Monday, November 7, 2011
Thursday, November 3, 2011
I Once Again Oppose the Impending Execution of Hank Skinner
Hank Skinner's case will constitute the last of the six cases I consider America's Executioner. One problem I have completing the book is not knowing what will happen to Hank Skinner six days hence. I find myself experiencing two diametrically opposed beliefs. First, I can't imagine that Texas would actually execute someone whom the Supreme Court just declared had a right to sue for the DNA testing. I just can't imagine that. On the other hand, I think that Texas so badly wants Skinner dead that they would stoop that low.
I can't resolve those two certain, contradictory feelings. I simply must wait for a resolution before I publish the book. In the meantime, I certainly don't want to stand mute with respect to the impending execution of Hank Skinner. Two years ago, I cut my blogging teeth with a ten-part series on Skinner's case. Events since have only solidified my position. I'll once again make my position clear and easy to understand.
Test the damn DNA.
Now without further ado, Chapter 7 of my impending book.
America's Executioner
Rick Perry's Betrayal of Executive Clemency
HANK SKINNER
New Years Eve, 1993: Pampa, Texas
Elwin Caler had been stabbed multiple times in the chest and stomach. He was alive but mortally wounded. The neighbors found him sitting on their front porch. He was wearing nothing other than a pair of bloody underwear. The neighbors called for help.
Elwin died at the hospital before he could reveal the identity of his killer. He was Twila Busby's son, twenty-two years old, six-foot six-inches tall, 215 pounds, and mentally challenged. He lived at the house next to the one where he was found. His blood trail led back home.
There, on Twila's front porch, the police found a knife and some bloody gauze. There were no fingerprints on the knife. Perhaps someone had attempted to clean the knife with the gauze. Perhaps someone had cut himself and was attempting a bandage.
There was a bloody handprint on the front storm door. Investigators would later remove the glass pane from the door, cover the handprint with a sheet of stiff paper, and tape the edges of the paper to the glass. They would secure the glass and its handprint in the evidence vault.
Beyond the door were bloody boot prints originating from the copious bloodstains on the living room floor. Twila Busby's body lay face down in that blood, her head smashed fourteen times by an ax handle. The handle leaned against the couch nearby. Whoever swung the ax handle did so with considerable force. Twila's skull was fractured. Bits of skull were driven all the way to the middle of her brain.
The overhead light was shattered. It may have been an unintentional victim of the arcing ax handle. Broken glass was mingled with the blood below.
The medical examiner would later determine that Twila had been strangled, by two hands, before she was bludgeoned. Her larynx was crushed and one of her two hyoid bones broken. Whoever strangled her must have had strong hands.
Twila's pants were unzipped and her blouse was pulled up. The investigators used a rape kit: they swabbed for semen and combed for foreign hairs. The medical examiner would later determine that Twila's vaginal area was reddened from intercourse.
Twila's fingernails were broken. She had put up a fight. She may have scratched her assailant and captured his DNA. Investigators clipped her nails and secured the clippings.
The body of Randy Busby lay face down on the upper bunk in the bedroom he shared with Elwin. Randy was Twila's twenty-year-old son. He was partially covered with a bloody blanket. He had been stabbed three times in the back. The lower bunk, where Elwin slept, was free of blood. Elwin had been stabbed elsewhere.
There were some additional bloody handprints in the back of the house. One was on the frame of a door leading from the boys' bedroom to a utility room. It was only eighteen inches off the floor. Another was on the knob of the door leading from the kitchen to the utility room. A third was on the knob of the door leading from the utility room to the back yard.
Yet another handprint was on a garbage bag. Inside the bag, investigators discovered a second knife and a bloody dishtowel. No fingerprints were found on the knife. Perhaps someone had attempted to clean this knife as well.
The investigators also found an extra-large windbreaker on a chair in the living room. The windbreaker had blood spatter on it.
Hank Skinner, Twila's boyfriend and the only other member of the household, was nowhere to be found. He was last seen in a drunken stupor on the couch, in the living room, just a few feet from where Twila would fall into eternity.
The police found Hank Skinner three hours later. Hank was hiding in the closet of his former AA sponsor, Andrea Reed. He was drunk. He had blood on his shirt and pants. He had a cut on his right hand.
At trial, Reed would testify that Hank forced his way into her home. She would testify further that Hank confessed to killing Twila by kicking her to death. Hank told her that he killed Twila because he found Twila in bed with her ex-husband. Hank threatened to kill Reed should she attempt to call the police.
A Single-Minded Investigation
Elwin died at the hospital before he could reveal the identity of his killer. He was Twila Busby's son, twenty-two years old, six-foot six-inches tall, 215 pounds, and mentally challenged. He lived at the house next to the one where he was found. His blood trail led back home.
There, on Twila's front porch, the police found a knife and some bloody gauze. There were no fingerprints on the knife. Perhaps someone had attempted to clean the knife with the gauze. Perhaps someone had cut himself and was attempting a bandage.
There was a bloody handprint on the front storm door. Investigators would later remove the glass pane from the door, cover the handprint with a sheet of stiff paper, and tape the edges of the paper to the glass. They would secure the glass and its handprint in the evidence vault.
Beyond the door were bloody boot prints originating from the copious bloodstains on the living room floor. Twila Busby's body lay face down in that blood, her head smashed fourteen times by an ax handle. The handle leaned against the couch nearby. Whoever swung the ax handle did so with considerable force. Twila's skull was fractured. Bits of skull were driven all the way to the middle of her brain.
The overhead light was shattered. It may have been an unintentional victim of the arcing ax handle. Broken glass was mingled with the blood below.
The medical examiner would later determine that Twila had been strangled, by two hands, before she was bludgeoned. Her larynx was crushed and one of her two hyoid bones broken. Whoever strangled her must have had strong hands.
Twila's pants were unzipped and her blouse was pulled up. The investigators used a rape kit: they swabbed for semen and combed for foreign hairs. The medical examiner would later determine that Twila's vaginal area was reddened from intercourse.
Twila's fingernails were broken. She had put up a fight. She may have scratched her assailant and captured his DNA. Investigators clipped her nails and secured the clippings.
The body of Randy Busby lay face down on the upper bunk in the bedroom he shared with Elwin. Randy was Twila's twenty-year-old son. He was partially covered with a bloody blanket. He had been stabbed three times in the back. The lower bunk, where Elwin slept, was free of blood. Elwin had been stabbed elsewhere.
There were some additional bloody handprints in the back of the house. One was on the frame of a door leading from the boys' bedroom to a utility room. It was only eighteen inches off the floor. Another was on the knob of the door leading from the kitchen to the utility room. A third was on the knob of the door leading from the utility room to the back yard.
Yet another handprint was on a garbage bag. Inside the bag, investigators discovered a second knife and a bloody dishtowel. No fingerprints were found on the knife. Perhaps someone had attempted to clean this knife as well.
The investigators also found an extra-large windbreaker on a chair in the living room. The windbreaker had blood spatter on it.
Hank Skinner, Twila's boyfriend and the only other member of the household, was nowhere to be found. He was last seen in a drunken stupor on the couch, in the living room, just a few feet from where Twila would fall into eternity.
The police found Hank Skinner three hours later. Hank was hiding in the closet of his former AA sponsor, Andrea Reed. He was drunk. He had blood on his shirt and pants. He had a cut on his right hand.
At trial, Reed would testify that Hank forced his way into her home. She would testify further that Hank confessed to killing Twila by kicking her to death. Hank told her that he killed Twila because he found Twila in bed with her ex-husband. Hank threatened to kill Reed should she attempt to call the police.
A Single-Minded Investigation
The authorities naturally believed they had solved the case. They focused their investigation on Hank Skinner, to the exclusion of all other suspects, dismissive of any evidence to the contrary. The authorities ignored, or example, the pleas of Howard Mitchell.
Howard Mitchell explained it was impossible for Hank to have murdered anyone. Hank had been completely incapacitated, passed out on the couch next to the remains of a vodka bottle. In fact, Mitchell had tried to rouse Hank to attend a New Year's Eve party with Twila at Mitchell's residence, but Mitchell could not wake Hank, much less get him to stand. That futile effort had occurred less than an hour before the murder.
Mitchell provided the name of a more likely suspect: Robert Donnell. Donnell was Twila's maternal uncle, a violent man with a propensity for knives, a history of choking people, and an incestuous lust for his niece. Donnell was so threatening, in fact, that Mitchell was frightened for his own life by merely speaking of him.
Donnell had, according to Mitchell, previously attempted to rape Twila. Donnell had, that very night, stalked Twila at the New Year's Eve party. So persistent was Donnell in his lewd advances towards Twila that she asked Mitchell to drive her home after only one-half hour at the party. Mitchell drove Twila home, returned to his party five minutes later, and learned Donnell had left the party soon after they did.
The State choose not to investigate Robert Donnell. The State was fixated on its target. It would sooner fly the case into the ground than divert its attention elsewhere.
The State tested the bloody handprints against those of Hank Skinner. Hank was good for the three handprints near the back of the house. The handprint on the trash bag, and presumably the handprint on the front storm door, belonged to someone else.
Perhaps the other handprints belonged to Robert Donnell, Twila's dangerous and lecherous uncle. It would have been mere child's play to check them against Donnell. He was a four-time felon, and his fingerprints must have already been in the system. The State choose, however, not to check. At least, the State has never reported checking the prints against those of Robert Donnell.
The State was also selective in its testing of the DNA. It tested but a small subset of the copious DNA evidence it collected from the scene. The State established a reference DNA profile from Twila Busby but not from her two murdered sons. The State established a reference DNA profile from Hank Skinner, but not from Robert Donnell. The State tested the blood found on Hank's shirt and pants, but did not test for DNA on the vaginal swabs.
Perhaps most shockingly, the State failed to test the scrapings from beneath Twila's broken fingernails. Hank Skinner had no scratches on him. Testing the fingernail scrapings could only complicate the case.
The limited test results showed that the blood on Hank's shirt came both from his own wound and from Twila. The blood on his pants came from his wound, from Twila, and from Elwin. Coupled with his confession to Andrea Reed, the case was a slam dunk. All that remained was a conviction and a syringe.
And if the State was extremely lucky, Hank would end up with an attorney who would not insist that all the DNA and all the fingerprints be tested.
Harold Comer
Howard Mitchell explained it was impossible for Hank to have murdered anyone. Hank had been completely incapacitated, passed out on the couch next to the remains of a vodka bottle. In fact, Mitchell had tried to rouse Hank to attend a New Year's Eve party with Twila at Mitchell's residence, but Mitchell could not wake Hank, much less get him to stand. That futile effort had occurred less than an hour before the murder.
Mitchell provided the name of a more likely suspect: Robert Donnell. Donnell was Twila's maternal uncle, a violent man with a propensity for knives, a history of choking people, and an incestuous lust for his niece. Donnell was so threatening, in fact, that Mitchell was frightened for his own life by merely speaking of him.
Donnell had, according to Mitchell, previously attempted to rape Twila. Donnell had, that very night, stalked Twila at the New Year's Eve party. So persistent was Donnell in his lewd advances towards Twila that she asked Mitchell to drive her home after only one-half hour at the party. Mitchell drove Twila home, returned to his party five minutes later, and learned Donnell had left the party soon after they did.
The State choose not to investigate Robert Donnell. The State was fixated on its target. It would sooner fly the case into the ground than divert its attention elsewhere.
The State tested the bloody handprints against those of Hank Skinner. Hank was good for the three handprints near the back of the house. The handprint on the trash bag, and presumably the handprint on the front storm door, belonged to someone else.
Perhaps the other handprints belonged to Robert Donnell, Twila's dangerous and lecherous uncle. It would have been mere child's play to check them against Donnell. He was a four-time felon, and his fingerprints must have already been in the system. The State choose, however, not to check. At least, the State has never reported checking the prints against those of Robert Donnell.
The State was also selective in its testing of the DNA. It tested but a small subset of the copious DNA evidence it collected from the scene. The State established a reference DNA profile from Twila Busby but not from her two murdered sons. The State established a reference DNA profile from Hank Skinner, but not from Robert Donnell. The State tested the blood found on Hank's shirt and pants, but did not test for DNA on the vaginal swabs.
Perhaps most shockingly, the State failed to test the scrapings from beneath Twila's broken fingernails. Hank Skinner had no scratches on him. Testing the fingernail scrapings could only complicate the case.
