Saturday, October 14, 2017

All Catholics May Support the Death Penalty

All Catholics May Support The Death Penalty
Dudley Sharp

There is a very robust debate countering both the Church's 20 year old anti death penalty teachings (CCC, amended 1997) and the statements by Pope Francis, both of which are contradicted by fact, reason, the Gospel and 2000 years of Catholic teachings, through today, as detailed.

1) as per Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (2004):

All Catholics may support the death penalty and more executions, today, and remain Catholics in good standing (1).

2) The Catholic Church cannot reverse 2000 years of pro death penalty teachings (2016-2017) (2).

For 2000 years, the Catholic Church has taught that the death penalty is a morally licit, just, appropriate, if not obligatory, sanction.

All of a sudden, since 1997, Bishops are telling us that the death penalty is unjust and cruel. Not only is that not true but, based upon those 2000 years of teachings from Popes, Saints, Doctors and Fathers of the Church, church leadership, biblical scholars and theologians, it cannot be true.

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).

"Paramount obedience".

Archbishop Charles Chaput (2005): “Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment . . . " "The Church cannot repudiate (the death penalty) without repudiating her own identity." (3)

3) The factual and rational problems within the Church's newest death penalty teachings have been well known since the Catechism's CCC 2267 was first amended (1997) (4).

4) The Bishops use well known, false anti death penalty claims to support their positions (5).

Also review:

Sister Helen Prejean: Does Truth Matter?:
Dead Man Walking & The Death Penalty


1) "3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

"Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles", from then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, the top authority of the body responsible for promulgating and defending Catholic doctrine,  in a memorandum to Cardinal McCarrick, made public in the first week of July 2004.
2) A thorough rebuttal to any effort to end the death penalty, based upon Catholic teachings.  
By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment (2017),  Edward Feser & Joseph Bessette

Why the Church Cannot Reverse Past Teaching on Capital Punishment, Profs. Edward Feser and Joseph M. Bessette, The Catholic World Report, July 17, 2016,

Four Catholic Journals Indulge in (anti death penalty) Doctrinal Solipsism, Steven Long, THOMISTICA, March 5, 2015

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation

New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming
3) "Archbishop Chaput clarifies Church’s stance on death penalty", CNA, Catholic News Agency, Oct 18, 2005. Chaput was then archbishop of Denver, now of Philadelphia
4) Catholic Church: Problems with Her Newest Death Penalty Position: The Catechism & Section 2267


Catechism & State Protection

Why the Death Penalty is Still Necessary, Profs. Edward Feser and Joseph M. Bessette,  The Catholic World Report, July 21, 2016

5) Rebuttal to all the Church's secular anti death penalty nonsense

Catholic Bishops: So Wrong on Death Penalty

The Death Penalty: Fair and Just

The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

The Death Penalty: Saving Innocent Lives


Thursday, August 10, 2017

Cameron Todd Willingham Guilty

No doubts: Those closest to case shed no tears for Willingham
By Janet Jacobs, Corsicana Daily Sun
published: September 07, 2009 05:08 pm    
expired, original link

The undeniable facts of the Cameron Todd Willingham case are these:

• On Dec. 23, 1991, 2-year-old Amber Louise Kuykendall, and 1-year-old twins Karmon Diane Willingham and Kameron Marie Willingham died in a mid-morning house fire at 1213 W. 11th Ave. in Corsicana.

• Willingham, 23, the children’s father, and the only adult home at the time of the fire, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death on Aug. 21, 1992.

• After five appeals and 12 years on death row, he was put to death by lethal injection on Feb. 17, 2004.

 Everything else is controversial.

 Carrying the torch

To people opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances, the holy grail is an innocent man who was executed, preferably in Texas, home of the nation’s busiest death row. Some argue Todd Willingham is that innocent man.

The latest argument for Willingham’s innocence comes from a report by Craig Beyler, of Hughes Associates in Baltimore, Md., and submitted Aug. 17 to the Texas Forensic Science Commission, a panel formed in 2005 to deal with forensic errors.

Beyler was contracted to review the case following a complaint by the Innocence Project.

The Innocence Project is best known for using DNA analysis to exonerate wrongly convicted men.

The report claims the Texas investigators didn’t understand fire science, and didn’t use modern methods in the Willingham case. Because one of the investigators was with the
Texas fire marshal’s office, the marshal’s office will have a chance to respond to Beyler’s findings, and the commission should deliver a verdict next spring.

This week, the New Yorker published an article by David Grann which condemns the science and the system which sent a seemingly innocent man to his death. Part of the article is based on Willingham’s relationship with a woman who visited him on death row, and became an amateur sleuth on his behalf. Previous articles questioning the Willingham verdict have also appeared in the Dallas Morning News and the Chicago Tribune.

Leaders of the Innocence Project say this is proof of a failed death-penalty system.

