Friday, June 23, 2017

Napoleon Beazley: Last Words

Napoleon Beazley: Last Words

To: Letters to the Editor, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (1)

FWST columnist Bob Ray Sanders, with a confusion that can best be described as willful blindness, seeks to enshrine the final words of capital murderer Napoleon Beazley.("Beazley's own words best decry capital punishment", 6/5/02, Fort Worth Star-Telegram).

It is Beazley who is decried, by his own words.

Beazley states "I'm . . . disappointed that a system that is supposed to protect and uphold what is just and right can be so much like me when I made the same shameful mistake."

Sharp: Beazley equates the premeditated, undeserved and brutal capital murder of a totally innocent man with his own just punishment for committing that crime. Such moral relativism is simply foul, regardless of your feelings about capital punishment.

Beazley humbly offers: "If someone tried to dispose of everyone here (those witnessing the execution) for participating in this killing, I'd scream a resounding, 'No.' I'd tell them to give them all the gift that they would not give me ... and that's to give them all a second chance."

Sharp: How generous. Beazley wouldn't execute those witnessing his just execution. Saint Beazley.

And Beazley didn't have a second chance? Please.

He had infinite chances to choose a life outside of crime. He had a great life, a wonderful family, was president of his school class, a great athlete. He had it all. And what did he do?

He threw it away, just as he so casually pumped two bullets into the head of John Luttig.

Mrs. Luttig survived by playing dead, after Beazley threw some lead in her direction -- he missed.

Beazley continues: "Tonight we tell the world that there are no second chances in the eyes of justice. ... Tonight, we tell our children that in some instances, in some cases, killing is right."

Sharp: Just the opposite. Justice gave Beazley 8 years on death row to make every thing as right as he could. To make amends, to show true remorse and contrition. But, instead, he threw that opportunity away, as well.

Instead, it is all about poor Napoleon. And yes, Napoleon, it is a good lesson for our children. Yes, in some cases killing is right, though never easy. It is right to search out and kill terrorists that pledge to murder innocents. And, it is just and right to execute terrorists like Napoleon Beazley.

Napoleon asks: "But who's wrong if in the end we're all victims?"

Sharp: It is so common for self serving criminals to see themselves as victims. Beazley was no different.

Beazley implores: "Give (death row murderers) a chance to undo their wrongs."

Sharp: It is, of course, impossible to undo a capital murder and the ensuing horror and pain that still remains with those who cared and loved John Luttig. You would think that after 8 years of dealing with his deep remorse that Beazley may have figured that out. But, it seems he figured out very little. More opportunities wasted.

Mr. Sanders, Beazley's final words say little about capital punishment, but a lot about Napoleon Beazley.

Read Michael Luttig's victim impact statement. He is John's son



1) For clarity,  I separated my comments with Sharp: I could not find the original Letter at the FWST site, but found it at another site, undated.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Why Death Sentences Have Dropped in Texas

Why Death Sentences Have Dropped in Texas
Dudley Sharp

Re: Texas is issuing fewer death sentences and executing fewer inmates, report says, Samantha Ketterer, Dallas Morning News, 12/15/16

From: Dudley Sharp

The referenced report, issued by Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (TCADP), finds that opinions and practices, against the death penalty, as well as the adoption of life without parole (LWOP) in 2005, expensive death penalty trials and better legal defense are reasons for the drop, as per Kristin Houlé, the coalition's director.

Rob Kepple, executive director of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, finds:

"I don’t know that that (the drop in death sentences) should surprise anybody," "The number of murders alone and the number of death-eligible cases is way lower than it was in the '80s and '90s."

Let's look.

Life Without Parole (LWOP) and Texas Death Penalty Reduction

LWOP law went into effect in Texas on September 1, 2005.

I didn't find any post 9/1/2005 capital murders that pled down to LWOP before 12/31/2005 nor any death penalty option trials that were decided prior to 12/31/2005, with a LWOP sentence.

There was a 69% drop in death sentences, from 48 in 1999 to 15 in 2005, PRIOR to LWOP having any effect on death sentences.

The first year that the LWOP law could have had any effect on death sentences was in 2006, with 11 death sentences.

In 2007, death sentences rose by 36%, to 15.

With almost total consistency, death sentences averaged a little over 10 per year from 2006-2014, which added an  additional 10% drop, to 79%, from the 69% decline of 1999-2005, with that 10%, easily, seen as part of a consistent 15 year (1999-2014)  downward trend, unaffected by LWOP, with the 06-14 drop, massively, smaller than the pre LWOP drop.

In effect, there was no drop from 2006-2014.

Prior to LWOP application, death sentences averaged about a 10% drop per year from 1999-2005, but about a 1% drop per year from 2006-2014, on average, after LWOP application, from 11 in 2006 to an average of 10, from 2007-2014, with 15 in 2007 and 11 in 2008 and 2014.

Death sentences dropped in 2015 and 2016, to 2 and 4, respectively, 10 years after the LWOP law, with no reason to suggest that LWOP was the reason for those numbers, after a 10 year wait, when none of the immediate, previous 15 year, 79% drop can be connected to LWOP.

It is important to note that juries were not allowed to be told that the previous, pre 2005 life sentences, had parole eligibility.

Texas had a 55% drop in murders (71% drop in rate),  37% drop in robberies (60% drop in rate), from 1991-2014.

Robbery/murder is the most common death eligible crime, which may have dropped 70-80%, during that 1991-2014 period, which may account for the entire drop.

When I first heard the claims about Texas' LWOP law causing the death sentence drop (1), I didn't even have to fact check. I already knew about the huge reductions in violent crime rates, inclusive of murder and robbery, prior to the LWOP law, just as all Texas media and Houlé did.

Other Alleged Causes For The Drop In Death Sentences

Nonsense

"Democratic state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr., the author of the life-without-parole law, said "It isn't life without parole that has weakened the death penalty," "It is a growing lack of belief that our system is fair."(1)

Lucio appears correct about LWOP and I have seen no evidence that either prosecutors or jurors have reduced death sentences because of unfairness.

The Innocence & Exoneration Problems

All death penalty prosecutors are aware of the massive "innocent" and "exoneration" frauds (2), by anti death penalty folks, so that would have no effect in their seeking the death penalty.

Alan Levy, Tarrant County district attorney's office, credits the Innocence Project groups with "convincing the public that the system is much less reliable than it is." (1).

How is the public subject to the Innocence Project deceptions? Only via the media. I am unaware of any study finding that capital cases or any jurors have been effected by these frauds.

Costs

"Also, in the recession, the higher costs of pursuing the death penalty have become harder to ignore, and life without parole is a far cheaper alternative." (1).

Maybe.

Up front costs have always been higher in death penalty cases, so that gives no reason, now, for that to cause fewer death sentences. It always has. Yes, the up front costs would be more of a challenge during a recession, however . . .

It is the most populous counties which have, by far, the greatest number of death eligible crimes, and, within those counties, the death penalty would have the smallest percentage affect on budgets, likely, under 0.1% of the total budget. About 2% of death penalty jurisdictions have more than half of the death sentenced cases, as expected, because they have the majority of violent crimes.

The only academic review of death penalty vs lifer costs in Texas found that life cases were more expensive (3). So, again, we may be getting the wrong information from the media (1), as they, so often, just follow the anti death penalty lead, which is that the death penalty is, always, millions more expensive than LWOP, which is complete nonsense (3).

"Pursuing life without parole from the onset can avoid millions in legal costs and settle cases quickly."

