Tuesday, April 13, 2021

The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds

updated 4/2024

The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds 
71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent"/"Exonerated" Claims, 
Well Known Since 1998

From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, pro death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom

The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds - A Timeline


It is, absolutely, confirmed that lies are the critical foundation of the anti-death penalty movement (1).

We could say, instead, that no fact checking, no vetting and no critical thinking was the reason, both for media and for death penalty opponents. The problem, it cannot be an accident to forego those (1).
The fifth article, below, "Hollywood, Murder and Texas" was my first thorough review of a death row case. I read the full trial transcript and all of the appellate rulings. I was, still, anti- death penalty and was astounded at the breadth and depth of the lies and deceptions of those advocating for Graham. 
I fact checked and vetting both sides of the debate, 1995-1997, from which I learned that lies and deception were the foundation of the anti-death penalty movement (1), which could not progress without the collusion and/or irresponsibility of both media and academia, as detailed (1) here and here (2), as well as all of those, just below:

ASK: Is it possible for media and academia to, accidently, avoid fact checking and vetting, since 1987? Of course not. There are only two choices: They are lying and/or they refuse to fact check and vet, which is intentional.

Are there other choices?

1) 1987-2006   Roger Keith Coleman
The classic, worldwide Cause Celebre, anti-death penalty case
A 19 year, anti-death penalty fictional odyssey and the media lapped it up
Paragraph 2 within
Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy

See para 1) Sacco and Vanzetti, for a prior history of anti-death penalty fraud.

 2)  1988   The modern era death row "exoneration"/"innocent" frauds, errors and/or misdirections (FEMS) appear to have been inspired by a study by, well, known anti-death penalty activists Bedau and Radelet (1987, Stanford Law Review, vol 40, no 1), both of whom, also, happen to be academics. 

Depending upon category, Bedau and Radelet were, 50%, 60% and 100% in "error" with their claims, as I detailed, on average, where we are today, with anti-death penalty claims.

Cassell and Markman, rebutted their nonsense in 1988 (1988, Stanford Law Review, volume 1, no 1).

3) 1992 The Innocence Project (IP) claims that, to take cases:

"There is physical evidence that, if subjected to DNA testing, will prove that the defendant is actually innocent."
"The Innocence Project does NOT review claims where DNA testing cannot prove innocence.

Both are untrue, based upon the McCarty case (detailed, below). 

It's another example of frauds, errors and/or misdirections (FEMS).
quotes from Submit A Case page, Innocence Project.
4) 1993 Not a death penalty case, but fits the pattern

The Hurricane was not and could not be "exonerated". 
"Hurricane" Carter appointed executive director of the Association in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted.  (Guilty: Hurricane Carter),

Originally written in 1994, for distribution to some 200 groups and individuals, supportive of Gary Graham 
6) 1998 The first, most obvious and semi honest public confirmation of the modern era "innocent"/"exonerated" FEMS occurred, when Northwestern U. Prof. Lawrence Marshall, the organizer of the 1998 Wrongfully Convicted on Death Row Conference in Chicago, stated that "In a good half of these 75 cases, the exoneration is so complete that it erases any doubt whatsoever."
Combining those two (1988 & 1998), with a 50-100% error rate, one admitted and one obvious, we have a template for the FEMS to follow. Note how predictive the 75% FEMS rate average has become, through today.

Somehow, the media and academia "missed" it.

7) Since 1998, the DPIC "exoneration" and/or "innocence" numbers have been an, easily, discovered deception, with a 71-83% "error"/fraud rate, as basic, simple fact checking/vetting confirms:

Deception: The DPIC "Exonerated"/"Innocence" List 
(see fact checking/vetting model - use it) 

8) 2000 The play "The Exonerated" - are any actually innocent?

9)  2000 "Death on Hold?", Dudley Sharp, Op/ed, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 2/5/00. 

The first op/ed, suggesting that, possibly, half of the "exonerated"/"innocent" from death row may be FEMS, confirming what anti-death penalty experts had already confessed, para 6 above.

From 1988-2000, with anyone who fact checked and vetted, they would have discovered that frauds, errors and mis-directions (FEMS) had become an intentional, integral part of the anti-death penalty mission.

 10)  2002: A case by case look at DPIC deceptions.

"If the Quinones court's analysis of the DPIC list is combined with this critique's analysis , only 17 defendants should be on the List, not the 102 defendants currently listed. (p 144, fn 3) an 83% error/fraud rate, as with Florida and Texas.

Attachment A, Critique of DPIC List (Innocence: Freed From Death Row), by Ward A. Campbell, Senate Reports United States. Congress. Senate Government Printing Office, page 109-149), Senate Reports, Nos. 292-350, 107th Congress - 2d Session, January 23-Novermber 22, 2002, 315. Innocence Protection Act of 2002, United States Congressional Serial Set, Serial Number 14749 (fn 3, link here)

11) 2002 "Not So Innocent", National Review, 1/14/2002,

Detailed deconstruction of how anti-death penalty folks lie, with regard to the "innocent"/"exonerated" from death row. It includes a number of well-known anti-death penalty folks trying to explain why they are so misleading.

It's telling to see how anti-death penalty leadership explains that lying is appropriate.

12) 2003 Not a death penalty case but a great example of media, etc. refusing to fact check/vet/research, as well as intentional deception.

The Absurdity of the "Exonerated Five":
The very obvious frauds of the Central Park Five 

Yep, the media "missed" it.

13) 2004-2024 and continuing

When Lies Become the "News"

Cameron Todd Willingham: Media Meltdown & the Death Penalty:
When Media & Anti-death Penalty Advocates Are the Same 

14)  2005:  New York Times: 
Death Row Innocent Claims Are 71% False

Death Row, "Exonerations", Media & Intentional Fraud

NYTimes Justice/ Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak didn't "miss" it, but most others do.
15) 2006: One of the greatest examples of anti-death penalty mis-information, with the media, lapping it up, for years and years.

