NOTE: As of Nov 6, 2024, I now know that some of the witnesses and some of the Committee members are establishing a fraud, knowingly or willfully ignorantly, unless they have some other explanation.
Read this:
#3 Robert Roberson - Amici Curiae Contradicting entire House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence
======
On Monday, November 4, 2024 at 11:49:53 AM CST, Dudley Sharp <sharpjfa@aol.com> wrote:
To: Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence,
please forward to Dr. Phil and all other witnesses
and sent to many others, within media and government
Subject: # 2 Dr. Phil's Testimony: Texas Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, Roberson Case
Re: Video of Hearing, 10/21/2024, 12 pm
Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence
The Death Row Case of Robert Roberson
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Note: The additional comments, by the other witnesses and the Committee, cover similar grounds, so I may not comment on them, with the exception of the witness/juror, who I have, previously, rebutted.
Statement
It appears that no member of the Committee has read the trial transcript, meaning they don't know what they don't know. How did that happen?
Preface
1) If everything was true, accurate, complete and thorough, in the hearing, of course Robert Roberson (RR) should get a hearing on new evidence. But . . .
2) There is no reason to believe that everything was true, accurate, complete and thorough.
Dr. Phil (Phil) spoke about how thorough he was with his CSI company, just as some of the Committee members thanked him for his thorough testimony.
What I found with Phil's testimony, is that he is thorough when he wants to be and very often, not, as detailed:
===================
3) Dr. Phil stated that he was testifying neutrally on the Roberson case and that he reviewed the case documents: "I have reviewed the transcripts and supporting documents".
Response: Phil also stated: "Somebody does all the work and I get all the credit", referring to his team, Stephanie Grenadier and her team at Merit TV and the Innocence Project and all of their people (Phil's "Team").
4) In other words, without confirming neutrality, the Team could have done all the work and produced all the talking points for Phil, without him fact checking nor vetting any of it . . .
producing:
5) Phil stated that he counted, 47 times, the term shaken baby syndrome (SBS) or the triad of symptoms, within the trial transcript.
Response: Did "he" or was it his Team? One wonders, if neutral, why Phil didn't testify how many times the term blunt force or blunt force trauma or injuries which can be attributed to blunt force trauma. were in the trial transcript. One wonders why one was important to Phil and the other was not, when it is required that both should be, equally important, as per Phil's testimony. Why didn't he? Confirmation bias?
Phil nor any Committee member inquired. Why and how? Was the number for blunt force trauma 1, 12, 47, 83?
I counted 25 blunt force truma mentions or traumas, just within the small sections within #1 LETTERS, Texas Matters, Texas Public Radio, and David Martin Davies, TPR. the first email I sent to the committee, re RR - just below, Of course, we should have a true neutral source count both within the trial transcript.
=====
here: In addition, the juror/witness was rebutted
#1 - Death Row Inmate Robert Roberson
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2024/11/1-death-row-m-robert-roberson.html
======
6) Phil thought it important, as do we all, that RR's lack of emotional response to his daughter Nikki's death, may not have been any evidence of a lack of caring for Nikki, but instead was due to the spectrum, within autism.
7) Yet, Phil avoided that distinction within:
8) Blinking of eyes: During Phil's meeting with RR, Phil described how RR's lack of increased blinking told him that RR was being honest.
Phil knows that increased blinking does not, always, indicate deception, but can be from anxiety and other reasons, just as Phil knows there are, always, exceptions to the rule, for people with a normal or typical psychiatric response, as well as others, such as psychopaths who may not have normal responses, either, as well as those who have autism, who we know not to have normal responses, quite often, none of which Phil reviewed within the blinking testimony, although Phil knows all of that.
9) Autistic meltdown: There is a lack of controlled emotion, which is well known within autism. It is called autistic meltdown, which somehow Phil did not mention, even though very important. It may cause extreme violence, especially under duress, such as constant emotional stress, confusion and loss of control because of a constantly ill infant, when the father is autistic, and he may not be able to control himself.
