Complete Rebuttal: "God Save Texas: Hometown Prison"
This qualifies as a "Media Disaster", because of every media movie review, so far, and other media commentary.
To: Angie McCown, Director, Victim Services & management team & Board Members Texas Dept. 0f Criminal Justice (TDCJ)
Victim Services & all depts, Texas Dept of Public Safety
Walls Unit, Execution Team, Huntsville Prison, TDCJ (please forward)
Parents of Murdered Children, Houston, San Antonio Chapters & National
Secure Our Seniors Safety (SOSS) & Victim Groups around the country
Texas Pardons and Parole Board & Huntsville Board Office
Huntsville Mayor Russell Humphrey and all City Council Members
Aron Kulhavy, City Manager and staff & Kristy Doll, City Secretary and staff
Darryle Slaven, Huntsville Chief of Police and many other officers & Leonard Schneider City Atty
Staff, Huntsville Public Library
The Huntsville Item
Leadership & Board Windham School District
Huntsville High School
Sam Houston State University
Filmmaker Richard Linklater, author/executive producer Lawrence Wright and filmmakers Alex Stapleton and Iliana Sosa (the other God Save Texas" segments"), Jigsaw and Wolf Moon Productions
The HBO crew
participants Michelle Lyons, Fred Allen, Ed Owens, Dennis Longmire, Bambi Kiser, Elroy Thomas, Michael Gilbert, Dale, Italia Campuzano, Tega and John Okperuvwe and others
Austin Film Society and all authors of those who reviewed "God Save Texas"
bcc: more below
Re: Complete Rebuttal: "God Save Texas: Hometown Prison", by filmmaker
Richard Linklater, HBO, inspired by the book God Save Texas: A Journey Into the Soul of the Lone Star State by Lawrence Wright
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Preface
My "complete rebuttal" is to Linklater's death penalty issues, only. Linklater didn't "sneak" an anti-death penalty diatribe into his film. It was in your face common activism, with no fact checking, no vetting no critical thinking (1), and which minimizes the innocent murder victims, as much as possible, without excluding them, altogether (2).
Method: I, only, respond, in the main, to what I consider death penalty topics and respond to some other sections of the film in the footnote, here (3). I "Quote" or paraphrase the film, sometimes, by the speaker, then rebut, as Sharp, with sources, as needed for fact checking.
1) Sharp: Linklater devoted 60 seconds to the words of the loved ones of the mother and her two children murdered, the only survivors shown, taking up nearly 1.2% of the time of the film, with such murders the reason judges or jurors give the death penalty.
Linklater spent more time on football, mascots, cheerleaders, homecoming and good ole boy memories, than of the three innocents murdered and their loved ones (2).
The rapes, murders and additional horrors, here. Linklater avoided them, of course . . . standard anti-death penalty (2).
Execution Report: Robert Sparks
Linklater says it's a hometown prison film. The main course is anti-death penalty, with sides of hometown prison.
It is, very. common, in anti-death penalty pieces, to leave out the innocent murder/torture/rape victims, altogether, another anti-death penalty malady, proving that they value guilty murderers over their innocent victims, as documented (2) and shown by Linklater, with a tiny nod to survivors. Thank you. No sarcasm. You had something.
2) Linklater: "Texas did execute an innocent person": Cameron Todd Willingham.
Sharp: Complete, utter nonsense. Linklater did not fact check, nor vet nor use critical thinking. Why not? My guess. It, never, entered his mind. Ask him.
Willingham's case is, simply, the latest version of world-wide anti-death penalty frauds (4), as we have seen so many times before (5).
Quoting Linklater, "(Linklater) will never, officially acknowledge it or deal with it honestly", just as with his production.
Linklater can fact check, vet and use critical thinking, on the Willingham case, here (4). Better late than never. My guess? Linklater could care less. Why would he care, now, if he didn't prior?
In the beginning of the film, Linklater says that many, including himself, thought death row murderer, Delma Banks, was very likely innocent. Fairly typical anti-death penalty group think, as with Troy Davis, Gary Graham, Willingham and so many others, reviewed here (5), where Linklater can read about all their many innocent victims, so that Linklater can interview all of their loved ones. Likely, zero interest.