The limited test results showed that the blood on Hank's shirt came both from his own wound and from Twila. The blood on his pants came from his wound, from Twila, and from Elwin. Coupled with his confession to Andrea Reed, the case was a slam dunk. All that remained was a conviction and a syringe.
And if the State was extremely lucky, Hank would end up with an attorney who would not insist that all the DNA and all the fingerprints be tested.
Harold Comer
It is nothing short of astounding that Harold Comer was assigned by the court to be Hank Skinner's lead counsel. Comer, after all, had spent a portion of his previous career attempting to throw Hank in jail rather than keep him out. In an earlier career, Harold Comer had been the District Attorney for Gray County, and Hank Skinner had a checkered past.
Hank's two non-violent felonies would in fact be used against him in the death-penalty phase of the trail. Comer had earlier prosecuted Hank for those very felonies, and would now have to defend him against them if the case trial made it as far as the punishment phase.
Some might describe Harold Comer's transition from Hank's prosecutor to Hank's defender as blemished, perhaps even checkered. It seems Comer had been run out of the District Attorney's office because he embezzled substantial quantities of drug forfeiture funds, and because he was he addicted to drugs. One failing was possibly tied to the other, and neither was of inconsequential magnitude. After Comer was ejected from his job, the IRS tagged him with a $90,000 bill for unreported taxes.
Harold Comer needed to find honest work, and he needed to find it quickly. Luck was on his side, just as it was would soon be on the side of the State. Judge M. Kent Sims had been assigned to handle the trial of Hank Skinner. That wasn't just good news for Harold Comer, it was great news. Comer had been a close political supporter of Judge Sims. Sure enough, Judge Sims assigned Harold Comer to represent Hank Skinner.
That was just the break Comer needed, even though under normal circumstances the State of Texas didn't pay very well for defending indigent defendants. In Actual Innocence, Jim Dwyer writes:
Hank's two non-violent felonies would in fact be used against him in the death-penalty phase of the trail. Comer had earlier prosecuted Hank for those very felonies, and would now have to defend him against them if the case trial made it as far as the punishment phase.
Some might describe Harold Comer's transition from Hank's prosecutor to Hank's defender as blemished, perhaps even checkered. It seems Comer had been run out of the District Attorney's office because he embezzled substantial quantities of drug forfeiture funds, and because he was he addicted to drugs. One failing was possibly tied to the other, and neither was of inconsequential magnitude. After Comer was ejected from his job, the IRS tagged him with a $90,000 bill for unreported taxes.
Harold Comer needed to find honest work, and he needed to find it quickly. Luck was on his side, just as it was would soon be on the side of the State. Judge M. Kent Sims had been assigned to handle the trial of Hank Skinner. That wasn't just good news for Harold Comer, it was great news. Comer had been a close political supporter of Judge Sims. Sure enough, Judge Sims assigned Harold Comer to represent Hank Skinner.
That was just the break Comer needed, even though under normal circumstances the State of Texas didn't pay very well for defending indigent defendants. In Actual Innocence, Jim Dwyer writes:
In too many cases, serving as counsel to the indigent is a fast way to join their ranks. For instance, in Mississippi, the maximum amount for non-death penalty cases is $1000 ... In certain rural sections of Texas the limit is $800.
Harold Comer had good reason to expect he would earn somewhat more than the $800 cited by Jim Dwyer in 2003. Hank would be tried in 2005, so there was a small bit of inflation to be considered. And while Palma was certainly a rural section of Texas, it wasn't necessarily the rural section to which Jim Dwyer referred. Most significantly, Hank's case was a death penalty case. That would bump up the $800 figure by a fair amount.
Still, those adjustments seem inadequate to explain how Harold Comer came to be paid $86,000 for unsuccessfully defending Hank Skinner. It was the largest fee ever paid by Texas to a court-appointed attorney.
The State's Case
Still, those adjustments seem inadequate to explain how Harold Comer came to be paid $86,000 for unsuccessfully defending Hank Skinner. It was the largest fee ever paid by Texas to a court-appointed attorney.
The State's Case
The prosecution presented a formidable case. Hank Skinner was absolutely in the room when Twila Busby was being murdered: he had her blood on his shirt and his pants. He was also near Elwin Caler when Elwin was being stabbed. He had Elwin's blood on his pants.
Hank also had a cut on his hand, an unintentional wound, the State claimed, resulting from striking the shoulder blade as he stabbed Randy Busby to death. During one thrust, the knife must have hit bone. That caused Hank's right hand to slip down the knife, and that resulted in the cut found on Hank's hand.
Hank's bloody handprint was found on the doorway to Randy's bedroom. The State argued Hank left it there after Hank murdered Randy, after Elwin tackled Hank as Hank was leaving the room.
Hank's bloody handprints were found on the doorknob of the back door. The State argued that Hank left it there as he made his escape.
After murdering Twila, Elwin, and Randy, Hank made his way to the home of Andrea Reed, his earlier AA sponsor. There he forced his way into her home and kept her hostage for more than three hours. He confessed to her that he murdered Twila. He threatened to kill Reed herself if she tried to contact the police.
After a three-hour manhunt, Hank was discovered in Andrea Reed's mobile home. He was hiding in a closet. Hank's escape provided proof that he was not too drunk to kill. After all, he found his own way to Andrea's home, entered there without her knowledge, cleaned his own wound, attempted to stitch up his own wound, warned Andrea against notifying the police, went to the bathroom by himself and had the presence of mind to hide as the police narrowed their perimeter about him. Hank had even confessed to Reed. Those were not the actions of an innocent person.
The Defense Case
Hank also had a cut on his hand, an unintentional wound, the State claimed, resulting from striking the shoulder blade as he stabbed Randy Busby to death. During one thrust, the knife must have hit bone. That caused Hank's right hand to slip down the knife, and that resulted in the cut found on Hank's hand.
Hank's bloody handprint was found on the doorway to Randy's bedroom. The State argued Hank left it there after Hank murdered Randy, after Elwin tackled Hank as Hank was leaving the room.
Hank's bloody handprints were found on the doorknob of the back door. The State argued that Hank left it there as he made his escape.
After murdering Twila, Elwin, and Randy, Hank made his way to the home of Andrea Reed, his earlier AA sponsor. There he forced his way into her home and kept her hostage for more than three hours. He confessed to her that he murdered Twila. He threatened to kill Reed herself if she tried to contact the police.
After a three-hour manhunt, Hank was discovered in Andrea Reed's mobile home. He was hiding in a closet. Hank's escape provided proof that he was not too drunk to kill. After all, he found his own way to Andrea's home, entered there without her knowledge, cleaned his own wound, attempted to stitch up his own wound, warned Andrea against notifying the police, went to the bathroom by himself and had the presence of mind to hide as the police narrowed their perimeter about him. Hank had even confessed to Reed. Those were not the actions of an innocent person.
The Defense Case
Hank's defense was that he was indeed at the murder scene, but he was incapacitated. His blood alcohol level was 0.21. His codeine level was three times that of a normal therapeutic dose. He was simply too intoxicated to have killed Twila, Elwin, and Randy.
Furthermore, Hank did not have the strength to have committed the murders. He had previously injured his right hand, seriously, nearly severing his thumb. The wound became infected. Surgical intervention resulted in loss of one-third of the muscle mass and one-half of the gripping force. With that hand, Hank would have been unable to wield the axe handle and the knives. He would have been unable to strangle Twila, to crush her larynx and break her hyoid bone in the process. Hank would have been unable to fend on the much larger, much younger Elwin, who must have been right there when Twila's blood spattered on Elwin's clothes.
Instead, Hank must have cut himself on glass from the broken light fixture when he fell down as he staggered from the house. That's also how his own blood must have come to be on his clothes. Hank was staggering as he rose from his stupor, fell down, cut his hand, and got blood on his clothes. Indeed, the State's own blood expert testified that the bloodstains on Hank's clothing were not spatter, but contact transfers. The blood was not splattered in droplets during a stabbing or bludgeoning. Rather it was smeared on Hank's clothing when the clothing came in contact with spilled blood.
Regarding the DNA that neither the State nor the defense had tested, Harold Comer attempted to use that as reasonable doubt. If the State was so confident of Hank's guilt, Comer would argue, why didn't the State test all of the DNA?
That left the jury with a parallel question: If the defense was so sure of Hank's innocence, why didn't the defense have all the DNA tested?
The jury found Hank Skinner guilty of murder in the first degree. Hank was sentenced to death by lethal injection.
Andrea Reed's Recantation
Furthermore, Hank did not have the strength to have committed the murders. He had previously injured his right hand, seriously, nearly severing his thumb. The wound became infected. Surgical intervention resulted in loss of one-third of the muscle mass and one-half of the gripping force. With that hand, Hank would have been unable to wield the axe handle and the knives. He would have been unable to strangle Twila, to crush her larynx and break her hyoid bone in the process. Hank would have been unable to fend on the much larger, much younger Elwin, who must have been right there when Twila's blood spattered on Elwin's clothes.
Instead, Hank must have cut himself on glass from the broken light fixture when he fell down as he staggered from the house. That's also how his own blood must have come to be on his clothes. Hank was staggering as he rose from his stupor, fell down, cut his hand, and got blood on his clothes. Indeed, the State's own blood expert testified that the bloodstains on Hank's clothing were not spatter, but contact transfers. The blood was not splattered in droplets during a stabbing or bludgeoning. Rather it was smeared on Hank's clothing when the clothing came in contact with spilled blood.
Regarding the DNA that neither the State nor the defense had tested, Harold Comer attempted to use that as reasonable doubt. If the State was so confident of Hank's guilt, Comer would argue, why didn't the State test all of the DNA?
That left the jury with a parallel question: If the defense was so sure of Hank's innocence, why didn't the defense have all the DNA tested?
The jury found Hank Skinner guilty of murder in the first degree. Hank was sentenced to death by lethal injection.
Andrea Reed's Recantation
After the trial, Andrea Reed recanted her testimony. She claimed she lied to the police the night that Hank was discovered in her mobile home. She claimed she lied to the jury as well. I offer most of her affidavit below:
My name is Andrea Joyce Reed. ... Several of the things that I said in my written statement to Ogle and my trial testimony are false. I lied because of implied threats and I was intimidated by Officer Katie Gerhardt and the district attorney's investigator, Bill McMinn.
This is what really happened. At about midnight on the night of December 31, 1993, I was in the bedroom of my trailer house ... with my daughter, Jessica, and son, Kris, when I heard someone pounding on the wall. I asked the person to identify himself and I heard a voice that I recognized as Hank shouting, “Andy, I’m hurt. Please let me in" or words to that effect. At first, I told Hank to leave and threatened to call the police if he did not do so. Hank was an old friend, but I did not associate with him because he was an alcoholic and drug user.
When I told Hank to leave, he said that he had been shot and pleaded with me to help him. I turned on my porch light and opened the front door so that I could see him. Hank had a lot of blood on him. I decided to help him because I felt sorry for him. I went back into the house, put my dog in the bedroom with my children, closed the door to that room and went outside again. Hank was still standing in the front yard. I invited him to come into the house. He stumbled and fell over backwards when he tried to climb up the porch stairs. I caught him or helped him to get up. He had to lean on my arm as we walked into the house. He was with me for over three hours before he was arrested.
Very shortly after Hank was taken into custody, I heard Officer Katie Gerhardt tell one of my curious neighbors that he could not enter my house because it was "a triple homicide crime scene." I assumed that this meant that Hank was accused of murdering three people. I did not understand how my house could be a crime scene because no crime was committed there, but I feared that the police believed that I was involved in the offense.
My fear of being falsely accused increased when McMinn and Gerhardt told me that they believed that Hank had an accomplice and asked me where that person was. I told them I did not know what they were talking about, but they apparently did not believe me because they kept asking the same question. Gerhardt finally told me that I could be charged with being an accessory after the fact if I did not cooperate with them. I did not understand why she made that threat because I believed that I was cooperating .
I told my first lie when Gerhardt and McMinn asked me how Hank got into my house. I was afraid to admit that I helped him inside because I did not want to say anything that could later be used to suggest that I offered a murderer a place to hide from the police who were trying to arrest him. I told McMinn and Gerhardt that he entered the house without my consent and I did not know how. Gerhardt said that she did not believe me. She asked me why I did not try to leave my house and get help. I told her that I did not want to leave my kids alone with Hank. She warned me that I could be charged with a crime if I invited him into my house knowing that the police were trying to arrest him.
My written statement to Ogle left the false impression that I only treated Hank's wounded hand because he entered my house against my will and threatened to kill me. I did not admit that I invited him in because I was afraid that the police would arrest me for helping a wanted man.
