Click Here to read Jim Rea's Sermon

Click Here to read the Clemency Petition filed with the Governor of Illinois.

May 20, 2004
Rally Successful!

Rally at the Illinois Capitol Building

Julie’s friends and supporters crowded into the center rotunda of the Illinois State Capitol building today to show support for Julie and to demand her freedom. Several Speakers spoke. Larry Golden, Director of the Downstate Illinois Innocence project served as MC and explained why we had gathered together. Not only were we there to work to set Julie Free, but also to urge the State to implement procedures so that convicting an innocent person will not happen again. Professor Golden told the crowd that Julie has the best representation available through the Larry Marshall Center for Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University and they are working hard to facilitate Julie’s release. Illinois State Representative Roger Eddy addressed the crowd, informing them that in light of the evidence about Tommy Lynn Sells, He is urging and continuing to urge the Governor to take action in Julie’s case and grant clemency, or reopen the investigation into Joel’s murder. Jim Rea, Julie’s father, called upon the Governor, The State Police, and the Prosecutors to open the investigation in a proper manner and investigate the evidence that Tommy Lynn Sells was responsible for Joel’s murder. Julie’s Mother, Jane Rea echoed her husbands sentiments and thanked everyone for their support on Julie’s behalf. Mark Harper, Julie’s husband, shared a poem that Julie wrote just last week. Bill Clutter, lead investigator for the Downstate Illinois Innocence project, outlined some of the strong and convincing information that Tommy Lynn Sells is Joel’s murderer, and informed the gathering of some of the steps ongoing to facilitate Julie’s release. Joyce Dardeen told the crowd how Tommy Lynn Sells killed her son Keith, his 3-year old son Peter, his wife Eileen, and their unborn son in 1987. Joyce is continuing her fight to bring Tommy Lynn Sells to Justice in an Illinois Court. She spoke in support of Julie, stating that she never was convinced that Julie killed Joel, and that she believes Julie is innocent. After the Rally, The attendees proceeded to the Governor’s office where Mark Harper presented the Governor’s representatives with folders of petitions requesting a new investigation and letters that have been written to the Governor and to Julie through the web site expressing outrage at Julie’s conviction and calling for action.

Official Press Release

Press Release
For Immediate Release
May 20, 2004

Downstate Illinois Innocence Project University of Illinois at Springfield

Contact: Bill Clutter, Director of Investigations (217)899-4353 or Larry Golden, Program Director (217)553-7171.

Friends and family of Julie Rea-Harper rallied at the Capitol today and called on Gov. Blagojevich to “free Julie.” The Lawrenceville woman was convicted of the murder of her 10-year-old boy, Joel Kirkpatrick. She has served two years already of a 65-year prison sentence, but newly discovered evidence reveals that Tommy Lynn Sells, a convicted child serial killer on death row in Texas is the actual killer.

Sells confessed to the Kirkpatrick murder to author Diane Fanning, after she wrote to him about an ABC 20/20 story on Julie’s case that aired nationally on May 31, 2002. Sells wrote back, “About that woman claims some one broke into her house; was that maybe two days before my Springfield, MO murder?”

On Oct. 15, 1997, Sells abducted 13-year old Stephanie Mahaney from her home as she lay sleeping. Hunters discovered her body in a remote wooded area. Sells confessed to the Mahaney murder and Texas Rangers are convinced by Sells’ knowledge of the Bugs Bunny cartoon character the victim was wearing. Last September, Sells was indicted for her murder by a grand jury in Springfield, Missouri.

Last fall, the Downstate Innocence Project corroborated Sells’ confession to the Kirkpatrick murder by conducting videotaped interviews of two witnesses, one who places Sells in Lawrenceville at the time of the murder, the other identifies Sells as fleeing the area by Greyhound bus to Winnemucca, Nevada.

On Nov. 6, 2003, two weeks after the Illinois Prisoner Review Board heard testimony supporting Julie’s claim of actual innocence, investigators with the Illinois State Police went to Texas and conducted an audiotaped interview of Sells. He confessed to the murder of Joel Kirkpatrick, and provided details that only the perpetrator would know.

An analysis of Sells’ confession by the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project provides 53 points of corroboration. Bill Clutter, director of investigations, stated, “We have provided the governor’s clemency counsel with a transcript of Sells’ confession that was not available at the time of the Prisoner Review Board hearing. These 53 points of corroboration leads any objective observer to only one conclusion—that Julie Rea Harper is innocent and should be exonerated by Gov. Blagojevich with all due speed,” said Clutter.

Texas Ranger John Allen, has spent the last four years investigating Sells. “In my discussions with Ranger Allen he explained that they were very careful to investigate and corroborate Sells’ confession with independent evidence placing him in the towns where these murders occurred or by details he provided that only the killer would know. They did not want another ‘serial confessor,’ like Henry Lucas, who falsely confessed to being a serial killer years ago,” said Clutter.

Ranger Allen has reviewed the evidence along with the transcript of Sells’ confession. Ranger Allen provided the Downstate Innocence Project with an affidavit concluding that he finds this evidence corroborating Sells’ confession to be “compelling evidence of his guilt.”

Joeann Dardeen, a crime victim of Tommy Lynn Sells today spoke in support of Julie’s clemency petition. Her son, Keith Dardeen, and his seven-month pregnant wife, Ruby, and her three year-old grandson Peter Dardeen, were brutally slain by Sells in Nov. of 1987, in Ina Illinois. The murder remained unsolved until Sells confessed to Ranger Allen following his arrest on Jan. 2, 2000, for the murder of 13-year-old Kaylene Harris, in Del Rio, TX. Sells provided details that were not known by the general public, leading Ranger Allen to consider his confession to the Dardeen murder valid.

Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions has filed a post-conviction petition last week seeking a new trial based on this newly discovered evidence. “This case points to the need for further reforms to implement an independent review when new evidence of actual innocence comes to light,” said UIS professor Larry Golden. “Julie should not have to spend another holiday in prison,” said Golden.

T SHIRTS

The Innocence Project has made available “Free Julie Now T-shirts” identical to those at the rally. All it takes to get one of your own is to make a donation of 10.00 minimum to the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project. Call Larry Golden at 217-206-7885 or email at Golden.Larry@uis.edu.

May 05, 2004 (Event is May 20, 2004)
"FREE JULIE NOW” RALLY AT THE CAPITOL ROTUNDA MAY 20, 2004, AT 1:30 P.M. SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR JULIE AND LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD: URGE THE GOVERNOR TO SEEK JUSTICE FOR JULIE AND JOEL!!!
If you attend one meeting this year in support of Julie, this would be it. I know that this notice is going to people all over the country, but if you are close enough to come the Rally, Mark it on your Calender! Do not think that there will be enough people there without you! We need as many people as possible to show the Governor and the State that we are outraged at what they can willingly do to their best citizens. And Bring you friends! More info as plans develop. The directions to the State Capitol can be found Here

The Capitol is at 2nd and E. Capitol St.

Come Support Julie and Joel!

Download a flyer Here and get the word out!

March 28, 2004
Notification of Incident - March 28, 2004 - At approximately 1:00PM CST, we noticed that the forms on the Justice for Julie and Joel page were not working correctly. Steps have been taken to correct this, and all forms should now be working normally. If you submitted a Petition, Testimonial, Email to Julie, or Tip in the last 4 days, it was not received by us. Please feel free to submit them again. We apologize for any inconveinence.
   - Justiceforjulieandjoel.com Team

February 3, 2004
The Crime Time program on the Discovery Channel will be aired at the following times:
February 17 - 9:00 pm Eastern, 8:00 pm Central
February 18 - 12:00 am Eastern, which is February 17, 11:00 pm Central
March 27 - 9:00 pm Eastern, 8:00 pm Central
March 28 - 12:00 am Eastern, which is March 27, 11:00 pm Central

February 2, 2004 - The following entry is the press release that was distributed to promote the Crime time program that will be aired February 17, 9:00 PM Eastern time, 8:00 PM Central.

Crime time: The Julie Rea Case

On October 13th, 1997 the small town of Lawrenceville, Illinois, was rocked by the brutal stabbing murder of ten year old Joel Kirkpatrick while he slept peacefully in his bed only twenty feet from his mother's bedroom. According the account given by his mother Julie Rea, a masked intruder entered her home in the middle of the night and stabbed her son to death.