True. If you plea bargain to LWOP, only possible with the death penalty, the savings are huge.

Popular Opinion

The alleged popular opinion drop, against the death penalty, would have had little to no effect on prosecutors seeking the death penalty, unless we had a noticeably higher percentage of anti death penalty prosecutors elected, which, apparently , may not have occurred until the incoming class of 2017.

If there becomes a high percentage of anti death penalty folks lying to get on capital eligible juries, that would, certainly have an effect, but am unaware how you would measure that.

It has been stated that 2/3 of capital cases result in a sanction less than death. If true, we could measure if that percentage has risen. I am unaware of any such review. (see Just revenge : costs and consequences of the death penalty, Mark Costanzo, St. Martin's Press, 1997)

I say "alleged" popular opinion drop because the media has, for at least, the past 10 years, chosen only those polls with the lowest death penalty support and excluded all others, as detailed (4).

The highest death penalty support, ever, was 86%, in 2013, as recorded by Angus-Reid, the #1 most accurate pollster in the 2012 presidential election (4). You are, likely, unaware. Not one media outlet carried it (4).

That's what we are dealing with.

Other reasons

Both upgraded defense and a series of US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions, limiting death penalty application, may have, both, contributed to the Texas drop, with the later much easier to quantify than the former.

There are 6 or 7 factors they may have affected the death sentence drop in Texas, with the reduction in capital murders being the most obvious, as well as the most hopeful and welcome sign. as well as the most, commonly, downplayed or absent.

1) one of many

A. Batheja, "Death sentences have dropped sharply after life without parole became possible," Fort Worth Star-Telegram, November 15, 2009 with active link, found here, as directed by the reporter.
Texas sends fewer to death row, November 28, 2009
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-11-28/news/0911280167_1_death-sentences-death-row-juries

2) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
READ SECTIONS 3&4 FIRST
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

3)  See Texas

Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

4) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/11/86-death-penalty-support-highest-ever.html

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Death Penalty & Revenge

The Death Penalty & Revenge
Dudley Sharp

All sanctions are sought for justice, not revenge.

As an accepted fact, the death penalty has greater due process protections for the defendant/convicted murderer than does any other sanctions, removing the death penalty even further from revenge than all other sanctions.

Due process removed revenge from the justice equation.

No one connected to the crime can be a fact finder in any case, nor can they determine the verdict nor the sentence at trial, all of which are the province of the independent fact finders, those being either judge or jury, neither of which have a motive for revenge.

This is, all, very well known.

If an actual innocent is convicted, it is done, solely, based upon neither the judge nor jury being aware of the defendant's actual innocence - to the contrary, the evidence provided proved the defendant guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge or jury found that justice was served by the verdict.

Unknown to judge or jury, the verdict is unjust.

Thereafter, it is the province of the appellate courts and/or the executive branch and/or post conviction provisions in law, providing for actual innocence claims to be heard, to find and determine legal error and/or actual innocence and/or a level of uncertainty in the verdict so that the unjust verdict is reversed and justice found.

Also very well known.

Monday, May 15, 2017

FULL REBUTTAL: Michael Radelet & Ben Cohen

To: All Editors and crime/government/political reporters & commentators
       The Advocate

Michael L. Radelet, sociologist, University of Colorado
Ben Cohen, of counsel, Promise of Justice Initiative.

cc: Governor John Bel Edwards and staff
Louisiana House and Senate
Justices Louisiana Supreme Court
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and staff
Louisiana District Attorneys Assoc.
Louisiana Sheriff's Assoc.
Louisiana State Troopers Assoc.

All Catholic Diocese, Bishops and staff

Media throughout Louisiana 
Editors, Bureau Chiefs, Directors, Managers and government/crime reporters

RE: Full Rebuttal to:
Guest column: Death penalty deters crime? Facts and most criminologists beg to differ, Michael L. Radelet and Ben Cohen, The Advocate,  MAY 11, 2017

From: Dudley Sharp

I quote Radelet & Cohen (R&C), then rebut them, point by point, for every point.

1) Radelet & Cohen: "The Louisiana Legislature is considering two bills to replace the death penalty with life without parole, saving Louisiana — under conservative estimates — at least 10 million dollars annually."

Rebuttal: There is no cost analysis of life without parole and the death penalty in Louisiana.  Presumption is not fact, not matter how R&C wishes it to be so, to the contrary.

Here is a suggested, thorough "apples to apples" protocol for such a study (1). 

No one questions that Louisiana's death penalty system is inefficient and that it can be made much more responsible. It is not the death penalty which is inefficient, but the managers of the death penalty who are. Fix them.

For example, see Virginia, with 111 executions since 1976, within 7 years of appeals, on average, with an 11% overturning rate in appeals, a protocol which would save every jurisdiction money over life without parole (LWOP) (2).

If Virginia can do it so can Louisiana.

Rationally and legally, death penalty protocols should be less expensive than LWOP protocols, as detailed (2).

2) Radelet & Cohen: "As Frank Baumgartner and others have noted, some 82 percent of Louisiana death sentences imposed since 1976 have been reversed."

Rebuttal:   Radelet & Cohen have as difficult a time fact checking and doing math, as does Baumgartner.

Baumgartner established that there has been 241 death sentences in Louisiana, since 1976, with 127 reversed on appeal, which is 53%, not 82%, as previously sent to those addressed, hereto, with

Race & Reversals: Fact checking Prof. Baumgartner:
In a message dated 4/27/2017 4:07:52 P.M. CDT

also re-read

How bad is Prof. Frank Baumgartner?
In a message dated 4/27/2017 4:07:52 P.M. CDT

also sent to those addressed, hereto, on those dates.

======
A reliable, unbiased source established the death row overturning rate in Louisiana at 49%, as of Dec., 2013. In Virginia it is 11%. (TABLE 17, Prisoners sentenced to death and the outcome of the sentence, by jurisdiction, 1973–2013, Capital Punishment, 2013 - Statistical Tables | December 2014, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Program (NPS-8), page 20, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp13st.pdf
======


3) Radelet & Cohen: "And with last month’s exoneration of Rodricus Crawford, 11 individuals sentenced to death in Louisiana have been released from prison without any charges whatsoever. By any measure, Louisiana taxpayers are getting scammed."

Rebuttal:  Released does no mean actually innocent, as R&C both know (3), as do we all and, as detailed, to those addressed, hereto. with

Death Row: The "Exoneration" Frauds 
Date: 4/28/2017 6:54:38 A.M. CDT

4) Radelet & Cohen: "Jeff Sadow’s column of May 6 — suggesting Louisiana’s death penalty might save lives by deterring capital murder— is both empirically and logically moribund, and is counter to the views of virtually all the top criminologists in the United States. In 2012, the renowned National Research Council, a division of the National Academy of Sciences and composed of the foremost scholars in the United States, reviewed all the research done on the deterrence question, and concluded that there is not a shred of evidence that the death penalty has any effect on the homicide rate. Their report also discredited the small number of studies that had claimed to find a deterrent effect."

Rebuttal:  It has never and can never be proven that the death penalty deters none (4). R&C must know that. Therefore, your option is to risk sacrificing more innocents by having no death penalty/execution or to "risk" saving more innocent lives by having the death penalty/executions (4,5).

It is not disputed that the death penalty saves innocent lives, in, at least two ways, better than does LWOP (4).

In addition, by fact and reason, the death penalty is an enhanced deterrent over LWOP (4,5).