In pretrial, trial and appeals, there is no "very likely" nor any showing of factual innocence, for Banks, who is not even mentioned in the Death Penalty Information Center's Innocence database, which needs ZERO PROOF of factual innocence to be labeled "innocent"/"exonerated" (5).
Banks' sentence was lowered to life, after severe prosecutorial misconduct was revealed, within the punishment phase. Sadly, Banks is eligible for release in 2024. Banks murdered Richard Whitehead age 16. Why? He wanted his mustang. He got it. Linklater, call up Whitehead's loved ones and interview them, after presenting this to them.
As a rule, these world-wide frauds are a simply a combination of anti-death penalty people, against all executions, no matter the solid proof of guilt nor how horrific the murders (2), and/or those who, only, read the fictional literature of anti-death penalty activists and don't even consider reviewing the appellate record of the cases, as I suspect, with Linklater.
======
A Complete Compilation:
Cameron Todd Willingham: Media Meltdown & the Death Penalty
When Media & Anti-death Penalty Advocates Are the Same
and
A Repudiation of Journalism, by Journalists?
The Society of Professional Journalists & The Sigma Delta Chi Award:
======
3) Linklater: "In the last few decades, support for the death penalty has dropped from a high in the 80s down to its current level in the 50s . . .". "As more people come to, truly, understand how expensive, arbitrary, racist and classist it is . . ."
Sharp: Linklater's emphasis, with "truly", defines how, truly, lost Linklater is. Why and how? Basic and fundamental . . . Linklater appears to use, only, anti-death penalty sources, inclusive of media, then refuses to fact check or vet them and eschews any critical thinking and pro-death penalty research and experts (1), as proven:
A) Linklater calls the death penalty Racist
Sharp: 1) White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers (6).
2) From 1977-2012, white death row murderers have been executed at a rate 41% higher than are black death row murderers, 19.3% vs 13.7%, respectively (6). Likely, still the same.
3) "There is no race of the offender / victim effect at either the decision to advance a case to penalty hearing or the decision to sentence a defendant to death given a penalty hearing." (6)
4) For the White–Black comparisons, the Black level is 12.7 times greater than the White level for homicide, 15.6 times greater for robbery, 6.7 times greater for rape, and 4.5 times greater for aggravated assault. (6) (Rebutting Dale's comments, as well as with classism)
5) As robbery/murder and rape/murder are, by far, the most common death penalty eligible murders, the multiples may be even greater, as one would expect.
B) Linklater calls the death penalty Classist
Sharp: "99.8% of poor murderers have avoided execution. It is, solely, dependent upon one's definitions of "wealthy" and "poor", as to whether "wealthy" murderers are any more or less likely than 0.2% to be executed, than are the "poor", based upon the vast minority of capital murders committed by the "wealthy", as compared to the vast majority committed by the "poor".
By far, the greatest number of capital, death penalty murder cases are robbery/murders, with nearly 0% of "wealthy" capital/death penalty eligible murders committed by the "wealthy", based upon any reasonable definition of wealthy (7). Too obvious. Linklater?
C. Polling
Sharp: When polling for capital murders and/or specific capital murders, support goes to 81-86%, as recently as 2021 (8). In non-scientific polling, which is, very, credible, based upon the 81 -86% support, within scientific polling, the loved ones of those murdered in capital crimes support executions by 95-99% (8).
When providing a "sometimes" answer for death penalty support, there is 86% support, which is, precisely, how we impose it, both rarely and sometimes (8), not for all murders. Obvious.
Both anti-death folks and media, often the same, as Linklater, use only those polls:
1) showing the lowest death penalty support, 2) which ask if you are for the death penalty for (all) murders; when 3) only capital murders, a very small percentage of all murders, are death penalty eligible, and as, fully, detailed (8). That is what Linklater refers to.
D) Expensive
Sharp: Linklater did not fact check nor vet any of the cost studies. The norm, for him, as many. So far, the cost studies have been, as detailed, fraudulent, idiotic and/or did not do an apples-to-apples comparison of life without parole (LWOP) vs the death penalty, as fully vetted within Texas, California, Nevada, Nebraska, Maryland, North Carolina and others, here (9).
