IL - Joel Kirkpatrick, 10, murdered, Lawrenceville, 13 Oct 1997

After reading the evidence, do you feel Julie has been wrongly convicted?

  • Yes

    Votes: 58 59.8%
  • No

    Votes: 18 18.6%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 21 21.6%

  • Total voters
    97
Storm, this is terrible - I found this after the TV show was aired. Not too far from my home either.

Just wondering if anyone has tried to get someone like Gloria Allred - or Barry Sheck - someone with a name and some influence to get this aired often? Too bad Nancy Grace can't do something about this. Small town coverups are one thing but not contacting the witnesses for a composit drawing - no follow up!!! I read your link about the author, she sounds convinced Sells committed this murder too. Competent testing could have that hair tested, if the glass from broken window was kept, there should be blood on it? If there was a coverup by LE here, it is possible the evidence was not gathered or was destroyed...Enough in your face publicity should bring some action.

Justice must be done for the murder of this little boy and freedom for this mother.
 
This is just awful. I hope there is more to this story than what I have read, but based on what I have read I can't imagine how someone could not have doubt that Julie Rae committed this murder.

Not that Julie Rae would have had much of a happy life anyway after her son being murdered, but an innocent person should not be sitting in prision right now for a crime they did not commit. This needs to be looked at again, in depth, by an unbiased party.
 
Juliana said:
This is just awful. I hope there is more to this story than what I have read, but based on what I have read I can't imagine how someone could not have doubt that Julie Rae committed this murder.

Not that Julie Rae would have had much of a happy life anyway after her son being murdered, but an innocent person should not be sitting in prision right now for a crime they did not commit. This needs to be looked at again, in depth, by an unbiased party.
I feel as you do - unless I am missing something from the trial that was more direct evidience that what I have just read in the articles. Reminds me of Stephanie and Micheal Crow with the hairnot being tested.
 
Julie Rae Harper may be getting out of prison.

An Illinois appeals court judge vacated Julie Rea Harper's 2002 conviction for the murder of her ten-year-old son. And although she's always claimed her innocence, it's a technicality that may get her out. A technicality over the appointment of the special prosecutor in the case.

Her parents, Jim and Jane Rea, are thrilled with the news. And got an extra surprise when their daughter called them from prison.

http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=1970576&nav=3w6oODjJ


Not much here other that what is posted. I expect more in the news in the following days. All I can say is YES YES YES.
 
This is really good news. From what I have read, I just don't believe she is guilty. Hopefully a new trial will bring new evidence to light.
 
"I followed the woman from the convenience store, to a driveway she pulled into. And I hung around several hours, till it come wee hours of the morning. Then I went into this house . . . I go to the first bedroom I see . . . I don't know whose room it is and, and, and, and I start stabbing."

So begins an 86-page transcript of serial killer and former St. Louis resident Tommy Lynn Sells, as interviewed two years ago in a Texas prison by an Illinois prosecutor. He was there to investigate Sells' claim to the stabbing death in 1997 of Joel Kirkpatrick, 10, in Lawrenceville, Ill.

Joel's mother, Julie Rea Harper, had been convicted of the killing - despite her story, from the beginning, that a masked intruder stabbed her son in his bed, struggled with her and disappeared.

Harper's conviction was overturned last year on a technicality. Her new trial is set for July, freshly opening an old wound in Lawrenceville, a small downstate town near the Indiana border. A judge has moved the trial to Carlyle, in Clinton County, to avoid local publicity.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...15B78FC3E91F7C1F8625709D001C29B8?OpenDocument
 
Sounds like he is giving good details in his confession.

If mom is innocent she has been thru unimaginable hell.
 
i followed her thread a while ago and read up on the case and from what i was reading i got the feeling the town she lived in wanted to place blame on someone and deicided to put the blame on her i hope the new trail frees her
 
I'm undecided in this case. Tommy Sells is a seriously bad dude. I am glad that she's getting a new trial though.
 
bumping this thread. Julie's new trail is slated to start Tuesday, July 11, in Carlyle, Ill. In this new trial, the judge has ruled that Tommy Sells' alleged confession to the crime can be used as a part of her defense.
 
detectivewannabe said:
bumping this thread. Julie's new trail is slated to start Tuesday, July 11, in Carlyle, Ill. In this new trial, the judge has ruled that Tommy Sells' alleged confession to the crime can be used as a part of her defense.


Thanks. Definately one to watch!!
 
detectivewannabe said:
Opening statements started this morning.
Thanks for the updates.I hope you keep them coming.I read about the case and it sounds like a real injustice was done.



Paperhanger
 
I was just reading the interview that Tommy Sells gave to 20/20 and I think there's a pretty good possibility that he did indeed commit this murder.
 
paperhanger44z said:
Thanks for the updates.I hope you keep them coming.I read about the case and it sounds like a real injustice was done.



Paperhanger
I just want everyone to keep an open mind. Just because convicts "confess" to other crimes; doesn't mean it is the truth. Some of them just want the attention, others are trying to delay the execution process, which by the way is what the prosecutors in this case believe. I'm not saying he didn't do it and she did and I'm not saying he did do it and she didn't. I do question his confession. I have to look further, but, if I remember correctly, Tommy Lynn Sells says he was in the house to kill Julie because she pissed him off earlier in a convience store. But in another place I read he said it was a burgulary gone bad. Like I said, I have to look again and get my sources correct. I don't have time tonight, but I will be back tomorrow. If you want somemore information on jury selection and today's opening you can go to www.14wfie.com and under TODAYS HEADLINES there's a link titled Did mother kill son over custody issue?

dwb
 
detectivewannabe said:
I just want everyone to keep an open mind. Just because convicts "confess" to other crimes; doesn't mean it is the truth. Some of them just want the attention, others are trying to delay the execution process, which by the way is what the prosecutors in this case believe. I'm not saying he didn't do it and she did and I'm not saying he did do it and she didn't. I do question his confession. I have to look further, but, if I remember correctly, Tommy Lynn Sells says he was in the house to kill Julie because she pissed him off earlier in a convience store. But in another place I read he said it was a burgulary gone bad. Like I said, I have to look again and get my sources correct. I don't have time tonight, but I will be back tomorrow. If you want somemore information on jury selection and today's opening you can go to www.14wfie.com and under TODAYS HEADLINES there's a link titled Did mother kill son over custody issue?

dwb


No, Tommy Sells says he went into that house because he ran into Julie (with her son) at a convenience store and she treated him badly. He followed them home that very minute from the store and sat in front of their house. He later went back. He said he went into a room, saw a body and started "cutting/stabbing" and heard someone coming down the hall. He said she fought with him and he pushed her and she came back at him again. He said he would have stabbed her, but he had already left the knife behind, so he got the hell out of there. He was then asked if he felt bad that she was being held responsible for a crime he may have committed and he said hell no, that he was happy about it because of the way she treated him and she could go to hell (or something of the sort). This doesn't sound to me like a guy who wants to just be a nice guy and get the lady out of trouble. He also said that sometimes killing someone close to the person he hated was even better than killing the person because it hurts them more.

I'm still on the fence here, but this looks like reasonable doubt to me.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
4,426
Total visitors
4,529

Forum statistics

Threads
621,912
Messages
18,441,324
Members
239,802
Latest member
stone-turner
Back
Top