DNA Confirms Executed Man's (Roger Keith Coleman's) Guilt, 1/12/2006

at   The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti-Death Penalty Deception 

The media didn't just "miss" it, they contributed to the "error"/fraud, as has become a pattern. 

16)  2006 Testimony on the Death Penalty, by John McAdams, Marquette University, U.S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, & Property Rights, Dirksen Senate Office Building, February 1, 2006
Inclusive of the well known 83% error/fraud rate in DPIC's claims of Florida's "innocent"/"exonerated" from death row.

17)  2006-2008    Exoneration Inflation: Justice Scalia’s Concurrence in Kansas v. Marsh by Ward A. Campbell, LACJ Journal, Summer 2008, p 49-63, re-published, with permission, at CJLF, 
In detail, shows how deceptive and untrustworthy the DPIC "Innocence" List is, while finding a 0.5% rate of actual innocents found guilty, resulting in a 99.5% accuracy rate in factually guilty findings, with the 0.5% factually innocent freed, with one dying of illness on death row.

Which is consistent with the 71-83% error/fraud rate in anti-death penalty claims of the "innocent"/"exonerated" from death row, as detailed, throughout, herein.

18)  2007 Troy Davis & The Innocent Frauds of the anti-death penalty lobby

19) 2008 Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted? “At the Death House Door”

It is, impossible, to trust him.

20)  2010 The "Innocent", the "Exonerated" & Death Row
An Open Fraud in the Death Penalty Debate:
How Death Penalty Opponents Lie

21)  2010 The "Innocent"/"Exonerated" found guilty by DNA
The Eastburn Family Murders and the Trials of Sergeant Timothy Hennis, The Crime Wire, April 17, 2023
22) 2011    Innocence Project (IP) Invents False Confessions
150% fraud rate in "confessions"?  
23) 2011    McCARTY v. GILCHRIST

I, randomly, picked this one DNA "exonerated" case (See IP and NRE), making one wonder how many DNA "exonerations" are guilty and/or have no proof of "innocence"/"exoneration", as this case. 

Based upon para 1-20, I suspect the DNA "innocent"/"exonerated" fraud, error and/or mis-directions (FEMS) rate could be as ahigh as 50-70%, just based upon 
a) the odds of me, randomly, picking out this one case,
b) in consideration of the 71-83% error/fraud rate of the DPIC, establishing a pattern of deception from these groups; and
c) which is confirmed with NRE, which has the vast majority of its criteria for declaring cases "innocent"/"exonerated", requiring no proof of "innocence", just as DPIC.

as of 3/2024, 13 years later, both IP and NRE, intentionally, leave all of this out, which should tell you their dedication to deception.
See para 3) How many DNA exonerations are guilty? within

24) 2012 Deceptions: "Exonerations", as defined by 
The National Registry of Exonerations (NRE)

As of 2012, it was blatant and appears coordinated, with DPIC, IP, NRE, many in media and academia, that FEMS are an intentional, integral part of their mission.

25) 2014:  "Innocence fraud demands prosecutor vigilance", JOHN M. COLLINS JR., The Prosecutor, OCTOBER / NOVEMBER / DECEMBER / 2014
Collins is the chief managing editor of Crime Lab Report and the principal instructor and consultant with The Forensic Foundations Group 
(www.forensicfoundations.com). He has studied and published on overturned convictions and their causes.

Media vigilance? Abandoned.

26) 2015 The 4.1% "Innocent" on Death Row: More Nonsense

27)  2015-2024 and ongoing Richard Glossip: Little Credibility with His Supporters 

28)  2017   Another Exonerated/ Innocent

Guilty: Glenn Ford & Marty Stroud

29)  2018 Overstating America's Wrongful Conviction Rate? Reassessing the Conventional Wisdom About the Prevalence of Wrongful Convictions 

"Combining empirically based estimates for each of these three factors, a reasonable (and possibly overstated) calculation of the wrongful conviction (factually innocent) rate appears, tentatively, to be somewhere in the range of 0.016%–0.062%.".
Cassell, Paul G., 60 Ariz. L. Rev. 815 (2018); University of Utah College of Law Research Paper No. 291. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3276185 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3276185
30) 2021 The Marshal Projects' Maurice Chammah's "Let the Lord Sort Them: The Rise and Fall of the Death Penalty", January 26, 2021

Read Chammah's  description of the Gary Graham and Cameron Todd Willlingham cases, and about Rev. Carroll Pickett and Fred Allen and then read para 5 (Graham) and para 13 (Willingham) para 19 (Pickett) and Fred Allen, here:  

numbered paragraphs 11 and 12, here:
Complete Rebuttal: "God Save Texas: Hometown Prison"

31) 2022 Innocent Frauds: Does Truth Matter? Sr. Prejean, The Church & U of Notre Dame 

32) Crime, Film, & Fraud: Shameless Hollywood (and others)
Too Often Glorifying Murderers, Slandering Victims

The Death Penalty/Executions: Saving More Innocent Lives

35)  30 Examples:
How Death Penalty Abolitionists Value Murderers 
More Than Their Innocent Victims4
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments

38) Innocents More at Risk Without Death Penalty

40) "A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection", Lester Jackson Ph.D.



                 In the United States, 10/1/97,

Which has been, constantly, updated, here

2)  The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents

600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history

Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims. 
The media/academic norm is to use anti-death penalty material, refuse to fact check or vet it and avoid all pro-death penalty research and experts. How will you know that is true? You haven't seen this material, prior.
The Death Penalty: Justice & Saving More Innocents
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts are included)
Partial CV