My guess? Linklater could care less or he already would have done it, prior. Obvious.
E) Arbitrary
Sharp: There is no sanction which has fewer crimes that qualify for it, than does the death penalty; nor is there any sanction with greater limitations on its application; nor one that has greater consideration in pre-trial and at trial; nor one with greater care in jury selection; nor one that has two separate trials - one for the verdict, the other for punishment; nor any sanction with more thorough and extensive appeals and more consideration within the executive branch, for commutation, clemency or pardons.
None of this is in dispute, which establishes that the death penalty as the least arbitrary and capricious sanction, well known by reason and any observer of death penalty jurisprudence. Much more, here, in more detail (10).
Linklater? No thinking.
4) Sharp: Right after the wonderful Michelle Lyons' clip (watch it), Linklater (at 1:13:20-1:14,) tells us that it is the death penalty that causes all the harm and pain.
Linklater is unaware that it is the murderer, not the sanction, that causes:
a) the harm to the loved ones of the innocent victims;
b) the harm to the criminals' own family and loved ones;
c) the time, trauma and expense of the crime, the victims and their loved ones, the police, detectives, prosecutors, defense counsel, judges, appeals, prison staff, incarceration, execution and on and on.
d) Really, Linklater, clearly, tells us he is unaware.
Very anti-death penalty common (2): Linklater tells us it's the sanction, not the crime and not the criminal (2). Could Linklater be that thoughtless and that insensitive? (2).
No matter the crime nor the sanction, Linklater tell us it is the sanctions that harms society, not the crime nor the criminals, when most all of us know that criminals harm society and all of its elements, primarily the innocent victims and secondarily, all others. (2), with no harm nor stress, nor police, nor jails, nor prisons, nor innocent victims, in this context, without the criminal. Too obvious? Not for Linklater (2).
It's not the death penalty nor any other sanction, it is the murderer, the rapist, the robber, etc. Linklater, clueless. How? Here's how (2).
He, just, can't process it . . . total anti-death penalty think . . . zero critical thinking, nor any.
5) Bambi Kiser: "(Criminals have had) No success in their lives.". Elroy Thomas: "nobody wants to be a criminal."
Sharp: Both comments, are, obviously, untrue. The film wants to blame all and any, but not the criminal. This is very common anti-incarceration and anti-death penalty speak/think.
Many criminals have been, highly, successful and have, enjoyed, greatly, their criminal lives. Very well known. Serial murderers and serial rapists are successful at what they enjoy, as are countless successful drug cartel members, as many others. Obvious.
99.999% of the poor, middle class and the rich have never committed a capital, death penalty eligible crime. Why? They chose not to. The guilty capital murderers chose, otherwise. It's an individual's choice. Not an outside force.
Obvious, but some want to excuse violent criminals as, totally, created by the outside forces of society, without recognizing that the vast majority (95-99%?), from society, never commit violent crimes. Too obvious?
Non sociopathic, non-narcissistic criminals will take responsibility for their crimes, as did Dale, Linklater's friend. Some, wrongly, amorally or immorally, wish to take that away, as Linklater.
Neither Bambi nor Elroy mentioned the innocent victims (2).
6) Sharp: Linklater speaks of the excessively long appeals process in death penalty cases and its harm.
Unthinking, Linklater is unaware that it is not the death penalty's fault, but that of management.
Since 1973, Virginia has executed 113 murderers, within 7 years of appeals, on average. How? If Virginia can do it, with responsible protocols and responsible judges, any jurisdiction could do it. Bad management, not the death penalty, causes the harms. Obvious.
7) Linklater calls executions murder.
Sharp: Execution is murder just as incarceration is kidnapping, fines are theft and community service is slavery, meaning, of course, not at all. Linklater's is a very common amoral or immoral calculus, looking, only, at actions, without any consideration of the morality behind the action, as equating rape and making love - by equating actions, without considering the obvious moral distinction. It's a very common, non-thinking, repulsive anti-death penalty norm, which also equates innocent murder victims and their guilty murderers, justice and injustice, lawful and unlawful, a constant anti-death penalty norm (2).
