Lee Jones

Repeatedly confronted by his mother, 12-year-old Michael Roop finally admitted that a family friend had raped him on a recent trip to Myrtle Beach in South Carolina.

Michael's confession wasn't a surprise. For weeks after his return home his mother had been telling him that "he had to tell the truth and that "he needed counseling because of "what happened to him at the hands of the friend, Lee Jones."

She was suspicious, she'd later tell police, not because a grown man wanted to take a 12-year-old to the beach alone nor because Michael acted any differently after returning, but because of rumors she'd heard that Mr. Jones had "messed with other boys" in a tiny, isolated town in West Virginia called Gauley Bridge. Mr. Jones lived there and up until a few months before the beach trip, so did Michael.

According to Michael, the questions from his mother started the minute he returned home and didn't stop until he confessed that Mr. Jones had fondled him and forced him to have oral sex in their hotel room.

And while Michael's mother seemed anxious to know if anything had happened to Michael, it's difficult to piece together how long she waited before telling anyone. The trip was in late June, but social services in North Carolina didn't launch an investigation until the middle of October, after receiving a report from a counselor at Michael's school (Mrs. Roop later told a state social worker she'd reported the allegation to his counselor a few weeks before). A social worker interviewed Michael and his mother and as required by law, reported the allegation to the police.

From there, the case was assigned to Len Sloan, a detective in Myrtle Beach who said at trial that he had no experience investigating sex crimes or child abuse claims. His case notes show he had trouble pinning down details in Michael's story and he never interviewed Michael because his department wouldn't pay his travel expenses.

But still, when a prosecutor in Myrtle Beach expressed doubt about Michael's claims and whether they had enough evidence, Mr. Sloan assured him that other people found the boy to be credible (the social worker, for example, told Mr. Sloan he believe Michael's claims). He then pressed for a court order to bring Mr. Jones back to Myrtle Beach to face charges.

Meanwhile, in Gauley Bridge, the West Virginia State Police were busy building a case of their own. Within days of learning of Michael's accusation, they located nearly a half-dozen other witnesses-mostly young men--also claiming that Mr. Jones had raped them. By the time he was arrested in early February, 1998, police had located just under a dozen accusers with claims of sexual abuse spanning nearly fifteen years.

The scandal rocked Gauley Bridge, dividing friends and neighbors. The story gained statewide coverage and after Mr. Jones' eventual conviction, wire stories about the case were picked up by the New York Times and the Washington Post. And while the media put the high-profile case under an intense light, there are few indications that reporters ever questioned the weight of the evidence that was mounting against Mr. Jones.

Many Gauley Bridge residents did question the evidence, however. Mr. Jones was a well known figure in town, but not just because he was only one of about 750 living there, but because he was also their chief of police.

“To a large degree, you’re relying upon the words of these victims,� Special Prosecutor Kristin Keller told the jury at Lee Jones’ trial. She didn’t have any physical evidence. And except for one witness, whom even the state now admits lied at trial, she didn’t have anyone who could corroborate any of the accuser’s claims of sexual abuse. That left her with, as she told the jury, just the “victims� themselves.

In West Virginia, that’s largely okay. Courts here will generally instruct juries that they can find a defendant guilty without any corroboration of the victim’s story when it comes to sex crimes. Still, the prosecution is required to prove the charges and the police are expected to, at the very least, make sure there is some truth to the allegations.

In the case of Lee Jones, that didn’t always happen. After a nine-month investigation by Where Doubt Remains that included a review of thousands of case documents, video and audio tapes and dozens of interviews, what follows is the first in-depth look at why Lee Jones’case and why his guilt should be doubted—starting with the grand jury.

Charges dropped, but new ones added

In the spring of 1998, Special Prosecutor Kristen Keller and then Sgt. Scott VanMeter of the State Police presented 53 charges against Mr. Jones to a Fayette County grand jury, six or seven of which they said occurred from 1983 through the middle of 1985. Then, they found out Mr. Jones didn't move to Fayette County until July 1985.

Instead of going to trial without the first six charges –which happened to part of a group of more serious crimes Mr. Jones was charged with—transcripts show that Ms. Keller went back to the grand jury to get a new indictment. But this time, in place of the earlier charges she could no longer bring against Mr. Jones, Ms. Keller added at least six new charges after 1985 to coincide with his arrival in the county. Mr. VanMeter explained, according to a transcript of the proceedings, that simply, "The dates were off..."