Most people understand what would happen if we stopped enforcing  all criminal laws. See Somolia. Most, if not all, sanctions deter some. Some sociologists and criminologists don't see it.  Willful blindness.

The National Research Council (NRC) study (the Nagin study) was headed by  Prof. Nagin, whose academic chair is paid for by an anti death penalty trust (4), with two other well known anti death penalty groups funding the study (6).  Conflicts of interest are rarely this obvious.

In addition, the Nagin study was, easily, undermined (6). It appears that the only thing the NRC did was to publish the study and to forget about NRC's conflict of interest rules (6).

The Nagin study did not discredit any of the studies finding for death penalty/execution deterrence (6). The Nagin study discredited itself, as detailed (6).

5) Radelet & Cohen: ". . .  (Radelet) found in a 2009 study, 95 percent of the nation’s top criminologists — a group to which it seems unlikely Sadow belongs — rejected the idea that the death penalty is a better deterrent than life without parole to the commission of homicide."

Rebuttal: First, in that study the criminologists tell you they believe in death penalty deterrence but reject "that the death penalty is a better deterrent than life without parole to the commission of homicide".  A little, rational progress.

Nearly all of us, inclusive of potential murderers, prefer life over death and fear death over life. That which we prefer more, deters less. That which we fear more, deters more. Basic.

What Radelet & Cohen "forgot" to infom you about Radelet's survey:

"Within this Survey, the response to question 12 finds that 92% of the criminologists agree that the death penalty may deter some." (7)

"The responses to question 8 found that 61% (or 46) of the criminologists found some support for the deterrent effects of the death penalty through the empirical, social science studies." (7)

6)  Radelet & Cohen: "Over the last 25 years, the murder rate in states without the death penalty has been consistently lower than in states with the death penalty."

Rebuttal: It's hard to believe that R&C are unaware that such tells us nothing.

As is well known, as a rule, deterrence cannot be measured by murder rates. Somehow, R&C are unaware? Really? Nagin's study used murder rates, as well.

Let's say Iceland and it's capital Reykjavikare are the country and city with the lowest crime and murder rates in the world.

Does that mean that every other city and country have no deterrence because their crime and murder rates are higher than those two?

Of course not. Such would be an absurd conclusion, which is what R&C want you to accept.

Deterrence is based upon whether some criminal activity is deterred because the potential criminal is restrained, based upon a conscious or subconscious fear of being caught and/or sanctioned, if they commit the crime, regardless of the crime rates and regardless of crimes going up, down or remaining the same.

If you looked at differences in crime rates within neighborhoods, zip codes, towns, cities, and counties within each state or between all the world's countries, with and without the death penalty, crime and murder rates will be high, some low, some medium, whether in a death penalty jurisdiction or not.  We all know it, just from the communities within which we live and our knowledge of the world.

For example: "Henderson, Nev., takes the No. 2 spot (America's Safest Cities) despite its location within the Metropolitan Statistical Area of Las Vegas-Paradise, which ranked ninth this year on Forbes’ list of America’s Most Dangerous Cities." (8)

In Louisiana, during the same period of time, we have this:

In the towns of Golden Meadow, Blanchard and DeQuincy the violent crime rate per 1000 was 0 (zero) (9).

In the towns of Hammond, Amite and Bastrop  the violent crime rate per 1000 averaged 250, one out of every four citizens (10).

Now do that same thing in the non death penalty jurisdictions of Michigan and Maryland, both with some of the highest murder rate sub-jurisdicitions in the US, but where you can also find some zero violent crime rate sub-jurisdicitions, as well.

And a comparison of countries, here (11).

All of which prove the obvious, that you can't just use murder rates to make a determination about deterrence. My guess it that Redelet has known that for about 40 years, just as with Prof. Nagin, who also used murder rates in the Nagin study.

7)  Radelet & Cohen: "Research in Arizona and Oklahoma suggests that having the death penalty increases rather than reduces the number of murders — indicating that it might actually have a brutalizing effect, increasing homicides and detracting from the valuing of life. There is reason to suspect that this brutalizing effect exists in Louisiana— where the state has the highest murder rate in the country."

Rebuttal: The "science", with this, is that if we have no sanctions, that we smile and love all criminals, give them flowers and iced tea after ever murder and rape, that because we are so altruistic, that such an atmosphere will transform criminals into Miss Manners and that utopia will reign.

That could be Senate Bill 455. Any one want to move that bill forward?

8)  Radelet & Cohen: "America’s police chiefs identify the death penalty as the last-ranked priority in reducing crime, and the most inefficient use of taxpayer dollars."

Rebuttal: It's the last ranked only because capital murder is the lowest by number of crimes, thank goodness. About 90% of police chiefs support the death penalty.

For the vast majority of police chiefs, capital murders are investigated by the best of the best detectives, showing the highest priority and have the highest rate of crimes solved, as many of us would suspect. And we all know, too well, that when an officer is murdered, it is the highest priority crime to be solved and a universal death penalty eligible crime, in US death penalty jurisdictions, as it should be.

9) Radelet & Cohen: "For many, life imprisonment is an even worse punishment than death on the gurney."

Rebuttal: Laughable. Possibly, we've had about 70,000 death penalty eligible murder since 1973, when states first began passing new statutes, in the modern death penalty era. We've sentenced about 8300 to death row, after about 25,000 death penalty option trials.

Of those 70,000 how many showed us that LWOP was worse than execution? About 141 "volunteered" for execution, meaning they waived future appeals and were executed

141 is 0.2% of 70,000, 0.56% of 25,000 and 1.7% of 8300.

So, R&C are telling us that 98.3%, 99.44% or 99.8% of capital murderers prefer life over execution. Hardly a surprise.

What we prefer more, deters less. What we fear more deters more.

Nearly 100% of all capital murderers do all they can, pre trial, in trial, within appeals and within executive clemency/commutation efforts to stay alive and avoid execution.

And nearly all of us feel the same way, inclusive of potential capital murderers.

10) Radelet & Cohen: "And when Sadow proposes a death penalty system that has reduced the risk of wrongful execution to zero, he is imagining a regime of perfection that does not exist."

 Rebuttal: Innocents are more at risk when we allow murderers to live (4).

Therefore, the anti death penalty position is to sacrifice more innocents by making sure that all guilty murderers live.

It's a trade off that anti death penalty folks have admitted to for decades.Well known anti death penalty scholars "(Charles) Black and (Hugo Adam ) Bedau said they would favor abolishing the death penalty even if they knew that doing so would increase the homicide rate by 1,000 percent." (4).

They both chose sparing the lives of 1300 guilty murderers (executed from 1973-2013) over saving an additional 6.3 million innocent lives, taken by murder (a 1000% increase in the murder rate 1973-2013).

Pro death penalty scholar Ernest van den Haag interviewed well known anti death penalty activists, asking them, if it was proven that 100 innocent lives were spared per execution, via deterrence, would you still oppose the death penalty. All said yes (4).

Based upon our 1300 executions (1973-2013), those anti death penalty folks would chose sparing the lives of 1300 guilty murderers over saving the lives of 130,000 innocents from murder.

11) Radelet & Cohen"we also suggest that academics think twice before disseminating unsubstantiated pseudo-science, especially when millions of dollars — along with the conscience of the community — are at stake."

Rebuttal: Radelet & Cohen need only look in the mirror.

