ALERT: Texas scheduled Robert Roberson's execution for Oct. 16 — sign petition now:
—————————————
—————————————
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "More concerning is that Conklin attests that she and her sister were pressured by case workers to say they had seen Roberson “mistreating Nikki” and they were threatened with having their children taken away if they failed to “get on board with accusing Robert.” Conklin wrote that she could not be coerced into lying. But while “this pressure did not work on me,” she said that her sister was susceptible to it. “I would have provided this information during the 2003 trial if the attorneys had asked me,” she wrote, as did Roberson’s brother in a similar affidavit.
—————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Similarly, it’s taken more than two decades to hear what independent pathologists have to say, and their message, eloquently stated, is that an “unwillingness to engage in meaningful review” suggests a desire to avoid “perceived reputational harm” taking precedence “over the truth-seeking function that is supposed to animate science.” In Roberson’s case, it’s looking more and more like the truth is innocence."
———————————————
EDITORIAL ;'Evidence of death row inmate Robert Roberson’s innocence stronger than ever,' published by The Express-News Editorial Board, on July 23, 2025.
SUB-HEADING: "Analyses of multiple experts in forensic pathology make strong case that Roberson’s daughter died from medical condition and not physical abuse."
GIST: “The state of Texas is determined to execute Robert Roberson despite mounting independent evidence, including from credible medical experts, that should give pause to rational and impartial observers.
Roberson has been on death row in Texas since 2003, when he was convicted of murder in the 2002 death of his 2-year-old daughter, Nikki Curtis.
His execution had been scheduled for October 2024, but an unusual move by a Texas House committee — subpoenaing Roberson to testify at a hearing about the handling of his case — led to its delay.
Now, it’s back on the calendar, and Roberson is set to die on Oct. 16.
And yet there is more reason today to doubt the Roberson jury’s verdict than there was last fall.
The more one reads detailed analyses issued this year by multiple experts in forensic pathology and other medical disciplines that directly relate to this case, the more one must consider the likelihood not only that Roberson didn’t kill Nikki, but also that her death is attributable to the misdiagnosis and medically inappropriate treatments of a very sick child.
With such a fresh, independent and far more rigorous examination of Nikki’s case than has been previously undertaken, Roberson’s lawyer has filed a new appeal — writ of habeas corpus — asking the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to find that he is either innocent or grant him a new trial.
While the court has yet to rule on this appeal, Smith County District Judge Austin Reeve Jackson set the execution date, as requested by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
It appears as if Paxton’s rush to conduct the execution is driven by the notion that it will render moot any consideration that Roberson’s conviction was based on junk science, erroneous forensic pathologist’s analysis, potentially coerced and false — or at least misleading — testimony, and the omission of relevant testimony that contradicted the prosecution’s description of the defendant as an evil man.
New medical review
That last point, while more subjective, is poignant as investigators and medical personnel often viewed Roberson through a skewed lens that interpreted his affect as evidence of depravity rather than a common manifestation of autism that doesn’t reflect a person’s character.
Only the most obstinate would continue clinging to the questionable conclusions — often influenced by flawed suppositions and compounded by groupthink — that were presented to a jury as sound and incontrovertible medical and investigatory evidence.
So while prosecutors point to the medical examiner’s observations of multiple contusions as evidence of Nikki being beaten, it turns out that her condition was not nearly as simple as they would have the public believe.
A more probing analysis — by a doctor with expertise to know what to look for — presents what appears to be a more fact-based and complete explanation that accounts not only for the medical examiner’s postmortem observations, but also Nikki’s extensive history of severe infections, including her illness at the time she was taken to the emergency room before she died.
And it turns out that Nikki had one contusion when Roberson brought her to the emergency room, which is consistent with his account that she fell from her bed.
The others occurred while she was under hospital care, her initial CT scan shows, and were attributable to her medical conditions, which included a blood-clotting disorder that was exacerbated by pneumonia and medications.
