Morales Denied Despite Starr Power
Today, Ken Starr and David Senior held a press conference to discuss, among other things, their submission of forged documents in their Writ of Habeas Corpus and Petitions for Clemency. (Michael Morales Case)
Earlier this weeek, Starr, alone, held a smaller "closed" conference but it's not being reported what he actually said.
At today's press conference, Starr and Senior attempted to deflect the issue of fraudulent declarations and tried to focus the press on the value of sparing the life of of a rapist-murder because he said he's sorry. It didn't work very well.
As Starr was about to give his conference, word came down that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Morales clemency:
Starr already has told the press that:
Sounds like he's anti-death penalty to me. Being for capital punishment in the abstract and requiring Platonic perfection, is the same as being against it. What are these "exquisite safeguards" he refers to?
In the Morales case, Morales confessed to raping and murdering 17 year old Terri Winchell. The murder weapons with her blood on them were found in his apartment. Guilt doesn't seem to be an issue.
What does Starr require, a unanimous verdict by 12 unbiased adults of the community watched over by a neutral judge constrained by rules of evidence in a public trial argued by state licensed lawyers reviewed by state and federal appellate courts? Well, we have that.
What Starr and Senior insist is the issue is the alleged false testimony of jail house informant Bruce Samuelson.
The issue of Samuelson’s testimony has been briefed, argued and resolved in multiple courts and remains to be an non-issue resurrected only by fallacious arguments made by Mr. Morales’ defense team. So desperate to make Samuelson a key part of their argument, forged documents were submitted by the defense in order to bolster their claims. Those documents, as well as other false documents, have now been withdrawn by the defense.
There is a mountain of evidence corroborating Mr. Samuelson’s testimony, including all the testimony received in the separate trial of Ricky Ortega, Mr. Morlaes’ co-defendant. Both Mr. Ortega’s statement and Mr. Morales’ own confession, where he admitted to raping and murdering Terri, corroborate Mr. Samuelson’s testimony.
Starr and Senior also falsely claim that Samuelson's testimony was "key" to the jury's decision to recommend death for Morales.
In fact, that was the whole impetus for submitting the forged juror declarations; to have the jurors claim that Samuelson's testimony was the deciding factor.
Fortunately, the prosecutors found these declarations to be fake. What's more, the jurors interviewed denied that Samuelson was key and said they voted for death based on the facts of the crime; a decision that they stand by. (Authentic Juror Declarations)
As "Juror Anita" said on February 9th (aired February 11th) on the John and Ken Show, "He was a jail house informant and we took what he said with a grain of salt." (paraphrased)
In a second to last gasp, Starr and Senior filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the California Supreme Court on Friday, February 10th. In it they argued the Samuleson issue yet again. (Also in the Writ was a claim of more false testimony but since that was based on a forged declaration, it was withdrawn by Senior.) On Wednesday, the Court again rejected the claim. San Francisco Chronicle 2/15/06.
Now Senior is left alone, abandoned by Starr, sputtering beating the same drum beat that has been ignored by every court that has heard the Morales case. Desperate to distance themselves from the over half-dozen false or forged declarations in their clemency papers, Senior and the rest of what is left of hus team, will continue to erroneously point to testimony that was neither false or key.
It's time for Starr to be honest and admit he's just against the death penalty. It's also time that Morales' sentence be carried out.
Earlier this weeek, Starr, alone, held a smaller "closed" conference but it's not being reported what he actually said.
Starr held a question and answer session at the School of Law Wednesday, where he explained the case to law school students, professors and administrators. Pepperdine University Graphic, 2/16/06I would love to hear from any Pepperdine students in attendance.
At today's press conference, Starr and Senior attempted to deflect the issue of fraudulent declarations and tried to focus the press on the value of sparing the life of of a rapist-murder because he said he's sorry. It didn't work very well.
As Starr was about to give his conference, word came down that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Morales clemency:
"Nothing in the record or the materials before me compels a grant of clemency. The pain Ms. Winchell's loved ones have been forced to endure at the hands of Morales is unfathomable as is the brutality of the acts he perpetrated."Starr, expressed his disappointment and then bowed out. He was only there for the clemency and nothing else so he bailed.
Starr already has told the press that:
"Society is not equipped to handle death penalty cases because of resources. ... Large law firms are not willing at this stage to take these cases on, at a cost of many thousands of dollars, in order to make sure that if the public wants the death penalty, it is not administered with arbitrariness and caprice.
[I support capital punishment but it should be] reserved for the most heinous crimes but enshrouded with the most exquisite safeguards. ... This is not frontier justice.
It will be an act of illegality for this execution to go forward next week, and people should be upset about that." San Francisco Chronicle, 2/17/06
Sounds like he's anti-death penalty to me. Being for capital punishment in the abstract and requiring Platonic perfection, is the same as being against it. What are these "exquisite safeguards" he refers to?
In the Morales case, Morales confessed to raping and murdering 17 year old Terri Winchell. The murder weapons with her blood on them were found in his apartment. Guilt doesn't seem to be an issue.
What does Starr require, a unanimous verdict by 12 unbiased adults of the community watched over by a neutral judge constrained by rules of evidence in a public trial argued by state licensed lawyers reviewed by state and federal appellate courts? Well, we have that.
What Starr and Senior insist is the issue is the alleged false testimony of jail house informant Bruce Samuelson.
The issue of Samuelson’s testimony has been briefed, argued and resolved in multiple courts and remains to be an non-issue resurrected only by fallacious arguments made by Mr. Morales’ defense team. So desperate to make Samuelson a key part of their argument, forged documents were submitted by the defense in order to bolster their claims. Those documents, as well as other false documents, have now been withdrawn by the defense.
There is a mountain of evidence corroborating Mr. Samuelson’s testimony, including all the testimony received in the separate trial of Ricky Ortega, Mr. Morlaes’ co-defendant. Both Mr. Ortega’s statement and Mr. Morales’ own confession, where he admitted to raping and murdering Terri, corroborate Mr. Samuelson’s testimony.
Starr and Senior also falsely claim that Samuelson's testimony was "key" to the jury's decision to recommend death for Morales.
In fact, that was the whole impetus for submitting the forged juror declarations; to have the jurors claim that Samuelson's testimony was the deciding factor.
Fortunately, the prosecutors found these declarations to be fake. What's more, the jurors interviewed denied that Samuelson was key and said they voted for death based on the facts of the crime; a decision that they stand by. (Authentic Juror Declarations)
As "Juror Anita" said on February 9th (aired February 11th) on the John and Ken Show, "He was a jail house informant and we took what he said with a grain of salt." (paraphrased)
In a second to last gasp, Starr and Senior filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the California Supreme Court on Friday, February 10th. In it they argued the Samuleson issue yet again. (Also in the Writ was a claim of more false testimony but since that was based on a forged declaration, it was withdrawn by Senior.) On Wednesday, the Court again rejected the claim. San Francisco Chronicle 2/15/06.
Now Senior is left alone, abandoned by Starr, sputtering beating the same drum beat that has been ignored by every court that has heard the Morales case. Desperate to distance themselves from the over half-dozen false or forged declarations in their clemency papers, Senior and the rest of what is left of hus team, will continue to erroneously point to testimony that was neither false or key.
It's time for Starr to be honest and admit he's just against the death penalty. It's also time that Morales' sentence be carried out.
posted by Consigliere at 11:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home