redefine justice entirely. So their premise is that convicted killers are actually innocent and that the real villain is the justice system itself. That's not the premise that they tell you, but that is the underlying premise in this kind of warped narrative, in this backwards worldview, they kind of cast the courts and law enforcement as the oppressors and criminals, like Robert Roberson as a martyr or a victim. So the organization's roots, if you look at their roots, that alone reveals who they really are. Founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, both members of O.J. simpson's infamous Dream Team, the Innocence Project was built on the same legal gamesmanship that helped a guilty man walk free. In 1995, Shaq and Neufeld secured Simpson's acquittal despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt. In a later civil trial, Simpson was found liable for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Even jurors from the original trial admitted they knew that he was guilty, but voted, quote, not guilty as a form of racial payback. So this is the early history of the Innocence Project that foreshadowed the ongoing obsession with race and racial vengeance and what is now deemed propagandistically as anti racism. And just like with the OJ Case, the Innocence Project actually specializes in freeing people who are guilty, often because of legal technicalities. That is how they seek to exonerate these people. And their mission extends beyond exoneration. One of the Innocence Project's goals is abolishing the death penalty. That's really what this is about. But they don't lead with this goal. Instead, they use these kind of misleading cases of supposed wrongful convictions to erode public confidence in capital punishment in general. And their strategy is really simple. They convince people that an innocent man or woman is being executed, and eventually opposition to the death penalty follows, because it makes it seem like all of these people who didn't commit any crimes are being unjustly executed. And the results speak for themselves. They're very effective at this. Around the time the Innocence Project was founded, American support for the death penalty peak at 80%. Today, the number has dropped to 53%. So only a slight majority believe that the death penalty for capital murder, even when someone is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, is justified in this way. As long as the public believes that their clients, that the Innocence Project's clients are innocent. Innocent. The Innocence Project advances its agenda even when executions proceed. The execution of someone perceived as wrongly convicted is actually, for them, even more powerful in swaying public opinion against the death penalty than exoneration. It reinforces this idea that our system is fatally flawed, that we just need to get rid of the death penalty altogether, and that really our criminal justice system isn't one to be trusted, that we're putting too many people in jail and that too many people are placed in jail for the wrong reason. And it shouldn't be surprising that when you look at the politics of the Innocence Project, you would think that it would only win over progressives, people who believe that, you know, acab, and they believe that our criminal justice system is inherently discriminatory, that it discriminates against black people, that it discriminates against immigrants, that it discriminates with people diagnosed with special needs, like autism. You would think that it would only appeal to people who have that kind of worldview, who are really against Western civilization's creation of a justice system in the first place. But that's not true. They have actually won allies on the right. If you look at the libertarian Cato Institute. The Cato Institute awarded the Innocence Project with the Milton Friedman Prize for advancing liberty in 2021, proving that this kind of manipulative messaging actually is effective across the political spectrum. But make no mistake, the Innocence Project's loyalties lie firmly with the left. Most recently, they praised Biden's commuting of 37 death sentences, saying that this prevented the executions of innocent people. They also attacked Trump for the executions that took place during his first term, noting that, quote, a majority of those executed were people of color. Okay, that's a really good thing for us to look at for a second. Like let's just pause on that because giving a little bit of truth that is supposed to lead people to a particular conclusion while leaving out the other relevant facts is exactly what Innocence Project does. The fact that a majority of people being executed were people of color does not mean inherently that the death penalty is unjust because or that those people shouldn't have been sent to death row. Like let's ask ourselves what crimes did they commit? It's really irrelevant what the color of their skin is. But if you can just say, well a majority of those people were black, they know that's enough for a lot of people to think, well it must be racist, it must be unfair. Even if there's no evidence proving that they linked a fact cheat that was titled quote the Trump Executions a race to Kill on their website. So trying to say that Trump is just eager to execute people who happen to be black. The Innocence Project is also backed by the usual left wing billionaires and left wing political donors. They receive millions, no surprise, from George Sources, Open Society foundation and Radical leftist philanthropist McKinsey Scott. That is Jeff Bezos's ex wife. We're still they siphon off