8) Dale (Linklater's friend) states "it doesn't matter if you are guilty or not. They just want a conviction.". Linklater duplicates this idiocy by stating that as long as the state (Texas) acts as its own jury, Texas will depend upon the maxim "kill 'en all and let God sort them out".
Sharp: This is "normal" anti-incarceration, anti-death penalty speak, meaning, contrary to reality. At this point, Linklater is pretending to be an idiot, is a liar and/or is willfully ignorant, etc. Which or other? I have no idea. Ask him. I am asking. Linklater? Let's look:
a) After the most extensive pre-trial motions and judicial reviews, of all cases, the death penalty cases go on to the most thorough jury selection process, of any cases, thereafter, 12 jurors, unanimously, must find the murderer guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, then before and within anther trial, as exclusive to death penalty cases, in a penalty phase, the 12 jurors must find, again, unanimously, that the death penalty is more just than a life sentence, needing a vote of 48-0, to support the death sentence, 4 votes for 4 different issues, for all 12 jurors, 100% required for a death sentence, with only 1 vote out of 48, 2%, to get a life sentence, not contested as the most undemocratic vote in a constitutional republic, 1 ruling over 47, thereafter the case goes on a 15-20 years appellate review by state and federal judges, at five different levels, which can involve, at least, 21 judges, by far the most extensive review, over all other sanctions, thereafter, again, the most extensive review by the executive branch, with considerations of clemency, pardon or commutation, . . .
all of which Linklater should, quite easily, be aware of, prior to his nonsensical description, with b and c, below, magnifying para 8's idiocy, even more:
b) "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%.". (11)
c) After the most thorough, rigorous reviews, pre-trial, trial, within appeals and executive considerations, over 52 years (1973-2024) (11), we find a 99.6% accuracy rate in death row factually guilty findings, with the 0.4% proven factually innocent freed, likely the most accurate of all sanctions. (2), as we would expect from the only sanction with super due process (12).
Linklater?
9) Don Reid, Publisher/Editor of the Huntsville Item, "An outspoken opponent of the death penalty, Reid witnessed more than 189 executions (pre 1965) for his newspaper and the Associated Press, of which he believe 8-10 were actually innocent. He stated that he was able to save two others, as per Linklater's video.
Sharp: a) Reid was part of this excellent death penalty debate, "Advocates; Should Your State Carry Out Death Sentences?" Part of The Advocates, 06/24/1979 ( https://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_E88C09C767DA48A3A64C9FB078446FCC ) and Reid never mentioned the incredibly important point of those 10-12 innocents, even after one of the participants stated that there was no evidence to prove an innocent executed, ever, which was stated PRIOR to Reid's testimony. Obviously, "the most opportune time" for Reid to bring up those 10-12 cases. He didn't. Why? This would have been, at least, 15 years after Reid went to his last execution.
Think about that in the context of this entire review, particularly the Preface, para 2 & 8 and fn 2,4,5, 11 and In Closing
Reid and deterrence
Reid's credibility went to zero when he said, in Advocates, he didn't know if robberies would go up, if there was no sanction for robbery. He did concede that the death penalty deters some, which means he admits that stopping executions will cost more innocent lives (2).
It seems a requirement for most anti-death penalty folks to reject all proof and logic of deterrent effects, which exists, every day, for all human beings, as with many others in the animal kingdom. Why? It is because it would confirm that which is clear, anti-death penalty folks prefer saving murderers over saving innocent victims (2, 11, Preface and In Closing, etc.).
b) In my, so far, limited searches (Google, DuckDuckGo), I have found no writings by Reid, or anyone else, that (1) identified Reid's 10-12 cases, (2) reviews the evidence of innocence, nor (3) chronicles Reid's efforts to convince others of their innocence, all of which would have been a huge sensation, at the time, as well as today, and that, certainly, would have been, responsibly, immortalized by a reporter or editor, in their own newspaper, if Reid had such information. Too obvious. Linklater?
I could find nothing of those cases. I have been investigating claims of the, alleged, factually innocents executed for quite a while and this is the first time I have heard of Reid's statement.