It was approximately 4:30 am when Julie Rea was awakened by a scream that appeared to come from outside her house. When she went to check on her son he was not in his bed. Suddenly a masked intruder jumped from the shadows of the bedroom, knocking her into the hallway. Fearing her son was being kidnapped, Julie fought with the intruder throughout the house. She pursued him into the back yard, where they broke the glass in two exterior doors. Once outside the intruder punched Julie Rea and escaped into the night, but not before he removed his mask revealing his face.

Lawrenceville police officer Annette Edgin and Sheriff' Deputy Dennis York arrived within a few minutes of the incident and questioned Julie Rea at a neighbor's home. According to York, Julie Rea was talking very fast and she was very upset. She had feared had son had been taken from her home.

While Officer Edgin searched the neighborhood, Officer York proceeded to Julie Rea's residence where he entered the house. In the hallway leading to the back bedrooms, York observed a kitchen knife lying on the carpet. It had some blood on it. Officer York continued his search into a back bedroom where he found Joel's body laying in a pool of blood between his bed and the wall.

From day one investigators became suspicious of Julie Rea's account of a masked intruder. According to them, the crime scene told a very different story. Julie Rea claimed (that she fought with an intruder) but the home showed no signs of a struggle. In fact pictures hung neatly on the wall, kitchen chairs stood undisturbed in the narrow kitchen and the glass in both doors were broken outward. Also, the apparent murder weapon, a small kitchen knife, appeared to be placed on the carpet and not dropped in the struggle. Had Julie Rea staged the crime scene? Investigators thought so.

Over the next three years ... leads and rumors were pursued in the Joel Kirkpatrick murder, including the possibility that local druggies were responsible for the murder. One witness came forward with a story that a drifter had been seen at a local diner, not far from Julie Rea's home. But eventually all leads were exhausted and the investigation turned back to Julie Rea.

With the assignment of a new State's Prosecutor, the case against Julie Rea would be brought before a Grand and on October 12, 2000 and she was indicted, despite a lack of any hard evidence.

Her trial began Feb. 22, 2002 and on March 4, 2002 in less than 4 hours of deliberation the jury returned a verdict of guilty. She was sentenced to prison on May 10th, Mother's Day weekend, for the murder of her son. To this day she maintains her innocence.

Her case was picked up by "The Downstate Illinois Innocence Project" in Chicago, Illinois. Their investigators have uncovered a suspect, serial killer Tommy Lynn Sells, who has admitted to the murder. Based an investigation by the Texas Rangers, Sells was in the Lawrenceville area around the time of Joel's murder and could possibly be the drifter that witnesses encountered in the diner days before the homicide. Sells is currently on death row in a Texas prison.

Julie Rea is currently serving a 65-year prison term for the murder of her son, Joel Kirkpatrick.

January 27, 2004

The Discovery Channel will air a dramatized version of Joel's murder and Julie's ordeal on Feb. 17th, Tuesday, 9 p.m. EST under the title of Crime Time.

January 14, 2004

ONLINE EDITION http://www.herald-review.com H & R Archives
As published in the Herald & Review
This is a re-printed story from the archives of the Herald & Review, Decatur, IL.

January 10, 2004
Section: News
Page: B1

Confusion abounds in child's murder case

One interview leads to two conclusions about boy's real killer

By DAVE FOPAY

H&R Staff Writer
Illinois authorities' interview with a Texas serial killer apparently hasn't changed anyone's mind about whether he killed 10-year-old Joel Kirkpatrick of Charleston. And it's still not known if the claims by the convicted murderer, Tommy Lynn Sells, will affect the conviction of Julie Rea-Harper, Joel's mother, who's serving a 65-year prison sentence for the crime.

Rea-Harper was convicted of stabbing Joel to death at her Lawrenceville home Oct. 13, 1997, while the boy was visiting her for the weekend.

But last year, Texas author Diane Fanning wrote a book about Sells' string of murder convictions and said in it that he claimed to have killed Joel, a theory that fit Rea-Harper's story that she confronted a man in Joel's bedroom and he fled after a brief struggle.

Her conviction is on appeal and Gov. Rod Blagojevich is considering a clemency request from her supporters. DNA test results to determine if a hair found in Joel's hand came from Sells are pending.

David Rands, one of the prosecutors at Rea-Harper's trial, said he and officers with Illinois State Police recently traveled to Texas to interview Sells and none of them believed the story they got. Also, Rands said he's since learned of "a report" - he wouldn't provide any details about it - concerning a statement Sells made after that interview in which he denied killing Joel.

"We all came to the same conclusion, that he didn't commit the murder, and apparently he's come to that same conclusion," Rands said.

But Bill Clutter, a private investigator, said he's seen a transcript of Sells' interview and thinks what Sells said is far from recanting his claim. Clutter is working with the Innocence Project, a University of Illinois-Springfield group that reviews criminal cases and has helped with Rea-Harper's post-conviction case.

Clutter said Sells told Rands and the officers that he was certain he killed a child two days after a murder in Springfield, Mo., and Sells already has been convicted of the Missouri killing on that date. Sells also said he killed a child in a bedroom, encountered a woman and fled the scene, which all fit with Joel's case and Rea-Harper's story, he added.

"The general details of the crime mean it can only be the crime that happened in Lawrenceville," Clutter said. "There was no other crime in the country like that that happened that day."

Rands came to a completely different conclusion from the interview with Sells. He was mistaken about the location and description of Rea-Harper's house and where the knife used to kill Joel came from, Rands said, and at one point told interviewers he was trying to separate "what I've been told and what I remember."

"It was my feeling that his details didn't match the facts of the crime," Rands said. "His memory is not the best and he'll be the first to tell you that."

Clutter said any recantation on Sells' part could be because of his continuing dislike of Rea-Harper, stemming from some type of confrontation between the two that Fanning's book says took place at a Lawrenceville convenience store shortly before the killing.

Dave Fopay can be reached at dfopay@jg-tc.com or 348-5733.

Copyright, 2004, Herald & Review, Decatur, IL

November 9, 2003
Diane Fanning, Author of "Through the Window-The Terrifying True Story of Cross-country Killer Tommy Lynn Sells" was in Springfield Thursday, September 23 on her way to Chicago to give testimony to the Illinois Prisoner Review Board in support of Julie's clemency petition. In the book, Diane Fanning describes how Tommy Lynn Sells confessed to the murder of Julie's son, Joel Kirkpatrick.
At 8:00 AM Diane and Bill Clutter of the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project told the story of Sells Confession and of Julie's wrongful conviction on the Sam Madonia Show, WFMB-AM in Springfield. The interview lasted one hour. At 10:00 AM, they presented the information to the media at a Press Conference in the state Capitol. At 3:00 PM, local talk show host Jim Leach on WMAY-AM interviewed Diane and Bill. At 6:45 in the evening, Diane, Bill Clutter, and Larry Golden, also of the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project, Presented a program on the Campus of Illinois University at Springfield. Mark Harper, Julie's Husband and Jim and Jane Rea, Julie's parents also spoke. The content of these presentations and interviews will be reflected in the Clemency Hearing Synopsis Below.

Friday, September 24
Julie's Clemency Petition was heard in the afternoon before the 10-person prisoner review board. Speaking in favor of granting Julie clemency was Diane Fanning, Bill Clutter, Crime Scene investigator Alva Busch, and Julie's husband, Mark Harper. The expectation was that each side of the issue was to have 20 minutes to make an oral presentation. In an unusual development, the limits were suspended. The presentation for granting clemency and questions from the review board lasted approximately 1.5 hours. Speaking against clemency was Prosecutor Ed Parkinson and Leonard Kirkpatrick. Their presentation and questioning lasted approximately 45 minutes.

There were approximately 25-30 people there in support of granting Julie clemency. Also in attendance were representatives from 20/20, CNN, and local TV Media. Representatives of the Northwestern University Larry Marshall Center for Wrongful Convictions were also in the audience. (See Links Page)

Synopsis of the Proceedings is in progress and will be posted throughout the day, October 26, 2003.

Chairman Findley began the proceedings by having Mark Harper, Diane Fanning, Bill Clutter, and Alva Busch sworn in. He began the proceeding by explaining to those in attendance that The Claim of actual innocence is probably the most difficult matter for the board to consider, and also for the governor. He confirmed with Mark Harper that there was an appeal pending on this case that among other issues concerned a matter of prosecutorial misconduct, and that some of the evidence and information that would be in front of the prisoner review board this day was new information that was not part of the appeal.