======
1) Death Penalty Costs vs Life Without Parole Costs: Study Protocol
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2015/05/death-penalty-cost-study-protocol.html

2)  see Virginia et al
Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html

3) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
READ SECTIONS 3&4 FIRST
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

4)    The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html


5) OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate
and
MURDERERS MUCH PREFER LIFE OVER EXECUTION
99.7% of murderers tell us "Give me life, not execution"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.htm

6)  Death Penalty Deterrence: Defended & Advanced
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/death-penalty-deterrence-defended.html

7)  "Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

8) DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE CLARIFIED
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/death-penalty-deterrence-clarified.html

9) "The 11 Safest Places To Live In Louisiana", by Kezia Kamenetz, Only in Your State, August 06, 2015,
http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/louisiana/safest-places-la/

10) "The 10 Most Dangerous Places In Louisiana", by Kezia Kamenetz, Only in Your State, August 09, 2015,
http://www.onlyinyourstate.com/louisiana/dangerous-places-la/ 

11) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear
"http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

also see

DETERRENCE, THE DEATH PENALTY & MURDER RATES
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/12/deterrence-death-penalty-murder-rates.html

Tuesday, May 09, 2017

Guilty: Glenn Ford & Marty Stroud

To: Senate Judiciary, Committee C

cc: Governor John Bel Edwards and staff
Louisiana House and Senate
Justices Louisiana Supreme Court
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and staff
Louisiana District Attorneys Assoc.
Louisiana Sheriff's Assoc.
Louisiana State Troopers Assoc.
All Catholic Diocese, Bishops and staff

Media throughout Louisiana
Editors, Bureau Chiefs, Directors, Managers and government/crime reporters

Subject: Guilty: Glenn Ford & Marty Stroud

Re: How bad? Marty Stroud's Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee C, SB 142, April 26, 2017

From: Dudley Sharp

Preface

The committee has an obligation to make sure that A.M. "Marty" Stroud takes personal responsibility for his testimony of April 26th. Stroud, proclaimed Glenn Ford an innocent that he, as a  prosecutor, with ill intent in his heart put on death row.

That obligation extends to setting the record straight to show respect for Isadore Rozeman, the innocent robbery/murder victim, the Rozeman and Glenn Ford families, as well as for the committee.

In 2015, Marty Stroud described his 1984 self as "arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic", "full of myself",  "totally wrong", interested more in winning than justice, "I was not a nice person" (1), "win, don't care about the costs","don't care about the victim" (2), "I did something that was very, very bad." "It was a train to injustice, and I was the engineer."(3), particularly, in the context of his being a prosecutor in securing the 1984 death sentence for Glenn Ford, for the robbery/murder of Isadore Rozeman.

Unlike the 1983-84 and 1988-2012 Stroud, in "avoiding" a search for the truth, Stroud's 2017 testimony, as well as his statements, from 2014 through today, had a whole bunch of evidence which he, intentionally suppressed, in avoidance of that known evidence.


What Stroud Left Out of His Testimony -  2017

Stroud: "in the motion to dismiss the case, the prosecutor's office said "if we had known the evidence that they knew at the time of the prosecution he probably wouldn't have been arrested." (4)

Sharp:  That is very odd. The evidence in the 1984 trial was overwhelming, with regard to Ford committing multiple felonies, inclusive of being a principle to the robbery, which led to the additional circumstantial evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt,  that Ford was guilty of capital murder, in the case of innocent murder victim, Isadore Rozeman.

That same evidence exists, today.

There is, overwhelming, support for Ford's guilt within both the 2015 (5) and 2016 (5a) reviews of the case evidence, by six judges, all of which Stroud is aware of but, intentionally, left out of Stroud's 2015-2017 statements, inclusive of Stroud's 2017 testimony.

Even though Stroud claims he desires "all of the story that should have been disclosed" (1), his 2015-2017 examples are "hiding" all of the story that Stroud should have disclosed.

Take a look:

Glenn Ford's Guilt

In 2013-14, the Caddo Parish District Attorney's Office stated that it had obtained credible evidence that Ford "was neither present at, nor a participant in, the robbery and murder of Isadore Rozeman," and filed a motion to vacate Ford's conviction and sentence. On March 10, 2014, the trial court granted the state's motion. Ford was released the following day after spending nearly 30 years on death row. (5a)

The facts are that Ford, by his own admission, was a principal participant in the robbery/murder, that he was, at the least,  guilty of second degree murder. Ford cannot be excluded from actually murdering Isadore Rozeman, that murder being a capital, death penalty eligible crime, for which he was found guilty and sentenced to death.

(2016) Justice C.J.  BROWN,  "The evidence as presented supports Ford's guilt of second degree murder and that his connection was certainly not "tangential." (5a)

The 2013 "credible evidence" for Ford's 2014 release came from a reliable informant, who remains anonymous.

Reliable informants are known to be unreliable, occasionally. Informants are only as reliable as their sources, which was, allegedly, Jake Robinson, who, allegedly, stated, to the informant, that he (Robinson)  was the shooter of Isadore Robinson and that Glenn Ford was not there. Robinson is a career criminal, who no one trusts.

Glenn Ford, at his 1984 trial, did not deny being at the scene of the robbery/murder and he cannot prove that he was not (5a) Nor can he be excluded from committing the murder.

The record reflects that, at the time of the filing of the 2014 instant petition (to release Ford), two other individuals, Jake Robinson and Henry Robinson, were being prosecuted for the robbery and murder of Mr. Rozeman. (5a)

Those charges, which originated from that informant, have, now, been dropped, for lack of evidence, in this case, as well as others'.

That doesn't mean the informant was lying, although, such may be the case.  The informant's information could not be confirmed in quite a few cases.

We know that Ford was released, based upon information that could not be confirmed.

The evidence of Glenn Ford's guilt is overwhelming, yet, he was released.

The iron solid case is that Ford should have been convicted of second degree murder, at least, and that with all of the other involved crimes, Ford would have been sentenced to life in prison and that Ford should never had been released.

(2016) the five justices, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit: "The (informant's) statement of the district attorney is not evidence, nor has Ford produced any evidence that he was not concerned in the commission of this crime. We find no manifest error in the trial judge's (2015) conclusion regarding Ford as a principal to this crime." (5a)

2016: Justice J. DREW: " . . . it is accurate to say that the trial court (2015) found that Ford committed armed robbery. Even if not present at the moment of a crime, a person can be convicted of that crime, if otherwise involved as a principal." (5a) " . . . Ford arguably committed second degree murder arising out of the facts of this case. Had he actually been convicted of that crime, in a petit jury trial conducted in accordance with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Ford would have never been released from prison." (5a)

Justice would be served had Ford remained in jail.

Anti death penalty folks attack informants, mercilessly (6), when they report the guilt of murderers, but love them if they report the innocence of murderers.

Stroud was very aware in 1983/1984 that the Robinson brothers were involved in the crimes, as well as all of the other facts, detailed, based upon all of Ford's statements, as well as those of other witnesses.

There wasn't enough evidence to try the Robinsons in 1984, nor was there at any later date, through today.

One wonders what evidence Stroud avoided, in 1983-84 and 1988-2012, that the police, the investigators and the lead prosecutor also avoided in 1983-1984.  Was there any?

Defense counsel Stroud's prosecutorial self flagellation tour could be attributable to his ingratiation himself into anti death penalty circles, where such "self destruction" is celebrated, as with The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project honoring Stroud with its annual Champion of Justice Award in 2016.

Justice redefined.

