PUBLISHER'S NOTE: "On learning about the Bourgeois case, I immediately thought of Robert Roberson who awaits execution in Texas despite the fact that he is an innocent man wrongly convicted under the now debunked shaken baby syndrome following the tragic death of his 2-year-old chronically ill daughter. To compound the horror there was no crime. Bethany Bourgeois George's application for a posthumous pardon for her father, also makes clear the sense of loss and pain experienced by a family when a parent who has lost a child through illness or accident is treated like a criminal - in her father's case executed - when he should have been comforted and allowed to grieve. In her words: "I humbly ask you, President Biden, to consider the irrefutable evidence, the deep and lasting impacts on Alfred's family, and the moral obligation we share to confront injustices—no matter how long they have persisted. Granting this pardon will not erase the past, but it wil shine a light on the truth and give my father the dignity he was denied in life."
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Testimony from Medical Experts: "Indicated that any injuries to Jakarenn’s brain occurred before she was in Alfred’s care. These findings were excluded from trial, depriving Alfred of a fair defense. Testimony states that upon noticing Jakarenn was dehydrated, Alfred immediately purchased Gatorades to help rehydrate her, as found in his truck. Tragically, his efforts to address her condition were insufficient to counteract the effects of severe hypernatremia. This demonstrates that Alfred believed he was acting in her best interest, further disproving the narrative of intentional harm. Forensic pathologists Dr. Jan Edward Leestma, Dr. Kagan-Hallet, and Dr. Werner Spitz, all of whom were prepared to testify, corroborated these findings. Despite their willingness to provide critical defense testimony, they were not called to the stand."
————————————————————————————————————
Coerced Testimony: "The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Alfred’s 6-year-old daughter, Alfredesha Bourgeois Hytower, who initially swore to her father’s innocence. Her testimony changed a year later- only after being subjected to prosecutorial coaching—a practice that is both unethical and manipulative, especially when applied to a vulnerable child. Her statements were inconsistent, and she admitted during trial that parts of her testimony were scripted by her mother. Court records indicate that this coerced testimony became a cornerstone of the prosecution’s case, despite its questionable reliability. In reviewing the witness testimonies from Alfred Bourgeois's trial, several contradictions and inconsistencies emerge that cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence presented against him
———————————————————-
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "The “Rush to Kill”: Alfred’s execution occurred during an unprecedented and unlawful “Rush to Kill” under the Trump Administration in 2020. Despite receiving a stay of execution and the legal requirement for a 90-day reprieve, his execution was fast-tracked in violation of established legal procedures. Alfred’s case highlights the dangers of expediting executions without a thorough and impartial review of evidence, especially when new facts or recantations are brought forward. The execution was botched, forcing Alfred to endure 28 minutes of intense suffering. Witnesses reported he was foaming at the mouth heaving uncontrollably, and convulsing, all while knowing he was an innocent man. Such a failure demonstrates not only the moral flaws of the death penalty but also the physical cruelty it often entails."
————————————————————————————
PASSAGE FOUR OF THE DAY: "‘Alfred Bourgeois was a loving father, a hard-working man, and, above all, an innocent person whose life was unjustly taken by a system that failed him at every tum. His case reflects the devastating consequences of prosecutorial misconduct, unreliable testimony, and a legal defense that failed to protect him. It reveals the broader systemic flaws of a death penalty process that i irreversible and, too often, unjust. By granting a posthumous pardon to Alfred Bourgeois, you have the opportunity to take a meaningful stand: «To acknowledge this injustice and honor the truth. To offer peace to Alfred's family, who have endured decades of unimaginable pain«"
------------------------------------------------
Bethany Bourgeois George
December 17, 2024
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden Jr.
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Biden,
————————————————————
------------------------------------------------------------
I am writing to respectfully request a posthumous pardon for my father, Alfred
Bourgeois, who was wrongfully convicted and executed on December 11, 2020, during a period when the federal government carried out an unprecedented number of executions in a short timeframe.
This expedited schedule left little room for meaningful review of his case, compounding the injustice.
Despite being sentenced to death, compelling evidence that emerged both during and after his trial raises significant doubts about the fairness of his conviction.
Throughout his 18-year incarceration, my father consistently maintained his innocence.
Alfred’s execution not only extinguished the life of an innocent man but inflicted deep emotional wounds on his family and those who believe in the pursuit of justice.