The new and enlightening medical forensic information is detailed in two documents.
One is an affidavit by Dr. Michael Laposata, an expert in blood coagulation who is a former Harvard Medical School professor and now chairs the Department of Pathology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
Lamposata explains how Nikki’s severe illness in the days before her death, which led to multiple visits to the doctor and emergency room, and her blood test results show that she had a blood-clotting disorder called disseminated intravascular coagulation, which is consistent with Roberson’s account and inconsistent with the medical examiner’s conclusions.
The other is a joint statement issued by 10 pathologists — from the U.S., the United Kingdom and Australia — that supports Lamposata’s conclusion.
Also, it further delves into multiple problems regarding her medical treatment before she died and how they contributed to conditions that — the pathologists write — the medical examiner misinterpreted due to inexperience and failure to examine all relevant and available information.
That information included blood tests that the medical examiner ordered but didn’t wait for before issuing a conclusion.
It would take more space than we have in print to itemize and explain all the questionable and improper medical treatment, forensic practices and investigatory steps involved in the handling of Nikki’s case — and the fallacious conclusions they led to.
Neither Lamposata nor the group of pathologists have been paid for their analyses. Instead, they are motivated to preserve the integrity of their profession.
The group of 10 expressed a concern that the ability to accurately ascertain the cause and manner of death is “severely undermined” when a medical examiner acts as “an adjunct of law enforcement and prosecution” and is unwilling “to contradict or fully examine” what treating physicians have concluded.
“A forensic pathologist faced with new medical evidence or changed science should be willing to reconsider any previous opinions. That reconsideration should include all relevant evidence, including all reports from qualified specialists to have studied the case,” the group wrote.
Prioritize truth
On the criminal investigation side, Brian Wharton, who was the lead detective in Roberson’s case, has reached that point — being willing, even eager, to say that he jumped to conclusions prematurely.
During an Oct. 16 hearing before the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, Wharton said he was “so focused on finding an offender and convicting someone that I did not see Robert. I did not hear his voice.”
Also back then, no one listened to — or asked to hear from — people who were in a position to contradict and otherwise cast doubt on testimony from Roberson’s girlfriend, who described Roberson as abusive and Nikki as afraid to be near him.
Patricia Ann Conklin — older sister of Roberson’s then-girlfriend — said in a February affidavit that she knew Roberson for years dating back well before he moved in with her sister and was granted custody of Nikki.
She described Roberson as “loving and caring” not only with Nikki but also with her children, whom Roberson occasionally let ride with him while he delivered newspapers to earn a living.
“I had no fear at all about my daughters spending time with Robert,” Conklin said, adding, “I never saw Robert hurt Nikki and do not believe he is capable of shaking or beating her or any child. He was and is a gentle man. … My experience watching him interact with people goes back years before Nikki was even born.”
Moreover, she explained in her affidavit that while she loves her sister, Conklin acknowledges that she had “a lot of issues,” including medical and mental health problems that Conklin said affected her judgment.
More concerning is that Conklin attests that she and her sister were pressured by case workers to say they had seen Roberson “mistreating Nikki” and they were threatened with having their children taken away if they failed to “get on board with accusing Robert.”
Conklin wrote that she could not be coerced into lying.
But while “this pressure did not work on me,” she said that her sister was susceptible to it.
“I would have provided this information during the 2003 trial if the attorneys had asked me,” she wrote, as did Roberson’s brother in a similar affidavit.
Similarly, it’s taken more than two decades to hear what independent pathologists have to say, and their message, eloquently stated, is that an “unwillingness to engage in meaningful review” suggests a desire to avoid “perceived reputational harm” taking precedence “over the truth-seeking function that is supposed to animate science.”
In Roberson’s case, it’s looking more and more like the truth is innocence."
The entire editorial can be read at:
https://www.expressnews.com/opinion/editorial/article/robert-roberson-forensic-appeal-20780981.php
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;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