Mark Harper introduced himself and thanked the board for hearing the case. He told the board that his wife, Julie Rea Harper sits in a prison for a crime that she would not, could not and did not commit. He said that before the trial he assured Julie that the system would work and an innocent woman would not be convicted. But He also told her that if this impossibility happened, that if there was a wrongful conviction, that he would commit his life to freeing her from this wrong. He said that was why he was there, and why he quit his job, changed his career, and began school to get a law degree. So that if all else fails, he can continue to work for Julie's freedom with the knowledge of the laws and judicial system. He emphasized that this was a wrongful conviction as he introduced Alva Busch. The Board stated that they were familiar with Mr. Busch's work and credentials.

Mr. Busch said that he spent a lot of time going through the records in this case. Several things led him to believe 100% that Julie Rea was innocent.

He stated that the state's theory seemed to be that there was no logical reason for some of the things that happened at the scene leading them to conclude that the scene was staged.

Mr. Busch's statements:

1.Piece of glass with shoeprint of Joel's blood on glass broken out of the outside garage door. It was his belief that an intruder transferred that blood there as he exited the house in a struggle with Julie Rea.

2. Broken glass in storm door leading from the kitchen into the garage. In the trial it was brought up that the scene was staged because the broken glass was lying not in front of the door, but off to the side at a 90-degree position. He explained that it would be natural for the door glass to be in that position because the door opens at a 90-degree angle. (Editors Note: the door was restricted to opening that far by a restricting chain) If the door were at that position in the struggle when it was broken out it would have ended up in that position.

3. Julie said in her statement that the intruder crouched down and broke out the glass in the door that led from the garage to the outside. The position of the glass outside that door and lying on the concrete pad is consistent with Julie's statements.

4. Knife on the Hall floor way. The knife had only Joel's blood on it. He doesn't believe that Julie's wounds were self-inflicted. The state's theory was that that knife was placed in the location that it was found because they found no blood spatter around the knife. Mr. Busch said that the problem he had with that based on over 500 homicides he has investigated and the many blood spatter scenes that he has viewed, is that there could be several reasons why they found no blood spatter around the knife on the carpet. The intruder while jumping over the bed, the blood on that blade would go into flight, and especially as he jumped back down to the floor. And the knife could have hit Julie, or the intruder, and could have actually been kicked into the hall.

5. The state did luminol testing through out the house looking for any signs of cleanup and it was negative, they found no areas of blood and no evidence of cleanup in the house.

6. Julie's white T-shirt and panties. During the trial the prosecution brought in an expert that examined the clothing 2 years after the murder and gave testimony in front of the Jury that he observed no grass stains on the clothing. There is a crime scene report that says that there were small amounts of botanical material and cellulose material on that garment. That was never brought out. He feels that that was very important because the Jury heard that there was no grass the expert when that expert examined the clothes.

7. The carpet with a Blood on it on the east side of the bed. There was a large deposit in blood in this area. This exhibit went to the Chicago lab for analysis, but he had yet to see the results of those tests. Mr. Busch feels that that was important to know whose blood that is because it is the only large grouping of blood in that area.

8.A piece of paper beside Joel's body on the floor next to the bed. That paper was sent to the lab for analysis. The paper had a shoe print on it. The print was never matched up with anyone's shoes. The shoe print was never brought up in trial. This tells Mr. Busch that the State has a shoe print beside the body that they have never matched up with anybody that was at the scene officially.

9. Blood taken from the backdoor casing. There was no report of the analysis. Mr. Busch says that he would like to know whose blood that is.

10. Julie's gold bracelet. The blood work on the bracelet show's that the blood was hers and not Joel's. To Mr. Busch, that is extremely important.

11. Julie's injuries. Mr. Busch showed a picture of Julie's black eye and said that the State said that her injuries could have been self-inflicted. He stated that if he was an officer that showed up at the scene of a domestic and the woman had an injury like the one Julie had, then the spouse would probably go to jail. Julie had injuries like that all over her body.

12. The State witness opined that her fingernails should have been broken if she was in a fight with an assailant. Mr. Busch displayed a picture of Julie's fingernails to the Board. They were closely trimmed. He stated that there were pictures taken in the afternoon on Sunday before the murder that showed the same closely trimmed nails. He stated that one would not have the broken nails that the state witness said they should have.

13. Mr. Busch showed a picture of the knife and said there was no reason to believe that the knife was cleaned.

14. A picture of the counter top showing the knife block that the knife came out of was shown. Yet they developed no fingerprints from this scene. He stated " You mean to tell me on two doors where people are going in and out that there shouldn't be a latent print of some kind? What happened here is the State goes for a search warrant on Julie's house immediately, which suggests to me, I've been in the business for a long time and when you go to get a search warrant for somebody's residence that means that you think that they are a suspect. The point I'm making is there was no processing of latent prints of an intruder."

15. Mr. Busch showed a picture of scratch along the top of Julie's foot. He said that it would be pretty hard to get. If you are being drug around the yard, it is pretty easy to get.

In conclusion, Mr. Busch said that in viewing the evidence and lab reports he said he thought that there was a lot that could be done and should be done scientifically to get to the truth of this matter and that is why he is here today. He said that he went into the case with his eyes fully open and that he would have walked out of the case in a day or two if he didn't think that there was substance here, strong substance that this woman was innocent.

Mark Harper introduced Diane Fanning. Diane is the author of 3 Books. She was appointed by then governor Bush of Texas 3 times to serve on a state advisory board in the state of Texas. She has been awarded the National 2001 Freedom award and has written numerous articles for the Baltimore Sun and Highway Patrol magazine.

Diane Fanning said that she came into this story in an unusual way. She had visited Tommy Lynn Sells thinking that it would be her last interview with him. He complained bitterly about the Texas Rangers and how they kept probing him for more details of the crimes he had committed. Sells took it as a sign that they didn't believe him. Diane said she wanted to convince him otherwise.
She was sitting at home some time after that and picked up the remote control looking for something interesting to watch on TV. She came across the 20/20 Show on Julie's case and decided to watch it. When she watched it she heard some things from the investigators and the prosecutors of the case that did not ring true because of her experience with Sells. The special prosecutor said "To believe her, you would have to believe that this assailant came into her home in the middle of the night, had dark clothes, hiding his identity by the use of a mask, for the sole purpose of killing a 10-year-old boy. And yet he also forgot to bring a murder weapon along and used her kitchen knife to do it with . . .Total nonsense."
When she heard that right away she thought about some of the crimes that Tommy Lynn Sells Committed.

Crimes Committed by Sells Using Knives From Victims' Kitchen

Victim(s) with age Date Place Weapon(s)

Ena Cordt (28)
Rory Cordt (4) 6/30/85 Forsythe, Missouri knife from kitchen and Taney County baseball bat from home

The Dardeen Family 11/17/87 Ina, Illinois Gun. Baseball bat from
Russell Keith Dardeen (29) Jefferson County home. Knife from home
Ruby Elaine Dardeen (30) used to cut Elaine
Peter Dardeen (3)
Casey Dardeen (born during crime)

Fabienne Witherspoon 5/13/92 Charleston, W. Va. Knife from kitchen
(20) Survived Kanawha County
Sells served five years in prison

Debra Harris (31) 3/31/99 Milan, Tennessee Knife from kitchen
Ambria Halliburton (8) Gibson County

She said that she automatically didn't think that this was a Tommy Lynn Sells crime. She wrote a letter to Sells with the purpose of trying to prompt Sells to continue working with the Rangers to bring Closure to the victims' families:

"You told me a lot of times about your anger at the Rangers and other law enforcement types because they pick and choose what they want to believe when you confess. You say that you get tired of having to prove when you tell the truth. Now you've known Johnny Allen and Coy Smith a lot longer than I have and you have spent a lot more time with them than I have, so I could be wrong, but thought you might want to know how it seems to me. From talking to these two Rangers, I get the feeling that they do believe your confessions, but they have to keep jabbing holes in your stories and keep asking for more information to prove that your story is true because they have to convince others. And some law enforcement folks are just not playing with a full deck. Like the guy with the Debra Harris and Ambria Halliburton Case. When I asked the guy whey he thought you didn't do it he said 'He doesn't have a motive.' Tell me Tommy; does that sound as stupid to you as it does to me? The other night, I was watching a story on TV about a woman who was in jail for killing her son. She claims someone broke into her house and killed him. You could say, 'Yeah right, lady. We've heard that story before.' But then you listen to the law enforcement guys and the prosecuting attorney and they are so full of stupid opinions. When they were asked why they only pursued her in this case, they said: 1) There were no strange fingerprints in the house; 2) No stranger would just come into her house and kill her child; 3) It was so violent, it had to be someone with a very close relationship to the child; (And here's my very favorite on the stupid scale) 4) A person does not come in to someone's else [house] without a weapon and then pull a knife out of the kitchen drawer in the house and use it. After hearing that garbage, I believe it is very possible that woman is telling the truth. Tommy, I think if I never heard of you, I still would have thought these guys were idiots. So anyway, I think that's a lot of what Allen and Smith deal with every day. And that's why I think they push at you so hard. They sure act like they believe you when they are talking to me."

