"It's breathtakingly simple in Skinner's case and, no doubt, others. There is available previously untested DNA evidence. It can be tested. The “interests of justice” that allowed testing even in the previous law should have already required the testing.
"The evidence includes a bloody towel and knives, a rape kit from the live-in girlfriend, biological material from her fingernails and sweat from a jacket that resembled one that a potential suspect wore.
Skinner might very well be a monster. There is some evidence for that. But, then again, he might just be a guy who once drank enough alcohol and ingested enough codeine at the same time to have made him incapacitated to the point of being unable to brutally murder three people as charged.
I have no doubt that some guilty-as-hell inmates simply want to stall, to breathe longer. But, for the cost of testing and housing an inmate for a bit longer, the state can remove doubt. And then can still execute if testing doesn't exonerate. Why wouldn't we want such certainty?""
O. RICARDO PIMENTEL: SAN ANTONIO EXPRESS-NEWS;
---------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S VIEW: (EDITORIAL); In a rational world that values both justice and science it would be inconceivable to think that Texas would execute Hank Skinner bef
HAROLD LEVY; PUBLISHER; THE CHARLES SMITH BLOG;
---------------------------------------------------------
"Texas passed a law this year intended to remove the procedural barriers blocking death row inmates from testing DNA evidence that might prove their innocence," the San Antonio Express-News column by O. Ricardo Pimentel published on November 25, 2011 begins, under the heading, "Shame should fule DNA testing in Skinner case."
"If embarrassment wasn't a motivator in its passage, it should have been. Texas leads the nation in the number of wrongfully convicted folks freed because of DNA evidence," the column continues.
"How about we now give shame a chance?
We're talking about the case of Henry Skinner, whose execution in the 1993 triple-slaying in Pampa of his live-in girlfriend and her two adult sons was stayed recently just days before it was scheduled to occur. This followed a previous stay in March 2010 by the U.S. Supreme Court an hour before his scheduled execution.
Shame will be warranted if authorities continue to thwart testing of available DNA evidence in this case. This latest stay, by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, reasoned that the courts should have a chance to weigh whether this new law allows the testing.
A court in 2003, according to Skinner's attorney, Robert C. Owen, ruled he was not entitled to the testing because favorable DNA testing would not conclusively prove him innocent. And in 2009, he was denied the testing because the evidence was available for testing when he was tried. His defense team at the time feared what this would find.
Working under the new law, Owen is arguing that testing, if it shows someone else's DNA involved, could inject reasonable doubt and should, therefore, be allowed. The state is arguing that other evidence is so conclusive that he committed the crime. In any case, the bill clearly amended existing law to allow evidence that “was not previously subjected to DNA testing.”
But shame alone should dictate the testing. We already know that Cameron Todd Willingham, whose appeals for a reprieve Gov. Rick Perry rejected in 2004, was executed on the strength of now discredited arson evidence. And Michael Morton became a free man recently because of DNA evidence that the Williamson County district attorney unsuccessfully tried to stop from being tested.
It's breathtakingly simple in Skinner's case and, no doubt, others. There is available previously untested DNA evidence. It can be tested. The “interests of justice” that allowed testing even in the previous law should have already required the testing.
The evidence includes a bloody towel and knives, a rape kit from the live-in girlfriend, biological material from her fingernails and sweat from a jacket that resembled one that a potential suspect wore.
Skinner might very well be a monster. There is some evidence for that. But, then again, he might just be a guy who once drank enough alcohol and ingested enough codeine at the same time to have made him incapacitated to the point of being unable to brutally murder three people as charged.
I have no doubt that some guilty-as-hell inmates simply want to stall, to breathe longer. But, for the cost of testing and housing an inmate for a bit longer, the state can remove doubt. And then can still execute if testing doesn't exonerate. Why wouldn't we want such certainty?
It is as if prosecutors fear “losing” or, worse, embarrassment. And those procedural barriers have carried more weight in this state's courts than the “interests of justice.”
Too bad there is no statute requiring shame as a factor."
The story can be found at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