Remember Isadore Rozeman

======
Also see
Glenn Ford Must Be Denied Compensation
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2017/05/glenn-ford-must-be-denied-compensation.html
======

2) District Judge Katherine Dorroh, in her nine-page ruling (2015) denying Ford's request for compensation from the state for being "wrongfully incarcerated", concluded that Glenn Ford  (5, 7):

---  " knew the robbery of jewelry Isadore Rozeman on Nov. 5, 1983 was going to occur
---   did nothing to stop it
---   attempted to destroy evidence by selling items taken in the robbery and
---   attempting to find buyers for the murder weapon used by those he implicated in the murder." (5, 7).

3) At the very least, Ford knew about the robbery, in advance, was involved in the conspiracy with the Robinson brothers, did nothing to stop it, was an accessory to armed robbery,  after the fact, pawned items stolen in the robbery/murder, the day of the robbery/murder, and had, additional,  items, stolen from Isadore,  in Ford's apartment, was trying to acquire a pistol the morning of the murder and attempted to sell a pistol, the afternoon, after the murder (5, 5a, 8).

Ford admitted to all of that, and more, as Stroud well knows.

Detective Gary Pittman who testified that Ford admitted to him that he and Henry Robinson had been at Mr. Rozeman's house on the day of the murder (5a).

Also found were items stolen, the month, before, from Rozeman's house/shop. Those items were connected to Glenn Ford. (9)

Who planned the robbery? Ford was the only one involved who knew that Izadore Rozeman had valuables to steal and who knew of Rozeman's security. How? Ford worked for Rozeman (8,5,5a).

Not only does Ford have blood on his hands, figuratively, he, likely, had blood on his hands, at some point, actually.

Ford cannot be excluded from gaining access to Rozeman's home, to facilitate the robbery/murder, nor can he be excluded from being the triggerman (8, 5, 5a).

Ford had gunshot residue on his left hand. The residue was of such small amount that it could neither be confirmed nor denied that he fired a weapon (8, 5,5a).

There was a partial fingerprint on a paper bag, at the crime scene, which appeared to be used as a glove, likely to hold the gun, a method to avoid  some gunshot residue and avoid fingerprints on the weapon.  That fingerprint did not exclude Ford, but could not be matched to him (8). That partial fingerprint excluded the other suspects (8, 5,5a).

4) Isadore Rozeman was the robbery/murder victim in the Glenn Ford case.

All public quotes from Isadore Rozeman's family (2015). All their facts are supported by the record (5,5a).

"We know that Glenn Ford was intimately involved in this crime that, eventually, led to the death of our uncle. Much of this was due to the relationship of Uncle Prince (Isadore) with Glenn Ford." (10,8)

"It is undisputed Mr. Ford was involved, having sold the clocks and watches obtained from the shop during the robbery. It is undisputable Mr. Ford was shopping for a gun days before Nov. 5, 1983, and selling the weapon days after the murder." (11, 8)

"In the compensation hearing (2015), for Glenn Ford, District Judge Katherine Dorroh found that Mr. Ford "committed many crimes, including possession of stolen goods, accessory after the fact to armed robbery, and principal to armed robbery." (11)

The Rozeman family that found that those charges may resulted in "a sentence of 30 years to life without parole. Mr. Ford served 30 years in prison." (11)

They are correct, as detailed, above, and here (5a).

"What has been lost in this discussion is the real innocent victim." (11)

Sharp: Never in his testimony nor in his apology letter, did Stroud, once, mention the name of Isadore Rozeman.

"That innocent murder victim was our uncle, Isadore Rozeman, raised in Shreveport and served our country as a plane mechanic at Barksdale during World War II."  (11) "He had a shop in his home on Stoner Avenue and spent his adult life repairing and selling antique watches and clocks. (11).

"On Nov. 5, 1983, (Isadore) opened the back door and people rushed into (Isadore's) home/shop. They knocked him down, broke his glasses and then put a gun to the back of his head and pulled the trigger." (11)

Multiple witnesses had Ford near or on Isadore's property near the time of the robbery/murder (5,5a,8). Ford had, himself, in Isadore's home/shop.

None of Ford's alleged alibis could be confirmed in court (8).

"Our uncle (Isadore Rozeman) was an innocent victim. (11, 5, 5a)"

Sharp:  Stroud called Ford an "innocent victim" (1). Such would be an incredible, bizarre declaration, if we were not aware of Stroud's self confessed ethical problems.

The "innocent" and "exoneration" deceptions, by anti death penalty folks, are standard, every day occurrences (12), just as their making up false confessions are (13).

"It is also undisputable to our family that my uncle (Isadore) did not open any of the four or five locks on his back door to anyone he did not know. We all spent the night with our uncle and knew his habits. At the time of the murder, the door was not broken down." (11)

"We will never know for sure who got our uncle to turn the locks and open the door, but the most logical choice was someone who had a relationship with my uncle and who benefited from the robbery. " (11)

"Glenn Ford fits both counts while the people now felt to likely be the shooters did not have a relationship with our uncle." (11)

Sharp: It is important to note that those other people were seen with Glenn Ford both, before and after the robbery/murder (7, 5a).

"In February police interviewed Marvella Brown, Jake Robinson's girl friend. She stated that Ford arrived at her apartment around noon the day of the offense, and asked the Robinsons, "Is you still going?" The three left, she said, returning around 3:00 p.m. with a sack containing jewelry. Ford carried a .22 pistol, and Jake Robinson had a .38 (8, 5a)"

However, she recanted:

Finally, when asked if she had lied to the court, she responded, "I did lie to the Court.... I lied about all of it." (8)

The issues are that her claims of involvement fit the time line of the murder, include the stolen items, as we know was the case, and folks who were well known criminals, all of which suggest the credibility of her original witness statement.

Brown's recantations is much more suspect, as countless people in the community were intimidated by the four Robinson brothers, which would explain the recantation. (14)

Brown's recantation is, additionally, rebutted by the fact that Ford stated that one of the Robinson brothers asked Ford to sell the gun, which witnesses stated Ford was trying to sell, the same afternoon as the murder and also gave stolen goods to Ford to sell, those being stolen goods from Isadore Rozeman.

Sharp: Glenn Ford has not and cannot be excluded as a participant in the actual robbery/murder.

5) From the 2015 hearing (5):  " 14) After being asked to participate in the robbery of Mr. Rozeman by Henry Robinson, Mr. Ford went to see Mr. Rozeman and asked him if he had any work he could do (p8, 5).

Sharp: I suspect Ford made that up to explain why he was seen in the vicinity of Rozeman's house, before, after and at the time of the robbery/murder, which, I believe,  was Ford's real job, that day.

6) with all that evidence, what does Stroud say?

Stroud: “The audacity of the state’s effort to deny Mr. Ford any compensation for the horrors he suffered in the name of Louisiana justice is appalling." (1)

Sharp: Mr. Stroud, the audacity is all yours. As Stroud must be aware, for the judge to have awarded compensation to Ford would have required that judge to break the law (5). The judge would have had to find Ford "actually innocent", a finding which is, actually, impossible (5,5a).

Mr. Stroud, what of the horror of Isadore Rozeman's death?  Stroud didn't mention it. 

The foundation of Ford's horror was, of course, Ford himself. But for Ford, Isadore would, almost certainly, neither have been robbed nor murdered.  All of Ford's confessions, alone, should have resulted in Ford never being released from prison.

To paraphrase Stroud: "Ford did something that was very, very bad." "It was a train to horror, and Ford was the engineer."

To paraphrase Stroud, from his 2015 apology letter (1): "I apologize to the committee in not having been more diligent in my duty to ensure that the proper disclosures of Ford's involvement in the robbery/murder was presented to the committee."