Sell's responded in a letter:

"About that woman claims someone breaked into her house. Is that like maybe two days before my Springfield Missouri murder, maybe on the 13th?"

Diane rushed to her Files to check the date of Stephanie Mahaney's death and there it was, October 15 1997. And Sells has been indicted for that Murder. Diane then checked again for the day that Joel Kirkpatrick died and that was indeed October 13, 1997. She knew that Sells was on death row at that time but she double-checked. He had been on death row, and they don't have television on death row, so he couldn't have seen the show.

Diane wrote Sells again and asked how he knew about it. Did someone tell him about it?

Sells wrote back:
"Diane, I know about a lot more murder than we ever even come close to talk about, I can pull one a day out and not be done for a long time. A murder don't always have to do with sex, or any of the norm yall may want to tag me with. Maby (sic) some one just piss me off and I did not want ther (sic) child to be like them. That's cold, I understand. Maby (sic) more than just one person is in prison for the same thing…No miss fanning, noone has ever talked to me about that murder that you so vaguely described. But you never answered my question, did it happen when I asked you and you not seen curious things yet, you just believe you have."

She was faced with a dilemma. She was about to wrap up the manuscript of the book. She didn't know what to do with the information. She had no corroboration. It seemed absolutely senseless to bother to call the prosecutors and investigators in Illinois. Diane didn't think they would take the information seriously and that they would bother to look into it. But whether Sell's confession was true or not, It was part of his story, so she put it in the book. If it was true someone would see it, someone would care, and someone would do something about it.

Bill Clutter of the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project
Bill Clutter was the next to speak. The chairman stated that they were familiar with Mr. Clutter and his work.

Bill explained how he set up the Downstate Illinois Innocence Project. The project was started three years ago, in 2000. In June of 2000 Bill was contacted by Julie's Indiana Attorney, Kitty Liel just before Julie was going to be indicted. By the description of the perpetrator, Bill thought it sounded like a crime that Tommy Lynn Sells would commit. Bill had collected information on Sells for another case he was investigating at that time. His advice to Julie's attorney was to investigate whether Tommy Lynn Sells had been in the area of Lawrenceville at the time of the murder. He didn't hear anything back. Then in July of this year, someone informed Bill that someone on death row in Texas had confessed to the murder of Joel Kirkpatrick. He immediately thought of Tommy Lynn Sells and went out to buy Diane Fanning's book. He read it and contacted Julie's family and offered the assistance of The Downstate Illinois Innocence Project. Mr. Clutter explained that Julie's filed appeal would not contain any information about the confession of Sell's and that the appeal is limited to the information from the trial. Through her mother, Jane Rea, Julie contacted Bill requesting that we file for clemency. They set about to compile the information for the clemency petition.

Mr. Clutter then described some of the new information that he has uncovered while investigating this case. He describes how through an interview, Alan Berkshire, a resident of Bridgeport in Lawrence county, described a stranger in town on Friday, October 10. Mr. Berkshire was having dinner with his wife and son at a small restaurant in Lawrenceville, next to the railroad tracks. He described the man as being high or intoxicated, and the man seemed to be preoccupied with the children that were in this small café. The stranger tried to involve Alan's son in conversation, only with the boy and not the Parents. At one point the boy tried to avoid the man. This stranger then said "I bet you're afraid of me aren't you?" And Alan's son shook his head no and the guy did a funny ha ha ha, you know maybe you should be afraid of me. I guess maybe all children, I guess maybe everybody ought to be afraid of me." Alan is thinking "What kind of person would say that? He tries to get more information from the man. He asks the stranger where he comes from, and the stranger answered St. Louis. The Texas rangers know that Tommy Lynn Sells was working in St. Louis at that time working at an auto body shop and living with his mother. Mr. Berkshire hears about Joel's murder a day or so later. He goes to the Sherrif and provides the information. Alan tells him that he thinks he has his suspect. The Sherrif said that he would send a deputy to interview him. Alan waited a day, two days, and nobody ever talked to him. Bill Clutter was the first to ever interview Alan Berkshire. This year, after he read about the confession, Alan did a google search and looked up pictures of Sells. He called in his wife to look at the pictures and she said she thought that it was him, 90 percent certain that it was him. Alan Berkshire described what Bill Clutter believes are significant details about the stranger. The man had quick, jerky movements. That is the way that Julie described the perpetrator the morning Joel was killed. In the taped interview with State Police, Julie described him as "real jerky, real hyper".

Bill was looking through Diane Fanning's book, looking to see if Sells had lived in Arizona like he had described to Alan Berkshire. Sure enough he had lived there for a time. But as Bill was turning through the pages, he came across a reference to a murder Sell's had committed in Winnemucca Nevada. He thought that that name looked familiar. Weeks earlier, Jane Rea had told him that he needed to look at a report by a Grey Hound Bus ticket Lady. When he had read this report, the names and places described didn't strike a chord, but when he saw the passage in the book about Sells' activities in Winnemucca, he connected the two. The ticket agent saw a person fitting the description of the murderer of Joel. Same, height, weight, the age was off, but everything else fit. He bought a ticket to Winnemucca Nevada. The woman was so concerned about this man and the way he looked that she called her husband to come into the ticket office. They later contacted the police. The police ran this lead down, they met the bus in Denver, after a transfer stop in St. Louis, and noone fitting his description was on the bus. We know now that Tommy Lynn Sells traveled from St. Louis to Springfield MO some other means and committed the murder of Stephanie Mahaney later that day on October 15. The man had purchased the ticket to Winnemucca Nevada on the anniversary of the murder he had committed there. We know that Tommy Lynn Sells was there on December 15, 1997, because Texas Rangers place him there through motel records. Bill Clutter said that in his experience, if this information had come together at the time of Joel's murder, Tommy Lynn Sells would have been the only suspect, and if he had been facing the death penalty this evidence would be overwhelming circumstantial evidence in the case.
The issue raised by this information is that there needs to be a reiveiw of the policies and procedures of the State Police, who never had the information of Mr. Berkshire who had the best opportunity to view the suspect. This information wasn't communicated by the Sherrif to the State Police. Mr. Clutter beleives that if the State Police had been aware of the lead at that time, they would have had a very valuable lead to pursue, with a better composite sketch at the time, and knowing where he was from, would have been able to focus their search and resources. Mr. Clutter doubts that Julie Rea would have been the sole suspect in the investigation.

Clutter describes how the Illinois State Police received a tip six months after the Murder. It was not a tip from local law enforcement; it was from Jim Rea, Julie's father.
A Lawrenceville man was driving by the Restaurant where Alan Berkshire saw the stranger. He saw a man fitting the description of the perpetrator with a hooded sweat shirt, and the man was peering into the window of a tavern. The man was peering in as if he was trying to see if it was open. After seeing this stranger, he drives immediately to the Sheriffs' office. He goes into the Sheriffs' office to report this sighting, but noone is interested in his information. So he gets angry and leaves. No one there was willing to take the information. Later the Chief of police, not the Sheriff, calls him and takes the information. They dispatch a deputy and he reports that the man was a CSX (worker) worker. In the report there is no information identifying whom the worker is. Bill Clutter seriously doubts that a CSX worker would be peering into the bar. And if he was a CSX worker, he would have been wearing a hard hat and orange safety vest as required by OSHA.

More witnesses saw a man matching the suspect. A couple had seen a person standing in the rain alongside the old route 50. As they were coming back from their trip they heard on the radio about Joel's murder. They immediately called the sheriff with the information about the man that they had seen. They were really concerned because the Sherriff didn't take their name or phone number. So they called back a second time, in a call lasting less than a minute, to give the sheriff the personal information. This was another lead that the State Police was never aware of.

Bill Clutter said that it is their position that is if the State Police had had the information already described at the time that the investigation would have taken on an entirely different direction. Bill claims that they have asked the director of the State Police to do an internal review of this case and to consider new policies and procedures when dealing with local law enforcement in small communities because this case truly is a tragedy.