The first grand jury was told that the state wasn't charging Mr. Jones with all the crimes they believed he committed, which could explain where the new charges the state added with the second grand jury came from. But, still, the defense argued at a pretrial hearing that the morphing indictment violated state law and even the state constitution--noting that the second time around, Mr. VanMeter didn't present any evidence to support his claims, particularly, the new ones the state added post-July 1985.

But the judge decided that Mr. Jones' attorneys waited too long to complain, and the trial went forward on all charges (by then, there were 54). The state presented its case first, with a 14-year-old boy who had a history of making abuse claims and then backing away from them as their star witness.

Michael Roop, a key state witness, was the first to accuse Mr. Jones of sex abuse—he’s also the first to say he lied and that it never happened. Not long after the trial was over, he told Mr. Jones’ attorneys in a sworn deposition that his mother threatened to lock him in his room and never let him out if he didn’t say that Mr. Jones had raped him.

“She’s had things against Lee…� Michael told the attorneys, according to a transcript of his deposition. “He put her in a mental home,� referring to an incident in which Mr. Jones, responding to an emergency call, found Michael’s mother on her balcony, naked and screaming hysterically. She was taken away in an ambulance and later involuntarily committed by her husband to hospitals and treatment centers for six months.

According to the deposition, Michael’s mother fed him details of sexual abuse that he believed she had suffered herself as a child, and told him to repeat them when questioned by the police and at trial.

Michael told the attorneys that he came to them because he wanted to finally tell the truth. “I just—I just knew it was wrong after I sat here thinking about it for a long time. I was sitting thinking about it after it happened , and I realized it was wrong, and I didn’t know what to do…� he said, according to the deposition transcript.

Ms. Keller points out, however, that Michael’s story didn’t change until he was returned to West Virginia to live with his father—a friend of Mr. Jones and a man Michael accused at trial of beating him. She told Where Doubt Remains she’s neither surprised nor swayed by Michael’s sudden reversal.

“We look at recantation as just another part of prosecuting a case,� she said. “As a child witness, it’s something we’d expect,� again pointing out that Michael was now in what she believed was a “closed environment.�

But Michael’s also taken back the allegations he made against his father, saying in the deposition that his mother forced him to make those up, too (not to mention that none of the adults in his life, including his teachers and principal, ever saw him with the “blackedâ€? eyes he claimed at trial his father gave him at least once a month for years).  And there is other evidence to suggest that Michael’s story wasn’t his own.

Just before Mr. Jones was arrested early in 1998, Mr. VanMeter traveled to North Carolina to interview Michael. Though the State Police attorneys have refused requests for access to their files on Lee Jones (they say they've turned over everything to the new prosecutor handling the case, who didn't respond to requests for comment), Where Doubt Remains obtained a copy of the interview tape.

On it, Mr. VanMeter asks Michael if he knows of any other boys that Mr. Jones may have abused.

Michael answers “I think,� and then turns to his mother, who is sitting behind him on a couch. “Mom, didn’t you say my cousin Adam?�

“I didn’t say. You did,� Mrs. Roop answers.

“Somebody said,� Michael replies, “you said that they visited Adam because Lee did this to Adam, too, didn’t you?�

“I didn’t say nothing,� his mother says.

“Uh-huh, because you were talking about—“

“Just answer his questions,� she snaps, cutting him off.

A red truck

In addition to arguing with his mother about where the information he was giving police came from, Michael also got some details key to the state's charges against Mr. Jones wrong.

At trial, Michael told the jury that in 1996, Mr. Jones molested him in a red, Dodge Ram truck that he had recently purchased. The state indicted Mr. Jones for raping Michael in that truck, but according to the title documents, the truck wasn't purchased until just a few weeks before Michael left for North Carolina—in 1997. Ms. Keller told the jury that Michael was probably wrong about the red truck. She suggested that Michael's age made it difficult for him to remember exact details.