taxpayer dollars. Millions of our taxpayer dollars flow to the Innocence Project and all of their affiliated organizations through the U.S. bureau of Justice Assistance. This is an office within the Department of Justice. I would love Pam Bondi to look at this and ensure that our tax dollars are not funding stopping the execution of convicted murders. If there were any doubt about the Innocence Project's ideological bent, they're not just some a political organization that's trying to exonerate innocent, innocent people. You just need to look at its leadership. Next sponsor is Good Rancher. So if you are scrambling, wondering what to get your dad or the relatabro in your life, your husband, the father of your children for Father's Day this year, then you should just go ahead and get them a present. You know they'll use, you know they'll like, and that is a box of Good Ranchers meat. Did you know that 85% of the grass fed beef sold in US grocery stores is actually imported from abroad? Even the grass fed beef that says made in the US that only means legally. That only has to mean that it's packaged in the us. If you want American meat from American farms and ranches, then you got to get it from good ranchers. Whether it's seafood, whether it's it's beef, different cuts of steak, whether it's they're better than organic chicken, it is all coming from American farms and ranches. We rely on good ranchers every night in this ducky home. It is so good. I had their filet a couple weeks ago. Best filet that I've had. Just as good as any fancy steakhouse. And so get your father, your husband, the gift that keeps on giving in Good Ranchers Meet go to good ranchers.com use code ally. You will get $40 off. Go ahead and subscribe. You'll get an even bigger discount when you do that. Go to goodranchers.com code ali so here are here's the leadership of the Innocence Project executive director Christina Allison Sworn. She previously worked for the naacp, which is a very progress political organization. She famously helped overturn the death sentence of convicted cop killer and former Black Panther Mumia Abu Jabal Jamal. His guilt was never in question, by the way. Sworn simply ensured he shouldn't he wouldn't face execution. He remains in prison for life. The organization's board of directors reads like a who's who of left wing athletes activism. Sociologist Alondra Nelson served in the Biden administration. She wrote books admiring the Black Panthers, outlining how DNA testing can help get slave reparations to African Americans. We've got Andrew Tannenbaum, a Democrat computer scientist. He runs electoral vote.com which falsely predicted that Trump would lose in 2016 and 2024. We've got former police Chief Cedric Alexander, an Obama advisor who also writes for cnn. We've got law professor Ikao in Yanka, who penned an infamous New York Times op ed in which he declared that he wouldn't allow his children to befriend white people. All right, then we've got Yusuf Salaam, one of the Central Park Five, who campaigned for Kamala Harris at the Democrat National Convention. Since the founding of the national Innocence Project organization, activists have created numerous regional chapters operating at the state and the local levels. These independent but related groups employ similar strategies to challenge convictions and share the same ideological motivations as the national organization. Ultimately, the Innocence Project is not about justice. It's about partisanship. It is about undermining law and order, rewriting history, changing the facts, advancing a radical, leftist, often racialized agenda under the guise of compassion and empathy and justice. So they turn criminals into victims and the justice system into the oppressor. They distort reality and erode the very foundation of accountability and lawfulness in America. If justice matters, then the truth about the Innocence Project must matter. It must be exposed. So let's look at their formula, because they have a repeatable formula that they use to hoist up a particular person that they cast as a victim and get them off of death row. The Innocence Project follows this formula to change public opinion. And their approach relies on manipulating public perception, exploiting legal technicalities, rather than proving actual innocence. You'll notice that the Innocence Project chooses cases that have a narrative of some kind of minority victimhood. So it's an immigrant. It's someone with supposed special needs. It's someone who is black. They do this to push this idea that minorities are under continual persecution because of systemic bias. And they know that a lot of people in America just assume that they don't have to convince people of it. In these narratives, it's not just that a mistake was made, but rather, all of these cases are evidence of racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia. The list goes on. In the case of Robert Roberson, a white male, they had to make this effort to shape the narrative around him being autistic. They claim that his being a member of this minority group is a fundamental reason he was treated fairly. But just remember, he wasn't actually diagnosed with autism until 15 years later. He had a history of violence that. That had no. There's no evidence that that had anything to do with him being convicted. So they've posted multiple headlines saying that women are more vulnerable to unfair convictions, that LGBTQ people are more vulnerable to being convicted. Disabled people, African American people, Latinx people, autistic people. The demographics of the Innocence Projects cases reflect this emphasis