Bookmark-the below was updated 12:00 AM CST 10/29/03

Mark Harper explained to the board that Julie passed two polygraph tests. First one was by Dr. Honts who teaches at the FBI academy and a consultant for the U. S. Secret Service and she passed those tests unequivocally. The prosecution may tend to argue that the time of death was between 4:00 and 4:30. Their own witness, Dennis York, said he felt a pulse, and put it in his report that morning. The forensic pathologist said that Joel would have died within minutes from the time he was stabbed. Dennis York got there within minutes after being dispatched to the scene and he felt a pulse. Mark Harper stated that the time of death was approximately 4:30. Julie physically time wise could not have killed Joel. It was just impossible.

With that, Mark Harper thanked the board for time that they had given them and said thank you.

Diane Fanning then added that she had visited him in person and had a lengthy discussion with him face to face where he did confess to killing Joel.

The board if Diane had a tape recording of that session. She said no, that she wasn't allowed to bring a tape recorder to the visit. The board then asked if Mr.
Sells has expressed a willingness to give taped recorded or written declaration of his complicity in this crime. Diane answered that Sells has not expressed the willingness to her but he has to others. The board then asked if she was aware of such a witness declaration. Ms. Fanning said that the television show 20/20 has taped him and did an interview with him.

The board asked when Julie became a suspect. Mark gave several examples that illustrated that they made her a suspect that morning.

Mark answered that the Emergency room doctor that treated her the morning of Joel's murder was surprised that he wasn't called as a witness because the local police were walking around saying that she did it. Local individuals were listening to police scanners that morning heard the police say, "the bitch did it". We know that they got a search warrant that morning, and Mark said that he didn't know it, but according to Mr. Busch, that is a sign that they considered her a suspect. Mark declared, "and surely she should have been a suspect, because she was there. But why not look at anyone else?"

Question from the board: How much time elapsed between the offense and the filing of charges.

The answer: Three Years.

Question from the board: Is there any physical evidence that places Sells at the scene of the crime?

The answer: Alva Busch said that one thing that needs to be examined in this matter is the footprints on the paper and in Joel's blood on the back door glass. It appears that they don't have the footprints matched with anybody so he would say that there is a high probability that the footprint design is the perpetrators shoe design. He also said that the pattern of stab wounds on Joel's body is similar to other stabbings that Sells has done. The location of the body is significant to Mr. Busch. He asked why would a mother take the child headfirst out of bed and place him on the opposite side of the bed. It would make more sense that a perpetrator would do that to gain more time to do the stabbing.

Question from the board: "Ms. Fanning, Mr. Sells is convicted of murder for crimes in Texas and is under sentence of death. Is that correct? Is there a date set for execution?"

Diane Fanning: "That is correct. At this time there is not a date. His two appeals have not finished running it course."

Question from the board: "Mr. Sells is resisting the efforts of the state of Texas to cause his execution?"

Diane: "Yes, but I think it needs to be borne in mind that he did plead guilty to another capitol crime and in a plea agreement they gave him life so he seems to kinda be accepting the death sentence except that when appeals processes in death penalty cases get started, they sort of have a life of their own."

Question from the board: "Is it possible that Mr. Sells will continue to confess murders over a period of years in an effort to delay his execution?"

Diane: "To me that doesn't make a lot of sense. That has been said about the confession he made to me, but quite honestly sir, but if he wanted to delay his execution, why would he tell me. It doesn't make any sense. He told me, did he proceed to go and tell anyone else? There are a lot of law enforcement officials willing to listen to what he has to say and yet he wasn't seeking them out and proffering this confession. So to me that says that was not his purpose."

Mark Harper then informed the board that the trial court has ordered DNA testing of two hairs that was found at the crime scene. One was found in Joel's hand and was never tested. Another hair was found in the kitchen on a towel near where the knife was obtained. We know that that hair doesn't belong to Julie or Joel, and that was never brought up at trial. Mitochondrial DNA testing was not available at the time of the crime, but it was at the time of the trial and the prosecution said then that it could not be tested. There is DNA testing. Mark said that we are here because why should Julie spend another day in prison? She didn't do this crime and our experience the state continues to stall. On this evidence that we have presented, the states attorney has this evidence and to this day those witnesses have not been contacted. The DNA from Tommy Lynn Sells, as of just last Wednesday has not been obtained from the Texas Rangers. They're content to just let her sit, and we are here to just say enough!

The board asked when the DNA on the scene is to be compared with the DNA from Sells?

The answer: We have heard that could be up to eight months and it has been two months since the order for testing was issued.

Chairman Findley stated that "that evidence would be of great significance to the this board as I'm sure you are aware."

Mark Harper said that he totally agrees but it is our position that even if it doesn't come back to be Tommy Lynn Sells, then it would possibly mean that someone else was in that house, and Julie innocence does not rely on that DNA.

Chairman Findley asked if Mark Harper believe that no one other than Tommy Lynn Sells could be the murderer.

Mark Harper said that he was 90 - 95 percent sure. A lot of things clicked. From the photographs of the Crime scene, being at the trial, watching the 48 hours program on sells, the randomness and brutality of the murder, Reading Ms. Fanning's book, that sells said Julie was rude to him and that is why he did it, that witness said the stranger smokes and chews his fingernails, and the Texas Rangers said that he smokes and chews his fingernails. The prosecution at the trial fabricated this falsity that Julie had a fascination with the number 13. He stated emphatically that Julie has no interest with the number 13. "But you know who does?" Mark said, "That's right, Tommy Lynn Sells. He has a tattoo of the number 13 on the inside of his arm."

Diane Fanning was asked if Sells would be confessing to delay his execution. She stated that he has pleaded guilty to another murder and that he seems to have accepted his position. She also said that it doesn't make sense that he was trying to delay his execution because why would he tell her. She has no power to delay or affect his execution. So it make doesn't make sense that he would be trying to delay his execution by confessing to her.

Mark Harper then informed the board that there is DNA testing being done on two hairs taken from the scene. But why we are here is that why should Julie spend another day in prison when in our experience the state continues to stall. We know that the witnesses mentioned were never contacted and as of today, we know that the DNA from Tommy Lynn Sells has not been collected. When asked if he thought that Tommy Lynn Sells was the murderer, Mark replied that he was 90-95 percent certain based on the evidence that has come to light recently. As examples, he cited the witnesses that have come forward describing mannerisms that Sells displays, the tattoo of the number 13 on the inside of his arm, and reading Ms. Fannings books.

Bookmark-the below was updated 9:30 AM CST 10/29/03

A board member asked Mark Harper if Julie had fled the state at the time of indictment. Mark said no, that she was living in Indiana at the time and she fought extradition at the advice of her attorney's. They worked out a deal that Julie would give up her extradition fight in return for bond. Mark answered that she was following the advice of her attorneys, saying "Look at Illinois, it has the worst wrongful conviction rate in the country." The attorneys looked at the indictment and in the Lawyers opinion the prosecutor had no legal authority to pursue the indictment, and Julie was sitting in Jail at the time so she had little say. The board member then asked that if she were innocent, why would she not want to come to Illinois to clear her name. Mark answered that Julie wanted to clear her name but not to sit in jail, and again it was her attorneys not to come back to Illinois.

Alva Busch was asked if there were any fingerprints taken from the knife. Busch explained that no, there were no fingerprints developed from the knife and there was no latent prints developed in the case. That was one sign to him that the investigation focused on Julie from day one. He explained that the testing done sometimes is related to the case and the judgment of the Crime Scene Investigator. For example, if you were looking at this from the aspect of Julie being the perpetrator, then the DNA evidence is more important than developing fingerprints, because Julie lived in the house and her fingerprints would be all over everything. So that would tell you nothing. He believes that the lack of any fingerprints collected whatsoever suggests that they were pre-focused and they were looking for anything that would link her to this crime in their mind and theory of how this occurred and a lot of other stuff wasn't collected. Again he mentioned the shoeprint on paper beside the bed as a case in point. He said that the print needs to be put out on the table for all to see, and he has no problem working with the Illinois State Police or any other investigative agency. His search here is for the truth.

A board member wanted to know who the investigative personnel were on the case. Mr. Busch told him that CSI Caudell and John Lewis were the Crime scene investigators, Heidingsfelter was the forensic pathologist, and Jerry Pea of the Illinois State Police was the lead investigator. The board member asked Alva Busch if he had trained with CSI Caudell. He said yes, that they would have had the same training and that he considered him a good CSI.