I falsely claimed in my written statement that Hank warned me, "don't call anyone or I'll kill you" when he saw me pick up the telephone. Hank did tell me not to call anyone, but he did not threaten to kill me.
I falsely claimed in my written statement that I believed that Hank was capable of killing me because of his intoxicated condition. The truth is that he was much too drunk or high on drugs to physically carry out such a threat. I know what Hank is capable of doing when he is intoxicated because I saw him in that condition many times. When he arrived at my house, he was too intoxicated to strangle Twila Busby until her neck broke, repeatedly hit her on the head with an ax and precisely stab her two sons to death .
I also lied in my written statement about two small details because I did not want the police to believe that I voluntarily did anything for Hank. I said that Hank took his shirt off and hung it over a chair in my living room. The truth is that I helped him remove his shirt and I put it on the chair. I said that Hank washed blood off of his watch. The truth is that I washed off the blood.
When I described in my written statement how Hank said that he thought that he tried to kick Twila to death because he found her in bed with her ex-husband, I left out the fact that Hank gave me a ridiculous description of Twila's ex-husband that did not fit him at all. This is one of the reasons why I believe that his statement about kicking Twila to death was just a drunken fantasy like the other violent stories that he told me to explain how he was injured.
I informed Ogle that I did not want my daughter, Jessica, to be a witness because it would be a traumatic experience for her. Ogle told me that it was up to the district attorney. I was very upset when I received a letter from John Mann notifying me that Jessica would be subpoenaed as a witness. I sent her out of town to stay with a relative shortly after I received that letter. McMinn warned me that I would be arrested if I did not tell him where she was. I told McMinn that it was his job to find his witnesses -- not mine. McMinn finally promised that my daughter would not have to be a witness if I testified "as instructed by John Mann."
When I arrived in Ft. Worth for the trial, Gerhardt and McMinn told me that I could not go anywhere or do anything without a police officer or prosecutor being present. I was not allowed to eat alone in a restaurant, receive visitors at my hotel, make phone calls or take a walk by myself. Gerhardt even insisted we share a room. I felt like a prisoner. I was told that all of this was done for my own safety, but that explanation made no sense because Hank was in jail and no one had threatened me. I was more afraid of the cops who were supposedly protecting me than I was of Hank on the night of the murder.
Shortly before I testified at the trial, Assistant District Attorney Tracy Blades gave me a document in a clear plastic folder and told me, "read it. This is your part." She explained that the document was a "condensed" version of my statement to Ogle. It placed several things that I said way out of context, but I cannot recall what they were.
I tried to follow the script that Blades gave me because that is what I was instructed to do and I still wasn’t sure they (Law) would leave my daughter alone, but I did not believe my testimony was going to be helpful to the State. I did not understand how anything that Hank did or said at my house on the night of the murders could possibly show whether he was guilty or innocent.
When Mann asked me how Hank was able to get in to my house after I told him to leave, I falsely answered, "I don't even know." I repeated what I told the police on the night of the murder because I was afraid to admit that I lied to them and I did not believe that the truth could make a difference. I lied again for the same reason when Mann asked me what Hank did with his shirt and watch.
I falsely testified that Hank walked to the bathroom by himself when I went to make a telephone call because I was still afraid to admit that I did any thing to help him. The truth is that I had to help Hank walk from the kitchen to the bathroom before I went to make the call because he was so intoxicated that he could not keep his balance.
I falsely testified that Hank warned me that he would kill me if I tried to call anyone. I lied to the jury about that threat because I said the same thing in my written statement to Ogle and I was afraid to admit that it was false. The truth is that Hank told me not to make a call without threatening to kill me.
I gave the jury the false impression that Hank’s statements about finding Twila in bed with her ex-husband and killing her were not related to each other. The truth is that Hank said that he thought he tried to kick Twila to death because he found her in bed with her ex-husband. The questions that John Mann asked me did not allow me to explain this to the jury.
I falsely testified that out of all of the stories that Hank told me on the night of the murder, the only one that he made me swear not to reveal was his story about kicking Twila to death. The truth is that he swore me to secrecy or made me promise not to tell each time that he gave me a different story about what happened.
I am not sure why I lied about this on the witness stand, but I may have repeated what was in the condensed version of my statement to Ogle that Blades prepared for me. It is also possible that I gave the answer that I thought John Mann wanted to hear.
After Hank was sentenced to death, I read news stories about the trial and began to understand the importance of my testimony. The lies that I told to protect myself made it appear as if Hank broke into my house, held me hostage and confessed to the murders. The truth is that I invited a harmless drunk into my house and listened to three hours of meaningless gibberish. I have no idea who killed Twila Busby and her sons, but I pray that I get another chance to tell the truth about what I do know to a jury because I do not want to be responsible for the execution of a man who may be innocent .
[signed]
Andrea Joyce Reed
To a jury, eyewitness trial testimony is a powerful thing. To an appellate court system, a post-conviction recantation is pretty much worthless worthless.
Recall a case already discussed, that of Larry Swearingen. Dr. Joye Carter recanted her damning testimony that Melissa Trotter was killed twenty-five days before her body was discovered. That placed Trotter's date of death on the day she was last seen alive in the company of Swearingen. Had Dr. Carter initially and properly established Melissa's time-of-death as just a few days prior to discovery of her body, then Swearingen would never have been brought to trial. He would have been in jail when Melissa Trotter was killed. Despite Dr. Carter's recantation, and despite testimony and affidavits from numerous renowned scientists supporting the recantation, Texas has twice since attempted to execute Larry Swearingen.
Consider also the case of Anthony Troy Davis. Even though seven state witnesses fully or partially recanted their damning trial testimony, the people of Georgia nonetheless executed him.
Consider finally the case of Gary Dotson. Sixteen-year-old Cathleen Crowell accused Dotson of raping her. Dotson was convicted based on Crowell's testimony and on false forensic evidence concerning blood types and hair matching. Dotson was convicted even though he did not match the original physical description provided by Crowell, even though four witnesses placed him elsewhere at the time of the alleged rape. Crowell later recanted, eventually explaining that she had claimed rape as a cover story for consensual sex with her boyfriend. Despite her recantation, charges against Dotson were not dropped until a decade after his conviction, four years after Crowell's recantation, one year even after DNA testing proved Gary Dotson did not rape Cathleen Crowell.
Appellate courts absolutely frown on recantations. Despite Andrea Reed's recantation, and despite critical DNA evidence pointing to an alternate assailant, Texas would come within an hour of executing Hank Skinner. Rick Perry would stand mute.
There is, however, good reason to believe Andrea Reed's recantation was truthful: she stood by her recantation even when threatened by the District Attorney John Mann with felony perjury for doing so. After the State learned of her affidavit, Mann called her before a grand jury. Skinner's appellate team obtained that transcript through an open-records act. From the transcript, we learn of the threat, made soon after Andrea Reed invoked her right to counsel.
Recall a case already discussed, that of Larry Swearingen. Dr. Joye Carter recanted her damning testimony that Melissa Trotter was killed twenty-five days before her body was discovered. That placed Trotter's date of death on the day she was last seen alive in the company of Swearingen. Had Dr. Carter initially and properly established Melissa's time-of-death as just a few days prior to discovery of her body, then Swearingen would never have been brought to trial. He would have been in jail when Melissa Trotter was killed. Despite Dr. Carter's recantation, and despite testimony and affidavits from numerous renowned scientists supporting the recantation, Texas has twice since attempted to execute Larry Swearingen.
Consider also the case of Anthony Troy Davis. Even though seven state witnesses fully or partially recanted their damning trial testimony, the people of Georgia nonetheless executed him.
Consider finally the case of Gary Dotson. Sixteen-year-old Cathleen Crowell accused Dotson of raping her. Dotson was convicted based on Crowell's testimony and on false forensic evidence concerning blood types and hair matching. Dotson was convicted even though he did not match the original physical description provided by Crowell, even though four witnesses placed him elsewhere at the time of the alleged rape. Crowell later recanted, eventually explaining that she had claimed rape as a cover story for consensual sex with her boyfriend. Despite her recantation, charges against Dotson were not dropped until a decade after his conviction, four years after Crowell's recantation, one year even after DNA testing proved Gary Dotson did not rape Cathleen Crowell.
Appellate courts absolutely frown on recantations. Despite Andrea Reed's recantation, and despite critical DNA evidence pointing to an alternate assailant, Texas would come within an hour of executing Hank Skinner. Rick Perry would stand mute.
There is, however, good reason to believe Andrea Reed's recantation was truthful: she stood by her recantation even when threatened by the District Attorney John Mann with felony perjury for doing so. After the State learned of her affidavit, Mann called her before a grand jury. Skinner's appellate team obtained that transcript through an open-records act. From the transcript, we learn of the threat, made soon after Andrea Reed invoked her right to counsel.
Do you understand that by signing whatever it was they had you sign that they got you to confess to having committed the felony of aggravated perjury? Did this lawyer you want, Mr. Losch, tell you that he was setting you up to take a fall for aggravated perjury by giving this statement that you gave recently? Is that really what you want to do? Just rely on Mr. Losch who has now gotten you to ... admit having committed the felony? If that's what you want to do, that's your privilege.
Threatening perjury for those who recant is a time-tested technique for minimizing and reversing recantations. In the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, for example, the State's snitch recanted then recanted his recantation. He later recanted the recantation of his original recantation, but only after he believed the statute of limitations had run out.
In the case of Hank Skinner, on the other hand, Andrea Reed was willing to face a felony perjury charge rather than withdraw her recantation. She had no good reason for facing such serious legal repercussion other than wanting the truth to be finally told.
Evidence of an Alternate Suspect
In the case of Hank Skinner, on the other hand, Andrea Reed was willing to face a felony perjury charge rather than withdraw her recantation. She had no good reason for facing such serious legal repercussion other than wanting the truth to be finally told.
Evidence of an Alternate Suspect
Assuming Andrea Reed was truthful in her recantation, the jury that convicted Hank Skinner never learned that Hank was too inebriated to climb a few stairs or to remove his own shirt. Nor did they know that the police, early on, suspected another person was involved in killing Twila, Elwin, and Randy.
It is easy to understand why the police thought someone else was involved, that Hank had an accomplice. There were bloody bootprints leading to the front door, though Hank seemingly went out the back. The bootprints were size 11-12, way too large for Hank Skinner. Hank stands 5’ 9” tall and then weighed a mere 140 pounds. His shoe size is 9½. He was found wearing socks that night, but no shoes. He owned no boots, nor were any found.
Elwin, on the other hand, was a large person, and Elwin apparently left through the front door, mortally wounded. He was found wearing only a pair a bloody underwear, though. It seemed likely, therefore, that someone other than Hank or Elwin made the bootprints.
Also found were bloody handprints on both the front and back doors. It was unlikely that Hank went out both doors. Hank’s handprints were on the back door knob, and suggested Hank went out that way. The handprint on the front storm door, however, is another story. The investigators removed the glass pane and placed it in the sheriff’s evidence vault for safekeeping. Someone later scraped the handprint off the glass while the pane was under control of the sheriff. It is generally not known, to this day, to whom that print belonged.
Found in the front of the house were an apparently clean knife and some bloody gauze. Someone may have wiped down that knife with that gauze. Alternatively, someone may have attempted to bandage his own wound with that gauze. Unless Hank Skinner somehow went out both the front and rear doors, unless somehow Hank Skinner wore and then disposed of size 12 boots, the person who left the knife and bloody gauze on the porch was almost certainly not Hank Skinner.
Found back inside the house was a trash bag containing an obviously bloody knife and a bloody dishtowel. Someone apparently wiped prints from that knife with that dishtowel; no prints were found on the knife. Whoever put the items in the trash bag left a bloody handprint on the bag. That print was tested against Hank Skinner but not against Robert Donnell. Since the print did not belong to Hank Skinner, he was almost certainly not the person who wiped down that bloody knife with that dishtowel.
There was also a blood splattered, extra-large windbreaker found lying across a chair just a few feet from where Twila fell. The windbreaker was a DNA gold mine of blood, hairs, and sweat. Though the windbreaker was far too large to fit Hank Skinner, the State would test none of DNA from the windbreaker. Instead, the State would have Twila’s mother testify that Twila liked to wear over-sized coats.
The DNA Tested before Trial
It is easy to understand why the police thought someone else was involved, that Hank had an accomplice. There were bloody bootprints leading to the front door, though Hank seemingly went out the back. The bootprints were size 11-12, way too large for Hank Skinner. Hank stands 5’ 9” tall and then weighed a mere 140 pounds. His shoe size is 9½. He was found wearing socks that night, but no shoes. He owned no boots, nor were any found.