However, when it came to Mr. Jones’ cars, Michael was something of an expert. At trial, he accurately recalled the year, make and model of each vehicle Mr. Jones owned since the two had met in the early 1990s. On the taped interview he did with Mr. VanMeter, he's sure of the details--noting that Mr. Jones often let him drive his cars when the two were alone.

None of it mattered to the jury, though. They still convicted Mr. Jones for raping Michael in a truck that he didn’t own.

The truck wasn't the only thing that Michael got wrong. During the investigation, he told the police, at least according to police reports and affidavits, that he and Mr. Jones stayed on the fifth floor—room 505—of the Tropical Seas South, a motel in Myrtle Beach (at trial, he denied ever telling the police that). But Michael never stayed in room 505.

How Michael Roop came to believe that he stayed in room 505 of a motel in Myrtle Beach is still a mystery, because according to police records and interviews, 505 was actually the room that Mr. Jones stayed in during a second trip to Myrtle Beach in August 1997--a trip that Michael wasn't on.

Still, according to records from the Myrtle Beach police department, Michael told police he had stayed in room 505. Mr. Sloan, a detective in Myrtle Beach, told the jury he checked out Michael’s story and found evidence to support it – receipts from the hotel showing that Mr. Jones stayed in room 505 that summer. He told the jury that the receipts “corroborated� Michael’s story.

But really, they didn’t. The receipts note the trip was for one night, Michael told police he and Mr. Jones stayed through a weekend; the dates of the booking are a Monday and Tuesday in August, Michael and his mother had both previously said it was a Friday and Saturday in late June or July; the receipt lists three adults on the trip while Michael had told police he was alone with Mr. Jones.

Now, Mr. Jones has never denied taking a trip with Michael to Myrtle Beach that summer, but despite what Mr. Sloan told the jury, the receipts clearly don’t “corroborate� Michael’s story and what’s more, Mr. Sloan likely knew that when he testified.

His case notes from December 1997 indicate he was told there was a problem with the dates. He went to the trouble of having Michael interviewed again in January 1998 to clear things up, but this time, according to Mr. Sloan’s notes, Michael was less sure than before about how many nights he had stayed in Myrtle Beach.

The prosecution also noted at trial that at one point, Mr. Jones had planned to bring another adult on the trip and that the receipt, if it was assumed to indicate the number of guests book as opposed to the number stayed, would’ve supported Michael’s story. However, all testimony at trial and all police reports are consistent on one point about the hotel – Mr. Jones didn’t arrange a room for the trip with Michael until the two were already in Myrtle Beach, after it was clear it would only be the two of them.

The jury never heard about Mr. Sloan’s trouble nailing down the dates of the Myrtle Beach trip, or why Michael reported the room number of trip he wasn’t on. Neither did the South Carolina judge who issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Jones based on an affidavit from Mr. Sloan that said “the boy reports…they stayed in room 505.�

Mr. Sloan didn't respond to questions about his testimony and the affidavit, neither did officials in the Myrtle Beach police department.

His reason for lying? Revenge. Mr. Jones, as part of his duties as a police officer, had once testified against Mr. McCallister in another trial. He now says in a 2005 affidavit that State Police troopers and Ms. Keller, the prosecutor, told him what to say.

In the affidavit, Mr. McCallister says that state police troopers paid him $100 to talk for an hour and fed him details about the case. “They wanted me to say that I witnessed Jarrod Thompson being molested and to make up things and say that it also happened to me. … They also told me the younger the victims they could get on the stand the better.�

He also said in the affidavit that Ms. Keller brought all of the witnesses in the case together in her office, before the trial. “She interviewed us all at the same time in the same room, to make sure our testimonies were the same,� he says. Ms. Keller and the new prosecutor handling the case strenuously deny that accusation. She told Where Doubt Remains recently that it “never happened.�

Mr. McCallister also claims that Ms. Keller told all of the witnesses to act as though Mr. Jones abused them so frequently, that they were numb to the effects. “She said that would have a shock value to the jury,� he says in the affidavit.

The state, meanwhile, has sought to distance itself from Mr. McCallister. While denying each and every allegation that he levels in his affidavit, they also note in court documents that Mr. Jones’ attorneys successfully proved at trial that Mr. McCallister was lying.