Investigations by respected organizations such as the ACLU, NPR, and Death Penalty Action have echoed these concerns, emphasizing the profound flaws in his case.
This request seeks to correct a grave miscarriage of justice and restore honor to his
memory.
All supporting documents, including autopsy reports, expert testimonies, and media investigations, can be found at
https://www.alfredbourgeois.com/publicrecords
I respectfully urge you to grant this pardon in recognition of the systemic failures that led to this tragedy and to provide
closure to those impacted by this injustice.
——————————————————---
----------------------------------------------------------
Background of the Case:
Alfred Bourgeois, a devoted father and hardworking truck driver, was convicted in 2004 and sentenced to death for crimes he did not commit. His case, marked by procedural failures, misrepresentation of evidence, and exclusion of key witnesses, ultimately led to his wrongful execution on December 11, 2020.
Six weeks before Jakarenn’s tragic death, Alfred discovered that he had a child from an affair.
Her mother requested Alfred to take Jakarenn for a brief period so she could travel and allow Jakarenn to bond with her half-sisters.
During this time, Alfred accepted trucking assignments, often leaving Jakarenn in the care of her stepmother, Robin, and her 6-year-old sister, Alfredesha. Robin, who harbored resentment about caring for another woman’s child, was unkind and negligent.
At the center of Alfred’s case was the tragic death of his young daughter, Jakarenn.
The cause of death, hypernatremia from swallowing too much salt water during a family beach trip that occurred 7 to 10 days prior to her passing, was misrepresented during the trial as evidence of abuse.
Medical testimony confirmed that any injuries to Jakarenn’s brain occurred before she was in Alfred’s care. Adding to this injustice, Jakarenn’s biological mother was tragically murdered by her spouse shortly after Jakarenn’s death, further complicating the case and its narrative.
Her autopsy revealed no signs of blunt-force trauma, no abuse, and no rape.
Despite this, the prosecution relied on the coerced testimony of Alfred’s 6-year-old daughter, who initially swore to his innocence but later changed her statement after being coached by prosecutors.
Compounding these injustices, more than 20 medical experts—including neurologists, rape specialists, and child abuse experts—were willing to testify that no abuse occurred.
Even the prosecution’s own medical expert agreed there was no evidence of rape.
Yet, Alfred’s defense team was prevented from presenting this testimony, leaving the jury with an incomplete and one-sided narrative.
This suppression of evidence violated Alfred’s right to a fair trial and allowed an innocent man to be portrayed as a monster.
During his 18.5 years of incarceration, Alfred was subjected to additional injustices.
Unlike other inmates, he was denied all forms of contact with his family, including visits, phone calls, emails, and written correspondence.
This violation of his rights further exemplified the inhumane treatment he endured.
Despite these challenges, Alfred maintained his innocence and fought tirelessly for the truth to prevail.
While incarcerated, he developed an intellectual disability due to depression and the harsh effects of unwarranted solitary confinement for 23 hours per day.
In 2020, Alfred’s case was caught in the midst of a federal “Rush to Kill,” during which the government carried out an unprecedented number of executions in a short timeframe. Alfred’s execution was scheduled despite his receiving a “STAY”
and without the 90-day reprieve typically granted to allow for proper review of evidence.
His execution was further marred by errors, causing him 28 minutes of intense suffering before his death.
Numerous investigations conducted after Alfred’s execution, including those by NPR, the ACLU, and Death Penalty Action, have highlighted the profound flaws in his case.
Notable figures such as Amanda Knox, Sister Helen Prejean, and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists have brought attention to his story, underscoring the systemic failures that led to his wrongful execution.
These accounts serve as a testament to the urgent need for justice in Alfred Bourgeois’s name.
Alfred’s case stands as a stark reminder of the ultimate failure of the justice system.
His wrongful execution inflicted deep wounds on his family, tarnished his memory, and denied him the opportunity to clear his name.
This request for a posthumous pardon seeks to honor Alfred’s legacy, restore dignity to his name, and ensure that his story paves the way for meaningful reform in the pursuit of justice.
—————————————————————————
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence of Wrongful Conviction
The conviction of Alfred Bourgeois was built on unreliable testimony, suppressed
evidence, and a systematic failure to present critical expert findings.
The following evidence, both from the trial and subsequent investigations, highlights the profound miscarriage of justice that led to his wrongful execution.