Elwin, on the other hand, was a large person, and Elwin apparently left through the front door, mortally wounded. He was found wearing only a pair a bloody underwear, though. It seemed likely, therefore, that someone other than Hank or Elwin made the bootprints.
Also found were bloody handprints on both the front and back doors. It was unlikely that Hank went out both doors. Hank’s handprints were on the back door knob, and suggested Hank went out that way. The handprint on the front storm door, however, is another story. The investigators removed the glass pane and placed it in the sheriff’s evidence vault for safekeeping. Someone later scraped the handprint off the glass while the pane was under control of the sheriff. It is generally not known, to this day, to whom that print belonged.
Found in the front of the house were an apparently clean knife and some bloody gauze. Someone may have wiped down that knife with that gauze. Alternatively, someone may have attempted to bandage his own wound with that gauze. Unless Hank Skinner somehow went out both the front and rear doors, unless somehow Hank Skinner wore and then disposed of size 12 boots, the person who left the knife and bloody gauze on the porch was almost certainly not Hank Skinner.
Found back inside the house was a trash bag containing an obviously bloody knife and a bloody dishtowel. Someone apparently wiped prints from that knife with that dishtowel; no prints were found on the knife. Whoever put the items in the trash bag left a bloody handprint on the bag. That print was tested against Hank Skinner but not against Robert Donnell. Since the print did not belong to Hank Skinner, he was almost certainly not the person who wiped down that bloody knife with that dishtowel.
There was also a blood splattered, extra-large windbreaker found lying across a chair just a few feet from where Twila fell. The windbreaker was a DNA gold mine of blood, hairs, and sweat. Though the windbreaker was far too large to fit Hank Skinner, the State would test none of DNA from the windbreaker. Instead, the State would have Twila’s mother testify that Twila liked to wear over-sized coats.
The DNA Tested before Trial
Twila’s blood was found on Hank’s shirt and pants. The State argued that blood came to be there as Hank bludgeoned Twila with the axe handle, after first having strangled her. The defense claimed it came to be there as Hank fell to the floor while trying to rise from a drunken stupor, thereby coming in contact with Twila’s blood, either on her person or on the floor.
Twila’s blood was found also on Elwin. Applying the same logic it applied to the blood found on Hank Skinner, the State could have argued that the blood found on Elwin came to be there as Elwin bludgeoned his mother with the axe handle, after first having strangled her. The State, of course, made no such argument. The defense, on the other hand, argued that Elwin must have been standing in the living room near his mother as she was being bludgeoned. They argued further that a stuperous Hank Skinner, with a partially disabled right hand, would have been unable to kill either of them, much less both of them.
Elwin’s blood was found on Hank’s pants. The prosecution argued that it came to be there as Hank stabbed Elwin while they were in the bedroom. The defense argued that it came to be there as Hank fell to the floor while trying to rise from a drunken stupor, thereby coming in contact with Elwin’s blood, which Elwin had spilled in a failed attempt to save his mother. Alternatively, they argued Elwin's blood came to be on Hank Skinner as Elwin attempted to roust Hank from his slumber and help him from the house.
Randy’s blood was found on the blanket that partially covered him. The State argued that the blood came to be there as Hank stabbed Randy three times in the back while Randy lay on the top bunk. They argued further that Hank cut himself while stabbing Randy, that the knife hit bone and Hank’s hand slid down the knife. That is presumably why the State tested the blood on the blanket. It expected to find Hank’s blood there. Hank's blood, however, was not on the blanket, nor was Randy's blood anywhere to be found on Hank Skinner.
Hairs found on Randy’s blanket, back, and cheek came from Randy himself. Once again, the State presumably expected at least some of the hairs to belong to Hank. None of them did.
The handprints near the doorway of the boys' bedroom came from Hank. The print was only eighteen inches above the floor. The prosecution argued that it came to be there after Hank stabbed Randy and cut his hand in the process, and after Elwin tackled Hank as Hank was leaving the bedroom. The defense argued that the blood came to be there as Hank stumbled while trying to make his way out the back door. The defense argued further that Hank had cut his hand on the broken light fixture glass when he fell to the floor in his drunken stupor. Alternatively, his appellate counsel would argue that Hank might have been wounded by the same person who killed the others in the household.
The handprint on the back door knob came from Hank. The defense argues that Hank left it there as he exited the house in a stuperous state. The print on the back door left unexplained the evidence that someone else exited through the front door.
Fresh blood drops were found on the sidewalk, near the front door of the house where the murders took place. Those drops were tested. The DNA from those drops belonged not to Hank Skinner, but to an unidentified male.
The DNA Tested after Trail
Twila’s blood was found also on Elwin. Applying the same logic it applied to the blood found on Hank Skinner, the State could have argued that the blood found on Elwin came to be there as Elwin bludgeoned his mother with the axe handle, after first having strangled her. The State, of course, made no such argument. The defense, on the other hand, argued that Elwin must have been standing in the living room near his mother as she was being bludgeoned. They argued further that a stuperous Hank Skinner, with a partially disabled right hand, would have been unable to kill either of them, much less both of them.
Elwin’s blood was found on Hank’s pants. The prosecution argued that it came to be there as Hank stabbed Elwin while they were in the bedroom. The defense argued that it came to be there as Hank fell to the floor while trying to rise from a drunken stupor, thereby coming in contact with Elwin’s blood, which Elwin had spilled in a failed attempt to save his mother. Alternatively, they argued Elwin's blood came to be on Hank Skinner as Elwin attempted to roust Hank from his slumber and help him from the house.
Randy’s blood was found on the blanket that partially covered him. The State argued that the blood came to be there as Hank stabbed Randy three times in the back while Randy lay on the top bunk. They argued further that Hank cut himself while stabbing Randy, that the knife hit bone and Hank’s hand slid down the knife. That is presumably why the State tested the blood on the blanket. It expected to find Hank’s blood there. Hank's blood, however, was not on the blanket, nor was Randy's blood anywhere to be found on Hank Skinner.
Hairs found on Randy’s blanket, back, and cheek came from Randy himself. Once again, the State presumably expected at least some of the hairs to belong to Hank. None of them did.
The handprints near the doorway of the boys' bedroom came from Hank. The print was only eighteen inches above the floor. The prosecution argued that it came to be there after Hank stabbed Randy and cut his hand in the process, and after Elwin tackled Hank as Hank was leaving the bedroom. The defense argued that the blood came to be there as Hank stumbled while trying to make his way out the back door. The defense argued further that Hank had cut his hand on the broken light fixture glass when he fell to the floor in his drunken stupor. Alternatively, his appellate counsel would argue that Hank might have been wounded by the same person who killed the others in the household.
The handprint on the back door knob came from Hank. The defense argues that Hank left it there as he exited the house in a stuperous state. The print on the back door left unexplained the evidence that someone else exited through the front door.
Fresh blood drops were found on the sidewalk, near the front door of the house where the murders took place. Those drops were tested. The DNA from those drops belonged not to Hank Skinner, but to an unidentified male.
The DNA Tested after Trail
After the trial, District Attorney John Mann succumbed to public pressure and sent additional DNA material for testing. Mann's intent was to prove once and for all that Hank Skinner was guilty.
I'm going to test it all and see if I can't put a few more nails in that man's coffin.
The results were not as DA John Mann had hoped. Mitochondrial DNA testing of two hairs found clutched in Twila's hand was inconclusive for one hair. The DNA from the other hair clutched in Twila’s hand came not from Hank Skinner, but from a maternal relative of Twila or from Twila herself. This finding posed a severe problem for Mann. He had earlier claimed the hairs definitely “came from the head of her assailant as Twila yanked out his hair during the struggle for her life which she ultimately lost.”
The other DNA results finally reported were no more helpful to Mann's effort to further nail closed Hank's coffin. Keep in mind, when reviewing the summary below, that Mann sent comparative DNA samples for Hank Skinner and Twila Busby only. When the term unidentified male appears, that unidentified male could be Robert Donnell, Elwin Caler, Randy Busby, or someone else entirely.
Blood found on the gauze possibly used staunch bleeding or to wipe fingerprints from the front porch knife was from an unknown male. Hank Skinner was excluded as the contributor.
Blood on a cassette tape found in the boys' room was a mixture from two unknown males. Hank Skinner was excluded as a contributor.
Other hairs sent for testing excluded Hank Skinner as the donor, but did not exclude Twila or a maternal relative of Twila’s as potential donors.
None of the DNA tested after trial in any way implicated Hank Skinner.
All of the DNA tested after trial excluded Hank Skinner as the contributor, or was inconclusive.
The DNA Not Yet Tested
The other DNA results finally reported were no more helpful to Mann's effort to further nail closed Hank's coffin. Keep in mind, when reviewing the summary below, that Mann sent comparative DNA samples for Hank Skinner and Twila Busby only. When the term unidentified male appears, that unidentified male could be Robert Donnell, Elwin Caler, Randy Busby, or someone else entirely.
Blood found on the gauze possibly used staunch bleeding or to wipe fingerprints from the front porch knife was from an unknown male. Hank Skinner was excluded as the contributor.
Blood on a cassette tape found in the boys' room was a mixture from two unknown males. Hank Skinner was excluded as a contributor.
Other hairs sent for testing excluded Hank Skinner as the donor, but did not exclude Twila or a maternal relative of Twila’s as potential donors.
None of the DNA tested after trial in any way implicated Hank Skinner.
All of the DNA tested after trial excluded Hank Skinner as the contributor, or was inconclusive.
The DNA Not Yet Tested
For some reason unexplained, not all the DNA evidence sent for testing was actually tested. Alternatively, the DNA was tested but not reported.
The swab from the rape kit was sent for testing along with the hairs, the bloody gauze, and the cassette tape. The rape kit evidence was simply returned, allegedly untested, without public explanation.
The fingernail scraping evidence was sent for testing along with the hairs, the bloody gauze, the cassette tape, and the rape kit evidence. The fingernail scraping evidence was simply returned, allegedly untested, without public explanation.
The broken fingernails nonetheless exculpate Hank Skinner. It is likely Twila broke them as she fought for her life, possibly as she clawed at her assailant's head and came away with several of his hairs in her grasp. The State doesn't need DNA from the broken fingernails to verify they weren’t broken while clawing Hank Skinner. He had no scratches on him when he was arrested for her murder.
In addition to all the DNA material tested both before and after the trial, and in addition to DNA material sent for testing but never tested, there remains to this day substantial DNA material never tested.
The blood, hairs, and sweat from the extra-large windbreaker resting just a few feet from Twila’s body have never been tested.
The blood from the handprint left on the front storm door has not been tested. Alternatively, that blood has been tested but not reported. Someone scraped the handprint from the pane. The status of that scraped blood sample is now unknown.
The dishtowel from the trash bag was not tested, despite a possible bloodstain on that towel. It is possible the towel was used to wipe the fingerprints from the knife that was found in the same trash bag. That is the same trash bag that had the handprint that did not belong to Hank Skinner.
The blood on the knife in the trash bag was not tested, though it is likely that knife was the one used to stab both Randy Busby and Elwin Caler. That knife was found in the trash bag that had the handprint that did not belong to Hank Skinner.
The knife found on the front porch was not tested for the presence of blood. It appeared to have none. It seems not to be the murder weapon. That suggests that the blood on the gauze originated elsewhere, possibly from the killer.
Most significantly, no DNA sample was ever taken from Robert Donnell. The police never requested a saliva, blood, or semen sample from Twila's predatory, maternal uncle.
Uncle Robert
The swab from the rape kit was sent for testing along with the hairs, the bloody gauze, and the cassette tape. The rape kit evidence was simply returned, allegedly untested, without public explanation.
The fingernail scraping evidence was sent for testing along with the hairs, the bloody gauze, the cassette tape, and the rape kit evidence. The fingernail scraping evidence was simply returned, allegedly untested, without public explanation.
The broken fingernails nonetheless exculpate Hank Skinner. It is likely Twila broke them as she fought for her life, possibly as she clawed at her assailant's head and came away with several of his hairs in her grasp. The State doesn't need DNA from the broken fingernails to verify they weren’t broken while clawing Hank Skinner. He had no scratches on him when he was arrested for her murder.
In addition to all the DNA material tested both before and after the trial, and in addition to DNA material sent for testing but never tested, there remains to this day substantial DNA material never tested.