Diane Fanning was asked if Sells gave specific information other than just confessing to Joel's murder. Diane said that Sell's told her he wore a sweatshirt with the hood drawstrings drawn tight around his head, just exposing his eyes. Sell's also told her that he stabbed Joel a number of times to "make sure the job was done" and left him on the floor. He said he ran into someone in the house and pushed her away to get out of the house. He went out into the Back yard and when she fell down, he went back to her to hit her in the head and then he left. Sell's claims that he broke a window in the house, but from the forensics, it appears that that may be in error, however Texas Ranger John Allen informed Diane that they have confirmed murders that Sells has done that he has gotten the point of entry wrong before because he has broken into a lot of places. Ranger Allen told her that he would consider it relevant that there was a broken window on the scene. Sells told her he used a knife from the kitchen. The board member asked if, excepting the broken window, the rest of the details matched up with evidence of the scene. Diane answered in the affirmative, saying that it matched Julie's account of that morning. She was then asked if the Illinois State Police has attempted to go to Texas to interview Tommy Lynn Sells. Diane said that to her knowledge, no-one from the Illinois State Police has interviewed Sells. She was then asked about the perceived rudeness from Julie to Sells, that if there were any other cases where such a minor affront would precipitate such a heinous act. Diane explained that as described by Rangers, that Sells would escalate from normal to murder very quickly. She gave several confirmed examples where he had done that. Sell's killed a man in Tucson Arizona because the man called him a punk. Diane believes that it was such a slight that caused Sells to kill the Dardeen family in Ina Illinois. A lot of his crimes were based on opportunity but a lot of others were based on sudden indignation and rage. And a lot of it was based on his perception and not in reality. His rationalizations for some his crimes are just appalling and he finds a way to blame them all on other people.

The question was asked why it was taking so long for the DNA to be tested. Mark Harper explained that as Julie's lawyers wanted to make sure that an independent lab do the testing, so the FBI is responsible and the State of Illinois has no control over there time frame. Mark reiterated that if the hair doesn't turn out to be Tommy Lynn Sell's and illustrated that there is other evidence that can prove Sells is the perpetrator. Bill Clutter stated that there are shoes that Sells was wearing in evidence and that it would take someone in law enforcement to obtain them to compare them with the shoe prints on the scene. Bill explained that they will not turn over evidence to a us as private individuals. He used that example to illustrate that there is more corroborating evidence waiting to process. He stated that it would be important that Illinois authorities reach out to Texas Ranger John Alan and spend as much time, at least as much as time as he has talking to the Rangers. Bill said that when Ranger John Alan saw the evidence his reaction was that if it was one of the confessions that the Ranger was investigating, that he would consider it a corroborated confession. The Texas Rangers are conservative about such things because they don't want a Henry Lucas type situation again. (Editors note: Henry Lucas was a convicted serial killer in Texas that confessed to crimes he didn't commit to get out of his Cell.) From Ranger Alan's perspective he would have put the new information in the corroborating column and Bill emphasized that they are very conservative in doing that.

At this time, the Chairman called the first portion of the testimony to a close, calling for a 5-minute recess.

Mr. Edward Parkinson

Mr. Parkinson thanked the board for the opportunity to be there although he said that it was a rather hurried preparation for this. He said he would like to point out that the conviction came down in March of 2002. The direct appeal was argued in Mt. Vernon 5th appellate district in early September just one month ago. The decision on that matter would not be rendered for a few weeks to 3 or 4 months. He stated that he brings that up because he thinks it rather unusual for this to be fast-tracked on such a grave question while the machinery is still in process. He continued to say that it appears from the petition that they are making a claim of actual innocence based upon a serial killer's statements to an author, Diane Fanning. A man who lives in a 6x 10 cell awaiting death in the state of Texas. They do have a remedy other than appeal by claiming actual innocence they may bring at the proper time in the circuit court a petition for post-conviction relief addressing those questions. Parkinson said he makes those observations because the appeal was presently pending and these matters are more properly addressed by the courts.

He continued to by saying that there are some questions that they had, one of which was why did it take 3 years to indict Ms. Rea. The indictment came down in the fall of 2000. Mr. Parkinson was the prosecutor, "the stupid idiot prosecutor as claimed by Diane Fanning although she's never talked to me or never met me, but I am that person. Why it took three years is because the then States attorney of Lawrence County had decided in early 2000 not to seek re-election. He had the assistance of the State Police for 2.5 years as well as the assistance of the attorney generals office in following up on all these leads. When the States Attorney announced he would not be running for re-election, he sought the assistance of the State's Attorneys Appelate Prosecutor. Parkinson stated that he is one of those prosecutors and the case was assigned to him. He said that he was the person that presented to the Grand Jury and also the lead prosecutor and that is why it took three years to get it indicted.

Prosecutor Parkinson went on stating that Joel Kirkpatrick was murdered in the supposed safety of his own bed in his mothers house in Lawrenceville in the early morning hours of October 13 1997. He was visiting her that weekend on a court arranged visit because Mr. Kirkpatrick had gained custody of Joel through a long protracted battle that went all the way through including the appellate court. That weekend was Julie's Weekend. That Monday, October 13 1997 was a school holiday, it wsa the celebration of Columbus day and so Julie asked her ex-husband if she could have an extra day which he granted because there was no school on Monday. The murder occurred in his bed between midnight and 4:30 AM. Parkinson stated that the petioners are correct when they say that there is no agreement that this murder occurred at or about 4:30. He went on to say that "We do agree from the evidence that she had between 12:00 Midnight, when her friend and her children left, until 4:30 sometime in that 4 hours or there abouts she committed the murder." Mr. Parkinson claimed that they produced at trial two crime scene technicians who were very experienced, a forensic blood spatter and staged crime expert, Rod Englert out of Portland Oregon. Also Dexter Bartlett, also a forensic crime scene expert. The state police had followed up on numerous leads. The trial consisted of various witnesses who found the body {and)varying versions of Julie Rea's story as to what occurred in her house that night, and they did vary from one story to the next. And they (the petitioners) are correct, it is a circumstantial case. But her statement that morning to her neighbors and following to the police is that she was asleep in her room, which, by the way is only 10 feet from Joel's bedroom with the doors open. She claims in her version to the Police was that she was awakened by Joel screaming and that immediately she jumped from her bed and ran into his room to find him not in his bed and as she stood there in the room and looked at the bed, from across the bed up against the wall, jumped up on the bed and onto her a dark figure, a male person of young age and he was dressed in dark colors and he had in her words a ski mask on and she described it with particularity over and over, that it was a ski mask, and it even had those little nubby balls on it indicating that it had been washed several times. She gave a description of a young person, a boy. She says that the person lept onto her and they grabbed one another and they wrestled throughout the house, down the hallway, through the kitchen, up against, slamming up against a screen door that led to the garage, knocking out some glass, out through the garage, and then the intruder elbowed out the glass that led outside. Once outside they wrestled again in the yard, he thumped her on the ground and then after all this he stood and faced her, removed his ski mask revealing his identity. She never entered the house again, never, by her own account. Never went back into the house, instead, she ran to her neighbor's screaming they have taken Joel, they've got Joel. She tried to get a neighbor to go back to the house to supposedly find what? If they've taken Joel. She never made one attempt to get back into that house. The knife was a steak knife from her own butcher block from her own ill-lit kitchen. In a butcher block that was up against and almost behind a toaster. When the crime scene technicians came of particular importance is that it was not disturbed or moved in other words, there was dust as you would have on any surface and that wasn't even moved. And so someone plucked that knife from the butcher block and that was the knife that killed Joel. Joel was stabbed thirteen times. The first of which went straight through his heart through quilts, blankets and through his clothing and into his heart. Why he ended up on the right side of the bed on the floor is because he struggled and fought and rolled to the right whereupon he was stabbed a total of 13 times. He bled out on the floor in a pool of blood in a three foot width section between the bed and the wall is where Julie claims that this young male intruder must have been standing before he leaped upon the bed an onto her. There is no trail of blood throughout the house, there is nothing disturbed in the way of chairs knocked over, things knocked, there is even magnets on the refrigerator not knocked off, kitchen table, dining room table, nothing. No trail of blood at all. The knife was placed, according to the experts that testified, was placed upon the floor in front of the bathroom between Joel and Julie's room. And the testimony from the experts was that through their experience it was placed there. You asked were there fingerprints, there were none, and the testimony was, that they, tha.. the explanation for that is that they would have been wiped. There were no fingerprints on this knife. Nobodies. That is significant. The fact that it had no ones fingerprints on it. There was testimony that the surface doesn't always lend itself to good fingerprinting anyway, but the point was that it was the experts opinion that it was placed there. Most significantly, I believe to the Jury, they did convict her, was that Julie heard him (Joel) according to her version, screaming, yet she ran when she heard his screams which means he is alive and being attacked. Something's happening to her 10 year old son. She immediately upon hearing the scream ran from here to that camera (motions to the camera) to his bedroom. 15 feet at the most and sees nothing going on. 13 Stab wounds and she sees nothing going on. He's already on the floor with his lifeblood emptying from his body and the intruder standing next to his body and there's no blood. There's no blood trail. So yes, it was a circumstantial case, I won't belabor the fact about that. But the Jury took about 5 hours, convicted Julie Rea of the murder of her son. (Stating Emphatically) Mothers kill their children! It's almost today as if that could never happen. It's almost as if you are asked to say to yourselves collectively, this is inconceivable, this Tommy Lynn Sells this serial murderer and I call serial confessor, who's been able to delay his execution now because he talks to Diane Fanning. We should believe him, and we should believe this author, who says that based upon her notes and talking to him…she started out as a pen pal to a convicted murderer on death row and now she's established a relationship where she talked to him one on one…did not get a written statement? She has notes, She put them into a book. And this is without reading much of it, this is how she describes Sell's "quote unquote" confession. Parkinson reads from Diane Fanning's book "The following is a combination of the facts of the crime and the details provided b Tommy Lynn Sells.
Sells traveled east onInterstate 64. An exit onto Route 50 sent him staight across I llinois to Lawrenceville near the Indiana border. Near this small town, October 13, 1997, felt like any other uneventful fall night."