1. Autopsy and Medical Evidence
The autopsy of Alfred’s daughter, Jakarenn, revealed that she died from
hypernatremia, a condition caused by excessive saltwater ingestion during a family
beach trip that occurred 7 to 10 days prior to Jakarenn’s death, and not from any form of
abuse or blunt-force trauma as alleged by the prosecution.
---------------------------------------------------
Dr. Elizabeth Rouse
(Prosecution): Conducted the autopsy, found no evidence of rape, molestation, or trauma. She also later admitted that her findings were influenced by witness accusations rather than objective evidence, stating she may have erred in her conclusions.
-----------------------------------------------------
Carol McLaughlin
(Prosecution): A Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE),
confirmed there was no evidence of sexual assault.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Alan Keel Forensics Criminologist
(Prosecution): Dr. Keel actually states
there was no proof of semen being detected in the evidence that was presented
at trial.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Edward Blake & Mr. Peter Barnett
- Forensics Science Associates with Mr.
Alan Keel (Prosecution): All agree there were absolutely no signs of rape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Roland Auer
(Defense): A neuropathologist, reviewed the autopsy and
concluded that Jakarenn died from untreated dehydration and saltwater
ingestion, consistent with hypernatremia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jane W. Turner
(Defense): Concluded that cerebral edema and brain
contusions were consistent with prolonged dehydration, not trauma. Her findings
refuted the prosecution’s claim of head-banging.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jan Leesma
(Defense): Examined the Brain & explained his finding refuting
blunt force trauma or abuse. Strongly disagreed with the testimony of Alfredesha
and Robin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kagan-Hallet, M.D Ph.D.
(Defense): The 1st Neuropathologist to look at Dr.
Rouse's autopsy (6 weeks after autopsy) & concluded there was no evidence of
blunt force trauma. She was never used as a key witness because the Defense
NEVER returned her call.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Elizabeth Johnson
(Defense): Dr. Johnson was eager to testify at Alfred
Bourgeois’ trial, but attorneys refused to call her back- forcing her findings to be
inadmissible in court. Dr. Johnson conducted serological and DNA testing and
found no signs of semen what so ever.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Werner Spitz
(Defense): Found that autopsy photographs enhanced by the
prosecution were misleading and exaggerated injuries. He confirmed that
Jakarenn’s death resulted from hypernatremia and dehydration, not abuse or
blunt-force trauma. Dr. Spitz refuted the claims of leading witness, Alfredesha
Bourgeois (Age 6 at the time), who stated Jakarenn’s head was struck multiple
times on the interior of the vehicle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Testimony from Medical Experts:
Indicated that any injuries to Jakarenn’s brain occurred before she was in Alfred’s care. These findings were excluded from trial, depriving Alfred of a fair defense.
Testimony states that upon noticing Jakarenn was dehydrated, Alfred immediately
purchased Gatorades to help rehydrate her, as found in his truck. Tragically, his efforts to address her condition were insufficient to counteract the effects of severe
hypernatremia. This demonstrates that Alfred believed he was acting in her best
interest, further disproving the narrative of intentional harm.
Forensic pathologists Dr. Jan Edward Leestma, Dr. Kagan-Hallet, and Dr. Werner Spitz, all of whom were prepared to testify, corroborated these findings. Despite their willingness to provide critical defense testimony, they were not called to the stand.
2. Coerced Testimony
The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Alfred’s 6-year-old daughter,
Alfredesha Bourgeois Hytower, who initially swore to her father’s innocence.
Her testimony changed a year later- only after being subjected to prosecutorial coaching—a practice that is both unethical and manipulative, especially when applied to a vulnerable child. Her statements were inconsistent, and she admitted during trial that parts of her testimony were scripted by her mother. Court records indicate that this coerced testimony became a cornerstone of the prosecution’s case, despite its questionable reliability. In reviewing the witness testimonies from Alfred Bourgeois's trial, several contradictions and inconsistencies emerge that cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence presented agai-nst him:
A. Testimony of Alfredesha Bourgeois Hytower
Initial Statement
: Alfredesha, Alfred Bourgeois's 6-year-old daughter at
the time, initially proclaimed her father's innocence.
Contradiction
: After extended time with the prosecution and FBI, she
later testified that she witnessed the alleged blunt-force trauma. During
Alfred’s trial, Alfredesha stated, “That was Mommy’s part to say,” further
emphasizing prosecutorial coaching and manipulation. This shift in
testimony raises significant concerns about undue influence and the
ethical violations of using a child in this manner.