The blood, hairs, and sweat from the extra-large windbreaker resting just a few feet from Twila’s body have never been tested.
The blood from the handprint left on the front storm door has not been tested. Alternatively, that blood has been tested but not reported. Someone scraped the handprint from the pane. The status of that scraped blood sample is now unknown.
The dishtowel from the trash bag was not tested, despite a possible bloodstain on that towel. It is possible the towel was used to wipe the fingerprints from the knife that was found in the same trash bag. That is the same trash bag that had the handprint that did not belong to Hank Skinner.
The blood on the knife in the trash bag was not tested, though it is likely that knife was the one used to stab both Randy Busby and Elwin Caler. That knife was found in the trash bag that had the handprint that did not belong to Hank Skinner.
The knife found on the front porch was not tested for the presence of blood. It appeared to have none. It seems not to be the murder weapon. That suggests that the blood on the gauze originated elsewhere, possibly from the killer.
Most significantly, no DNA sample was ever taken from Robert Donnell. The police never requested a saliva, blood, or semen sample from Twila's predatory, maternal uncle.
Uncle Robert
Howard Mitchell held a New Year's Eve party on the night of the murder. He picked Twila Busby up at her home and drove her to the party. The two of them left Hank behind because Hank was out cold. Mitchell had been unable to rouse him, even after efforts to physically lift him from the couch.
Mitchell returned Twila to her house soon after she arrived at his party because she was being harassed by none other than her predatory uncle Robert Donnell.
In September of 1994, nine months after the murder and six months before the trial, Howard Mitchell was interviewed by Bill McMinn, an investigator from the DA’s office. Below are excerpts from that interview.
Mitchell returned Twila to her house soon after she arrived at his party because she was being harassed by none other than her predatory uncle Robert Donnell.
In September of 1994, nine months after the murder and six months before the trial, Howard Mitchell was interviewed by Bill McMinn, an investigator from the DA’s office. Below are excerpts from that interview.
Well, we call him Uncle Robert. His name is Robert Duvall [Donnell], I think something like that.
Well, according to my daughter, she said [he left] right after I took Twila home. … He’s real quick tempered and stuff, you know, so I really didn’t hang around with him or nothing. You know, I’d be nice to him, he’s nice to me and all that.
He had … this girl named California Kim. … Him and her got in some kind of drug deal where she was supposed to buy some drugs, took him $350 … He wind up in an empty handed deal and he was over at my house one time and he grabbed her by the throat, slammed her up against the wall and said, “I’ll kill you, you son of a bitch," and she was pregnant, you know. And we stopped him, you know, talking and stuff.
And then Doug and this Uncle Robert and Sherry, I don’t know her last name, but they was out at the lake. … Well, Doug, he gets drunk and passes out. Sherry, she was passed out too. But anyway, she wakes up and he’s … got her pants off and trying to get her panties off and she got to kicking and screaming and she woke Doug up, you know. And so Doug talked him out of that bullshit, you know.
And then later on, why he come to town and he stuck a knife in Doug’s stomach, like that, and said, I’ll kill you, you son of a bitch, and then he got it up to his throat and said, I’ll cut your fucking head off. Now that’s strictly confidential, because Doug told me don’t ever tell nobody, but to me.
I’m talking about a man’s life, you know. I’m talking about Hank’s life. I don’t like Hank, you know what I mean? I don’t really dislike him, but I’m not -- we’re not compadres or none of that shit, you know. But I just don’t, my conscience won’t let me keep my mouth shut, you know. I don’t want to see nobody killed that didn’t do it, you know.
I told a detective that, I sure did. I told Harold Comer that. And that’s the truth, too. I’ll take a lie detector test or anything else on it, you know.
I don’t like being involved in none of this shit, you know what I mean?
All I’m doing really basically is I think the man they got [Hank Skinner] is innocent and the other guy [Robert Donnell] is guilty. I really believe that.
I believe this much. If he [Robert Donnell] finds out I said anything like I said, he’s going to come over here and try to kill me and I ain’t got a goddamn gun or nothing else.
And I could be wrong, you know. I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
McMinn, the DA investigator, was surprised by what he had just learned. He told Mitchell:
Well that’s the kind of information we didn’t have, you know. ... I’m going to have to talk to him, but I sure won’t tell him where my information came from, but I’m going to have to talk to him. I sure am.
If McMinn ever talked to Donnell, that interview has been suppressed along with so much other evidence in this case.
At trial, the defense introduced evidence that Robert Donnell was a heavy-set ex-convict with a hot temper; that he had sexually molested a girl; that he had grabbed a pregnant woman by the throat; that he usually kept a knife in the trunk of his car; that he became drunk at the party.
Mitchell testified that he "sensed that [Donnell] would be a danger" because he had "a certain kind of hate" in his eyes. Donnell followed Twila around as if he was stalking her and made crude sexual remarks, even though Twila was his own niece. Twila became agitated. Within a half-hour of her arrival at the party, she asked Mitchell to take her home.
Mitchell testified further that Twila was "fidgety and worried" when he dropped her off in front of her house at about 11:00 to 11:15 p.m. Twila got out of his car and walked to her front door without any assistance. When Mitchell returned home to his party, Donnell was no longer there.
Neither the police, nor the DA, nor the defense investigated Donnell with any great interest. Critical exculpatory evidence was never presented in Skinner’s defense.
Two and a half years after the trial, Howard Mitchell filed the following affidavit.
At trial, the defense introduced evidence that Robert Donnell was a heavy-set ex-convict with a hot temper; that he had sexually molested a girl; that he had grabbed a pregnant woman by the throat; that he usually kept a knife in the trunk of his car; that he became drunk at the party.
Mitchell testified that he "sensed that [Donnell] would be a danger" because he had "a certain kind of hate" in his eyes. Donnell followed Twila around as if he was stalking her and made crude sexual remarks, even though Twila was his own niece. Twila became agitated. Within a half-hour of her arrival at the party, she asked Mitchell to take her home.
Mitchell testified further that Twila was "fidgety and worried" when he dropped her off in front of her house at about 11:00 to 11:15 p.m. Twila got out of his car and walked to her front door without any assistance. When Mitchell returned home to his party, Donnell was no longer there.
Neither the police, nor the DA, nor the defense investigated Donnell with any great interest. Critical exculpatory evidence was never presented in Skinner’s defense.
Two and a half years after the trial, Howard Mitchell filed the following affidavit.
I came to know Twila’s uncle, Bob Donnell, when he moved to Pampa a few years before Twila was killed. He showed up at my house every once in a while. I had seen him get violent with people and he always carried a knife. I pretty much tried to stay away from Bob Donnell.
Twila told me about problems she had with Bob Donnell. About four months before she was killed, Twila told me Bob Donnell had been making sexual advance towards her and that he had even tried to rape her. I gave this information to the investigator who works for Hank Skinner’s trial attorneys. She told me this several times.
It’s not clear why Mitchell only revealed this information about an attempted rape almost four years after the murder, well after the trial. It seems that Mitchell tended to enhance his memory as time went on. His testimony at trial, for example, included considerably more detail than he included in his interview with the DA investigator. In fact, in that initial interview, when asked if Donnell and Twila had any problems at the party, Mitchell replied:
Not that I noticed. … I wasn’t paying that much attention.
On the other hand, Mitchell’s story about Donnell’s attempted rape of a woman named Sherry was later confirmed by Cliff Carpenter, an investigator for Skinner’s appellate team. I quote below from his report, which included other alarming evidence about Robert Donnell that the jury never heard.
I have spoken with Willie Mae Gardner, Donnell's widow, who told me that Donnell occasionally talked about having killed a man during a pool hall fight in a small town near Oklahoma City. On some of these occasions, Donnell showed Gardner a scar of what he said was a knife wound from the fight.
I have also spoken with Deborah Ellis, the granddaughter of Willie Mae Gardner, who told me that she witnessed Donnell "choke" and "push around" Gardner numerous times.
I spoke with Jimmy Hayes, a close acquaintance of Donnell. Hayes told me that Donnell always carried a large knife either on his person or in his pickup truck. Hayes also told me that once Donnell had attempted to slash Hayes with the knife, and cut Hayes' shirt but did not injure him. I have obtained the shirt, which has a cut across the left breast pocket.
Hayes also stated that on several occasions, Twila Busby called him to come over to her house to protect her because she was as afraid of Donnell. Hayes' wife Dorinda confirmed this.
I have spoken to Sherry Barnette, who told me that summer before the murders of Twila Busby, Randy Busby, and Elwin Caler, Donnell attempted to rape her at a lake near Pampa. During the assault, Donnell tried to "choke her down." Barnette also said that she had been at Twila Busby's house on several occasions when Busby had to run Donnell off because of his temper.
According to Willie Mae Gardner, on the night of the murders Donnell arrived home very late or in the early morning hours. The police came to Donnell's home to notify him of the deaths. Gardner recalled that the police knocked at the door at approximately 6 a.m. the morning after the murders, and Donnell said he would go see who was there. He returned a few minutes later and stated Twila and the boys had been killed. Gardner specifically recalled that Donnell was emotionless when he conveyed this news.
According to Willie Mae Gardner, Donnell repainted his pickup truck within a week of the murders. The truck had been white and Donnell painted it blue.
According to Deborah Ellis, within a week after the murders. Donnell also thoroughly cleaned out the interior of his pickup truck. He took out the interior carpet from the floorboard and thoroughly washed the plastic seat covers and interior of the truck with a water hose. This was unusual, as according to Willie Mae Gardner, Donnell was a man who had to be told to take a bath.
Deborah Ellis, mentioned above, would later testify at a federal habeas proceeding. She expanded on Robert Donnell's extreme and unusual efforts to clean his truck. It was a small, unremarkable truck, Japanese made. It was simply "an old beat up truck," a "plain Jane truck," a "clunker." Until that day soon after the murders, she had never witnessed Donnell wash the truck. On that day, however, her attention was drawn to his multi-hour effort to see that the truck was thoroughly cleaned.
Donnell stripped the interior down to the metal floorboards. He removed the seats and all the carpeting. Using a large five-gallon bucket containing a solution of Pine Sol, or something that smelled like Pine Sol, he thoroughly scrubbed the stripped down interior, then hosed it. He replaced the seats. He never replaced the carpets.
A few days later, he repainted his unremarkable truck using a paintbrush and a spray can.
Robert Donnell later died in a highway accident.
Deborah Ellis testified as well that her step-grandfather, Robert Donnell, owned and regularly wore a tan windbreaker like that found next to Twila Busby's body.
Efforts to Test the Untested DNA
Donnell stripped the interior down to the metal floorboards. He removed the seats and all the carpeting. Using a large five-gallon bucket containing a solution of Pine Sol, or something that smelled like Pine Sol, he thoroughly scrubbed the stripped down interior, then hosed it. He replaced the seats. He never replaced the carpets.
A few days later, he repainted his unremarkable truck using a paintbrush and a spray can.
Robert Donnell later died in a highway accident.
Deborah Ellis testified as well that her step-grandfather, Robert Donnell, owned and regularly wore a tan windbreaker like that found next to Twila Busby's body.
Efforts to Test the Untested DNA
It has been sixteen years since Hank Skinner was convicted. He has spent the intervening 6000+ days in a small, stark cell, proclaiming his innocence. His appeals have focused in large measure on having the untested DNA tested before he is executed. The State has so far successfully prevented such testing. In a brief to the Supreme Court, the State argued that Hank Skinner was merely "dragging out his case and seeking to impose unacceptable burdens on government resources and the victims’ dignity.”
Had the State actually tested all the evidence before trial, as they should have, or had they tested all the evidence after trail, the case would not likely have dragged out anywhere near this long, nor would the government have been unacceptably burdened, nor would the victims' dignity have been for so long in the public's conscious. The DNA testing would have revealed the killer to be either Hank Skinner or another person. In either case, I would not be writing of him today.
The State's initial failure and eventual refusal to test all the evidence, however, has in fact dragged the case out beyond all reason. The State has been so single-minded in its efforts to see Hank Skinner executed without testing that one might question its motives. As a minimum, one might suspect that the State fears the outcome of the testing.
One might even suspect that the State already knows what the outcome would be.
The State, after all, does seem to be particularly incurious about the person who left the bloody handprint on the plastic trash bag, the bag that held the bloody knife, the knife that had seemingly been thrust multiple times into each of the three victims. The State was certainly curious enough at the time to check that handprint against Hank Skinner. When it failed to get the desired match, however, the State seemed to lose all interest.