Parkinson stopped to say that he wanted to read that again. He read, "Near this small town, October 13, 1997, felt like any other uneventful fall night." Parkinson went on to state that Joel was killed in the early morning hours of October 13th. Sunday night, Monday morning, not Monday night.
Parkinson read on: "Sells first met Julie Rea at a convenience store where, he said, she had treated him rudely. From that moment on, Sells was consumed with a desire for revenge."

Parkinson stopped reading to interject, "He traveled to Lawrenceville by car, according to his statement by her, and he did it on Monday night. Who are we to believe here today? Mr. Clutter says that he has an eyewitness, Alan Berkshire, who saw Tommy Lynn Sells there Friday night, October the 10th at the Lawrenceville Drive Inn. In his summery, in his affidavit to you, and the way he testified before you he says Tommy Lynn Sells was there Friday night at that Diner. If you read what his interview of Alan Berkshire actually in the materials, those people could not identify him as Tommy Lynn Sells. He kept trying to get them to get them to say it was, He tried to give them the description, and they said, and you can read it in his own prepared uh, remarks. They couldn't be sure. But was he there on the night after the murder or two nights before?"

Parkinson continued reading "Sells first met Julie Rea at a convenience store where, he said, she had treated him rudely. From that moment on, Sells was consumed with a desire for revenge. Anger drove him, fed him, led him straight to the front door of a house he'd never entered before. With great care, he broke the window, making no more noise than if he had crumpled up a sheet of cellophane."

Parkinson stopped reading to state, "There was no broken entry, front door window, or any other broken front entrance to this house at all."

"He slid toward the kitchen - such a wonderful place for a predator, always a weapon in easy reach. He picked up a knife and weighed its balance in his hand. he headed straight for the first bedroom door. There 10-year-old Joel Kirkpatrick dreamed his last dream.
Sells plunged the knife into Joel's body, oblivious to the blood that splattered in his face and on his clothes."

Parkinson interjected: "Julie wrestled with this guy all through the house and there's no blood on ,uh, smearing on her from grabbing an intruder or any trail, but this splattered onto his face and onto his clothes."

Reading on he recited, "A scream pierced the quiet of Julie Rea's home. It slapped her awake and lifted her out of bed. The killer left his victim lying at the foot of the bed."

Parkinson stopped reading to state: "He wasn't at the foot of the bed, he was over against the wall as he rolled away from his attacker, his mother, and that's where he was."

Reading on: "And he slipped away from the boys room and away from the approaching woman. She raced up the hall to her son. 'Joel? Joel?'
She looked through the doorway of the dark room and saw an empty bed. She turned from the room, frantic. That is when she spotted him. The hood of his sweatshirt was pulled up and the drawstring tightened across his face concealing his features.
She ran toward him, her personal safety irrelevant in the face of her fear for her son. She grappled with him."

Parkinson stopped reading to say, "You could go on and on, but that's, that's the style of writing that she says is a factual account of this guy on death row who won't give a statement to the police. He's never confessed to anybody. He has only given her interviews either through her pen pal relationship or in person and gave her some details and she from that she has written this chapter in the book."

Bookmark-the below was updated 10:30 PM CST 11/03/03

He went on to ask, " Now was Tommy Lynn Sells the person that was in Princeton Indiana? "Which if you across Vincennes, Lawrenceville is about 10 minutes from the Indiana border, you go across to the east, I think across Red Skelton Bridge I think, to Vincennes and then about 25 miles south, 25 or so there is a town called Princeton, Indiana. From the testimony you heard from the petitioners today, you would be lead to believe that Tommy Lynn Sells then on the 15th, the 15th of October purchased a bus ticket to Winnemucca Falls or Winnemucca Nevada and that description fit Tommy Lynn Sells. That's what they would have you believe. However, the description that went out those first few days was from Julie Rea. Julie is the person who described and gave the composite sketch to the State Police. And she had them draw an artists sketch of a young boy. A clean-shaven young boy. And if you look at the picture in the record it looks remarkably like Joel. But she described a young boy. And so the word goes out to the public that we're looking for a young person. They would have you to believe in their testimony and in their submission that that was Tommy Lynn Sells. Tommy Lynn Sells was born in June of 1964. He was 37, he was 33 years old in 1997 on the date of this murder. He was 33. And they put in their packet that they talked to Sandra Wirth who sold this bus ticket to a person matching the description; it matched the description of who Julie put out, a young boy. And they didn't tell you in their presentation, nor did they include the actual report and the interview of Sandra Wirth on October 16, 1997 between Jerry Pea and Sandra Wirth. And I won't read it all. Parkinson reads: "On October 16 1997 via 9:00 AM phone call, I", this is Master Sergeant Jerry Pea, "contacted Sandra Wirth via telephone. Wirth is the Greyhound terminal operator in Princeton, Indiana. Wirth stated that a white male, 17 or 18 years old", not 33 Parkinson interjects, "short, dark, crew cut hair, thin, with a camouflage jacket and a dark T-shirt and a stubble of beard, bought a bus ticket on October 15th." So who is this, this is incredulous that they expect you to think from their research, that Tommy Lynn Sells was there on Friday night scaring the wits out of Alan Berkshire and his kid. And then he, although he had been traveling by car, he then winds up for some reason across the river to the east and 25 miles south at a bus station. Gentleman and Ladies, I'm not going to take much longer, but this is a situation where a Jury has spoken. It's on appeal. A jury heard all the witnesses. They observed the demeanor of the witnesses. They found the defendant, Julie Rea, guilty of murder of her son. I submit to you that what the petitioners have submitted here today is a novel. A novel written by Diane Fanning, supported by serial killer, serial confessor who can get out of his 6x10 cell once in a while, to prolong or delay his death sentence. This is not evidence. This is not worthy of your consideration and certainly is not worthy of granting the clemency that she seeks. She should await the legal process to work its way through, and if they actually have evidence of someone else, that can be brought forward. They make it sound as though we've ignored everything. We've turned over every report that there ever was. Every report from the State Police. It took three years because they followed down every lead that was given them, some of by Julie's camp. Some of them by her then attorney, and they were all followed up. DNA does take I am sorry to say 6-8 months. It's sent to Quantico Virginia, FBI. It takes that long; I deal with that all the time with the State crime lab. But one delay is that Tommy Lynn Sells has not yet given his DNA sample. He agreed, then disagreed, and now we are waiting for him to agree. Maybe by today. Until we have the samples to send, it can't be done. I'm sorry it takes that long too, but I would agree, that would be a very significant piece of evidence that might even close this matter at least as to Tommy Sells. Thank you. Mr. Kirkpatrick would like to say a few words.

Bookmark-the below was updated 10:30 PM CST 11/04/03

Leonard Kirkpatrick
Mr. Kirkpatrick placed a framed photograph of Joel on the table before him, facing the board. He then began his address.

