Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Innocence Project notes two stories, both from Texas, that together form a ball of depressing irony. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas recently granted a posthumous pardon to a man named Timothy Cole, who died in prison in 1999 while waiting for results of DNA testing that could prove his innocence.
In fact, that testing did prove that he was not the one who raped a young Texas Tech student in 1985 -- but by that time, Cole was dead. And Gov. Perry magnanimously pardoned his corpse 11 years later. Unfortunately, Perry could not possibly care any less about wrongfully convicted people still imprisoned in Texas, even if they face imminent death.
On Wednesday at 6 pm CDT, the state of Texas is going to put Hank Skinner to death for killing his ex-girlfriend and her two sons. But there is good reason to believe that Skinner is innocent of the crimes he has been convicted of. And there is DNA evidence available from the crime scene that was never tested.
Hank Skinner is to be put to death on Wednesday night at 6 pm CDT. Perry has consistently ignored pleas from innocence advocates to put that execution on hold so that DNA evidence can be tested. And the Supreme Court, at the urging of the Obama administration, ruled earlier this year that he has no constitutional right to have it tested even though it could prove his innocence.
I guess you only get to be innocent after you're dead in Texas.
Politics
Comments
Think you mean "by that time, Cole was dead".
Posted by: jayinbmore | March 24, 2010 12:18 PM
I have sent e-mails to the governor's office, and letters to both the governor and to the Board of Prisons and Pardons (or whatever it was called) and haven't received any response. Sad to say it looks like 'Texas justice' will continue to be about as credible as 'Texas educational standards.'
What a despicable waste.
Posted by: Rorschach | March 24, 2010 12:33 PM
"Think you mean "by that time, Cole was dead"."
That was a unconscious slip. He wished Perry, not Cole, was the one who died.
Posted by: Thom | March 24, 2010 12:34 PM
You'd think law enforcement would have some concern that if these fellows are innocent, there are some perps out there walking around free that they didn't catch. Oops. Answered my own question there. Convicting and killing the wrong man is far better than admitting law enforcement screwed up.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 24, 2010 12:51 PM
If you read about the whole case and not just the anti-death penalty people, you can see that there was more than enough evidence against him. All they want to do is to test everything in the house until they find something not linked to him. Their blood was on his clothing, his bloody hand print were there, his hand was cut from where his knife slipped, his blood was followed from the murder scene to where he was hiding. He confessed and later recanted.
Posted by: Bill | March 24, 2010 1:38 PM
Bill,
Skinner may be guilty as I'm sure are most of the folks convicted. Doesn't answer for Tim Cole though. Not sure where you place the balance for justice. Where and how do you draw the line?
Has the Cole case been re-opened? Is anyone looking for the real perp?
Posted by: MikeMa | March 24, 2010 1:52 PM
You're forgetting that this is a Christian country. Part of our most basic law is that we are all guilty (as in, capital offense) due to something someone else did and only the death of someone else who didn't do the evil deed can make it all better.
Texas is just more honest about vicarious guilt and redemption than the rest of the country.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 24, 2010 1:57 PM
Ed, the exculpatory DNA evidence does not "prove that the person is innocent" or say anything at all about whether the person actually committed the crime or not. It shows that there is insufficient evidence to convict, and that the person is "not guilty" by default under our somewhat enlightened legal system.
Posted by: BongoBob | March 24, 2010 1:58 PM
Bill,
Skinner may be guilty as I'm sure are most of the folks convicted. Doesn't answer for Tim Cole though. Not sure where you place the balance for justice. Where and how do you draw the line?
Has the Cole case been re-opened? Is anyone looking for the real perp?
Posted by: MikeMa
I don't "draw the line", I just keep investigating my cases untill I believe that they totally and completely solved. Many cases I have "kept open" in my mind, even after the person is convicted, just in case something new has come up. That has caused some problems with my bosses on occassions.
I do not know everything about the Cole case, but I assume that it is now up to a "cold case" investigating group. (You got me interested, so I'll check it out.)
Posted by: Bill | March 24, 2010 2:20 PM
@#7, I never thought of it that way, but you're exactly right -- the doctrine of original sin is fundamentally at odds with the legal presumption of innocence.
Posted by: Nemo | March 24, 2010 2:27 PM
Just found a great article about the case, seems to answer it all.
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/032010/loc_593115131.shtml
Posted by: Bill | March 24, 2010 2:28 PM
@7 and 10 That is disingenuous at best. Christians believe that Jesus gave his life for our sins and did so knowingly and willingly. These poor souls get no such option.