Even more suspiciously, the rape kit and the fingernail scrapings were sent for post-trial DNA testing along with the hairs grasped in Twila Busby's hand. There has been no explanation to this day why the rape kit and the fingernail scrapings were not tested, assuming they actually were not. Alternatively, the testing was conducted and the results have been suppressed all this time. In either case, an explanation still seems to be in order. Perhaps Governor Rick Perry would be willing to explain, given that he claims to have never lost a moment's sleep about executing an innocent man, given that he allowed Hank Skinner to come within an hour of being injected with lethal fluids.
Fifteen years to the month after convicting Hank Skinner of murder and sentencing him to death, the State finally came within an hour of executing Hank Skinner, all the while managing to prevent testing of the probative DNA evidence. Even then, even as Hank Skinner was being served his last meal, Rick Perry stood mute. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, however, did not.
The juxtaposition of those two names in contrast is striking. Rick Perry is widely known for his unwavering support of the death penalty and his confidence that no innocent person has ever been executed. So too, however, is Justice Scalia. It was Scalia who wrote in Herrera v. Collins that it would not be unconstitutional to execute a factually innocent person, as long as that person had been provided due process. It was Justice Scalia who wrote of his confidence that we had never executed an innocent person, which a governor would never allow such a thing to happen. Yet Justice Scalia saw a problem where Rick Perry could detect none.
Because of Scalia's intervention, Skinner's appellate team was eventually allowed to make its case before the entire Supreme Court that Skinner had a right to sue the district attorney in federal court for access to the DNA evidence. The Supreme Court agreed. The Court did not order that the testing be done, or that the evidence be turned over to the Skinner for testing. The Court ordered only that Skinner could sue in federal court, under a civil rights statute, for access to the DNA evidence. The lower federal court would decide the issue.
The State, undeterred by the adverse ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, responded simply by setting another execution date for Hank Skinner. The State now hopes to execute Hank Skinner before any court grants him the right to test the evidence.
Had the State actually tested all the evidence before trial, as they should have, or had they tested all the evidence after trail, the case would not likely have dragged out anywhere near this long, nor would the government have been unacceptably burdened, nor would the victims' dignity have been for so long in the public's conscious. The DNA testing would have revealed the killer to be either Hank Skinner or another person. In either case, I would not be writing of him today.
The State's initial failure and eventual refusal to test all the evidence, however, has in fact dragged the case out beyond all reason. The State has been so single-minded in its efforts to see Hank Skinner executed without testing that one might question its motives. As a minimum, one might suspect that the State fears the outcome of the testing.
One might even suspect that the State already knows what the outcome would be.
The State, after all, does seem to be particularly incurious about the person who left the bloody handprint on the plastic trash bag, the bag that held the bloody knife, the knife that had seemingly been thrust multiple times into each of the three victims. The State was certainly curious enough at the time to check that handprint against Hank Skinner. When it failed to get the desired match, however, the State seemed to lose all interest.
Even more suspiciously, the rape kit and the fingernail scrapings were sent for post-trial DNA testing along with the hairs grasped in Twila Busby's hand. There has been no explanation to this day why the rape kit and the fingernail scrapings were not tested, assuming they actually were not. Alternatively, the testing was conducted and the results have been suppressed all this time. In either case, an explanation still seems to be in order. Perhaps Governor Rick Perry would be willing to explain, given that he claims to have never lost a moment's sleep about executing an innocent man, given that he allowed Hank Skinner to come within an hour of being injected with lethal fluids.
Fifteen years to the month after convicting Hank Skinner of murder and sentencing him to death, the State finally came within an hour of executing Hank Skinner, all the while managing to prevent testing of the probative DNA evidence. Even then, even as Hank Skinner was being served his last meal, Rick Perry stood mute. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, however, did not.
The juxtaposition of those two names in contrast is striking. Rick Perry is widely known for his unwavering support of the death penalty and his confidence that no innocent person has ever been executed. So too, however, is Justice Scalia. It was Scalia who wrote in Herrera v. Collins that it would not be unconstitutional to execute a factually innocent person, as long as that person had been provided due process. It was Justice Scalia who wrote of his confidence that we had never executed an innocent person, which a governor would never allow such a thing to happen. Yet Justice Scalia saw a problem where Rick Perry could detect none.
Because of Scalia's intervention, Skinner's appellate team was eventually allowed to make its case before the entire Supreme Court that Skinner had a right to sue the district attorney in federal court for access to the DNA evidence. The Supreme Court agreed. The Court did not order that the testing be done, or that the evidence be turned over to the Skinner for testing. The Court ordered only that Skinner could sue in federal court, under a civil rights statute, for access to the DNA evidence. The lower federal court would decide the issue.
The State, undeterred by the adverse ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, responded simply by setting another execution date for Hank Skinner. The State now hopes to execute Hank Skinner before any court grants him the right to test the evidence.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
America's Executioner: An Introduction
I missed my self-imposed deadline to complete my book about Rick Perry's caviler approach to executions occurring under his watch. I had hoped to be done by the end of October. It is now the first of November. I didn't make it. I'm tempted to say I'll complete the book in days, not weeks. In today's parlance, however, that means I won't be done for months. I'll pass on predicting how much longer it will take me.
I have, however, settled on a title and sub-title for the book. While I found no title I liked better than the Skeptical Spouse's America's Executioner, I did benefit from what you readers proposed as titles and sub-titles in response to my request for help. Almost every sub-title I have since entertained began with "Rick Perry's [something or other]." I derived that concept from your suggestions. I liked as well Greasing the Machinery of Death, also from the readers. You will see that I used a variation of that theme as a sub-chapter heading in the introductory chapter.
Thank you for your thoughts and insights. The Skeptical Spouse and I spent a fair amount of time discussing the subtleties of all the suggestions. In appreciation of your efforts, I post the introductory chapter immediately below.
America's Executioner
Rick Perry's Betrayal of Executive Clemency
INTRODUCTION
A Well-Oiled Death Machine
When it comes to executing its citizenry, no state does it more frequently or with more gusto than does Texas. Under the gubernatorial stewardship of George Bush and Rick Perry, Texas has executed one person every other week for the last 17 years. Most of those executed were actually guilty of the crime for which they died.
Since 1976, Texas has executed 476 people. No other state comes within an arm's length. Virginia is second in the grisly accounting, having executed 109 people during the same period. Virginia's execution count is less than one quarter that of Texas. In fact, Virginia's count can't quite measure up to just one particular county in Texas. Harris County, home to Houston, has by itself sent 115 people to the death chamber.
When it comes to executing its citizenry, no state does it more frequently or with more gusto than does Texas. Under the gubernatorial stewardship of George Bush and Rick Perry, Texas has executed one person every other week for the last 17 years. Most of those executed were actually guilty of the crime for which they died.
Since 1976, Texas has executed 476 people. No other state comes within an arm's length. Virginia is second in the grisly accounting, having executed 109 people during the same period. Virginia's execution count is less than one quarter that of Texas. In fact, Virginia's count can't quite measure up to just one particular county in Texas. Harris County, home to Houston, has by itself sent 115 people to the death chamber.
Oklahoma comes in third in the body count with 96. That's but a fifth that of Texas.
Since the Supreme Court declared in 1976 that executions were once again constitutional, more than half the executions have taken place in Texas, Virginia, or Oklahoma. Texas, by its lonesome, has been home to 37% of all 1,272 executions carried out in the United States since 1976. Texas hopes to add two more by the end of the year. At least one of those is actually guilty.
In terms of executions per capita, Texas is second only to Oklahoma. Oklahoma has executed 26 people for each one million of its population; Texas has executed 19 people per million. The national average among the other states in which the death sentence is still legal is 4 executions per million residents.
Governor Rick Perry has hardly shied away from Texas' well-deserved reputation as the most death-penalty friendly state in the union. In his book Fed Up!, Perry writes:
If you don’t support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don’t come to Texas.Cause for Concern
There may be a problem with Texas' well-oiled execution machine. While Texas may be uniquely effective in executing its residents, the state's machinery displays symptoms of being imperfect about targeting only the guilty. One possible symptom is the state's success in carrying out the death sentences it imposes. Nationwide, excluding Texas, only 10% of the death sentences imposed since 1976 have actually been carried out. Texas, by comparison, has somehow managed to execute 50% of those it has sentenced to death. That's five times higher than the national average.
One possibility is that the Texas system of justice is five times more accurate and error-free than that throughout the rest of the country. Perhaps Texas prosecutors, juries, and judges are only one fifth as likely to make an error that would overturn or delay a death penalty conviction. If so, they have yet to detail and share their secrets of administering comparatively swift, comparatively error-free capital justice.
Another possible symptom of wrongful executions in Texas is the state's rather miserly rate of exoneration among those sentenced to death. As used here, an exoneration is a case in which the condemned person was acquitted at a retrial, had all charges dropped, or was given an absolute pardon by the governor. Exonerations do not include commutation of sentence or a re-trial in which the person was found guilty of a lesser count. In other words, an exoneration is an admission by the courts, the prosecutors, a jury, and/or the governor that the person condemned to die is likely innocent.
Nationwide, excluding Texas, there have been 126 exonerations such as just defined. Texas, by disturbing comparison, has exonerated only 12 of those it sent to death row.
Assuming Texas convicts innocents at the same rate as the other states, assuming therefore that Texas is simply less able or less willing to find innocents among its capital convictions, the implication is startling. If Texas has been wrongfully sentencing innocent people to death at the same rate as the rest of the country, then Texas should have exonerated at least 63 of them from death row. That's substantially more than the 12 condemned souls who have been exonerated from a Texas capital conviction.
That's 51 more.
Is it even remotely possible that Texas could have executed 51 innocent people?
Despite the relatively straightforward math, the calculated result is far beyond anything seriously suggested before. In fact, over the last couple years, most of the discussion about any wrongful execution in Texas has centered about a single case, that of Cameron Todd Willingham. Even that single, solitary case remains hotly debated despite (or perhaps because of) the enormous resources poured into investigating and debating it. Proving that several score more had been wrongfully executed would require a Herculean effort.
Yet if one were to review, in even cursory fashion, each of the 476 executions carried out by Texas, one might find disturbing trends. There have been people convicted on questionable eyewitness testimony or shaky forensics. There have been too many cases in which the State effectively purchased critical testimony from alleged accomplices or jailhouse informants. Too often an alternative suspect was ignored while the State was fixated on the soon-to-be condemned. In many cases the condemned man, while being strapped to the gurney, proclaimed his innocence to no avail rather than prayed for forgiveness in the hope of life everlasting.
As a beginning of such a review, one might want to at least consider the cases of:
Odell BarnesIn this monograph, I will detail four of those cases.
Reginald Winthrop Blanton
Windell Broussard
Ruben Cantu
William Wesley Chappell
Vincent Edward Cooks
Johnny Ray Conner
Marcus Bridger Cotton
Robert Otis Coulson
Carlos DeLuna
Robert Nelson Drew
Johnny Frank Garrett
Gary Lee Graham
Mack Oran Hill
Kia Levoy Johnson
Lonnie Earl Johnson
Claude Howard Jones
Richard Wayne Jones
Cary Kerr
Richard William Kutzner
Davis Losada
Charles Anthony Nealy
Francis Elaine Newton
Luis Ramirez
Lamont Reese
David Wayne Spence
David Wayne Stoker
Cameron Todd Willingham
Gregory Edward Wright
Rick Perry's Stewardship
In its 1993 decision of Herrera v. Collins, the United States Supreme Court declined to accept the responsibility of culling the factually innocent from those condemned to death. Instead, the Court left that formidable responsibility to the executive branch of each state. I excerpt below from Justice Renquist's majority opinion.
Claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding. ... This rule is grounded in the principle that federal habeas courts sit to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution -- not to correct errors of fact. ... Few rulings would be more disruptive of our federal system than to provide for federal habeas review of free standing claims of actual innocence. ...
This is not to say, however, that petitioner is left without a forum to raise his actual innocence claim. For under Texas law, petitioner may file a request for executive clemency. ... Clemency is deeply rooted in our Anglo-American tradition of law, and is the historic remedy for preventing miscarriages of justice where judicial process has been exhausted. ... Today, all 36 States that authorize capital punishment have constitutional or statutory provisions for clemency.
Executive clemency has provided the "fail safe" in our criminal justice system. ... It is an unalterable fact that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible. But history is replete with examples of wrongfully convicted persons who have been pardoned in the wake of after-discovered evidence establishing their innocence. ... History shows that the traditional remedy for claims of innocence based on new evidence, discovered too late in the day to file a new trial motion, has been executive clemency.Justice Scalia apparently found Justice Renquist's opinion insufficiently sarcastic. He filed a concurring opinion to correct the problem.