I have asked the Huntsville Item to help me with researching this, which, I suspect, will be through their archives, which they told me they do not have, but might be within the Huntsville library. I am trying to get a researcher in Huntsville to help me out.
Linklater, did you do any fact checking, on this? I know.
10) Rev. William Baine: "It has to be admitted that the Bible does recognize the enforcement of capital punishment. But, if we follow this to the letter then we would have to say that the Bible, also, says we should use capital punishment for striking our parents, or for witchcraft or for breaking the Sabbath."
Sharp: Baine, somehow, "forgot" Genesis 9:5-6, by far the most famous of all biblical passages, regarding executions. which, as Noahic, is for all peoples and for all times, unlike Baine's "striking our parents" "witchcraft" and "breaking the Sabbath" which are, all, Mosaic and specific to Jews.
Even so, there are options to not execute under certain circumstances, for all crimes, except murder, which must result in execution, as per the Genesis passage:
Genesis 5 "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being". 6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."
"demand" and "shall" are commands.
BUT, there are, also, additional restrictions and considerations on murders and executions, within Number 35, with certain types of killings being pardoned from execution, very much akin, to what we have today and with Genesis 9:5-6, still ruling.
Some examples:
God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 -- full context http://biblehub.com/numbers/35-31.htm
The Holy Spirit/Jesus/God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira, early Christians. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.
Biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey: " . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect." "A Bible Study" (p. 111-113) Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.
Dale, Linklater's friend, believes the bible says we are not to decide life and death. Dr. Carey, above, is Quaker.
Dale, much more, here (13), all of which contradict your statement.
Baine did not mention the innocent victims (2), nor did Dale, nor did any of the many students. Frightening.
11) Fred Allen, who oversaw 130 executions as chief of the Huntsville tie down team.
Sharp: Here is some of his anti-death penalty speak, the opposite of reality. I consider him an anti-death penalty spokesman, in the context of his repeating common anti-death penalty speak, with no fact checking, no vetting and no critical thinking.
a) In the death row inmates' last 8 hours, that Allen spent with them, Allen said death row murderers were just ready to go. Nearly 100% of those executed in nationally, post 1973, did all they could, until the last minutes, to save their lives. They wanted to stay alive. Very, very few waived appeals, to be executed, quicker. Obvious and a rejection of Allen's claim. They were, only, ready to go, after they were told all appeals were over - execution was inevitable.
b) Allen states that life without parole (LWOP) is a far worse sentence than execution - the opposite of what murderers tell us. Nearly 100% of capital murderers disagree with Allen and do all they can to fight the death penalty and execution. It is very well known that life is much preferred over death and that death is much more feared than life. Obvious. What we fear more, deters more.
What we prefer more deters less (14,15). Also, obvious. The opposite of what Allen says.
c) Allen states that we shouldn't execute because we might get it wrong, but with LWOP, we , always, have the chance to fix it.
Sharp: Untrue. Nationally, about 5,000 inmates die, within custody, every year of which, only 33 (o.7%) are executions (14). Innocents, by a huge margin, are much more likely to die, in non-execution custody, than within execution custody.
Obvious. All anti-death penalty folks, as media, leave that out. But they haven't asked to end all custody/incarcration . . . yet.
d) Additionally, the death penalty/executions spares more innocent lives, in three (added, really four) ways, than does LWOP: enhanced due process, enhanced incapacitation (added: enhanced probability), none of which are challenged, and enhanced deterrence, which is challenged, but prevails, with fact check, vetting and critical thinking (14,15).
e) a-d, all, rebut Allen's claims, with Allen's position, as all anti-death penalty positions, sacrificing more innocent lives. in the four (added: rally five) ways listed in c & d, with none, a-d, rebutted and/or negated (2).
Allen, never, mentions the innocent victims (2).
12) Fred Allen: Fortunately, Allen did rebut a common anti-death penalty claim, with regard to "botched" executions. With regard to lethal injections, Allen, who witnessed 130 executions, states "within a few seconds, you'll hear 'em cough, that's it - he's over with". The norm. Just as with Michelle Lyons' comments, who witnessed nearly 300 executions.