@9 How about we set the balance of justice at using all the available tools to ensure we have the right person locked up. We should certainly use all the tools avaliable before taking a life.
Posted by: Bryan | March 24, 2010 3:12 PM
bill @11,
Thanks for the link. Quite a sad story and one that raises significant questions about eyewitness testimony. Justice delayed in this case. Tough job you have to say the least.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 24, 2010 3:44 PM
You really think that kind of fancy lawyerin' matters?
* Somebody died
* Somebody got hung fer it
* The one who got hung was no innocent since everybody is a sinner thanks to that Eve woman
* Problem solved.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 24, 2010 3:44 PM
IMHO any Christian that believes that is not following what they espouse to believe.
Posted by: Bryan | March 24, 2010 4:00 PM
in texas are you innocent until proven guilty?
nah, guilty until declared dead by the physician attending the execution.
Posted by: rob | March 24, 2010 4:06 PM
Anyone who thinks that your three-sigma American "Christian" has more than a Sunday-school understanding of "Christianity" obviously hasn't ever listened to them.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 24, 2010 4:55 PM
@D.C. Sessions
My point? I believe I made it.
But if you must have clarification then how about this; what is happening in Texas has nothing to do with Christianity. Even if there are some that claim it does.
Posted by: Bryan | March 24, 2010 5:14 PM
I posted in the other thread, but I will give the clift notes version here:
No matter what the results of any additional DNA testing, it doesn't change the fact that:
1. The blood on Skinner's clothes was DNA tested and the results matched the victims.
2. The blood spatter analysis proved that Skinner was the one who bludgeoned Twila to death and he was lying when he claimed that he was comatose on the couch. On the front of his clothes were medium velocity impact spatter caused by bludgeoning. On the back of his shirt are blood cast off stains from Twila's blood dripping off the weapon when he raised it to strike her again.
He clubbed this poor woman 14 times crushing her skull. It's really obnoxious that people who know nothing of the evidence declare a triple murderer innocent or hide behind the false claim that the state did not prove their case.
Posted by: sam | March 24, 2010 5:39 PM
It has a great deal to do with what its practitioners call Christianity. I have no standing to say whether either of you is entitled to claim that title.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | March 24, 2010 5:45 PM
OK, I'm confused as to why its so terrible to want to be absolutely sure that we are actually killing a guilty man. If there's evidence that hasn't been tested then fucking test it.
Texas already has a track record of killing and convicting innocent people, so you'll pardon me if I don't fall in line with your bullshit and just assume he's so guilty we don't even need to look at all the evidence.
Posted by: Robert | March 24, 2010 5:59 PM
Further, I do not claim the title of Christian. It is not mine to claim.
Posted by: Bryan | March 24, 2010 6:01 PM
Wow. So much b.s. on the other page. But, I'll respond here.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
“Consequently, while Reed’s testimony was important to the state’s case, it was not so critical that the petitioner could not have been convicted without it....This is particularly so since much of Reed’s testimony was not recanted....In any event, the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing and the facts before this Court simply do not support petitioner’s allegation that Reed lied at trial or was threatened by the police.” (p. 26)
“In addition to the testimony set forth above which directly contradicts Reed’s recanted testimony, several witnesses also testified in opposition to Reed’s claims of threats and intimidation by the police....Consequently, the [Court] finds Andrea Reed’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether she was threatened or coerced and on the issue of whether her written statement to the police and her trial testimony were false not to be credible. The evidence before this Court is that Reed for reasons of personal remorse or for whatever reason recanted her statement to the police and recanted her trial testimony, but such recantation is not truthful.” (pp. 27-28)
I suggest you go find the memorandum of findings and read it, in that it goes into much more detail.
Posted by: sam | March 24, 2010 6:04 PM
"although Skinner had no history of violence that would remotely explain the horrific murders"
No, he was extremely violent:
"During the punishment phase of Skinner's capital murder trial, the State's evidence established that Skinner was sentenced to three years probation after being convicted in 1988 of aggravated assault. Skinner's probation was soon revoked and he was sentenced to five years in prison after being arrested for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. After being released on parole, Skinner was arrested twice for drunk driving. Skinner was also arrested in Gun Barrel City on two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and became violent and abusive with arresting officers.
Skinner's ex-wife testified that Skinner verbally and physically abused her when he was drunk. ***She said she left Skinner after he threatened to use an ax handle to beat her to death.*** Skinner also threatened to find and kill her if she ever talked to the law about him.