There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough) for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. In saying that such a right exists, the dissenters apply nothing but their personal opinions to invalidate the rules of more than two-thirds of the States, and a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure for which this Court itself is responsible. If the system that has been in place for 200 years (and remains widely approved) "shock[s]" the dissenters' consciences, ... perhaps they should doubt the calibration of their consciences, or, better still, the usefulness of "conscience shocking" as a legal test.
I nonetheless join the entirety of the Court's opinion ... because I can understand, or at least am accustomed to, the reluctance of the present Court to admit publicly that Our Perfect Constitution lets stand any injustice, much less the execution of an innocent man who has received, though to no avail, all the process that our society has traditionally deemed adequate. With any luck, we shall avoid ever having to face this embarrassing question again, since it is improbable that evidence of innocence as convincing as today's opinion requires would fail to produce an executive pardon.Under Rick Perry's executive stewardship, 239 people were executed through October of 2011. That's more than twice as many executions as from Harris County, ever. That's more than twice as many executions than from Virginia, all time. That's more executions than from Virginia and Oklahoma combined. Rick Perry has yet to detect an innocent person among the lot.
Five Texas death row inmates have been exonerated under Governor Perry's stewardship, but he pardoned none of the five. All were freed based on the efforts of others, frequently others working outside Texas' formal justice system.
The most recently exonerated was Anthony Graves. Graves had been convicted in 1994 for the murders of Bobbie Davis, her daughter, and her four grandchildren. The six victims died because Lisa Davis had recently served Robert Earl Carter with paternity papers. Lisa, however, was not at home when her mother was stabbed, her sister was shot, the four children were bludgeoned with a hammer, and the house was set ablaze to cover the crime.
Carter was arrested when he attended the funeral of his murdered son while wearing bandages to cover severe burns. At first Carter denied any involvement with the murders. He claimed his burns came from a grass fire in his own yard. After lengthy interrogation, he admitted to having been at the scene but claimed another person had committed the murders. That other person was Anthony Graves, a cousin of Carter's wife.
When Carter finally gave up Graves' name after 10 hours of interrogation, Carter was somehow operating under the mistaken belief that identifying an alternative culprit would save him, might even allow him to go directly home. From the transcript of his interrogation:
I hope you don’t use this to lock me up, to lose my job or anything like that or lose my family. As one of the Texas Rangers put it, that they roll out the red carpet for me. I know you’re trying to do me a favor. At the same time I’m trying to do you one. You want to catch the guy ... and I don’t want to lose my other family behind this.There was no physical evidence to place Graves at the crime scene. In fact, the substantial evidence was that Anthony Graves was elsewhere. Graves was nonetheless convicted based on the testimony of Carter, some horrible forensic work, and on purported jailhouse statements purportedly overheard by law enforcement officials. Anthony Graves was found guilty and sentenced to death, as was Carter.
Even before Graves' trial, Carter had recanted all claims that Graves was involved. The State kept those recantations from the defense. After Graves' trial and conviction, Carter resumed his efforts to recant his statements and now his testimony. Two weeks before his own execution, Carter filed a sworn statement recanting all previous claims that Anthony Graves had played any role in the murders. It was nearly the last such statement in a long line of admissions that Carter lied about Graves' involvement. Carter's final admission came as part of the final statement allowed him while strapped to a gurney with a needle in his arm.
To the Davis family, I am sorry for all of the pain that I caused your family. It was me and me alone. Anthony Graves had nothing to do with it. I lied on him in court. ... Graves don't even know anything about it. ... I hope that you can find your peace and comfort in strength in Christ Jesus alone. Like I said, I am sorry for hurting your family. ... I am ready to go home and be with my Lord.Despite Carter's multiple recantations, the State made no effort to reconsider the conviction of Anthony Graves. Though it had become clear that the State had withheld exculpatory information, Governor Perry stood mute as the Anthony Graves case made its way slowly to conclusion.
Anthony Graves' road to exoneration began with law and journalism students, peaked when the United States Fifth Circuit Court ordered Texas free him or grant him a new trail, and culminated when the newly assigned prosecutor found it impossible to make any case against Graves.
After months of investigation and talking to every witness who's ever been involved in this case, and people who've never been talked to before, after looking under every rock we could find, we found not one piece of credible evidence that links Anthony Graves to the commission of this capital murder. This is not a case where the evidence went south with time or witnesses passed away or we just couldn't make the case anymore. He is an innocent man.Though Anthony Graves spent 16 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, though he was convicted based on what the State finally admitted was zero credible evidence, though he was freed based largely by the efforts of those outside of the Texas justice system, and though the State resisted his exoneration until the very end, Rick Perry nonetheless declared the case to be proof of a well-tuned execution system.
I think we have a justice system that is working, and he’s a good example of -- you continue to find errors that were made and clear them up. That’s the good news for us, is that we are a place that continues to allow that to occur. So I think our system works well. It goes through many layers of observation and appeal, et cetera. So I think our system is working.Barry Scheck, co-director of the national Innocence Project, had a slightly different twist on the matter.
If the conclusion you reach is that a near miss like this means that the system is working, then you don’t understand the problems with the system. It’s sticking your head in the sand.The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
The governor of Texas can grant a pardon only if the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles first recommends clemency. That's true for all prisoners and probationers falling under the purview of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. With respect to death penalty convictions in particular, the governor can, without approval of the board, issue one 30-day stay of execution. Other than that one stay, the governor cannot by himself prevent or delay an execution without a favorable recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
One might argue, therefore, that this administrative arrangement somehow frees Rick Perry (and his predecessors) from any responsibility that might otherwise accrue from a wrongful execution, that Rick Perry cannot act effectively unless the Board acts first. One could argue that the Board of Pardons and Paroles, not Rick Perry, bears the final responsibility for insuring that no innocent person is executed.
There has not, however, been even one execution in which Rick Perry was actually constrained by the board. Not once did Rick Perry grant even a 30-day stay without the board's recommendation, though he is allowed to do so. Neither did Rick Perry take to the bully pulpit to denounce the unwillingness of the board to commute a sentence. Rick Perry never offered even the slightest hint that he felt one of the condemned might be innocent, that he was unable to act because the board members refused to do so first.
In fact, rather than the board constraining Rick Perry, Perry has substantially thwarted the board's efforts to grant clemency. From 2001 to 2009, the board recommended clemency (either pardon, commutation, or reprieve) in more than 500 cases for all sorts of crimes. Governor Perry granted clemency in only 30% of those cases. In 2010, Perry granted clemency in only 20% of the cases recommended by the board. Even those relatively few cases tended towards non-violent offenses committed many years earlier. Lewis Ray Howell, for example, was pardoned in 2010 for a theft he committed in 1955. Howell was 18 years old when he committed his crime. He was 73 years old, long released from prison, and living in Florida when Perry pardoned him. Perry faced little chance of political backlash for such a pardon.
Instead of hamstringing Governor Perry, as many would like to believe, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles instead provides him political cover. The board membership is pretty much guaranteed to do so, given that the governor appoints each member. Since Rick Perry was sworn into office, 30 people have served as members of the board. Each of them was appointed either by Governor George Bush or Governor Rick Perry. The last 19 to be appointed or re-appointed owe their jobs to Rick Perry. All seven members of the board, as it is now constituted, now owe their jobs to Rick Perry.
A Single Disagreement
In only one capital murder case has the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles disagreed with Rick Perry's public position. In 2004, one day before Kelsey Patterson was to be executed, the board voted 5 to 1 to recommend that Patterson's death sentence be commuted to life in prison. They voted so presumably due to Patterson's rather obvious insanity. Waiting until just one hour before Patterson's scheduled execution, Rick Perry announced that he would not abide by the board's recommendation, that he would not commute the sentence.
State and federal courts have reviewed this case no fewer than ten times, examining his claims of mental illness and competency, as well as various other legal issues. In each instance the courts have determined there is no legal bar to his execution. ... In the interests of justice and public safety, I am denying the defendant's request for clemency and a stay.In the only capital case of disagreement, Rick Perry was hardly hamstrung by the board.
In Ford v. Wainwright (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court formalized the common law standard that it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment to execute someone who was insane. Kelly Patterson should have easily qualified. In 1992, he walked from his home to an oil company a block away. He walked up behind a company employee, shot him in the head, and walked away. When another employee started screaming, he returned and shot her in the head. He then returned home, told his roommate what he had done, stripped down naked (except for his socks) and walked up and down the street until he was arrested.
The State's psychiatric expert of course declared Patterson sane, though the State had had twice previously found Patterson incompetent to stand trial for two earlier, non-fatal, unexplained shootings. In each of those earlier cases, Patterson had been sent to a state mental hospital rather than tried in criminal court. In each case, obviously, Patterson was released though not cured.
For the most recent shooting, Patterson was provided a pre-trial, mental competency hearing. During jury selection for that hearing, the judge asked Patterson to stand so that potential jurors might determine whether they knew him or had ever met him. As Patterson stood before his jurors, he told them:
I have an implant in me. I heard you in Dallas County in '86. Asked you how much you are going to invest. You said one percent.Patterson was immediately removed from the courtroom.
When he took the witness stand during that hearing, he argued that his food had been poisoned, that his body had been implanted with remote control devices, and that his own attorneys were in on the plot to persecute him. From the transcript of that hearing, I offer the following segment.
Patterson: Purposely you have been part of it. Then you come in here and play crazy with me, just as straight faced as ever.
Attorney: What kinds of things have I done to you?
Patterson: You have talked on the speaker system. Even nasty in my food. I have put a spoon of mashed potatoes in my mouth and had to spit them out.
...
Patterson: They have some type of implant devices that they used on me in the military, which I receive. Like the device that they put in the inner ear in which they can send subliminal message and make a person act beyond their controllability to know you have taken an action.
Attorney: Kelsey, do you believe those implants are still in your body?
Patterson: I know for a fact. Y'all play with it all of the time.
Patterson: I would like to stay if I could.
Judge: You may stay if you choose to be quiet.
Patterson: You know, Stafford, the one who had the implant device in '69.
Judge: Mr Patterson, you can stay as long as you're quiet.
Patterson: John McDonald -- I just received my --
Judge: Sir, did you understand what I said?
Patterson: Clerk's yesterday -- and I am misrepresented, but I have got to go through this.
Judge: Sheriff, take the defendant out of the courtroom. He insists on talking --
Patterson: I will stay if you will let me. You know, these men don't represent me. And has got Louis Oates' son working at the jailhouse -- and with the knife saying it ain't the time or place of death.The jury took less than two hours reject the insanity defence and to find Kelsey Patterson guilty of capital murder. Even as the judge read the verdict, Patterson continued his ramblings.
Judge: Mr Patterson, please stand. I'll read the verdict of the jury: "We the jury find the defendant, Kelsey Patterson, guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment." You may be seated, sir.
Patterson: Yeah, October 26th and on November 24th, 1992. Letter by gunpoint by James Todd 1983, November 21st.
Judge: Mr Patterson, you may be seated.
Patterson: [mumbling inaudibly in the background].
Judge: Sheriff, cause the defendant to be seated, please. Remove him from the courtroom.Patterson believed that he had been convicted as part of a "hell pledge" in which his judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys were all conspirators from hell. He nonetheless came to believe he had been granted amnesty on grounds of his actual innocence. He was therefore convinced he would never be executed. When he arrived at the death house, he continued to believe he would not be executed. Because of that belief, he refused to select witnesses for his execution, or to request a final meal.
Even as he was being strapped to the gurney, he continued to maintain that he had been acquitted.
Murderer. No kin, no kin, no kin. I'm not guilty of the charge of capital murder. Acquitted by the Court of Criminal Appeals.When asked if he had any final statement to make, he responded:
Statement to what? State what? I'm not guilty of the charge of capital murder. Steal me and my family's money. My truth will always be my truth. There is no kin and no friend, no fear what you do to me. No kin to you, undertaker. Murderer. Go to hell. Get my money. Give me my rights. Give me my rights. Give me my life back.Despite the Supreme Court's long-standing ruling that the insane should not be executed, and despite the Texas Board's nearly unanimous recommendation that Kelsey Patterson not be executed (presumably because they perceived him to be insane), Governor Rick Perry refused to commute Patterson's sentence. In fact, Rick Perry refused to grant even the 120-day stay recommended as an alternative by the board.