“There can no longer be any doubt that an innocent person has been executed,” said Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, in a release. “The question now turns to how we can stop it from happening again.

“As long as our system of justice makes mistakes — including the ultimate mistake — we cannot continue executing people,” Scheck stated.


also read:

The Guilt of Cameron Todd Willingham:
Rebuttal: "Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?", by David Grann, The New Yorker
Dudley Sharp

In Corsicana, the attempts to make Todd Willingham into a martyr aren’t well-received.

“He’s not a poster child for anybody,” said Sgt. Jimmie Hensley of the Corsicana Police Department.

First impressions

Doug Fogg, a Corsicana firefighter for 31 years, was the first responder to arrive at 1213 W. 11th Ave. in Corsicana that Monday morning. He conducted the local arson investigation.

Fogg calls Beyler an “armchair quarterback” and riles at the accusation that Corsicana and state detectives used nothing more than folklore to come to their conclusions.

“A lot of this stuff (in Beyler’s report) is misspoken or misinterpreted,” Fogg said.

The report accuses state arson investigator Manuel Vasquez, now deceased, of not securing the scene, of missing or mishandling crucial evidence that might have exonerated Willingham, and not using scientific fire analysis.

Willingham had a lot of excuses for the fire, Fogg recalled, including that a stranger entered the house and set the fire, that the 2-year-old started it, that a ceiling fan or squirrels in the attic caused an electrical short, or the gas space heaters in the children’s bedroom sparked it.

The investigators searched for electrical shorts, but found none; the gas-powered space heaters were off because the family’s gas supply had been cut off at the meter; and “we didn’t find a ceiling fan. Willingham said there was one, but we didn’t find any signs of one,” Fogg said.

The other explanations just didn’t add up, Fogg said, adding: “We eliminated all accidental causes.”

Evidence of accelerants was found, but Willingham had an excuse for that, too. Willingham told investigators he poured cologne on the children’s floor “because the babies liked the smell,” he blamed a kerosene lamp for any accelerant in the hallway, and said spilled charcoal-lighter fluid happened while he was grilling, Fogg recalled.

Fogg agreed that there was a damaged bottle of charcoal lighter fluid on the other end of the porch away from the door, but the grill was in the side yard not on the porch when firefighters arrived. Fogg remembered four empty bottles of charcoal lighter were found just outside the front door.

Beyler acknowledges that one sample did have accelerant in it, but said it was unidentified, a claim Fogg disputes.

Local investigators didn’t leave the house until midnight, spending over 12 hours sifting through the debris by hand, taking videotape and more than 80 photographs of the scene, cutting up flooring for the lab, bagging and dating each sample and recording where it came from in the house, Fogg said. Samples were contaminated by melted plastic toys, fire-damaged carpet and floor tiles, but it wasn’t because of investigator’s incompetence, Fogg said.

Beyler theorized it was a flashover, and said investigators didn’t see the difference between the intense heat of a flashover and an accelerant-driven fire. Fogg laughed at the notion.

If it had been a flashover, it would have taken out the thin layer of sheetrock on the walls, he argued.

“That house was box construction,” Fogg said. “The only sheetrock that came down was what was hit with water. The paper backing wasn’t even scorched.”

As well, the fire damage was worse at the floor level than at the ceilings, which is the opposite of typical fire, Fogg said.

“(Beyler) thought we were total idiots,” Fogg said.

Beyond the fire

Sgt. Jimmie Hensley of the Corsicana Police Department was the lead investigator on the Willingham murder case back in 1992.

For Hensley, the most damning evidence came from Willingham, who told officers that 2-year-old Amber woke him up. Firefighters later found her in his bed, with burns on the soles of her feet. Yet, Willingham didn’t take the girl with him when he fled, nor did he receive burns walking down that same hallway, Hensley pointed out.

Willingham was taken to the hospital where doctors did a blood-gas analysis on him, a standard test for someone who’s been inside a burning house.

“He had no more (carbon monoxide) than somebody who had just smoked a cigarette,” Hensley said.

Hensley has since become a certified arson investigator. In hindsight, he insists they took the right steps with the evidence in the Willingham case.

“We did everything we were supposed to do,” he said.

Hensley also dismisses Beyler’s report, pointing out that Beyler didn’t talk to the investigators, and reading the testimony can’t replace first-person observations.

“You can find expert witnesses everywhere, and if you pay them enough they’ll testify to anything,” Hensley said. “They’re to be bought.”

Willingham was tried for murder, not arson, and the guilty verdict was based on the whole picture, not just part of it, he said.

“You can’t just look at a little part. Look at the whole picture, and that’s what the jury did,”

Hensley said. “If a 2-year-old wakes you up and there’s smoke and fire everywhere, aren’t you going to at least get that one out? It couldn’t possibly have happened the way (Willingham) said.”