Defense Counsel

Contrary to Stroud, first chair for Ford's defense, Paul Lawrence, had, previously, taken several civil cases to trial. Lawrence had, also, clerked for La. Supreme Court Justice Albert Tate, which involves both criminal and civil cases.

Lawrence states that he "had lots of coaching before and during the (Ford) trial from experienced members of the criminal defense bar in Shreveport, including, specifically, Wellborn Jack, Jr. and his partner Rebecca Hudsmith, who is now the Federal Public Defender for the Middle and Western Districts of Louisiana."

Lawrence: " I did work very hard to master all the evidence and to draw every possible inference that could be argued to support a reasonable doubt of Ford’s guilt and I believe I did a quite respectable job of that, the jury’s verdict notwithstanding." “It was my job to provide Ford the best defense I could provide under the circumstances, regardless of his innocence or guilt, and I believe that I did that to the very best of my ability."

The appellate courts do not disagree with Lawrence.

Lawrence takes no stand on the death penalty or Ford's guilt.  (All from Sharp's discussion with Lawrence, May, 8, 2017).

Most legal folks know that civil law is much more complicated than criminal law.

While this was Lawrence's first criminal and capital trial, it was also Stroud's first capital case, for which Stroud was second chair, not lead counsel, as some misrepresent.

7) Note this very important context, from Stroud's 2015 NPR interview (15):

Interviewer CORNISH: At what point did you actually really feel guilt about what happened to Glenn Ford?

STROUD: I felt within four or five years of the verdict.

In 1984, Stroud tells us that he could, hardly, care less. From 1988/1989-2013, Stroud, allegedly, cared and still did nothing.

Which is worse? Neither could be called  . . . better.

More from the Rozemans

8) All public quotes from Isadore Rozeman's family (2015):

"We loved our uncle as we did my daughter's husband, Clint Dobson. One was killed at the age of 54, the other at 28. They were both innocent victims. However, those involved in their violent deaths are not innocent victims." (11)

"What our family learned from both (of these innocent murder victims in our family)  is that we live in a society where evil exists. There are people who do not have a moral compass and these events bear out that truth. Between society and this evil is law enforcement and those in the criminal justice system. We are thankful they stand in that gap." (11)

Sharp: What does Stroud think of Louisiana prosecutors?

Stroud: "out to win, whatever the costs." "They don't care about the victim. " "They care about their record." "The ends justified the means". (2)

Sharp: With the exception that prosecutors MUST care about their record, my guess is that, with about 95% of prosecutors, reality would condemn Stroud's slanders. And Stroud?

Doesn't it sound like he is describing himself?

We want prosecutors to care, a lot, about their record. All taxpayers and all justice loving folks want prosecutors to make the correct, responsible decisions for cases to go to trial, to plea cases when appropriate and to know when best to drop charges. Prosecutors want that to be as close to a 100% accuracy record, as possible, and so do we all.


The Rozemans continue:

"Without the accountability imposed by law enforcement and criminal justice, we would live in chaos. Because of this, we disagree with many who describe law enforcement and criminal justice as a broken system. We differ with those who wish to lessen personal responsibility, accountability and punishment for violent criminal behavior." (11)

"Our family believes in God's grace and mercy but neither of those things negate the multiple Bible stories that reference personal responsibility and personal consequences for individual actions." (11)

In Closing

The Committee should hold Stroud responsible for his testimony and should shoulder the personal responsibility that both the committee and Stroud have to Isadore Rozeman, the Rozeman and Glenn Ford families, in setting the record straight.

Don't forget Isadore Rozeman.

======

As per the Death Penalty Information Center's normal absurdities, Ford is listed as no. 144 on their "innocent" or "exonerated" from death row list.

======

Footnotes

1)  A.M. "Marty" Stroud III letter, Lead prosecutor apologizes for role in sending man to death row, Shreveport Times, 3/20/2015
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/20/lead-prosecutor-offers-apology-in-the-case-of-exonerated-death-row-inmate-glenn-ford/25049063/

3) 30 Years on Death Row, CBS 60 Minutes, 10/11/2015

4) I used this video because it isolates Stroud's testimony:

5) RULING ON PETITION FOR COMPENSATION FOR WRONGFUL CONVICTION AND IMPRISONMENT, IN RE: Glen Ford, Docket #126,005 - SECTION 1, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, CADDO PARRISH, LOUISIANA, March 27, 2015, http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Ford_Glenn.pdf

5a)  STATE v. FORD, No. 50,525-CA., 193 So.3d 1242 (2016), STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Glenn FORD, Defendant-Appellant, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, May 18, 2016.

6) There are countless articles about distrusting informants. Just do a GOOGLE search.

8) STATE v. FORD, No. 85-KA-1039.489 So.2d 1250 (1986)
STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn FORD. Supreme Court of Louisiana.
March 31, 1986.   Rehearing Denied May 30, 1986.

9) from a reliable source, who stated it's "on police reports and either the bond hearing or preliminary examination testimony." I have not located the citation.

10) Dr. Phillip Rozeman speaks out on Glenn Ford case, video interview with Vickie Welborn, Shreveport Times, 4/10/2015, http://www.shreveporttimes.com/videos/news/2015/04/10/25590423/

11) Rozeman family: 'Glenn Ford is not an innocent victim', by Phillip Rozeman Shreveport Times, April 8, 2015 | Updated April 10, 2015


12) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
READ SECTIONS 3&4 FIRST
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

and

The 4.1% "Innocent" on Death Row: More Nonsense


13) Innocence Project Invents False Confessions: 150% fraud rate in "confessions"
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-innocence-project-invents-false.html



14) CPSO detective committed to solving cold cases, Vickie Welborn, Shreveport Times, July 21, 2014,




15) Prosecutor Apologizes For Putting Innocent Man On Death Row, All Things Considered, NPR's Audie Cornish, March 23, 2015,
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/23/394906514/prosecutor-apologizes-for-putting-innocent-man-on-death-row#

Saturday, May 06, 2017

Glenn Ford Must Be Denied Compensation

Glenn Ford Must Be Denied Compensation
Dudley Sharp

Remember Isadore Rozeman

I review why Glenn Ford must be denied compensation, based upon his "wrongful release", as follows:

I. Glenn Ford's Wrongful Release
II. The Evidence of Glenn Ford's Guilt
III. Ford Must Be Denied Compensation

Nearly all comments are from:

STATE v. FORD, No. 50,525-CA., 193 So.3d 1242 (2016), STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Glenn FORD, Defendant-Appellant, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, May 18, 2016.

Which is the 2016 appellate opinion upholding the denial of compensation for Ford and his immediate descendants.

The (X) footnote refers to that opinion.


I. Glenn Ford's Wrongful Release    In 2013, the Caddo Parish District Attorney's Office stated that it had obtained credible evidence that Ford "was neither present at, nor a participant in, the robbery and murder of Isadore Rozeman," and filed a motion to vacate Ford's conviction and sentence. On March 10, 2014, the trial court granted the state's motion. Ford was released the following day after spending nearly 30 years on death row. (X)

The facts are that Ford, by his own admission,  was a principal participant in the robbery/murder, that he was, at the least,  guilty of second degree murder and Ford cannot be excluded from actually murdering Isadore Rozeman.

(2016) Justice C.J.  BROWN: "The evidence as presented supports Ford's guilt of second degree murder and that his connection was certainly not "tangential." (X)

The 2013 "credible evidence" for Ford's 2014 release came from a reliable informant, who remains anonymous.