on minority status. Black and Hispanic people represent 31% of the US population, but 53% of death row inmates, for example. But the Innocence Project exonerations are nearly 75% black and Hispanic. Okay, so it's not just about the death penalty. It's not just about exoneration. This is extremely racialized. This answers the question, why does the organization take on so many cases of people who are clearly guilty? It's because the innocence of the victim or of the purported victim of the charged criminal is not as important of a criterion as there being a member of some kind of minority group, because the majority of the Innocence Project's cases are of racial minorities. Playing the race card is a key part of this exoneration formula. So here are the few things that the Innocence Project does, one, it plays the race card. So they'll say things like, this person was black and he was convicted for murdering a white person, and the majority of the jury was white. And they don't even have to say there's evidence of racism. All they have to do is say there was a black person who was convicted of something. There were white people on the other side. It was in some kind of Southern state like South Carolina. And the assumption that people are going to take. Take from that, because everyone's read To Kill a Mockingbird is that, oh, well, this person must have been wrongly convicted. So if they can paint that narrative, which good propaganda doesn't have to answer questions about truth, it just has to put assumptions in your mind and affirm the biases that you already have. So that's what they did, for example, with Rodney Reed. There was a campaign by the Innocence Project to say that Rodney Reed was framed for the killing of a white woman named Stacy Stites by a white police officer who was also her fiance, Jimmy Fennell. That is what his defense argued at the time. The Innocence Project ran with that he got Kim Kardashian, or the Innocence Project got Kim Kardashian, Rihanna, Beyonce, Susan Sarandon, Oprah Winfrey, Free Dr. Phil, Shaun King, many other very prominent people. He got Sean King, got 3 million signatures. 2020 made a documentary about this. There was a whole media blitz saying that Rodney Reed was innocent, that he was framed because of the color of her skin, of his skin, and the color of her skin, the victim. But when you go through the court documents, when you go through the testimonies and the facts of the case, it shows that Reed was almost certainly guilty. He had actually already been proven guilty in another rape case. There are so many different underlying factors here, in fact, that have been glossed over by the Innocence Project. And we don't have time to go through in detail every single one of these cases, but I encourage you to actually read the court cases themselves. And we will link the. We will link the source to these court cases so you can read them and look at the facts for yourself. But this is another instance of someone who was almost certainly guilty being hoisted up by the media and by the Innocence Project. The second thing that the Innocence Project does is leverages the court of public opinion. While the Innocence Project does work in court, much of its strategy actually relies on public relations, on pr. So their lawyers generally appeal to narrative appeal on narrow, often irrelevant points about forensic evidence. Once they've reopened A case, they can construct a media narrative that generates public outcry. The narrative is amplified by documentaries and by celebrities, even by legislators. And this pushes the narrative that everyone knows that it's so obvious that this person is innocent. Another case that proves this is Julius Jones, who was convicted of the 1999 murder of Paul Howl in front of his sister and daughters as he pulled into his parents driveway. Friends Julius Jones and Christopher Jordan had been driving around looking for a car to steal. And apparently Julius Jones exited the car wearing a red bandana, carrying a gun and shot Howell in the head. That is according to the Oklahoma District Attorney who is involved in this case. The Innocence Project, though, claims that Julius Jones was a victim of of racism. Viola Davis even hosted a documentary showing that this person or trying to prove that this person was a victim of racism. Steph Curry, Demi Lovato, again, Kim Kardashian came to his defense. But there are massive problems with the Innocence Project's narrative about Julius Jones. It is nonsensical to claim that racism motivated those involved in the case when. When the claim is that it was actually the other guy, not Julius Jones. The Innocence Project is saying that it was his friend Chris Jordan that actually killed this person, not Julius Jones. But Chris Jordan is also black. And so how could it be racism that motivated the conviction of Julius Jones? The sister who witnessed the murder identified Jones with stunning accuracy, including the red bandana that he was wearing during the crime. And when police searched Jones's room, they found that red bandana and they found the gun used to kill Howell. Third, while it's true that the bandana wasn't tested for DNA at the time, it has been tested since, and the results prove Jones's guilt. So there was DNA evidence on the bandana that he was wearing when the person who witnessed the murder says that the person who killed Paul Howell was wearing a red bandana. So this person is in all likelihood guilty. And yet with this racial narrative, with generating public outcry, they have convinced many people that he was innocent. They weaponized DNA testing. This