——————————————————————————————————————
B. Testimony of Robin Bourgeois
For 6 weeks, Alfred’s wife, Robin, solely cared for Jakarenn for days at a
time while Alfred was away delivering cargo. Additionally, Jakarenn was in
Robin’s care throughout the duration of their Summer travels. This allowed
Alfred to safely operate his semi truck and deliver loads.
Statement
: Robin, Alfred’s wife, testified that Jakarenn had difficulty
walking and seemed disoriented after leaving the beach, suggesting she
was under her care during that time.
Contradiction
: Robin’s account suggested that Jakarenn’s condition
began under her care, yet the prosecution presented this timeline as evidence of Alfred’s sole culpability. This inconsistency was never fully addressed in court.”
As a key suspect in Jakarenn’s death, Robin agreed to testify against Alfred after
securing a deal with the prosecution. Her false claims went unchallenged by the
defense. These contradictions highlight significant flaws in the prosecution's case and suggest that critical evidence supporting Alfred Bourgeois’s innocence was
overlooked or suppressed during the trial. The coercion of Alfredesha’s testimony
and the exclusion of defense witnesses constitute a grave miscarriage of justice,
violating Alfred’s constitutional right to a fair trial.
————————————————————————
————————————————————————
C. Exclusion of Defense Witnesses
Medical Experts: Numerous medical experts, including neurologists,
forensic pathologists, and child abuse specialists, were prepared to testify
that no evidence of abuse, rape, or blunt-force trauma existed. Their
exclusion deprived Alfred of a fair defense and the jury of critical
information that could have challenged the prosecution’s case.
Family Members and Experts: Alfred’s eldest daughter, Bethany, was prepared to testify in her father’s defense but was excluded from the courtroom without explanation. Bethany was eager to testify about past physical and mental abuse she endured from her stepmother, Robin Bourgeois. In addition, Bethany, other family members, and friends were
banned from both testifying and viewing the trial, preventing them from
providing critical context to counter the prosecution’s narrative.
The Prosecution’s Handling of Key Witnesses: The prosecution called Alfred Bourgeois’s former partners, including the mother of his children, with the intent of eliciting testimony against him. However, she was ultimately not used because she stated she had nothing negative to say about Alfred. This deliberate omission demonstrates the prosecution’s selective and biased use of witnesses to reinforce a narrative unsupported by facts. “The exclusion of these witnesses was not only unjust but also a violation of Alfred’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the evidence against him and present
a full defense.”
3. Suppression of Exculpatory Witnesses
More than 20 expert witnesses, including family members, neurologists, forensic
pathologists, and child abuse specialists, were willing to testify that no evidence
supported the claims of abuse or rape. These included:
Dr. Elizabeth Johnson
(Defense): Conducted DNA testing and found no traces of semen. She was not called to testify.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Kagan-Hallet
(Defense): First neuropathologist to review the autopsy and conclude there was no evidence of blunt-force trauma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Werner Spitz
(Defense): A renowned forensic pathologist who has worked on high-profile cases, agreed there was no evidence of abuse.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Roland Auer
(Defense): Confirmed Jakarenn died from hypernatremia and
found no head injuries consistent with trauma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Members:
Alfred’s family and friends were barred from testifying or attending the trial, further limiting the jury’s access to critical context and character references.
The suppression of these witnesses deprived Alfred of a fair trial, leaving the jury with a one-sided narrative.
4. Contradictory Prosecution Evidence
Even some prosecution witnesses cast doubt on the claims against Alfred:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Elizabeth Rouse
(Prosecution) found no evidence of sexual assault during the autopsy but later allowed her conclusions to be influenced by allegations of abuse.
----------------------------------------------------
Carol McLaughlin (SANE Nurse) : Found no evidence of sexual assault or
abuse during her examination.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Alan Keel
(Prosecution) stated there was no proof of semen in the evidence presented at trial, contradicting the claims of rape.
Additionally, enhanced autopsy photographs used to claim external injuries were
criticized by defense experts for exaggerating findings.
An example of this was a single venous sinus thrombosis (“VSS”), caused from dehydration, appearing as 8, when zoomed in using an outdated overhead projector.
A "venous sinus thrombosis" means a blood clot has formed in a special type of vein in the brain called a "venous sinus," which prevents blood from draining properly, potentially causing pressure buildup and damage to brain tissue; essentially, it's like a blockage in a drainage system within the brain that can lead
to serious complications if not treated quickly.