Very important but Phil did not mention it? Neutral? Confirmation bias? Alternative explanations?
10) Was Phil using autism when it would assist RR' defense, but not when it might harm his defense? Ask him.
Quoting Phil: "It's astounding. It's astounding."
11) Phil discussed defense council's claim that Nikki's killing was a lack of controlled emotion but not a murder. As Phil knows when rage takes over and you kill someone or many, it may be classified as murder or it may not, depending upon all of the circumstances.
12) Phil and Rep. Leach:
Phil: "if you look at the population on death row or the population in prison there is an overrepresentation of minorities and low socioeconomic .... at which point Rep. Leach interrupted and stated "rich white guys don't get the death penalty" to which Phil responded "no they don't".
Response: Unless intentional deception, that is a product of looking at anti-death penalty resources and experts, then failing to fact check and vet them (1), and avoiding all pro-death penalty resources and experts (1). Extremely common.
Is that their standard?
13) Race and Ethnicity
White murderers are twice as likely to be executed as are black murderers (all within fn 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.
"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."
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.
For the Hispanic- White comparison, the Hispanic level is 4.0 times greater than the White level for homicide, 3.8 times greater for robbery, 2.8 times greater for rape, and 2.3 times greater for aggravated assault.
For the Hispanic–Black comparison, the Black level is 3.1 times greater than the Hispanic level for homicide, 4.1 times greater for robbery, 2.4 times greater for rape, and 1.9 times greater for aggravated assault.
Where is the overrepresentation?
As the most common capital murders, those which are death penalty eligible, are rape/murders and robbery/murders, the perceived "disparities" (aka expected multiples) may be even greater than the numbers, above, as reason could predict.
much, much more detail within fn (2)
14) Rich and Poor
"99.8% of poor murderers have avoided execution. (all within fn (3).
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 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. Obvious.
more detail here (3), with alternatives, as per Phil, and a number of the wealthy, for Phil and Rep. Leach (3).
======
#1 - Media Disaster - Death Row Inmate Robert Roberson
======
15) Phil: "Texas is only second in exonerations to Illinois." "'If you look at the number of exonerations, it's scary." "There have been over 5000 years of time served on death row by innocent people who were ultimately exonerated"
Response: I venture there is not one death penalty expert, in the US, and maybe the world, that does not know the claims of the "innocent"/"exonerated" released from death row, in the US, is the most obvious and pernicious fraud within the death penalty debate (4). It took me 5 minutes to discover it, decades ago.
Dr. Phil, if you are using the fraudulent numbers, which you, most likely, are, Texas is third behind Florida and Illinois, with the Florida and Texas claims, having a 83% fraud rate, last time I checked. Here is a model to fact check the claims (4a). Why don't you use it?
Is Phil unaware of all that? How and why?
16) The fraud rate of such claims is from 71-83%, depending upon study (4). What the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) did was to redefine both innocent and exonerated as if they had redefined lie as truth and stuffed a bunch of cases into those fraudulent definitions (4), as is very well known within this debate (4) . The Innocence Project is all in on that fraud (5) as well as others - see IP's fraudulent false confessions (6). I picked a DNA "exonerated " case, completely, at random and guess what IP and the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE) had done with it? Yep. (7a)
17) Rep. Schatzline's back and forth with Phil was, by far, the most effective (1:47:20-1:56:00). Listen to it. Here's a bit:
Schatzline: "Did the jury know that Nikki had been chronically ill all of her life . . . that Nikki had two episodes of a halt to her breathing, what we call breathing -apnea . . . that she was brought into the hospital with a 104 degree fever . . . that one of the drugs (taken by Nikki) is no longer used for children . . .because it makes it difficult to breathe for children . . . that she had been diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia? . . . to which Phil answered "no".
Powerful, to the point. Very effective.
