Dudley Sharp

No one can, responsibly, accept what the Liebman/DeLuna report, ”Los Tocayos Carlos: Anatomy of a Wrongful Execution,” says, without fully fact checking it, as well as evaluating bias.

It is unwise to, blindly, accept any study.

Downright foolish it would be to blindly accept a study from within a hotly contested public policy debate, when the study was conducted by an active partisan within that debate. James Liebman is an active anti death penalty defense attorney.

When reviewing the previous record of both Liebman and the anti death penalty movement, a healthy skepticism would be merited and wise.

What happened when folks took the time to fact check Liebman’s prior opus, “A Broken System”?

Take a look.

“A Broken Study: A Review of ‘A Broken System’ “
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/broken-study-review-of-broken-system.html

This should be a major issue with Liebman’s credibility, today, but I think some in the media have made it clear that it will not matter, as few are going to fact check this latest tome, either, or bring up that last one’s problems, instead just accepting both on blind faith.

Regarding credibility, it is astounding that Liebman would allow any references to Rev. Pickett, in connection to supporting an innocent claim for DeLuna. Pickett has zero credibility, based upon “The DeLuna Deception: At the Death House Door” Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?”, below.

Liebman either didn’t fact check Pickett or he didn’t care – or some other excuse? Regardless, it goes to credibility.

But, again, if the media won’t fact check, what does Liebman have to lose by putting Pickett forward?

Any good anti death penalty defense counsel, as Liebman, or any crusading anti death penalty journalist, as David Grann, can make a convincing case, absent the prosecution’s case and rebuttal.

For example:

Cameron Todd Willingham: Media meltdown & the death penalty: “Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man?”, by David Grann
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/04/cameron-todd-willingham-media-meltdown–the-death-penalty.aspx

Possibly, at some point, this report will be fact checked, as these innocent executed claims were:

“The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception–death-penalty-opponents–draft.aspx

The DeLuna case is the perfect storm for anti death penalty folks. Both the “innocent” and “guilty” parties are dead and an, often, way too eager press plays defense mouthpiece for an anti death penalty report.

Am I saying that this newest Liebman report is just another anti death penalty tome whereby the conclusions can either be easily rebutted or that stronger positions can be made for guilt, with a thorough review, as was the case with many prior such cases?

No. But anyone would be a fool not to consider that possibility, which is why media fact checking is required and is also the reason why media fact checking may be unlikely.

Time will tell, as it has in the past.

MORE ON DELUNA

“The DeLuna Deception: At the Death House Door” Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?”
http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx

“Those closest to Carlos DeLuna case say Columbia Human Rights study doesn’t raise new questions”,
http://www.caller.com/news/2012/may/16/those-closest-to-carlos-deluna-case-say-columbia/

“Report questioning execution doesn’t sway lawyers”, MICHAEL GRACZYK, Associated Press, May 16, 2012
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Report-questioning-execution-doesn-t-sway-lawyers-3564112.php

FALSE INNOCENT CLAIMS: Common and Blatant

See Section B. The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are both blatant and legendary

within

“The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives”
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html