These findings directly contradict the narrative presented by the prosecution during the trial.
5. Legal and Procedural Violations
Alfred’s trial and incarceration were marked by significant procedural violations:
Fabricated Evidence:
The FBI’s P30 test for semen was inconclusive and later abandoned as unreliable. The jury was never told about the inconsistencies and false readings of the p30 test. The prosecution’s case for sexual abuse rested entirely on false and fabricated claims. In addition, autopsy reports showed no signs of blunt-force trauma or blood found on the windshield, as the Prosecution alleged.
Denial of Contact:
Alfred was one of the only death row inmates denied “all” forms of family communication, including visits, calls, and letters, in violation of standard inmate rights.
Expedited Execution:
During the Trump Administration’s 2020 “Rush to Kill,” Alfred was executed without the customary 90-day reprieve for review of evidence further compromising the integrity of the process. The Stay of Execution that he had previously been granted was also blatantly ignored.
Inadequate Defense:
Alfred’s defense attorneys failed to call critical witnesses and did not present available evidence that could have exonerated him.
6. Botched Execution
On December 11, 2020, Alfred’s execution was botched, causing him to endure
28 minutes of intense suffering before succumbing.
Witnesses reported that his execution violated international human rights standards, compounding the injustice of applying the death penalty to an innocent man.
7. Post-Execution Investigations:
Investigations conducted after Alfred’s execution, including by NPR, the ACLU, The Huff Post, and Amanda Knox’s podcast, have uncovered critical flaws in this case. These efforts have been bolstered by renowned figures such as Sister Helen Prejean, Death Penalty Action, and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Wesley Lowery, who have highlighted the systemic failures that led to Alfred’s wrongful conviction and execution.
Impact of the Injustice
The wrongful conviction and execution of Alfred Bourgeois have left a profound and
lasting impact on his family, community, and society as a whole.
A. Impact on the Family
For over 18 years, Alfred’s family endured the pain of separation, compounded by the knowledge that he was unjustly imprisoned for a crime that never happened.
The allegations of rape and abuse were thoroughly disproven by multiple experts, yet Alfred remained incarcerated and ultimately executed.
Following Alfred’s arrest in 2002, his family was denied all forms of communication.
For nearly two decades, they could not hear his voice or share moments of comfort with him.
The silence was only broken the day before his execution, when Bethany,
Alfredesha, and Alfreda were finally able to speak with him over the phone.
Despite the joy of hearing each other after so long, the calls were cruelly interrupted every 15 minutes, reminding them that Alfred was a condemned inmate.
In the moments before the execution, Bethany connected Alfredesha and Alfreda on a three-way call so that they could all speak to their father one last time.
Alfredesha, who had been only 6 years old when her coerced testimony was used against him, was heartbroken and crying.
She even allowed her 5-year-old daughter—Alfred’s granddaughter—to speak to him, a telling indication that she no longer believed the accusations of abuse or molestation.
The family exchanged final words of love before the call ended.
When the phone rang again, it was not Alfred. It was the voice of an official informing them that the execution was about to take place.
They knew in that moment they would never hear his voice again.
The loss of Alfred has left the family grappling with immense grief and trauma.
For Bethany, the pain of knowing her father was wrongfully executed has been
overwhelming.
She has battled severe depression and suicidal thoughts, often feeling
as though the weight of injustice is too much to bear.
In her darkest moments, she has reached out to multiple crisis hotlines to find the strength to continue.
Following the execution, Alfredesha verbalized severe regret and emotional distress, expressing that she did not want her father to die.
She called the execution “UnChristly” and questioned the afterlife, asking, “Will he come back as a flower… or something else?”
These words reflect the profound and lasting trauma caused not only by Alfred’s wrongful conviction but also by the manipulation of his young daughter’s
testimony.
The ripple effect of Alfred’s wrongful conviction and execution has left his family
fractured, emotionally scarred, and struggling to find peace.
Despite this, Bethany has continued to fight for justice, determined to restore her father’s name and honor his memory.
B. Societal Impact
The wrongful conviction and execution of Alfred Bourgeois expose deep and systemic failures within the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving the death penalty
His case serves as a chilling reminder of how prosecutorial misconduct,
defense negligence, coercion, and systemic biases can lead to the ultima
injustice—the state-sanctioned execution of an innocent man.
———————————————
1.
The “Rush to Kill”
Alfred’s execution occurred during an unprecedented and unlawful “Rush to
Kill” under the Trump Administration in 2020.