Sharp: 90% of the, alleged, "botched" lethal injection execution are no such thing, with an honest "botched" rate of t 1%, not 7%, as detailed (16).
In Closing
A sanction cannot be a sanction unless we take away that which we treasure - money or property with fines, time and labor with community service, freedom with incarceration and life with execution, which, for all sanctions, does and should place a burden on the criminal, their loved ones and society, that crime is an example not to follow and that we should turn away from it, hopefully, a lesson learned. It's, often, painful, as it should be, for sanctions to be just and a deterrent.
I would have included "second chances with probation", except for the reality that we, very often, give criminals 5, 10 or 20 "second chances" prior to them committing murders.
We even give murderers second chances, since 1973,
a) with 20,000 ADDITIONAL innocents murdered by those KNOWN murderers that we allowed to murder, again, and
b) 500,000 ADDITIONAL innocents murdered by those known criminals that we allowed to harm, again.
All sanctions are based within justice, the moral calculus of a sanction not to severe and not too lenient, based upon all aspects of the crimes, inclusive of the innocent victims (2).
Remember them?! Linklater spoke of them, not, once (2).
It is as if Linklater has no understanding of why we have laws, law enforcement and sanctions (2), with prisons, which must have guards, locked cells, bars, extraction teams, razor wire, walls, alarms, cameras, guns, rehab and on and on and on and . . .
it is a prison town film and Linklater missed it, entirely:
Prisons exist, only, because of those who violate the social contract, who have harmed society and the innocent victims who they have robbed, raped and murdered, as well as their loved ones who have survived, all of whom suffer, often, forever, within an emotional, psychological prison that most of us, thankfully, will never enter.
FN
1) These rebut all common anti-death penalty claims with
Research, with sources, fact checking, vetting & critical thinking, as required of anyone within a public policy debate and which rebut all anti-death penalty claims.
Most will realize that the media has been using only anti-death penalty claims and, then, failed to fact check, vet, not use critical thinking, with that research, while avoiding all pro-death penalty research and experts. How do I know most will realize this? Because they wouldn't have seen any of this, prior:
3) I tried picking out my favorite non death penalty segments, but Linklater is such a good story teller, with such good subjects, I couldn't exclude any. Simply excellent. A great collection eclectic folks, from a prison town. Period.
I will mention this one. Linklater's mom seems, absolutely, wonderful. He was blessed. It seems she is no longer alive. I am sorry . . . but, Linklater was a lucky one.
4) A Complete Compilation:
Cameron Todd Willingham: Media Meltdown & the Death Penalty
When Media & Anti-death Penalty Advocates Are the Same
and
A Repudiation of Journalism, by Journalists?
The Society of Professional Journalists & The Sigma Delta Chi Award:
These polls, above and below, reflect well known polls, for the last 15 years, showing much higher death penalty support than by the oft quoted, much less accurate Gallup, as even, Gallup shows (see Gallup's McVeigh poll (below) vs their standard poll)
======
bcc: NY Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, The Conversation, Kansas City Star, Baltimore Sun, Associated Press, POLITICO, Chicago Sun-Times, AP, NEWSWEEK, The Marshall Project,VICE, The Texas Tribune, The New Republic, Texas Monthly, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, Texas Tribune, Austin-American Statesman, San Antonio Express News, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Lufkin Daily News, WFAA, Houston Public Media, KHOU CBS TV (Houston), KPRC NBC TV (Houston), Texas Public Radio, Catholic News Agency (CNA), Texas Standard, KERA, KUT, KSTX, KUHF, TV 8, Spectrum News (Austin), La Crosse Tribune (Wisconsin), [[ News programs/reporters/producers: ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC]] , in US and Intl., and many more
UK: The Times & Sunday Times (UK), The Spectator, SKY News, Belfast Telegraph, Irish Times, The Scotsman, Irish Examiner, Byline Times, An Garda Siochana, Connacht Tribune, LADBIBLE, The Journal, Student Independent News, Galway Bay FM, FLIR FM, ThisIsGalway.ie, Galway Town Hall Theatre, Galway Advertiser, The Cast of The Exonerated & Galway Actors Workshop, and many more