Even reliable informants are known to be unreliable, occasionally. Informants are only as reliable as their sources, which was Jake Robinson, who, allegedly, stated, to the informant, that he (Robinson)  was the shooter of Isadore Robinson and that Glenn Ford was not there. Robinson is a career criminal, who no one trusts (1).

Glenn Ford, at his 1984 trial, did not deny being at the scene of the robbery/murder. Nor can he be excluded from committing the murder.

The record reflects that, at the time of the filing of the 2014 instant petition (to release Ford), two other individuals, Jake Robinson and Henry Robinson, were being prosecuted for the robbery and murder of Mr. Rozeman. (X)

Those charges, which originated from that informant, have, now, been dropped, for lack of evidence. 

That doesn't mean the informant was lying, although, such may be the case.  The informant's information could not be confirmed.

We know that Ford was released, based upon information that could not be confirmed.

The evidence of Glenn Ford's guilt is overwhelming, yet, he was released.

2016: "The (informant's) statement of the district attorney is not evidence, nor has Ford produced any evidence that he was not concerned in the commission of this crime. We find no manifest error in the trial judge's (2015) conclusion regarding Ford as a principal to this crime." (X)

2016: Justice J. DREW:   " . . . it is accurate to say that the trial court (2015) found that Ford committed armed robbery. Even if not present at the moment of a crime, a person can be convicted of that crime, if otherwise involved as a principal." (X) " . . . Ford arguably committed second degree murder arising out of the facts of this case. Had he actually been convicted of that crime, in a petit jury trial conducted in accordance with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Ford would have never been released from prison." (X)

======

False claims of "innocent" and "exonerated" death row inmates are a standard, every day anti death strategy (2).

=======



II. The Evidence of Glenn Ford's Guilt


Detective Ashley testified that a neighbor of Mr. Rozeman's had told investigating officers that he had seen Ford and Mr. Rozeman having a discussion a few days before the murder and that Ford appeared to have been upset over a debt related to the lawn mowing service. (X)

"From (Deming, a friend of Ford's), the police also learned that Ford had discussed purchasing a handgun, the night before or morning of the robbery/murder)." (X)

Alice Smith, Ford's landlord, also testified. On the morning of the robbery and murder, Ford advised Ms. Smith that he would be able to pay her rent later that day. Sometime in the late afternoon, Ford brought the rent to Ms. Smith. (X)

Ford stated that he and O.B. (Henry Robinson) went to Mr. Rozeman's neighborhood, the morning or early afternoon of Nov. 5. (X)

Ford stated that he saw Rozeman at 1:20 the day of the robbery/murder (X).

"Heidi and Spring James, two young neighbors of Mr. Rozeman, had seen Mr. Rozeman's yardman (Ford) in an alley adjacent to his property at approximately noon. Another neighbor placed (Ford) in the vicinity at between 1:30 and 2:00 p.m." (X)

Detective Ashley confirmed that there were several witnesses who placed Ford within one city block of Mr. Rozeman's house on the day of the murder (X).

Ford stated " . . . that the Robinson brothers had told him of their plan to rob Mr. Rozeman and asked him to join them, but that he declined to do so." (X)

That is contradicted, by Ford, who admitted going into the neighborhood, with Robinson, the day of the robbery/murder (X),

 . . .  further confirmed by  Detective Gary Pittman who testified that Ford admitted to him that he and Henry Robinson had been at Mr. Rozeman's house on the day of the murder . . .

and that Robinson had asked him about selling a gun, with Ford having spoken with two potential buyers about the .38. (X), the caliber used in the murder and presumed to be the murder weapon.

"In February police interviewed Marvella Brown, Jake Robinson's girl friend. She stated that Ford arrived at her apartment around noon the day of the offense, and asked the Robinsons, Is you still going? The three left, she said, returning around 3:00 p.m. with a sack containing jewelry. Ford carried a.22 pistol, and Jake Robinson had a .38." (X).

".  . . (customer) Ebrahim had spoken to Mr. Rozeman, he said, at approximately 2:30 p.m. (Nov. 5, 1983) and had arranged to meet him later that afternoon. (X) The timeline suggest he called him earlier.

The timeline indicates that Ebrahim discovered Isadore Rozeman's body around 2:45 pm.

The testimony of Heidi James, Chandra Nash, Joseph Nash and James Spring placed Ford at or near Mr. Rozeman's house on the day of the robbery and murder", inclusive of Ford still in the neighborhood when the ambulance arrived to pick up Rozeman's body. (X)

"Jake Robinson's girlfriend, Marvella Brown also testified at trial. She stated that Ford (who she called "Long Hair") was at her house the evening of the crime. Ford asked the Robinsons "if they were going," or "are we going?" Ms. Brown then testified that she saw the three men together a few hours later. She then stated that she saw Ford with a gun, that was not a .22 caliber. Ms. Brown then related that Jake Robinson showed her items of jewelry and a pocket watch and let her keep two of the rings, which she said she "was hiding" after she found out Mr. Rozeman was dead." (X).

In the punishment phase of the trial, Brown recanted all her testimony, stating that she had lied about everything. Based upon all the other evidence, including her original witness statement, above, it is most likely, that she was, originally, telling the truth and that her recantation was perjury. There was no reason for her to lie in the first place and very good reasons for her to lie in the second, as all knowing people were, rightly, afraid of the Robinson brothers (1). In addition, Brown's original statements fit with the timeline and the evidence.

The 5 appellate judges, in this 2016 opinion (X) didn't even mention her recantation. Why? They viewed it as having no credibility. They did, however, mention both her original witness statement and her testimony, confirming their belief in it.

Shortly after the robbery/murder, pawn shop receipts confirmed Ford had sold jewelry, confirmed as that which was stolen from Mr. Rozeman's shop (X). "(Ford) said he received these items from O.B. (Henry Robinson) and pawned them at his request." (X)  "(Police) found demitasse spoons, a cross, gold chains, a pill box and shirt studs, all similar to items customarily sold by Mr. Rozeman.",  later confirmed as those stolen from Rozeman (X).

The pawn tickets dated the day of the robbery and murder were introduced at trial and handwriting exemplars matched Ford's signature. Detective Gary Alderman testified that a search warrant executed on Ford's hotel room produced an antique spoon, gold chain, cufflink and four studs, which bore the same markings as studs found in a bag belonging to Henry Robinson. Richard Moore, an employee of the pawn shop, identified Ford as the individual who sold certain items (determined to have been from Mr. Rozeman's shop) at 5:00 p.m. on the day of the robbery and murder. (X)


Detective Ashley confirmed that Ford had stated that Henry Robinson  asked Ford to sell items connected to the robbery — which Ford then sold to the International Pawn Shop, at approximately 5:00 p.m., just two hours after Mr. Rozeman's body was found. (X)

From "Pouncey and White (friends of Ford's)",  . . . "the police also learned that Ford had attempted to sell a handgun that afternoon (the day of the robbery/murder)". (X) " (Ford) admitted to trying to sell (a gun) on behalf of O.B. (Henry  Robinson). (X) Alvin White and Clarence Pouncy each testified at trial that Ford approached them after the robbery and murder about purchasing a .38 pistol (X), the caliber of pistol used in the murder and, presumed, to be the murder weapon.

Ford had gunshot residue on his left hand. The residue was of such small amount that it could neither be confirmed nor denied that Ford fired a weapon (3).

