Oct 30, 2024 at 12:39 PM
To: LETTERS
sent oct 29, 2024
Texas Matters, Texas Public Radio, and David Martin Davies, TPR
bcc: All at Texas Public Radio, HPR, Texas Tribune, Leadership at NPR, Editorial Board at Ft. Worth Star-Telegram and other media, throughout Texas and the worldall statewide government in Texas and many more
Subject: Death Row Inmate Robert Roberson: Can Media or Politicians be trusted? No.
RE: Example: Texas Matters: AG Paxton distorts record of Robert Roberson case, David Martin Davies, TPR, October 25, 2024
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Mr. Davies:
Preface
You write: "Robert Roberson " . . . did not find relief from the courts or from Governor Greg Abbott . . . despite overwhelming evidence of innocence and overwhelming outcries from the public."
Davies is stating that most or all appellate judges, members of the parole board, the governor. attorney general, district attorney and all their relevant staffs (collectively, the Group) are, knowingly, going to execute a man, even though they all have proof of the "overwhelming evidence of (his) innocence".
Davies appears to have no understanding as to how absurd that is.
Since 1973, the modern death penalty era, there have been 4 cases (0.25%), from Texas death row, with "factual" proof of actual innocence, (1), as confirmed by the proper government authority. All were released. Current Gov. Abbott has commuted, to life, one case of a factually guilty murderer on death row . . . not a good decision.
The "overwhelming outcries from the public" has little to no meaning, as they get their information from the media, like you (2), and/or anti-death penalty groups and folks, with media having a 30 year history of not fact checking nor vetting the fraudulent claims (2) of the innocent/exonerated from death row, which, now has a 71-83% fraud rate, depending upon review. (3). This deception was admitted by anti-death penalty folks in . . . 1998 (3).
Why would the Group decide to, knowingly, kill an innocent person, in this one, or any case? They wouldn't, of course. It would be political, ethical and moral suicide, with only a downside for the Group, with all reasons not to do it and none for.
Yet Davies says that is exactly what they are doing. How did he come to that conclusion?
No one complains about factually innocent people having their conviction reversed and being freed
======
Regarding the recent back and forth by the Texas AG, the legislature and Roberson's appellate team:
If following the normal pattern, all of the points, from that 27 page rebuttal to the Texas AG, by Roberson's appellate team (4),
and/or
2) they were for social/media/public consumption, only. and not for presentation within appeals, to the courts, for a variety of reasons, which may include fraud upon the court.
Are there any other reasons? Aren't 1 & 2, just above, the only options? Davies, did you look into that, prior to your publishing your article?
There is a reason we have judges making the final legal decisions, as opposed to media and legislators, nor the prosecution nor the defense, with Davies' article, one of so many, telling us why that is.
From Nikki's brother, aunt and grandfather
Sharp: It is an anti-death penalty staple to hurt the victim survivors in death penalty cases (5), as the media and legislature have done with this case.
Nikki's family members sent a letter (6) to the Texas House of Representatives Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, which had hearings on the case. Some excerpts from their letter:
"Lost in this parade of people who are over eager to proclaim the innocence of a man found guilty by a jury of his peers, are the facts about Nikki Curtis’ murder and the voice of those who knew him best and who witnessed the repeated abuse by Mr. Roberson – Nikki’s family."
"Given the one-sided picture of Mr. Roberson that has been recently portrayed in the media, we feel obliged to speak up and defend the real victim in this case whose life was taken by the hands of Robert Roberson, Nikki Curtis."
"Because so many facts seem to have been INTENTIONALLY (my emphasis) left out of the current conversation surrounding Mr. Roberson’s case, we wanted to reiterate several facts, all of which were presented at the trial:"
Intentional deception is an anti-death penalty staple (7), with countless deceptions harming the victim survivors and the truth (2,5,7).
The injuries to Nikki, as per those family members (I changed the order):
Trauma to Nikki’s entire brain – that caused Nikki’s brain to shift inside her skull, compress her spinal cord, and impede her breathing
Bruised and mushy back of skull
Handprint on her face
Lacerations inside Nikki’s mouth
Red bruising on the left side and top of Nikki’s head"
"Robert Roberson had a reported history of sexually and physically abusing two-year old Nikki Curtis, as well as another little girl, including:
Rubbing his penis against two-year-old Nikki’s vagina
Placing a child in a bed of fire ants
Whipping Nikki when she cried
Assaulting Nikki with a board and paddle
Throwing Nikki on the bed so hard she bounced off and hit the floor"
The juror who testified to the Committee
The juror who spoke to the committee stated that, only, shaken baby syndrome was mentioned at trial as the reason for Nikki's death. That was untrue.
See family review above and . . .
"Roberson’s trial counsel conceded that his client had abused Nikki and argued only that Roberson had not intended to kill her. Id., at 60–61." (8) How would counsel know that? Roberson told counsel.