Despite receiving a stay of execution and the legal requirement for a 90-day reprieve, his execution was fast-tracked in violation of established legal procedures. Alfred’s case highlights the dangers of expediting executions without a thorough and impartial review of evidence, especially when new facts or recantations are brought forward. The execution was botched, forcing Alfred to endure 28 minutes of intense suffering. Witnesses reported he was foaming at the mouth heaving uncontrollably, and convulsing, all while knowing he was an innocent man. Such a failure demonstrates not only the moral flaws of the death penalty but also the physical cruelty it often entails.
———————————————————————-----
—————————————————————————
Systemic Failures in Evidence Review
Alfred’s case is emblematic of the systemic flaws within the justice system:
Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence Defense failures prevented
critical medical experts, such as Dr. Elizabeth Johnson and Dr. Roland Auer from testifying.
Their findings disproved the prosecution’s claims of rape, abuse, and blunt-force trauma.
Selective Use of Testimonies;
Witnesses whose accounts did not align with the prosecution’s narrative, including Alfred’s former partner Bethany’s mother), were excluded. Instead, coerced and contradictory testimony—particularly that of Alfred’s 6-year-old daughter—was used to secure a conviction.
Manipulation of Technology The prosecution relied on distorted autopsy photographs using outdated 2002 technology to exaggerate injuries, creating a false perception of abuse that did not align with the autopsy findings
.
3.
Failure of Judicial Oversight
At every stage, the judicial system failed to recognize and rectify the injustices in
Alfred’s case. Despite overwhelming evidence of innocence, the
Supreme Court declined to intervene before his execution. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, recognizing the injustice, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others ignored critical facts that could have spared Alfred’s life.
This failure underscores the urgent need for judicial reforms to ensure that no individual is wrongfully sentenced to death.
4.
The Media’s Complicity and Neglect
The media played a significant role in perpetuating misinformation about Alfred’s
case.
Sensationalized headlines and inaccurate reporting spread false narratives
of abuse and rape while ignoring the overwhelming evidence that disproved
these claims. Even after his execution, Alfred’s story remained overshadowed by
other cases, leaving his family to fight alone for justice and public acknowledgment. As Bethany has noted, she reached out to over 600 media outlets, civil rights attorneys, and advocacy organizations, only to be met with rejection, apathy, or conditions requiring publicity. This silence allowed the injustice to persist and robbed Alfred of the opportunity to have his story fairly told.
5.
Broader Implications for the Death Penalty
Alfred’s wrongful execution serves as a devastating example of why the death
penalty is an inherently flawed and dangerous practice. It demonstrates that
systemic issues—such as racial bias, prosecutorial misconduct, inadequate
defense, and reliance on faulty evidence—are not mere anomalies but recurring
failures. Innocent people, like Alfred, remain at risk of being executed while the
true causes of tragedies go unexamined. This case underscores the need for significant reforms, including:
Elimination of the Death Penalty:
The irreversible nature of executions leaves no room for correcting errors.
Accountability for Prosecutorial Misconduct; Prosecutors who suppress
evidence, manipulate testimony, or fabricate narratives must face consequences.
Improvements in Defense Standards;
Public defenders must be equipped with the resources, training, and commitment to provide a robust defense.
Transparency in Evidence Presentation
Outdated and misleading technologies, like the distorted autopsy photographs used in Alfred’s trial, must be eliminated to ensure accuracy.
Alfred Bourgeois’s wrongful conviction and execution are not just a tragedy for his family but a stain on the justice system.
The societal impact of this case is far-reaching, serving as a stark warning that systemic flaws must be addressed to prevent similar injustices.
A posthumous pardon would not only honor Alfred’s memory but also send a powerful message that such failures cannot and will not be tolerated.
Moral and Ethical Grounds
The wrongful conviction and execution of Alfred Bourgeois represent a moral failure of our justice system—a failure that can and must be addressed.
While nothing can bring Alfred back, granting a posthumous pardon would restore his dignity, acknowledge the truth, and send a message that the United States values fairness, accountability, and human life.
A. The Irreversible Consequences of a Broken System
The execution of an innocent man is an irreversible tragedy. Alfred’s life was taken
based on fabricated evidence, coercive practices, and systemic misconduct.
This cannot be dismissed as an error—it was a preventable injustice. Every human life has intrinsic value, and when the state fails in its duty to protect innocent lives, it has a moral responsibility to acknowledge its wrongs and take corrective action.