There was a partial leaving fingerprints on the weapon.  That fingerprint did not exclude Ford, but could not be matched to him (3). That partial fingerprint excluded the other suspects (3).

"On November 11th Ford gave a fourth statement, implicating Henry and Jake Robinson in the murder." (X)

"In January of 1984, Donnie Thomas, a co-defendant's brother-in-law and Ford's cellmate, related to police that Ford had discussed with him the details of the robbery and murder. According to him, Ford was able to gain access to Mr. Rozeman's shop because he was recognized by his employer." (X)

The Rozeman family, as well as customers, confirmed that Isadore Rozeman used multiple bolted doors for security.

Trial commenced on November 26, 1984. The defense was alibi (X).

None of Ford's alibis could be confirmed.

 Ford testified at his trial. Ford did not deny (X):

-- "being with the other perpetrators of the crime, either before or after the murder; 

--  being at Mr. Rozeman's shop at the time of the murder/robbery;

--  attempting to sell a .38 caliber pistol;

--  pawning items taken in the robbery.

Ford told the jury that he did not commit 52 prior burglaries to which he pled guilty (X) . . . , likely, destroying any credibility that he may have had. (X)

Depending upon jurisdictions, only about 3-20% of burglaries are solved, indicating, by average, that Ford may have committed 472 burglaries at the time of his guilty plea. 

==================
Also review   
Guilty: Glenn Ford and Marty Stroud


=================


III. Ford Must Be Denied Compensation

Ford has to prove his "actual innocence". Such is impossible. Ford is included in 3-4 felonies in this cases, which could, easily, have resulted in a life sentence and Ford cannot be excluded from being an actual participant in the robbery/murder.

And folks think Ford deserves $330,000? Incredible. If anyone deserves it, it is the Rozeman family, if justice means anything to you. 

"It is clear from a reading of the statute that the burden of proof in this case is on the petitioner. Ford must prove his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence." " . . . the entire burden is on Ford to prove that he did not commit any crime based upon the same set of facts used in the original conviction." (X)

"The argument that Louisiana's statute is inherently unfair is misplaced and misleading, especially when comparison is made to the other jurisdictions that have analogous statutes." (X)

Read this carefully, from the 2016 ruling:

" . . . at the (2015) compensation hearing, Ford did not refute or explain these assertions (against him)  . . .   glaringly significant  . . . an adverse presumption exists when a party having control of a favorable witness fails to call him or her to testify.  . . .   Ford's failure to testify, and potentially explain that he was not involved in other criminal activity on the day of the murder, and for some time before and after it, corroborates Ford's actual commission of other crimes. Ford had no privilege against testifying, constitutional or statutory . . . Ford committed other crimes . . . confirmed by Ford's resounding silence at the compensation hearing." (X)

Ford failed to disprove that he committed the crimes of possession of stolen goods, accessory after the fact and being a principal to the armed robbery. In fact, he admitted to them.

 "  . . .  the overwhelming evidence of Ford's knowledge of and involvement in the criminal activity that day and night: his participation in selling the stolen property from the robbery; his acting as a lookout; meeting with Jake Robinson and Henry Robinson before and after the crime; and his attempts to procure buyers for the probable murder weapon." (X)

"The testimony of Ms. Brown that Ford was with the Robinsons prior to the robbery and murder and asked if the three "were going to go," coupled with his presence at Mr. Rozeman's on the day of the crime and activity around the shop, could be construed as "casing" the shop. These actions could easily be construed as showing Ford's knowledge of the planned crime." (X)

Ford admitted his prior knowledge.

"The evidence clearly establishes that Ford took the stolen items and sold them at the pawn shop. Ford's argument that there is no evidence as to how he came into possession of the items is without foundation. . . .  Ford failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was not in illegal possession of stolen things." (X)

"Ford was aware of the plan to rob Mr. Rozeman. . .  agreed to sell some of the stolen items in his name, which he did  . . . agreed to procure buyers for the .38 caliber pistol  . . . the trial judge concluded that the evidence "clearly established" that Ford was trying to help the Robinsons avoid arrest. Accessory after the fact, which — in this case concealed the identity of murderers — may well be the type of crime which the legislature contemplated as a crime unworthy of compensation. She stated that Ford's "willingness and attempts to find a buyer for the weapon used in the crime" added to the fact that he was assisting the Robinsons. These conclusions are well supported by the record and we agree with the trial judge that Ford's assertion that he did not know the items were stolen is unbelievable. We find no manifest error in the finding that Ford failed to carry his burden of disproving his commission of accessory after the fact." (X)

"Henry Robinson had told Ford of the plan to rob Mr. Rozeman. Ford also emphasizes the state's assertion, in its motion to vacate, that he was "neither present nor a participant in the robbery and murder of Isadore Rozeman." First, the overwhelming evidence in the record before us supports the conclusion that Ford was concerned in the commission of this crime. Despite his purported absence, Ford aided in its commission in several respects." (X)

" . . . the evidence also supports a finding that Ford was engaged in a criminal conspiracy . . . the uncontroverted evidence shows that Ford knew of the plan to rob Mr. Rozeman and committed an act in furtherance of the crime by his presence around the shop prior to and after the crime and agreeing to sell the stolen items and murder weapon . . . Ford committed criminal conspiracy. Yet, Ford presented no evidence whatsoever to rebut such a finding." (X)

" . . .  Ford failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit any crime based upon the facts used in his conviction, as required . . . the trial court was clearly correct in finding that Ford is not entitled to compensation for wrongful conviction under the subject statute." (X)

"As a final note, in light of our holding that Ford is not entitled to compensation, we pretermit any discussion of the heritability of the wrongful conviction compensation cause of action." "For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court denying the petition of Glenn Ford, through Andrea Armstrong, the executrix of the estate of Glenn Ford, for compensation under La. R.S. 15:572.8 is affirmed at the cost of petitioner/appellant." (X)

Justice J  DREW:  "In this civil case, the trial court ruled that Mr. Ford was not entitled to compensation, finding that he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit multiple felonies emanating directly from the facts of this robbery/murder. The burden here was on Ford, not the state." (X)

"The (2015) trial court produced sound and organized reasons for judgment . . .  The court's hard work, diligence, and fairness are noted and appreciated." (X)

"This record reveals that the defendant committed at least two felonies arising from the facts of the robbery/murder: illegal possession of stolen things and accessory after the fact to first degree murder. Besides these two crimes, the compensation court also found that Ford was a principal to the crime of armed robbery." (X)

Why would, anyone, find that this career criminal deserved compensation? It's just foul.

Give the money to the most deserving Rozemans and/or to some of Ford's 52 known burglary victims.

Remember Isadore Rozeman

======

As per the Death Penalty Information Center's normal absurdities, Ford is listed as no. 144 on their "innocent" or "exonerated" from death row list.


======


1) CPSO detective committed to solving cold cases, Vickie Welborn, Shreveport Times, July 21, 2014, 

2)  a) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
READ SECTIONS 3&4 FIRST

    b)  The 4.1% "Innocent" on Death Row: More Nonsense

   c)  Innocence Project Invents False Confessions: 150% fraud rate in "confessions"?

3) STATE v. FORD, No. 85-KA-1039.489 So.2d 1250 (1986), STATE of Louisiana v. Glenn FORD. Supreme Court of Louisiana. March 31, 1986. Rehearing Denied May 30, 1986.

================

Victim's Voices - These are the murder victims
www.murdervictims.com/Voices/voices.html