But can we trust anything from this cabal, regarding why all courts, state and federal have denied Roberson relief, for the past 21 years, when it appears that no one on the Committee has read the trial transcript and how we are, obviously, only getting the defense side of the story, within this hearing?
18) Committee Chairman Darby's speech about why this case is important, in law, and whether the court's are, properly, reviewing and ruling on these cases, as per the "junk science" law, was excellent. Listen to it (7:54-13:26).
As he discussed, the law may have been written improperly and Phil spoke to that. The Committee should have a subcommittee made up of four, each, active or retired prosecutors and defense counsel, all of whom specialize in criminal appellate work, to review the language and intent of the bills. Do you not do, something, like that now?
In Closing
19) Phil's "alternative explanations" are very important, as that is how judges and jurors make their decisions, looking at two competing sides, most often with alternative explanations and facts, which is the primary complaint by the Committee and the witnesses/speakers, that such alternatives were not presented to the jurors.
20) But what many, like me, saw, was only one side, not the side that had prevailed, within the appellate courts, both state and federal, for 21 years, inclusive of all of the new evidence, as discussed within the hearing.
Based upon all the errors and miscues within the hearing, the Committe have muddied the waters much more than you have cleared them.
What the hearing has asked us to believe is this:
Most or all appellate judges, the governor, the parole board, the attorney general, the prosecuting attorney and all of their relevant clerks and staffs (the "Group") either knows RR to be factually innocent and have allowed his case to move forward, with no relief, or there is new evidence, that may require a new trial and the Group is willing to look the other way and not allow that to happen, when that has never happened, prior, with no rational reason that it would be occurring, now.
On its face, it seems, utterly, absurd and then we have this:
Since 1973, the modern death penalty era, there have been 4 cases (0.25%), from Texas death row, with "factual" proof of actual innocence, (4a), 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, IMO.
The "overwhelming outcries from the public" has little to no meaning, as they get their information from the media (8), and/or anti-death penalty groups and folks, with media having a 30 year history of not fact checking nor vetting the fraudulent claims (1,8) particularly the innocent/exonerated from death row, which, now has a 71-83% fraud rate, depending upon review. (4). This deception was admitted by anti-death penalty folks in . . . 1998 (4).
Why would the Group decide to, knowingly, do that, 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 some say that is exactly what the Group are doing when there is no reason for them to.
No one complains about factually innocent people having their conviction reversed and being freed or having evidentiary hearings, when the evidence is strong enough to merit it.
Rationally, it must make one wonder: What did the hearing leave out, that the judges have known, for 21 years, but we do not?
Guess I will have to read the trial transcript. NOTE: Get me one or put it online
In Closing
It appears that no members of the Committee has read the trial transcript, meaning they have no idea if they are being told the whole truth or if they are being gas lighted.
Is that happening and if so, how?
======
FN
1) Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone in 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
and
Students, Academics & Journalists: Death Penalty Research
(7 pro-death penalty experts are included)
600+ pro death penalty quotes from murder victim's families &
3300+ from some of the greatest thinkers in history
2) RACE & THE DEATH PENALTY: A REBUTTAL TO THE RACISM CLAIMS http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/07/rebuttal-death-penalty-racism-claims.htm
3) Is There Class Disparity with Executions?
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/isc-there-class-disparity-with-executions.html
4) The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds
71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims,
Well Known Since 1998
4a) Deception: The DPIC "Exonerated"/"Innocence" List
(see fact checking/vetting model - use it)
5) Innocence and the Death Penalty, Innocence Project
https://innocenceproject.org/innocence-and-the-death-penalty/
6) Innocence Project Invents False Confessions
150% fraud rate in "confessions"?
7) See section 3) How many DNA exonerations are guilty?
Death Row, "Exonerations", Media & Intentional Fraud
and
7a) More Deceptions:
The "Exonerated", as defined by the National Registryof Exonerations (NRE)
https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2023/02/exonerations-national-registry-of.html
======
Victim Services
Victims' Voices
======
Partial CV