In the interests of justice and public safety, I am denying the defendant's request for clemency and a stay.Six Cases of Absolute, Probable, or Possible Innocence
In this monograph, I will detail the cases of four people executed in Texas under the less than watchful eye of Rick Perry. I will detail also two capital murder convictions in which the inmate has come within a day of execution, cases in which Texas has not yet been able to administer the ultimate punishment.
Francis Elaine Newton
Francis Elaine Newton was the first black woman executed in the United States since the Civil War. She was convicted in Harris County, the county with more successful death penalty convictions than any other county (and any other state) in the union. Harris County is home to the Houston Police Department Crime Lab, identified in a New York Times article as possibly the worst in the nation. Newton was convicted primarily on the incredibly sloppy work of that lab.
Larry Swearingen
Larry Swearingen has survived three execution dates. Twice he has come within a day of meeting his maker while Rick Perry and his Board of Pardons and Paroles stood mute. Swearingen continues to win stays of execution by bringing forth distinguished scientists who insist that it is medically impossible for him to have murdered the victim. The scientists continue to pile on evidence that the victim died no more than a week before her body was discovered in the Sam Houston National Forest. Since Swearingen had by that time been in jail for three weeks, he cannot possibly be guilty of her murder. The State, nonetheless, hopes to execute Larry Swearingen as quickly as possible.
As icing on the cake, the State withheld evidence from the defense that the victim's life had been explicitly threatened by a stalker just days before she disappeared.
Cameron Todd Willingham
Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of killing his three baby girls via arson. His conviction was based on the fatally flawed testimony of the State's pompous arson investigator. Just days before Willingham's execution, Governor Perry was provided an affidavit from our country's foremost fire investigator, Dr. Gerald Hurst. Dr. Hurst explained point by point why the arson evidence used to convict Willingham was based on little more than rules of thumb and old wives' tales. Though Rick Perry claimed to have read the affidavit, he did not attempt to stop or delay the execution in any fashion.
Rick Perry has since spent considerable effort to prevent the Texas Forensic Science Commission from investigating that case.
Kia Levoy Johnson
Kia Levoy Johnson was convicted of murder during the robbery of a convenience store, even though the FBI was unable to match his face or voice to the face and voice preserved on the store's surveillance camera. Johnson was convicted even though his fingerprints could not be found the counter, though the camera showed the shooter placing his prints right there. Instead Johnson was convicted based on the purchased testimony of three people who claimed they could identify Johnson from the video, even though the FBI could not.
Lamont Reese
Lamont Reese sat on a curb as his girlfriend drove three armed men to gun down rival gang members who had just insulted her. Reese refused to participate. To secure convictions in the case, the State brokered lives for favorable testimony. In a world where the first to talk walks, and the last to lie dies, Lamont Reese died not because he committed the crime, but because the others wanted to live.
Hank Skinner
The case of Hank Skinner is the most DNA rich capital murder case of which I am aware. Only a small fraction of the DNA material has been tested. Critical DNA evidence from a rape kit, from fingernail scrapings, and from a foreign windbreaker have never been tested. For sixteen years, Texas has been attempting to execute Skinner while simultaneously preventing the DNA from being tested. Once, they came within 47 minutes.
All the while, Rick Perry has stood mute.
The Debate
When asked during his first presidential primary debate if he had ever struggled with the possibility that any of the (then) 234 people who had been executed under his watch might have been innocent, Rick Perry replied:
No sir, I’ve never struggled with that at all. The state of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place of which -- when someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that’s required.
But in the State of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you’re involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the State of Texas. And that is you will be executed.
After Rick Perry offered that reply, amidst applause, I decided to write this monograph. By detailing six capital murder convictions of people who are absolutely / probably / possibly innocent, I hope to address the issue of whether Governor Rick Perry should have struggled with at least some of his (now) 239 executions. I hope as well to make a case that Governor Rick Perry should indeed struggle with several pending executions as yet unresolved by the needle.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
The Impending Execution of Hank Skinner: Open Deliberation
Hank Skinner sits on death row awaiting execution by the people of Texas. His case is one of the most factually and legally complicated cases I have encountered so far. In this post, I will begin with the State's case for Skinner's guilt from his original appellate decision Skinner v. State (1997).
Appellant raises twenty-one points of error, including a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. We will address the points in the approximate order in which they are raised. Review of the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict is necessary.
Appellant lived with his girlfriend, Twila Busby, and her two mentally-retarded sons, 22-year-old Elwin Caler and 20-year-old Randy Busby. Around 9:30 on the evening of December 31, 1993, Twila and appellant called a friend of Twila's, Howard Mitchell, and told him they wanted to go to his New Year's party, but needed a ride there. Between 10:15 and 10:30 p.m., when Mitchell went to pick up the pair, he found appellant passed out on the couch and was unable to wake him. Apparently, appellant had been drinking.
Leaving appellant in his stupor, Twila and Mitchell went to Mitchell's trailer where a party was in progress. Twila was followed around at the party by her drunken uncle who made rude sexual advances toward her and generally agitated her until she asked Mitchell to take her home. Mitchell drove Twila home between 11:00 and 11:15 p.m., and left.
At midnight, Police Officer Fred Courtney was dispatched to investigate a stabbing at an address located across the alley from appellant's residence. He arrived to find Elwin Caler sitting on the porch of a neighbor's house with a blanket pressed against his side. Elwin had a mortal stab wound under his left arm and superficial wounds to his right hand and stomach. He was taken to the hospital where he died at 12:45 a.m..
Four blocks away, also at midnight, appellant knocked at the door of his former girlfriend, Andrea Reed. Reed asked appellant to leave, but he entered the house and told her that she had to help him because he had been stabbed and shot. Appellant's shirt and pants had a great deal of blood on them. Appellant removed his shirt, but Reed could find no injuries except for a bleeding cut in the palm of his right hand, which she agreed to suture.
Reed and appellant conversed for almost three hours during which time appellant made a series of inconsistent statements about the cause of and events surrounding his injury. At one point Reed attempted to leave the room to call the police, but appellant stopped her and threatened to kill her. Reed told him she was going to call Twila to ask her what happened and appellant claimed that he caught Twila in bed with her ex-husband and fought with him. Eventually, appellant offered to tell Reed what really happened if she would promise not to reveal it to anyone. When Reed promised not to tell, appellant stated that he thought he had kicked Twila to death.
While appellant was at Reed's house, the police were investigating Elwin's stabbing. As they approached the house where Elwin lived with his mother, brother, and appellant, the police noticed a trail of blood spots on the ground running from the front porch to the fence line. There was a blood smear on the glass storm door and a knife on the front porch. Upon entering the residence, the police found Twila's dead body on the living room floor. It was later determined that she had been strangled into unconsciousness and subsequently beaten at least fourteen times about the face and head with a club. An ax handle stained with blood and hair was leaning against the couch near her body and a black plastic trash bag containing a knife and a towel with wet brownish stains on it was laying between the couch and the coffee table.
Officer Morse Burroughs proceeded to the bedroom where Elwin and Randy usually slept in bunk beds. He found Randy's dead body laying face down on the upper bunk, covered by a blood spotted blanket. Randy had been stabbed in the back three times. A door leading out of the bedroom and into a utility room yielded further evidence. Burroughs noticed a bloody handprint located about 24 inches off the floor on the frame of this door. He also noted a bloody handprint on the door knob of the door leading from the kitchen to the utility room and a handprint on the knob of the door exiting from the utility room into the backyard.
The police arrested appellant at Reed's house at approximately 3:00 a.m.. They found him standing in a closet wearing blood-stained socks and blood-stained blue jeans. He appeared intoxicated. A toxicological test on a blood sample appellant voluntarily provided at 5:48 a.m. showed appellant to have 0.11 milligrams of codeine per liter of blood and a blood alcohol level of 0.11 percent. Tests on the blood on appellant's clothing was found to belong to Twila and Elwin. In a tape-recorded statement to the police, appellant claimed to remember little of what happened on the night of the murders after he fell asleep on the couch. Autopsy evidence showed all of the murders to have been committed in the same general time frame.
In his first point of error, appellant claims the evidence is legally insufficient to support the verdict that he killed three people during the same criminal transaction. Appellant concedes that the evidence is sufficient to prove that appellant killed both Twila and Elwin. He also concedes that appellant left the bloody handprints
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The physical evidence connected appellant to the murders of two of the victims. Appellant also stated that he thought he had killed Twila. All three victims lived in the same house, and all three were apparently home with appellant around the time of the murders. No evidence other than appellant's own statement indicates that anyone else was in the residence during the time of the murders. Also, a trail of blood spots ran from the front porch of the residence to the fence line and only one victim was found outside of the house. Given the totality of the evidence, it was rational for a juror to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant killed all three of the victims during the same criminal transaction. Point of error one is overruled.
I now boldy excerpt most of an article from the Huffington Post by David Protess.
Hank Skinner ... has been on death row in Texas since 1995 for the murders of his girlfriend and her two adult sons in their Panhandle home. He has steadfastly professed his innocence. In recent years, the State's star witness recanted her testimony to my journalism students and others, and several witnesses told the students that the female victim's uncle (now deceased) was the likely killer.
And, there is DNA. Some DNA tests, including on a trail of blood leading from the home, excluded Skinner. Other tests placed Skinner at the scene. (He was a frequent visitor to the home and claims he passed out the night of the crime from a combination of codeine and alcohol. A witness and two experts back his story.)
But most stunning is the physical evidence that has never been tested. The rape kit was not tested. The murder weapons were not tested. Several hairs clutched in the female victim's hand were not tested. A distinctive windbreaker strongly resembling the uncle's found two feet from her body and covered in blood? Not tested.
Since 2000, Skinner has repeatedly asked the local D.A. and the courts to order tests on the remaining evidence, confident they would prove his innocence. Each time, his plea has been denied on the grounds that he did not make the request before his trial. So, on March 24, 2010, Texas planned to execute Skinner while the evidence sat in a storage locker controlled by the current D.A., Lynn Switzer.
Less than an hour before the execution, Skinner's fortune changed -- for the time being. While munching on his last meal, he learned from his lawyer that the U.S. Supreme Court had issued a temporary stay. Prison guards abruptly escorted Skinner from his holding cell outside the execution chamber in Huntsville to his cell on death row in Livingston.
A few weeks later, the Court agreed to hear the case before another attempt could be made on his life. Finally, in a landmark decision earlier this year, the justices ruled 6-3 that Skinner had the right, under federal civil rights law, to sue D.A. Switzer to seek access to the remaining physical evidence for possible DNA testing.
As a federal magistrate in Texas considered the lawsuit that quickly followed, Skinner had another temporary stroke of good fortune. In May, the Texas legislature overwhelmingly passed a bill guaranteeing the right to post-conviction DNA testing, and in June Gov. Rick Perry signed it into law. The bill's sponsor publicly said that it was designed for cases like Skinner's and in memory of another prisoner, Tim Cole, who tragically died behind bars before DNA tests proved his innocence.
Suddenly, Skinner had two chances for justice: the federal lawsuit against the D.A. to gain access to the physical evidence in his case, and a new state law assuring the tests.
What happened next defies imagination. A Texas judge, days before the new statute went into effect and the DNA motion was filed, set another execution date for Skinner: November 9th. That's right. Skinner is scheduled to die in a month -- while two judges continue to contemplate whether he can test the evidence that might clear him.
Under other circumstances, the courts would issue a stay of execution and allow both civil actions -- one authorized by the highest court in the land, the other by the state legislature -- to move forward. Unfortunately for Skinner, however, the U.S. magistrate almost certainly lacks the authority in a federal civil case to issue a stay of execution in Texas. How about the state court judge with the DNA motion on his desk? He happens to be the same judge who set Skinner's execution date for November 9th.
Without intervention by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Gov. Perry, or the U.S. Supreme Court, Hank Skinner may well die before the DNA tests can be conducted. Welcome through the looking glass into the criminal justice system, where up is down, and down is up.
Fighting back, Skinner's advocates have posted a petition asking D.A. Switzer to "do the right thing" and order the tests on her own. And Skinner has gained support for his cause from, among others, six of the jurors who found him guilty and voted for death.
There are plenty of links to follow, so you can be reasonably well educated about the case if you wish. I will now open deliberations. In a few days, I will post my chapter on Hank Skinner from my impending book, about Rick Perry, the title of which is still being considered.
ADDENDA: My take on the Skinner case is now available here.
ADDENDA: My take on the Skinner case is now available here.