Further testimony showed that when Skinner was intoxicated, he threatened to shoot a police officer who had allowed Skinner's ex-wife to enter a window of Skinner's trailer to remove her property after they were separated. Additionally, two other women testified that Skinner threatened or physically assaulted them when he was high on drugs or alcohol. Finally, in response to a hypothetical question, a State's psychiatrist predicted that Skinner would pose a continuing threat to society. "
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=3250
Also, at the habeas corpus hearings, a witness testified that Twila was afraid to go home because she was afraid of Skinner and what he might do to her.
Posted by: sam | March 24, 2010 6:09 PM
Okay, I'm tired. Lack of interest here. I don't know why I kid myself into thinking people are actually interested in the actual evidence instead of the abolish movement talking points.
Posted by: sam | March 24, 2010 6:12 PM
It sounds like there's pretty good circumstantial evidence to think this guy is guilty (contrary to what Ed said), but if there's potential DNA evidence then why not test it? What difference does it make if this guy gets executed now or 6 months from now? He's not going anywhere. Given the rather abysmal track record of the Texas penal system, what's the rush? Test the evidence, weigh what it says and then carry out the execution or not. The fact that someone can be executed in this country without turning over every stone is terrible.
Posted by: Ryan | March 24, 2010 6:20 PM
This looks like he will have at least a chance at getting the DNA evidence tested.
Posted by: Anneliese | March 24, 2010 6:48 PM
Ryan: I explained why. They don't test evidence that is not forensically significant. If they had tested it before trial, the defense would have had nothing to argue. I'm still waiting for someone to address the blood spatter evidence and explain how any further results can change the outcome. And for the record, there is absolutely nothing inferior with circumstantial evidence. Jurors are instructed it is the same and many attys prefer it.
Anneliese: Where does it say that? Oops! The article you posted does not reflect the actual court order. They need more time to decide whether or not to grant cert.
If they grant cert, it will be over legal procedure. The major problem Skinner has is that he can not possibly prevail even if they find that he had a right to access under 1983. Unlike you people, the court requires logical arguments and not conjecture.
Posted by: sam | March 24, 2010 7:39 PM
I have personally met Texas prosecutors, and seen some juries who think this very way (as #7 and #10 submit).
Its a version of: Kill them all and let God sort them out.
In fact, in one case I am privy to, the jury was told by the Bailiff, at the DA's suggestion: "You can go ahead and convict this guy and be home to put the cattle up by 5. We all know this guy is going to appeal his case after the trial." So they did.
Texas Juries in some settings believe that DA's and Law enforcement officers are as infallible as they believe the Bible is;...
Thats the problem.
Posted by: Thomas Torlincasi | March 24, 2010 7:44 PM
sam
how are the print on the bag with the knife and towel, the hairs in twila's hand, and the evidence under twila's fingernails not significant? like i said before, skinner seems guilty. but, after reading the new yorker article on willingham, i would say the spatter analysis could be flawed. there are 'experts' and then there are experts.
Posted by: catherine turley | March 24, 2010 8:21 PM
sam - you're not getting a lot of concessions because those of us who follow these cases do so from an appellate perspective, not a trial's perspective.
Your arguing like a prosecuting attorney with no defense attorney in the picture. It's not possible, even if someone equally informed to you made a case for the defense, to try this case in this venue, neither argument would be compelling. So don't take it personal, but this is not a good venue for your type of argumentation. We know better.
This sort of venue can be a good venue for evaluating the process. And in this case we're finding objections to not merely testing the subject DNA weak, especially since we're talking Texas-style justice and the death penalty.
Neither Ed or any lucid commenter here is arguing the guy's innocent, we do however have a good cause to believe optimal due process is not being applied.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 24, 2010 9:12 PM
All of this ignores the simple fact that the death penalty is barbaric and ineffective and should be abolished in its entirety, regardless of the evidence.
Posted by: chris | March 24, 2010 9:12 PM
The execution was stayed!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/americas/8586374.stm
Posted by: DB | March 24, 2010 11:18 PM
Sam, are you seriously arguing that you know whether this evidence is or is not exculpatory even though it's never been tested? Really? So nobody in the world knows what that evidence has to say, because it's never been tested, but somehow you do? Bullshit. You're a fucking moron with your head so deep up your ass you're chewing on your own tonsils.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 24, 2010 11:24 PM
I'm surprised Perry's posthumous pardon vs his lack of concern for the living hasn't received more attention.