"Justice Yeary maintained that Roberson’s case had not depended exclusively on shaken-baby syndrome evidence because it had also involved evidence of blunt force impacts, suggesting Roberson could have beaten Nikki to death. Ex parte Roberson, Nos. WR–63,081–03, 04 (Tex. Crim. App. Oct. 10, 2024) (Yeary, J., concurring in denial of suggestion for reconsideration). (8)
" . . . physicians reported that Nikki suffered and ultimately died of "massive head trauma". Prosecutors argued that in the emergency room, Nikki was found to have "a bruise on the back of her shoulder, a scraped elbow, a bruise over her right eyebrow, bruises on her chin, a bruise on her left cheek, an abrasion next to her left eye, multiple bruises on the back of her head, a torn frenulum in her mouth, bruising on the inner surface of the lower lip, subscapular and subgaleal hemorrhaging between her skin and her skull, subarachnoid bleeding, subdural hematoma, both pre-retinal and retinal hemorrhages and brain edema."[Additionally, four separate doctors testified Nikki had "multiple blows to different points on the head", which could not have been caused by falling off a bed. At trial," (9)
"Roberson's defense expert admitted that Roberson "lost it" and shook Nikki because he could not stop her from crying." (9) How would the expert know that? Roberson told the expert.
"In an order that adopted large portions of the State’s proposed findings of fact verbatim, the trial court denied Roberson relief. It found that no “false evidence was presented in regards to” shaken-baby syndrome, and that in any event “no evidence was presented to the jury that shaking alone” had caused Nikki’s death. Pet. App. 177a, 181a." (8)
"An autopsy revealed evidence of internal bleeding near Nikk’s brain, as well as extensive bruising on her head, face, and shoulders, leading the doctor who conducted the autopsy to conclude that Nikki had died of “blunt force head injuries.” Tr. 55 (Feb. 3, 2003)." (8)
"Both Dr. Squires and Dr. Urban (the physician who had conducted the autopsy) also testified to the bruising on Nikki’s body . . . ". See e.g., Tr. 72 (Feb. 5, 2003) (Dr. Urban acknowledging medical treatment could have caused some of the bruising); id., at 96 (similar); id., at 79 (Dr. Urban noting that she was “not prepared to say” bruises on Nikki’s arm and foot had been caused by Roberson)." (8)
SCOTUS JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: "To its credit, Texas has “led the way in forensic science reform in criminal procedure,” including by passing the statute that allowed Roberson to challenge his conviction based on changes in forensic science that seriously undermined the integrity of his criminal trial. Id., at 11. Tragically, that statute did not help Roberson in this case." (8).
The tragedy is that we have a US Supreme Court justice that will avoid the evidence of blunt force trauma and Roberson's counsel telling the jurors that Roberson abused Nikki but did not kill her, intentionally, that shaken baby syndrome (SBS) cannot be confirmed by the three conditions, but injuries by shaking are not excluded from causing death to infants, either. Sotomayor avoided all of those and many. many more. How? It has to be intentional.
Complete utter nonsense by Supreme Court justices is, nothing, new. See Justice Breyer, regarding the death penalty (10) and the Court, collectively, here (11).
There seems to be some confusion surrounding SBS. Babies can be shaken so hard that they die and they may or may not have the three physical markers for SBS and the deceased baby can have all three of those physical markers and shaking not be the cause of death.
Celebrities
TV celebrity Dr. Phil first stated that Roberson was factually innocent, which he could not possibly know or prove, and which Roberson's trial counsel rebutted, then he switched to Roberson didn't get due process, which has been rejected by the courts. for 21 years, which he must be aware of.
In the 90's, Texas had a huge fraudulent, world-wide deception, with the death penalty case of Gary Graham (3,12). By ignorance or intent, both media and celebrities were major parts to that deception. Did either learn anything from that?
In closing
As Davies and other media had little to none of above in their articles, we can see how the public gets all worked up, as intended.
Can media not fact check nor vet, accidently? Of course not.
Today, you must research, fact check, vet that research and use critical thinking to decide if anything is true anymore, from media and politicians, as both are scraping the bottom of the barrel, competing for the lowest trust ratings. It is not as if we have not known that, for a very long time.
Sad and obvious, as detailed, again.
1) Use the model in the Texas and all other cases, prior to responding
Deception: The DPIC "Exonerated"/"Innocence" List
(see fact checking/vetting model - use it)
Deception: The DPIC "Exonerated"/"Innocence" List
ProDPinNC: Media Disaster: C-Span & The Death Penalty Information Center
and
Journalism's Death: The Death Penalty & the Media
ProDPinNC: Media Disaster: Journalism's Death: The Death Penalty & the Media
and many, many more, just place "media disaster" within the search box, at that site
71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims,
Well Known Since 1998
ProDPinNC: The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds
Robert Roberson’s defense team drops 27-page rebuttal after Texas AG releases autopsy report, statement
More Than Their Innocent Victims:
AKA - Full Rebuttal of Sir Richard Branson & His Death Penalty Comments
Death Penalty Opponents Value Murderers More Than Innocent Victims
EXCLUSIVE: Nikki Curtis’ family breaks silence on Roberson hearings
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-death-penalty-justice-saving-more.html
and
b) Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts are included)
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/01/students-death-penalty-research.html
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
http://prodpquotes.info/
604 U. S. ____ (2024) 1 Statement of SOTOMAYOR, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 24–5753 24A349) ROBERT LESLIE ROBERSON III v. TEXAS ON APPLICATION FOR STAY AND ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS [October 17, 2024]
Robert Roberson case - Wikipedia
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2022/12/justice-breyers-c-in-death-penalty.html
ProDPinNC: McCleskey v Kemp: SCOTUS ERROR & LEGAL DECEPTION
ProDPinNC: Gary Graham: HOLLYWOOD, MURDER and TEXAS
When Media & Anti-death Penalty Advocates Are the Same
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/06/cameron-todd-willingham-media-meltdown.html
Victim Services
Victim Services
https://www.marsyslaw.us/victims_voices
======