Ms. Keller also says that Mr. McCallister was never important to her case. However, he was the only witness she had that corroborated any of the accuser's claims. And, she did choose to call him as a witness and used some of the limited time she was alloted for closing arguments to remind the jury of his testimony. Also, just months before the trial began, she obtained a new, nine-count indictment against Mr. Jones based on statements from Mr. McCallister. Those charges were never pursued.

Other witnesses against Mr. Jones told the jury wildly inconsistent and contradictory tales of abuse.

Jarrod Thompson, for example, said at trial that he was molested by Mr. Jones “every weekend� for nearly a decade. Adam Roop told the jury the same, but both also said they were always alone with Mr. Jones. His defense attorney points out the obvious – they can’t both be telling the truth.

When confronted with this at trial, Jarrod changed his story to being molested at least once a month. Adam changed his story, too, also saying it happened only once a month. At another point during the trial, Jarrod changed his story again, this time claiming to be molested by Mr. Jones every other weekend.

But earlier in the trial, Jarod, now 22-years-old, told the jury that he spent every weekend with his friend H.B. Clark, another witness against Lee Jones. The trial transcript shows that when he realized this was a contradiction, he changed that part of his testimony, too.

The contradictions in Jarrod’s testimony don’t end there.

Jarod told the jury that he told his mother of Mr. Jones’ abuse in 1996, but that he didn’t want her to tell anyone and the she continued to allow him to be alone with Mr. Jones. But according to the transcript and police records, Jarod told Mr. Van Meter during the investigation that he only told his mother of the abuse a week before – in 1998.

Jarrod’s father also testified at trial that during the Saturdays Jarrod claimed to have been with Mr. Jones, he was coaching Jarrod in a little league football team in the nearby town of Pratt.

And though both Jarrod and Adam claimed to have spent a lot of time alone with Mr. Jones, at trial, they couldn’t remember some of the most basic details of his various homes.

Jarrod claimed to have been in Lee Jones’ city-owned apartment every weekend for years, but when pressed at trial, he said he didn’t know that Mr. Jones had a roommate – Jarrod’s cousin. Jarrod also didn’t know that during the times he claimed to be alone with Mr. Jones in the city-owned apartment, the apartment had no electricity.

Adam told that jury that Lee Jones molested him in a house on “Conley Hill� with two bedrooms and a full basement. In reality, the house Adam claimed to have been molested in had only one bedroom, and no basement.

Working under cover?

Under the influence of alcohol and driving on a suspended license, Golden Tolliver drove her car into a creek in Gauley Bridge after hitting some black ice.

H.B. Clark told Gauley Bridge police officer Gerald Proctor that after going to the state police barracks, Ms. Tolliver overheard some troopers talking about the Lee Jones investigation. She’d later tell an officer with the Gauley Bridge Police Department that she was promised her citation for the accident--which she feared might lead to jail time--would go away if she helped the investigation. So she decided to secretly record a conversation with Mr. Clark, in an attempt to get him to admit that Mr. Jones had raped him. But he wouldn’t—at first.

On the tape, Mr. Clark tells Ms. Tolliver that “Lee never touched me,� and later “the mother f----er never touched me, not that I can recall, I mean, you know.�

But not long after that tape was made and shortly before Mr. Jones was arrested, Mr. Clark’s story drastically changed. After an argument with Ms. Tolliver, she had him arrested by the State Police for domestic battery. The next day, Mr. Clark gave them a statement that said Mr. Jones had once fondled him. State Police attorneys, however, said their records division can't find anything on Mr. Clark's arrest and it's not clear where the case went after Mr. Clark gave his statement.

Also, Ms. Tolliver wasn’t the only one to secretly record Mr. Clark. Gauley Bridge Police Officer Gerald Proctor, did, too—drawing the fire of the special prosecutor and the state police.

Gerald Proctor had been friends with Mr. Jones since he started working weekends for Gauley Bridge as a police officer. When he heard rumors that the State Police were investigating Mr. Jones for sex crimes, Mr. Proctor began investigating on his own, starting with H.B. Clark.

The two had a conversation after Mr. Clark was arrested by state troopers for domestic battery. It was secretly recorded by the dashboard camera in Mr. Proctor's car. In the tape, Mr. Clark claims that the state police were trying to bribe his girlfriend into finding young men who'd claim they'd been raped by Mr. Jones.

