Lee Jones

“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.