Lawmakers Urge Perry to Grant Skinner Reprieve
State Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and state Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D-Austin, wrote Gov. Rick Perry letters today urging him to grant a 30-day reprieve for death-row inmate Hank Skinner, who is scheduled for execution tomorrow.
Skinner was sentenced to death in 1995 for the murders of his live-in girlfriend and her two mentally disabled adult sons. For more than a decade, he has asked the courts to allow DNA testing on evidence that was not analyzed at his original trial, including a rape kit, knives, a man's windbreaker and fingernail clippings from Twila Busby, his girlfriend. Skinner says he ...
Comments (4)
Sam_Albertson
This has been a pitiful series. The reckless abandon advocating for Skinner has been eye-opening. Are we to believe Skinner's posit that the "real" killer took the time to murder a sleeping mental retard by "stabbing him in the back" while sparing a drugged out Skinner? Of course it is obvious. This has nothing to do with DNA, that is Ellis, Naishtat and every other wide eyed’s red herring.
Equally as reprehensible as the affront to common sense is the lack of attention paid to the legal process. The state was asked to make a case and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. They did that while Skinner's attorney sat on evidence he believed would further implicate his client. If Skinner were innocent he would have called for testing or ask for new council.
Don't bother rushing to his defense. I’m sure he was out of commission on codeine during the trial or recovering from a prison beating or the lawyer was a hypnotist. - Insert some iteration of those factors or other outlandish scenario here to prove yourself a real Skinner apologist.
Skinner law 101: Downplay your hand in the first trial (especially when you know you are guilty) then come back and attempt to win in the court of public opinion. That's what I call justice.
TexasLawyer
Really Sam?
You think we should be focused on process and not the facts? That's typically the capital defense bar's schtick, but I'll take the bait.
Who was Skinner's court-appointed attorney? How much was he paid? For that same amount of money, whom else might they have been able to hire? Had he ever defended a capital case before? Was there any conflict of interest? How thorough was his investigation of the alternative suspect?
What if Skinner's supporters documented his claim that he asked his lawyer to have the evidence tested back in 1994, but the lawyer refused? Would that satisfy your suggestion that "If Skinner were innocent he would have called for testing"?
What about the post-verdict evidence that Skinner was EXCLUDED as a contributor to the hairs found clutched in the victim's hand?
Maybe I'm too much of an "apologist" or a "wide-eyed" so I need you to explain this to me: why not test the evidence? If, as you imply, "justice" is damaged when Skinner "come[s] back and attempt[s] to win in the court of public opinion" - - why not test the remaining evidence and "close" the case in public opinion?
How about Sam Milsap - is he a "Skinner apologist" or "wide eyed"?
TexasLawyer
One more thing - - did the State also "sit on" the same evidence at the original trial?
Sam_Albertson
TexasLawyer, yes really.
Separating facts from process is not an accurate portrayal of my position. Facts were presented that proved Skinner guilty. Those facts are not being questioned but we are being asked to add to the body of evidence against Skinner.
If you don't know the answer to these questions why are you standing up for the guy? Is it generally your position that public defenders are inept?
What's really funny is after all of this time and knowing the body of evidence Skinner still does not have his lies straight. Grissom wrote in her first plea piece that Skinner after being woken up and seeing his girlfriend immediately left the house. What about his blood and hair found on the bed of Randy Busby?
If evidence not called could have vindicated Skinner at the time of the trial it would have been called. It was not. The state did not sit on evidence they called evidence that would bring a conviction and they won.
Once again over sensationalized reporting leads to half cocked thinking. While you claim I only care for the process it is clear you care neither for facts (as they have been presented) or process.