The death penalty exists under the assumption of infallibility, but Alfred’s case proves the opposite: our system is flawed, and innocent lives can and have been taken.
Granting a posthumous pardon to Alfred would demonstrate that his life was not taken in vain. It would affirm that our nation values truth over finality and justice over
vengeance.
B. A Call for Leadership and Accountability
President Biden, you have publicly expressed your opposition to the death penalty and your commitment to addressing its moral and systemic failings.
The case of Alfred Bourgeois is an opportunity to demonstrate moral leadership and hold the justice system accountable for its failures.
This is not just about one man; it is about restoring faith in our democracy and ensuring that no other family suffers the pain and injustice that Alfred’s family continues to endure.
A posthumous pardon would send a clear and powerful message: that the United States does not ignore its mistakes and that justice can prevail even in the face
of the gravest injustices.'
C. Healing for the Family and the Nation
For Alfred’s family, the pain of his wrongful conviction and execution has been
unrelenting. They have spent years fighting to restore his name and honor his memory, often alone and unheard. A posthumous pardon would offer them a measure of peace and validation—an acknowledgment that the injustice they witnessed was real and that their father’s life mattered. On a broader level, this pardon would contribute to healing a fractured trust between the public and the justice system. It would demonstrate that the government is willing to confront its mistakes, take responsibility, and commit to meaningful change.
D. A Legacy of Justice
Alfred Bourgeois’s story is not just a tragedy; it is an opportunity for change. By granting this pardon, you have the power to honor Alfred’s legacy as a man wrongfully taken from his family and to ensure that his case serves as a catalyst for reform. His memory can stand as a reminder of why we must always strive for a justice system that is fair, impartial, and accountable. President Biden, you have the opportunity to right this wrong. A posthumous pardon for Alfred Bourgeois is not merely an act of compassion; it is an act of justice. It is a statement that the United States does not tolerate the wrongful taking of innocent lives and that no family’s suffering will go unheard.
————————————————————————————————
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call to Action and Conclusion
Mr. President, the wrongful conviction and execution of Alfred Bourgeois stand as a
grave injustice that must be recognized and corrected. The evidence is clear, the facts are undeniable, and the moral imperative to act is profound.
‘Alfred Bourgeois was a loving father, a hard-working man, and, above all, an innocent person whose life was unjustly taken by a system that failed him at every tum. His case
reflects the devastating consequences of prosecutorial misconduct, unreliable testimony, and a legal defense that failed to protect him. It reveals the broader systemic
flaws of a death penalty process that i irreversible and, too often, unjust. By granting a posthumous pardon to Alfred Bourgeois, you have the opportunity to take a meaningful stand: «To acknowledge this injustice and honor the truth.
To offer peace to Alfred's family, who have endured decades of unimaginable pain«
To restore faith in the pursuit of justice by showing that no lfe—no matter the circumstances—uwill be taken without accountability. ‘This is more than an act of mercy; itis an act of leadership, morality, and justice. I humbly ask you, President Biden, to consider the irrefutable evidence, the deep and lasting impacts on Alfred's family, and the moral obligation we share to confront injustices—no matter how long they have persisted. Granting this pardon will not erase
the past, but it wil shine a light on the truth and give my father the dignity he was denied in life.
For comprehensive supporting documents, please visit https:/iwww.alfredbourgeols.com/publicrecords, where all evidence and case materials are available for your review.
Mr. President, please help me honor my father's memory and ensure that his name is remembered not as a monster, but as a martyr—a man whose wrongful execution must serve as a catalyst for meaningful change. Ithank you for your time, your leadership, and your compassion in considering this plea
for justice.
Sincerely,
Bethany Bourgeois George
Daughter of Alfred Bourgeois
Advocate for Justice and Systemic Reform
Address: 1733 H. St. Ste. 450-561
Blaine, WA 98230
Phone:
Website: www.AllredBourgeors.com
——————————————————————————————
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
OF
SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS
● Application for Executive clemency
● Petition to US Court of Appeals 5th
Circuit
● Affidavit of Werner U. Spitz, M.D.
● Testimony of Jan Edward Leestma B.A,
M.D, M.M
● Addional supporting documents can be
found on the Public Records page of
www.AlfredBourgeois.com Sections."
The entire (unedited) application can be read at:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25482938-posthumous-pardon-request-alfred-bourgeois-2024/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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/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 Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
