PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I echo blogger/extraordinaire Jeff Gamso's blunt, unequivocal, unforgettable message to the powers that be in California on Kevin Cooper's application for post-conviction DNA testing: "JUST TEST THE FUCKING DNA."
http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2018/06/kevin-cooper-2-california-application.htm
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "There’s no proof, all that remains is the age-old prejudice that a white girl wouldn’t be involved with my son God said: “Vengeance is [His].” Texas, you have borne false witness against my son. Texas, how can you ignore all facts and findings presented to you? There is nothing saying that Rodney Reed committed the murder, and everything points to someone else."
COMMENTARY: "Opinion: Texas refuses to test DNA that’ll prove Rodney Reed’s innocence," by Sandra Reed, published by The Statesman on July 7, 2018.
GIST: "The state of Texas still wants to take my son’s life even
after all the facts of his innocence were presented in court. A
world-renowned pathologist testified that my son — Rodney Reed —
couldn’t have committed the murder of Stacey Stites. But the state of
Texas refuses to DNA test all the evidence. DNA put my son on death row, but we now know that DNA had
nothing to do with the murder — it was old. And the jury wasn’t told all
the results. For example, the jury never learned of a state DNA report
from the time of my son’s 1998 trial of beer cans found at the scene
that excluded Rodney Reed and implicated two police officers and the
deceased drank from the same cans. How can the state hide DNA evidence
at his trial and then prevent testing it now? Why not test the remaining
evidence, such as the belt they say was the murder weapon? Technology is far more advanced than it was 20 years ago and can go back thousands of years. Surely, they can go back 20 years. Tell
me, what happened to the reasonable doubt? What happened to compassion?
What happened to empathy? What happened to justice? My son didn’t
receive any of the above. Why is Texas determined to take my son Rodney
Reed’s life, based on old DNA, seemingly corrupt cops, lawyers, and yes,
all of the state’s experts who said my son was guilty have since
recanted their testimony. There’s no proof, all that remains is the
age-old prejudice that a white girl wouldn’t be involved with my son God said: “Vengeance is [His].” Texas, you have borne false witness
against my son. Texas, how can you ignore all facts and findings
presented to you? There is nothing saying that Rodney Reed committed the
murder, and everything points to someone else. My son’s
experience has opened my eyes to the fact that there are many innocent
lives on death row. Corruption put them there — the same corruption that
sent our old sheriff to prison, and that continues to cover up the
abuse our community has suffered for generations. There should be no
death penalty, and the justice system needs to seek the truth. The Reed
family thanks the lawyers and all the supporters and prayers. God Bless
you all."
The entire commentary can be found at:
The entire commentary can be found at:
https://www.statesman.com/news/local/opinion-texas-refuses-test-dna-that-prove-rodney-reed-innocence/8IzwoyvqSBCR9MCs4DzBXP/Read Statesman June 25, 2018 story on U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of Rodney Reed's request for DNA tests: (By reporter Chuck Lindell); "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Texas death row inmate Rodney Reed, who has been trying without success to have crime-scene evidence tested for DNA, saying the results could prove his innocence. The decision, delivered without comment from the court, ended Reed’s bid to have the evidence tested under a state DNA law but opened another avenue to pursue in the coming weeks — a federal lawsuit arguing that blocking access to the tests violates the Bastrop man’s civil rights, his lawyer said Monday. “Rodney Reed has asked for DNA testing of crime scene evidence that would unquestionably have been tested if the murder were investigated today,” said Bryce Benjet, Reed’s lead lawyer. Prosecutors have fought to deny Reed access to the evidence for about four years, arguing that testing would not be helpful in solving the 1996 Bastrop-area murder of Stacey Stites because the items had been contaminated by repeated handling during and after Reed’s trial. In addition, several items were stored in the same box but not packaged separately, allowing potential DNA to mingle, prosecutors said. “There is nothing unconstitutional in requiring evidence integrity,” they told the Supreme Court. Bastrop County District Attorney Bryan Goertz did not return calls seeking comment Monday. Reed’s lawyers claim he is innocent and want to test crime scene evidence that was probably touched by the killer, including Stites’ clothing and two pieces of the belt used to strangle her, to determine if modern testing methods can reveal skin cells and other DNA-bearing evidence. New techniques can filter out or identify extraneous DNA, the lawyers argued. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the request in an 8-0 ruling in April 2017, saying problems with the chain of custody of the evidence raised questions about contamination and serious doubts that DNA testing would produce reliable results. Reed’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling, arguing that the Texas court misinterpreted the state law that allows for DNA testing after a conviction — particularly chain-of-custody language that requires testing on items that have not been “substituted, tampered with, replaced or altered.” The Texas court invented a contamination exception that is not part of the law, they said. With the Supreme Court declining to weigh in, efforts will be made to have lawmakers correct the court’s “restrictive and unconstitutional” interpretation of the DNA law when the Legislature meets in the first half of 2019, Benjet said. “The Texas Legislature has repeatedly corrected the Court of Criminal Appeals by amending the DNA law, and we are confident in the coming year that the Legislature will again express their overwhelming support for DNA testing to ensure that innocent men and women are not wrongfully imprisoned or executed,” he said. In the meantime, Reed will turn to the federal courts by filing a lawsuit seeking help, Benjet said. “Although we had hoped that the Supreme Court would immediately take up the constitutional issues raised by the denial of DNA testing, we are also aware that the court has recognized a separate procedure for federal review of DNA cases through a civil action,” he said. A separate Reed appeal also is awaiting a ruling from the Court of Criminal Appeals. In that case, defense lawyers argue that Stites was probably killed by her fiance, Jimmy Fennell, who has denied the accusation. Reed’s lawyers point to new information that they believe casts doubt on Fennell’s whereabouts before Stites was killed and testimony from forensic experts who said Stites died around midnight, when she would have been alone with Fennell in their Giddings apartment. A state judge who examined the evidence, however, found it unpersuasive and recommended that the appeals court reject Reed’s request for a new trial.
https://www.mystatesman.com/news/crime--law/supreme-court-rejects-rodney-reed-request-for-dna-tests/I847cAA7f0xvshciC1ygxN/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. 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/c