is another tactic. Their most fundamental tactic is demanding new DNA testing on decades old evidence. They did this in the case of Marcellus Williams. This is a prime example. He is a black man convicted of the 1998 murder of Felicia Gale, a white woman. He reportedly entered her home, found a large butcher knife in the kitchen, stabbed her to death. He then left, taking some valuable items from the home. But the narrative pushed by the Innocence Project is that Marcellus Williams couldn't possibly have killed Gail because new testing revealed his DNA wasn't on the murder weapon, but two other people's DNA was. The truth is, however, that Williams was already known to be wearing gloves during the murder. So it's no surprise that his DNA was not on the weapon. And while it's true that they found two others individuals DNA on the knife, it was the prosecutor and a detective who handled the weapon during the trial. Not even during the case when they were looking at the evidence at the scene of the crime, but during the trial. So all of those who work at the Innocence Project knows that this is bunk, knows that this is manipulation, and yet they push it anyway. They also, this is their other tactic. They exploit the passage of time. So they wait for decades after a case has passed, when tensions are a lot lower, when people feel less sad or less shocked by less passionate about this particular victim's murder. For example, when we're talking about Robert Roberson, they didn't push this right after this young child had been murdered because they knew that the sympathies, that the anger was so high, and that people were more likely to think this guy was guilty. And so they exploit the passage of time knowing that they will be more likely to convince people that the people on death row are innocent. They did this with someone named Shawn Thomas. Sean Thomas was convicted in 1990 of murdering a 78 year old man. In 2017, 27 years after the crime, the Innocence Project successfully argued for Thomas's relief or release. Prosecutors did not declare Thomas innocent, declined to retry him, though, likely because of public outcry. Thomas walked free after serving 24 years in prison, was awarded a $4.1 million settlement. And it's a little bit confusing, all of the technicalities that were exploited by the Innocence Project to try to say that he was innocent. But then in 2023, he was headed back to prison for murdering a man over $1200. Okay, so the guy spent almost 30 years in prison, convicted for this murder. Innocence Project said no, he is totally innocent. Probably pushed some kind of racial bias narrative. And then in 2023, Hugh murdered a man and went to prison. Will the Innocence Project say that he is innocent now? Not sure. And then they also will manufacture new evidence. This is what the Innocence Project does in extreme cases. These convicts have been exonerated using falsified evidence created by activist attorneys. An example of this is Maurice Caldwell. The exoneration of Maurice Caldwell. He was convicted of murder in 1991. He was released after Paige Canab, a lawyer from the Innocence Project obtained a confession from Marit Funches, his friend. Funches, who was already serving a life sentence without parole for another murder, took the blame for the killing and identified someone else as his accomplice. Caldwell won $8 million in a settlement from the city. Funches wanted his family to get part of that money. When that didn't happen, he came forward and exposed accused attorney Paige Knab of enticing him into providing a false confession. Can have made contact with Funches, texting him almost every day for a year, messaging him almost 9,000 times. She sent him reportedly racy photos, sexts. So sex, text messages, money, and various gifts to lure him into giving a false confession. Although the North Carolina, Northern California Innocence Project has stood by Caldwell's exoneration since these damning revelations, Kanab is no longer with their organization. So those are the tactics of the Innocence Project. They will sometimes manufacture new evidence. They will exploit the passage of time, they will weaponize DNA testing, they will leverage the court of public opinion, and they will play the race card. Now, that is not the definition of justice. This is a project that has nothing to do with justice. It has nothing to do with innocence. And if your representative, if your friend, if the elected officials, if the, even some of the people that Trump has appointed, if they are partnering with or offering validity to the Innocence Project in any way, then you need to call them and you need to hold them accountable. It is one thing for someone in charge to think someone is truly innocent and try to get them exonerated and try to ensure that they don't meet a fate that they don't actually deserve to meet, but they don't need to partner with the Innocence Project who is actually perverting justice. It is no small thing. Let me tell you this. It is no small thing to inhibit justice for the murder of a child. God does not take that lightly. If you are someone who's just against the death penalty, just say that you're against the death penalty. Say that you're against the death penalty for pedophile murders. Just come out and say, say that. Don't lie and say that this person is innocent based on a false narrative and based on distorted and ignored facts. Don't do that. Just say that you're against execution altogether. But you manipulating the public to stay the execution of someone who's God, whom God's word says deserves to be executed. Because in Genesis 9, 6, we read