NEW HELL HOLE NEWS
MARCH 30, 2011
New Hell Hole News #29 March 30, 2011 Media distortion and error When I cut off the AP’s Michael Graczyk from any further interviews, he started writing lies about me. Read on from the article “Ruling may aid Texan who was nearly executed” reprinted by the Dallas Morning News on March 8, 2011. … “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said prison inmates may use a federal civil rights law to seek DNA testing that was not performed before their conviction…” -
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not rule any such thing as what’s underlined above. The ruling only states that my suit is allowed to proceed and is properly filed as a 42 USC §1983 action. She made no ruling as to testing not performed before conviction. That’s an issue for the Federal district court to decide.
... “Police found him hiding in a closet in the home of a woman he knew…” -
Police did not find me hiding in any closet at Andrea Reed’s house nor anywhere else. Andrea led me into a dark front bedroom and told me to stay there until she saw who had pulled into the driveway of her house and what they wanted. A couple of minutes later, Sheriff Randy Stubblefield and 4 or 5 others came plowing into the room with guns drawn and flipped on the lights. Blinded, I stumbled backwards. There was a mattress on the floor. I stepped off the edge of it and fell. There was a closet about 2 ½ ft deep and 5 ft long with no doors, packed full of clothes. I fell against the clothes with my arms out, extended. I was never even in the closet, just against the clothes. When Stubblefield cocked his gun and aimed it at me, knowing Stubblefield was triggerhappy and thinking I’d be shot, I turned my head into the clothes ‘cause I didn’t wanna get shot in the face and wasn’t wanting to see my death coming. I was in plain sight at all times. Never attempting to hide. During discovery in 2004, during federal habeas proceedings, Stubblefield was deposed and thus testified I wasn’t hiding. It’s part of the record. Then D.A. John Mann, not having any real evidence with which to convict me, resorted to lies and propaganda which persist to this day. He’d ask rhetorically “If he’s innocent, why was he trying to hide in a closet that night?”; then answer his own question “because those are the acts of guilty man whose mind possessed guilty knowledge, that’s why!!”
… “He was splattered with the blood of at least two of the victims…” -
I was not “splattered with the blood of at least two of the victims”. Michael Graczyk of the Associated Press started this lie. There was some dripped blood on my clothes from my own hand being cut when I fell on glass shards leaving the house. The only tested stains on my clothes were contact transfers. The state’s own blood expert from DPS labs in Austin testified that the contact stains did not prove me guilty of anything and showed only that I either came into contact with a victim or a surface upon which they left blood at a time after they became bloody – which is more consistent with my innocence and the fact that I was roused off the couch where I lay semi-comatose, after the murders occurred, and made my way out of the house and out to the alley.
… “A trail of blood led police from the bodies to his hiding place, a few blocks away…” -
No “trail of blood led police from the bodies to my (alleged) hiding place (in a closet!), a few blocks away”. The police have never made any such statement and it never happened. Once again, Michael Graczyk of the A.P. just made it up out of thin air. There exists no such evidence in this case at all. Period.
... “He acknowledged being inside the house where the killings took place…” -
“He (Me! Hank Skinner) acknowledged being inside the house where the killings took place”. Why, sure I did. But what he fails to state is, it’s not some friend’s house I was at or broke into – it was my own home! Mine and my girlfriend’s house where these murders occurred! I had every right in the world to be there because I lived there! The context of this crazy story makes it seem as if my “acknowledging” being there is somehow tantamount to an actual admission of culpability or guilt. Hardly.