Willingham’s behavior afterwards did not help his case. Todd Morris was the first police officer on the scene and he found Willingham trying to push his car away from the house to save it from the fire, while his children were inside burning up, Hensley said.

Dr. Grady Shaw and his team spent an hour at the emergency room trying to resuscitate
Amber while next door Willingham complained about his own suffering, Shaw said.

“I remember this case very clearly,” Shaw said. “She was in Trauma Room 1, and her father was placed in Trauma Room 2, and only a curtain separated those. He was whining and complaining and crying out for a nurse to help him because of the pain from his extremely minor burns while we were trying to resuscitate this child.”

Willingham’s first-degree burns on the backs of his hands and on the back of his neck were the kind that might come from accidentally touching an oven rack, or having a small ember pop up from a campfire, Shaw said.

“He was not hurting that bad from these minor burns,” Shaw said. “It was clearly audible what was going on next door, but to hear him doing all that complaining and asking for attention when everybody was trying to save the little girl’s life was grossly inappropriate.”

Friends of the family testified that Willingham had beaten his wife in an attempt to abort the pregnancy of the twins, and many people assumed the murder of the children was more of the same, said John Jackson, former district judge and the lead prosecutor of the Willingham case.

“We really just believed the children inhibited his lifestyle,” Jackson said.


Hensley came away deeply disturbed by the case, and he’s angry that anti-death penalty proponents ignore the children’s deaths in trying to make Willingham into a martyr.

“In my opinion, justice was served,” Hensley said. “And it’s a shame he couldn’t have died three times, one for each of the little girls.”

Alan Bristol, who helped prosecute the case for the district attorney’s office, said Willingham was “one of the most evil people I’ve ever come in contact with in my life.”

“The guy was a sociopath,” he said. Willingham refused a polygraph, tortured and killed animals as a child, abused his wife repeatedly, thought more about losing his car than his children, and clearly lied about what happened in the deadly fire, Bristol said.

“None of the stories he told us panned out,” Bristol said. “He tried to make himself out to be a big hero, that he tried to go in and save the children, but there was no smoke in his lungs and he had only minor injuries.”

Bristol said the science for investigating fires may have changed over the last two decades, but the accelerant was there, and that evidence remains valid.

“I don’t have any doubt he did it, or was guilty,” Bristol said. “I think he would have been convicted whether we had the arson evidence or not.”

Willingham appealed his case, but the verdict was upheld. In the end, he asked for clemency that never materialized.

“The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man convicted of a crime I did not commit,” Willingham said in his final moments. “I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do.”

The article in the New Yorker quoted Willingham’s protest of innocence as his final words, but Loyd Cook of the Daily Sun was one of three media witnesses at the execution.

Willingham’s actual final words were a venom-filled curse at his ex-wife as he attempted an obscene gesture, Cook reported.

“I hope you rot in hell, b—,” Willingham said before dying.

Stacy Kuykendall, who still lives in Navarro County, said she doesn’t talk about the case anymore. However, she did talk to Cook shortly before Willingham’s execution.

She refuted her ex-husband’s attempts to blame Amber, and came to her own conclusions that he killed their daughters. Kuykendall divorced Willingham while he was in prison, and married again. She did not have more children.

“Maybe some of the fear of him will leave me, but I’ll never get over what he did to my kids,” she said in 2004.

From his seat at the defense table, attorney David Martin’s job was to fight tooth and nail for Willingham. Once it was over, though, Martin became convinced his client was guilty. He dismisses the Beyler report as propaganda from anti-death penalty supporters. 

“The Innocence Project is an absolute farce,” Martin said. “It’s a bunch of hype, in my opinion.”

The defense team couldn’t locate an arson expert back then willing to say the house fire was accidental.

“We never could find anybody that contradicted Vasquez,” Martin said.

As for motive, Martin agreed with investigators about Willingham’s character.
“He had no conscience,” Martin said. “Why do monsters kill? They like killing.”

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, John Luttig, 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


"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.


"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).


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

2) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

3)  See Texas

Saving Costs with The Death Penalty

4) 86% Death Penalty Support: Highest Ever - April 2013
World Support Remains High
95% of Murder Victim's Family Members Support Death Penalty

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,

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

2)  see Virginia et al
Saving Costs with The Death Penalty

3) The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

4)    The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

5) OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate
99.7% of murderers tell us "Give me life, not execution"

6)  Death Penalty Deterrence: Defended & Advanced

7)  "Deterrence & the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock"


9) "The 11 Safest Places To Live In Louisiana", by Kezia Kamenetz, Only in Your State, August 06, 2015,

10) "The 10 Most Dangerous Places In Louisiana", by Kezia Kamenetz, Only in Your State, August 09, 2015, 

11) "Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let's be clear

also see


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


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

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.



1)  A.M. "Marty" Stroud III letter, Lead prosecutor apologizes for role in sending man to death row, Shreveport Times, 3/20/2015

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

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


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,

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


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

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

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,