before the establishment of Israel, before the creation of the law, but something that is actually rooted in the imago DEI that execution is the just punishment for murder and it still is the just punishment for murder. So if you are against that, if you are against God's justice, then just be honest about it. But don't lie about who these criminals actually are. It is no small thing in the eyes of God to determine justice in that way. Remember that if you don't care about being held accountable by us, if you don't care about being held accountable by voters, know that you will be held accountable by God. Realize that this is a big freaking deal. You do not need to be supporting or hoisting up or celebrating or associating yourself with the Innocence Project ever. And if you are a voter and you have seen that from your representative from elected officials, then you need to call them and you need to let them know that you take issue with this. As someone who cares about true compassion and true justice, Next sponsor is Every Life. Okay, I know I say this a lot that oh, this sponsor is the sponsor whose products I use the most. And it's really a tough competition because when I say that I use a product here, I really use the product. If I say I use the product every day, I use the product every day. But when I think about how often I use a product, it probably is Every Life that wins because we are using Every Life diapers multiple times a day in our home. We love our Every Life diapers and wipes. We love that they are made from all clean materials. But my favorite part about Every Life is that they are America's only pro life diaper company. It's sad to say that these other major diaper brands support the abortion lobby. They donate to pro abortion politicians. They donate to pro abortion organizations. You don't have to worry about that with Every Life they partner with pregnancy centers to make sure these places have the resources that are needed to support moms in crisis pregnancy situations. They fully support all of their employees who are adopting or having babies of their own. It's just an amazing company all around and the diapers are really great. Go to everylife.com use code ALI10 for 10 off your first order. That's everylife.com code ALI10. The Innocence Project presents itself as this champion of justice, but its track record reveals a a totally different reality. They don't prioritize truth. They strategically manipulate public perception. They exploit racial and social justice narratives and they push a left wing anti justice agenda. This is, as we've said, a textbook example of toxic empathy. A well intentioned sometimes impulse that when weaponized leads to devastating consequences. But by redirecting our empathy, our compassion away from true victims toward convicted criminals, the Innocence Project des distorts justice and creates a culture where accountability is eroded in favor of emotional activism and virtue signaling. And so we have people who are very likely monsters like Robert Roberson being praised as a martyr, while victims like Nikki Curtis are completely forgotten and neglected, and justice is never won for her. That is not right. That is a disordered view of justice, and Christians should stand against it. And I've had. I've had conversations about these cases in the past where child abusers are let off death row because of the false narratives of the Innocence Project. And I can really think of few things more wicked than that. When the Innocence Project succeeds in exonerating its clients, murderers, rapists, and career criminals walk free, often re offending. There are real victims. There is a cost to toxic empathy. There is a cost to this injustice. In the end, the Innocence Project's goal is not the exoneration of the wrongly convicted, but a broader effort to delegitimize law enforcement, weaken the justice system, and ultimately push for the abolition of the death penalty, regardless of guilt, regardless of how heinous of a crime has been committed. So it's not just justice that they seek, but a political victory gained at the cost of truth, at the cost of lies, the safety of our communities, and at the expense of those who are truly innocent. So there should be no support of this organization, and we should do everything we can to champion true justice in the next time you hear a narrative of someone who is innocent on death row. Before you buy into the documentary, before you buy into the media blitz and the celebrity campaign strategy, make sure you know what is actually true. Before we head out, I want to tell you about a new special that just dropped on Blaze TV for subscribers only. It is an explosive investigation. You gotta see it. It has been five years, believe it or not, since the George Floyd riots turned so much of the world upside down, especially Minneapolis. And now, for the first time ever, three active duty Minneapolis police officers are speaking out on camera anonymously to tell the truth about what really happened. I mean, what they reveal about Derek Chauvin, Governor Tim Walls, the breakdown of law and order is. Is absolutely jaw dropping. You've got to see it. You can watch the first 10 minutes for free right now on YouTube. Just search Blaze TV Minneapolis. But for the full unfiltered investigation, you have to be a Blaze TV subscriber. Go to blazetv.com ally get $20 off your subscription, you'll get access not only to this documentary, but all of these subscriber exclusive content that we have@blaze tv. Go to belizetv.com Alli all right, that's all we've got time for today. We'll be back here tomorrow.