… “But other evidence was not tested at the time of Skinner’s trial, on the advice of his lawyer…” -
…”other evidence was not tested at the time of Skinner’s trial, on the advice of his lawyer” (Harold Comer, ex D.A.!) No, that is not true. Comer was in no position to offer me any “advice” on what evidence to test or not. 1
In Texas, under the state bar rules, the client decides the scope and objectives of the attorney’s representation of said client. In a letter I wrote Comer in June of 1994, I specifically ordered him to hire experts and get the evidence tested in preparation for trial, but he mysteriously failed to do so and, at the federal evidentiary hearing he claimed he didn’t remember reading that letter, although my attorneys got it out of his file. Come never once claimed he feared the evidence would incriminate me until 2000 when, then D.A., John Mann unilaterally tested some of the evidence and falsely claimed it did incriminate me. Then and only then did Comer claim he feared it. Prior to that he is repeatedly quoted in the media stating he didn’t test it because it’s the state’s job to exonerate as well as convict, so the state should test it. He took that stance because the state paid him $86,000 and big perks otherwise to do so. Harold Comer is a liar and a Judas. … “and a second knife found in a plastic bag in the house…” -
The knife found in a plastic trash bag contained: the bloody, fully articulated handprint of an unknown individual on the trash bag itself. It’s not mine!
… “Skinner and his new defense team say that evidence could exonerate him…” -
“New defense team”? Um, I’ve had the same lawyer for 13 years now: Douglas G. Robinson and Rob Owen has been on my case since 2003, when Steven Losch died, 8 years now.
… “The state says Skinner is trying to game the system to delay his execution…” -
Lynn Switzer’s (Gray County D.A.) argument that I’m “trying to game the system and thwart finality in state court judgements” kinda overlooks a few very important details, which shows her claims to be inane, hollow and circular logic. The same with Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in my Supreme Court case: 1. 2.
3.
4.
I did ask for testing at every stage of pretrial, trial and appeals. I could not be “gaming the system” or “playing DNA lottery” as Williamson County D.A. and TX Forensic Science Commission chairman, John Bradley, falsely accuse me of doing, because at the time of my trial there was no Chapter 64 DNA testing statute! It wasn’t enacted until 2001, over 6 years after my conviction. I’m not filing last minute, last gasp appeals and “suddenly” requesting DNA testing. I’ve steadfastly and consistently sought DNA testing since virtually the day of my arrest. The three lead detectives on the case, the first officer on the scene, the medical examiner and Lynn Switzer’s three immediate predecessors in the D.A.’s office have all testified in court, publicly stated in the media or both, that this evidence holds the key to definitely proving who committed the murders in my case and/or, they felt it important to test this evidence. Under the Supreme Court precedent set in 2009 in the Osborne case, the Justices denied him and faulted him for broadly claiming that he should have a general substantive right to DNA testing without first even attempting to utilize state law procedures. D.A. Lynn Switzer’s statement that she is “holding firm and denying the testing because the case has ramifications for D.A.’s all across the country, especially where the defendant waited so long before even filing a suit” is just more of her hollow, meaningless and idiotic rhetoric. The TX state court of appeals (CCA) denied my Chapter 64 motion appeal in September of 2009. Less than a month and a half later, in November 2009 I filed the lawsuit against her. In almost any federal action involving state officials, the federal courts require the prisoner to first exhaust all possible state court remedies – which is exactly what I did. My litigation was very promptly, appropriately and correctly filed, under the law. Switzer is full of shit.
… “Skinner tried and failed twice to invoke the state law to get at the evidence. He then filed the federal lawsuit, saying that the state had deprived him of his rights by withholding access to the evidence…” -
As I allege in the lawsuit that’s now been reinstated in the federal district court pursuant to my Supreme Court win (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-9000.pdf), the state court has applied Chapter 64 to me in an arbitrary and capricious manner, violating my first, eighth and fourteenth amendment rights. Lynn Switzer says I’ve ‘been given ample opportunity to show that this evidence could prove” me “innocent but” I “couldn’t show that” Again she is incorrect. I did show that the evidence could prove me innocent and in spite of that showing, the CCA then said “well, so what?” Your lawyer didn’t test it before trial so you cannot get the testing under our ‘new’ interpretation of the statute – which, by the way, we’re just now authoring and just in your case; but henceforth we’ll apply it to everyone”. Under the CCA’s twisted “interpretation” of the statute, the “no fault” provision becomes “your fault” (i.e. the prisoner’s fault) and anyone who failed to get the testing before trial automatically cannot get testing under the 2