“She said ‘If you know anything, I need you (sic) tell me, because, you know, I could do six months in jail,’� Mr. Clark tells Mr. Proctor on the tape. “'You know, I could help ‘em out, you know I’ll get my driver’s license back and I won’t have to go to jail.’ You see, that’s what she said Trooper Wheeler said to her.�

But instead of giving the tape to the State Police, Mr. Proctor turned it over to Mr. Jones.

“The prosecution was trying to frame him, which I knew that, and I knew if I gave them that tape that tape would no longer exist,� Mr. Proctor told Where Doubt Remains.

The state found out about the tape nearly six months later and from there, things got tricky for Mr. Proctor. According to grand jury transcripts, Mr. VanMeter told jurors he believed Mr. Proctor committed a crime by not turning the tape over to them. Mr. Procotor was forced in front of the grand jury himself, even though he was already listed as a defense witness. And then coincidentally, he ended up the subject of two separate law enforcement investigations.

One was a federal grand jury that was investigating if Gauley Bridge properly spent federal grant money used to pay Mr. Procotor’s police salary. As far as he can tell, Mr. Proctor said, federal prosecutors believed that he and the town were forging his work hours, paying him for time never worked. Mr. Thomas, the former mayor, was also forced to testify in front of the same grand jury. No charges were ever filed against either of them.

Mr. Procotor was also sued by the State of West Virginia for failing to obey a court order to pay child support. The problem was Mr. Proctor had never been ordered by any court to pay support, wasn’t divorced and still lived with his wife and two kids. They were still forced into court to defend the lawsuit, Mr. Proctor said, and it was ultimately dismissed because the state couldn't produce any evidence.

Mr. Jones’ new  attorneys have raised a host of issues regarding the prosecutor, Kristen Keller: her frequent references to Mr. Jones being a homosexual (though he says he’s not);  calling his trial attorneys the “Charleston lawyers,â€? referring to them as a legal “dream teamâ€? and suggesting they intentionally frightened witnesses on the stand to confuse them; and the use of testimony she knew wasn’t true.

Ms. Keller denies their allegations and the state, in general, defends her. For example, in recently filed court documents, the state said that because Mr. Jones was convicted of molesting boys, he was therefore “by definition� gay and that Ms. Keller’s remarks didn’t hurt Mr. Jones’ right to a fair trial.

However, it’s not the first time Ms. Keller has been accused of misconduct during a trial. West Virginia’s Supreme Court has reversed only a handful of cases because of prosecutorial misconduct—twice because of Ms. Keller.

“I’ve raised plenty of prosecutorial misconduct claims in my career,� Mr. Jones attorney, Robert Rosenthal told Where Doubt Remains. “You don’t win a lot of them. Courts often say yes, the prosecutor was over the top, but it was harmless error ... imagine how far you have to go to say not only that what she did was improper but the error was not harmless ... that's pretty far to go. And for that to happen repeatedly, shows, I always think that shows desperation.�

Ms. Keller is quick to point out, however, that though some of her cases have been reversed, each time the defendants were retried and convicted again. And while that may be true, in at least one of the retrials, the Supreme Court noted that she, again, made inappropriate comments during her closing argument.

But so far, no West Virginia courts have agreed with Mr. Jones when it comes to his claims of prosecutorial misconduct or any of the other issues he’s raised on appeal. Not even the new evidence – the recantations of Michael Roop and Michael McCallister – have swayed them.

Mr. Jones’ most recent appeal was rejected by a circuit court in West Virginia in November. That decision will be appealed to the state’s Supreme Court and barring a win there, Mr. Jones’ attorneys will move back to federal court.

At least there, Mrs. Jones told Where Doubt Remains, they’ve been given a sign of hope to cling to. In his decision allowing Mr. Jones attorneys to start the appeals process over in state court (the case was returned to state court in 2005 because of a legal technicality relating to Mr. McCallister's recantation), a federal magistrate said “the Court finds that Michael McCallister’s statement, in conjunction with the evidence of record, lends support to (Mr. Jones’) challenge to the sufficiency of evidence and his claims of prosecutorial misconduct.â€?

For now, Mrs. Jones said, they’re just hoping the magistrate isn’t retired by the time their appeals reach him again.