Posted by: j a higginbotham | March 25, 2010 12:25 AM
A *pardon* is the wrong thing to do if someone was innocent. A pardon is for the guilty. The governor is essentially saying "yeah he was guilty, but we're letting his ghost off the hook." Now what's the term for the act which declares that someone never was a criminal - gee, I forget since it rarely ever happens. I can only recall pardon and commutation - both under the general category of 'clemency'. I was thinking "exculpation", but the dictionary suggests that the word means the same as a pardon (the person was guilty but is being excused).
Posted by: MadScientist | March 25, 2010 1:45 AM
Don't overlook the stay, folks: http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/mar/25/case-closed/
I am waiting to see what if any influence we'll see as more stories of actually innocent and actually executed (as if dying on death row is much better) individuals accumulate.
Posted by: Andrew | March 25, 2010 7:26 AM
Michael Heath:
I get it. You can not address the actual evidence in the case so you attack me. And to make it brief: You’re full of crap.
You have made no legal arguments. You have not addressed the actual evidence of the case. Your vague claims to an “appellate perspective” are down right laughable. When you distort the evidence this badly in favor of the defense, then you are arguing that he is innocent. Regardless, he was not denied a fair trial.
It's not an issue of advocacy but plain dishonesty. I'm sick of the lies being told about this case.
Thank you for your very disingenuous response.
Posted by: sam | March 25, 2010 2:11 PM
James Hanley:
Knock the cock out of your mouth and listen up: DNA and blood spatter evidence proves that Skinner was not comatose on the couch when Twila was being bludgeoned to death and Elwin stabbed and that he was the one who bludgeoned her and stabbed her son to death.
No testing on further items will change that no matter what the results. At best the presence of someone else’s DNA would only mean someone else was there or there was another participant. It does not make Skinner innocent of first degree capital murder.
This is not a novel legal theory, nor is it limited to Texas.
You can put the cock back in your mouth, now.
Posted by: sam | March 25, 2010 2:13 PM
catherine turley: This has been explained to you already numerous times.
Posted by: sam | March 25, 2010 2:17 PM
Wow, sam, in a forum where we occasionally get trolls with exceptionally limited capacity to argue intelligently, you've set a new (low) standard. Claiming to know what the DNA evidence can and cannot show, despite never having analyzed it and being homophobic.
As straight as I am, I can assure you that I'd rather experience having a cock in my mouth than ever having your brain in my head.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 25, 2010 2:36 PM
Sam @ 38 stated:
We'll see.
Sam @ 38 stated:
My argument wasn't merely that I couldn't address the actual evidence in the case, but that neither you nor anyone could in this forum. That includes those involved in the case. This type of venue has never been used or validated capable of trying a case.
Please point to the precise passage @ 31 where I "attacked" you.
Sam @ 38 stated:
That is correct, nor did I intend to make a legal argument @ 31. I was merely pointing out why people weren't engaging you on your argument, i.e., because none of us are even remotely capable of determing the guilt or innocence of the convicted in this venue. We can however make a case for whether the law was properly applied as it relates to the U.S. Constitution. I didn't make any effort even from an appellate perspective to make an argument given that I was merely trying to help you understand that Ed and most readers here were engaging this issue at a level that is viable for such a forum.
Sam @ 38 stated:
Nor did I or do I intend to, that is entirely different subject matter from the purpose of my post, which was to help you out. I do know that you failed miserably to also properly address the actual evidence, where you merely cherry-picked some of the evidence that helps buttress your argument. I'm not claiming that the guy is innocent or guily, merely that your argument from an evidentiary perspective is empirically flawed to the point of being fatal given the fact you didn't present all the findings of fact, nor even a full set of the most important findings.
Sam @ 38 stated:
Sam - First you claim "[I] have not addressed the actual evidence of the case." and then you claim "[I] distort the evidence this badly in favor of the defense, then you are arguing that he is innocent."
Which is it Sam, did I or did I not present evidence? How can I distort evidence if I never presented any?
I think it's pretty obvious I did not present any evidence, so at best you are a pretty defective thinker and at worst downright lying when you claim I distort the evidence in favor of the defense given the fact I never presented any evidence, let alone "distorted "evidence". It's my speculation that it's a combination of both defects, i.e., you struggle to think critically and you are a liar.
Sam @ 38 stated:
Actually I was trying to be helpful since it appeared what was going in this forum was going whoosh over your head. If you re-read my post at @ 31 with any elementary comprehension a reasonable person could only conclude I was attempting to be helpful without being patronizing in any manner. Obviously I no longer think I need to keep the gloves on in this post given your dishonest misrepresentation of my post @ 31 and the lack of class and honesty you showed in responding to that post.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 25, 2010 2:50 PM