Chapter 64 post-conviction statute. So what’s the point in having a post-conviction DNA statute if nobody can use it? In case you’ve all forgotten what they teach about the Constitution in high school, in this country, if you’re arrested and accused of a crime and especially so, a felony capital crime, you, the defendant, do not have to prove a damned thing at trial! Rather, it is totally and unequivocally the state’s burden to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You have an absolute right to remain silent and put the state to its burden of proof and, your silence cannot be taken into any consideration or otherwise used against you in any way. Period. Yet under the CCA’s insane “interpretation” of the post-conviction statute, if you opt to put the state to its burden of proof at your trial, you will never get the testing post-conviction. Anyone who does test the evidence pre-trial is likely not going to need any post-conviction testing. Anyone who doesn’t test pre-trial cannot get the testing post-trial. That lil’ catch-22 just pretty much renders the Chapter 64 DNA post-conviction statute meaningless. I challenge anyone out there to present these facts and law to Lynn Switzer and get a coherent answer. I’m talking to every voter and/or taxpayer out there, but particularly to citizens of the five county 31st/223rd district of Gray, Roberts, Wheeler, Hemphill and Carson counties Switzer represents. Remember, it could be your mother, father, brother, sister, uncle, aunt or cousin in my position. It could be you! ‘til next time! Hank 999143 Polunsky Unit H W Hank Skinner 3872 FM 350 South Livingston TX 77351-8580 h.w.skinner@gmail.com http://www.hankskinner.org Facebook http://on.fb.me/Justice4Hank Twitter http://twitter.com/Justice4Hank Newsletter http://eepurl.com/cYCIE For those of you who use JPay to write, don’t forget to always include your postal address and your e-mail address after your signature, so I can reply. www.jpay.com don’t forget to enter my TDC number as an 8-digit number: 00999143. Supreme Court Ruling may aid Texan who was nearly executed Tuesday, March 8, 2011 – The Dallas Morning News Prisoners allowed to use civil rights law to seek DNA testing A.P Washington – The Supreme Court on Monday gave a glimmer of hope to a death row inmate in Texas who wants to test crime-scene evidence that he says may show he is innocent. The court’s 6-3 ruling means that Hank Skinner, who was about an hour away from execution when the Supreme Court intervened last year, will not be put to death soon while his legal case continues. But the decision won’t necessarily mean that Skinner will win the right to perform genetic testing on evidence found at the scene of the tripe murder in the Panhandle for which he received the death penalty. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said prison inmates may use a federal civil right law to seek DNA testing that was not performed before their conviction. Lower federal courts had dismissed Skinner’s claims at an early stage, although other federal judges have allowed similar suits to go forward in other parts of the country. Ginsburg said it is by no means clear that Skinner can prevail in his lawsuit and actually gain access to the evidence for testing. Even if he does win in court, she said, testing of the evidence “may prove exculpatory, inculpatory or inconclusive”.
3
Justice Clarence Thomas joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy, said Skinner’s legal claims should have been cut off. Robert Owen, Skinner’s lawyer, praised the decision. “We look forward to making our case in federal court that Texas’s inexplicable refusal to grant Mr. Skinner access to evidence for DNA testing is fundamentally unfair and cannot stand”, Owen said. Skinner, 48, was convicted of killing his girlfriend and her two adult sons on New Year’s Eve, 1993, in Pampa. Police found him hiding in a closet in the home of a woman he knew, about three hours after the bodies were discovered. He was splattered with the blood of at least two of the victims. A trail of blood led police from the bodies to his hiding place, a few blocks away. He acknowledged being inside the house where the killing took place. But other evidence was not tested at the time of Skinner’s trial, on the advice of his lawyer. The untested material includes vaginal swabs taken from the girlfriend, Twila Jean Busby, at the time of her autopsy, fingernail clippings, a knife found on the porch of Busby's house and a second knife found in a plastic bag in the house, a towel with the second knife and a jacket next to Busby's body. Skinner and his new defense team say that evidence could exonerate him. The state says Skinner is trying to game the system to delay his execution. Like almost every other state, Texas has a law that allows prisoners to do DNA testing on evidence, long after their conviction. Skinner tried and failed twice to invoke the state law to get at the evidence. He then filed the federal lawsuit, saying that the state had deprived him of his rights by withholding access to the evidence.
4