Man spent 17 years in prison for a crime his doppelganger committed

A man who spent 17 years in prison for a robbery he always said he didn’t commit has been formally cleared and awarded $1.1 million by the state of Kansas after investigators discovered another man who looked so much like him that witnesses couldn’t tell them apart.

Richard Anthony Jones was convicted for a crime in 1999 despite having an alibi. Multiple people testified he was at his girlfriend’s birthday party when the robbery took place, but a jury found him guilty regardless and he was sentenced to 19 years in prison.

A doppelganger was finally found

Jones never stopped fighting to clear his name. His breakthrough came when attorneys working with innocence organizations tracked down another man, Ricky Lee Amos, who bore a striking resemblance to Jones.

People who had been involved in the original case reportedly struggled to tell the two men apart when shown photos of both side by side.

Amos also had connections to the location where the robbery took place and matched details witnesses had provided at the time. When those same witnesses were shown photos of both men, they could no longer confidently identify Jones as the person responsible.

Jones was released in June 2017 after 17 years behind bars.

The payout

After his release, Jones sought compensation under a Kansas law designed for people who have been wrongly convicted. The state awarded him $1.1 million along with a certificate of innocence formally clearing his name. His conviction records were expunged and he was granted access to counseling and healthcare benefits.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt confirmed the case met the requirements of the state’s mistaken-conviction statute.

Despite losing nearly two decades of his life, Jones reportedly bore no resentment toward Amos. His attorney Alice Craig said her client did not hold it against him personally. 

“It’s not Ricky’s fault that this happened,” she said.

Amos was never prosecuted. By the time Jones was exonerated, the statute of limitations had expired.

READ MORE: 

 

Read more about...