He thanked the board for the granting of his request to be heard today. Mr. Kirkpatrick began to read his statement.
I am here in opposition to the request for clemency being made by those on behalf of Julie Rea Harper, formerly Kirkpatrick. I am here on behalf of greater than 1200 people, who with just three weeks notice that we would be here today readily gave their signatures and with it their strong opposition to what is being asked of you. I am here on behalf of my family who have been forever robbed of Joel's life and all it promised to be. This is Joel's last school picture. (Touching the picture) I am here as a father who lost all his children and all their children for generations to come when my son was killed. I am here as a tax paying, union card carrying, registered voter, property-owning Illinois resident. I am here as a police officer. Most importantly I am here because Joel Craig Kirkpatrick is not here. Joel Craig Kirkpatrick was a 10 year old boy who was murdered on October 13 1997 by his mother. His mother was tried and convicted of 1st degree murder by a jury of her peers on March 4th 2002. The same jury that convicted her also found her eligible for an extended sentence because of the brutal and heinous nature of the crime she committed. She was sentenced on May 10 2002 to 65 years in the Department of Corrections by an elected circuit Judge of Lawrence County. There are those before you today on the convicted's behalf who are attempting to convolute the appearance of the careful and exhaustive investigation and prosecution that lead to where we are today. They are not here because they have exhausted all legal remedies as provided by law when legal redress is warranted. The 5th District Appellate Court having jurisdiction in this matter has not even given its ruling as to the relief asked for by the convicted. Those before you on the convicted's behalf are not here because of some proof of either newly discovered or previously neglected evidence that points her innocence. There was none, there is none, and the best that they can come up with is the purposefully and conveniently concocted story of the death row liar in Texas that came to their aid and attention by watching his biography on television. They have come to you with a suggestion that something was overlooked as regards the testing of two hairs found on Joel's hand and at the murder scene. Those hairs could not have been properly tested at the time of Joel's murder, as the technology did not exist to do so. That technology is now possible and the tests are currently being conducted on the hairs in question. The results of those tests are not yet known. But even before the results are known, the supporters of the convicted are asking you to make an arbitrary and unwarranted recommendation of clemency to the Governor of this great state. As you contemplate such a decision I beg you to consider what such an action would do to the victims of violent crime of this state. While this is not a capital case, the opposing side has constantly harped about a broken system of justice in Illinois. Supposedly referring to the actions of the former Governors pardoning of some and commuting of the rest of death row inmates. There is hardly a man or woman on the streets that I know who does not believe that the only reason George Ryan did what he did, was to divert attention from his own crooked dealings. I believe that it is most people's opinions that the only skin George Ryan really was concerned with was his own. The only thing broken about Illinois justice was George Ryan. And I thank God that he is gone. But what he did has brought great cause for fear to those of us who live with an already constant pain…

Chairman Findley gently interrupted to say, "Mr. Kirkpatrick, please confine your comments to this case, not on politics…"

Leonard answered that he would and continued reading.

I suppose you can't know what it is like to lose someone you love by murder, unless you have experienced it yourself. I would not want you to do so. But appealing from my own perspective I plead to you particularly to those of you who have children. What would it be like for you if in one day all your children came to violent end? All your children, your grandchildren and anyone who would come after. There will never be another for me. How many years in prison should the person who perpetrated that violence remain there? Should they leave after little more than a year? Should they be free before any legal examination has been made of the lawful conviction that rendered the punishment that they are now serving? Should they be free just because rosy and grandiose pictures are painted of their life? Should they be free because we have come to the place where political action groups with stated agendas are dedicated to the thwarting of justice through well thought out campaigns of manipulation and spin? Or should we say we owe it to the victims and to the people of this state to follow the careful and wisely constructed code of laws that this state has to govern criminal conduct in their litigations? I for one believe that we have good judges, wise and careful legislators who empower them with rules to follow and apply, and capable executive control to oversee the function and effective continual operation of the system as a whole. This situation is not one that begs for some wrong to be righted. To the contrary, the wrong was righted, as much as is humanly possible after nearly 5 long years of waiting, when the convicted was declared guilty by a jury of her peers.

I would ask this body and the Governor of our great state, to consider what they know of people. It's not admissible as evidence at trial to consider many of the telling actions of the convicted, but thinking people know what's what.

Bookmark-the below was updated 12:08 AM CST 11/06/03

The convicted refused cooperation after only preliminary interviews and investigation after Joel's murder. Innocent people do not lawyer up, when their children are killed. They willingly go to the grave themselves to do all they can to help the investigation and to expose the truth. The convicted has repeatedly changed the inconceivable story she concocted of Joel's murder in an attempt to make the circumstances of evidence fit her tale. Then when it came time to tell the only 12 people that could make a difference on her behalf, she pled the 5th. I know it is her constitutional right, but again we all know, innocent people have nothing to hide. The convicted has used absurd and baseless diversionary legal tactics from fighting extradition from Indiana, to questioning the legitimacy of the Appellate Prosecutor's Office. Innocent people don't need to protest too much. Truth speaks better for itself. The convicted has made much tadoo about her education: her new life, her hopes, and her dreams. (Leonard points to Joel's picture) I submit that a straight-A ten year old, whose life's goal was to be Bill Gate's boss, should be the focus of our sympathies and not a brutal killer's fantasy. The bandwagon of the convicted's supporters with press conferences, letter campaigns to the Governor, a website, and this present chicanery, they are purposefully distorting and diluting the evidence and circumstances of this case. The opposition would have you to believe that my suspicions as an angry ex-spouse were the sole basis of the investigation's focus on the convicted. They would have you believe that the accused gently, almost compassionately, tried to coax Joel's welfare from her imaginary intruder as he exited her home. They would have you believe that the same non-existent intruder savagely attacked her once she had exited the rear of the residence and left her brutally beaten. They would have you believe that that non-existent intruder, having taken the pains to conceal his identity with a mask, removed said mask purposefully exposing himself to the convicted before departing. They would have you believe that this illusion having taken the time to repeatedly stab and mutilate the body of my son, wounds the convicted in her pretended struggle, but walks calmly away, leaving her to testify as to his identity. They would have you believe that any mother suspecting harm had come to her only child would not check upon the child, but instead go to the neighbor's home for help. They would have you believe that when she got to the neighbor's home it was perfectly understandable that she would claim and abduction had occurred, and yet she had not said that she ever saw Joel leave the house. They would have you believe that her behavior when complaining of a "booboo" at the neighbor's to whom she went for help is normal for traumatized alleged attacked victims. They would have you believe, that upon hearing that Joel had come to harm, its normal that a mother would calmly wait separated from her child and concern herself with her own minor injuries, instead of Joel's fatal ones. They would have you believe that the convicted came to knowledge of the cause of death as demonstrated by her asking about the knife, on the way to the hospital, when she had not yet been told of the method of Joel's slaying. They would have you believe that the convicted's parents upon learning of Joel's murder, came to the scene in separate vehicles separated by quite some time, and that's understandable because you know how grandmas are. They would have you believe that the convicted's entourage is now possessed of a righteous spirit and noble just cause, all the time spewing forth a virulent hatred and steady stream of libelous inaccuracies regarding the whole tragedy. As to my suspicions of the convicted, your damn right, I think she did it, but I never knew I had such power and influence over the criminal justice system as to send someone to prison for 65 years just because I think they did it. If I possessed such powers we would not be here today. As to the convicted touching the phantom intruder, not fighting tooth and nail as she earlier had said throughout her house and into the back yard, I'm sure we'll soon learn she awakened and found the supposed intruder in her house and she gently invited him to tea before he left. As to the convicted being attacked and savagely beaten, evidence and testimony are irrefutable. Her wounds were superficial at best, and entirely consistent with self-inflicted injuries. The only plausible alternative to her injuries is that those involved in the concealment of the homicide also assisted her in the representation of a feigned attack. Besides, what mother if actually concerned for the welfare of her child would not fight to the death, to prevent the escape of the intruder had there actually been one. The story of the taking off of the mask even defies the most absurd logic. I see the opposition's inability to deal with this point as acknowledgement that it is incomprehensible in the nature of it. We are asked to swallow the tail that the mystery man whom she credits for 13 stab wounds that she perpetrated calmly walked away. If it happened the way she says it happened, any thinking person would reason she would be dead too. Through the years, as this story has been told and re-told, the mothers that I have talked to have unanimously said, what she says could not be. Otherwise when the so-called intruder left, why didn't she go back and look for Joel herself. The answer if obvious, because she knew Joel was dead, and that it was time for her to announce the deception. Besides, there wa