Robert Pruett - An Uneasy Execution Approaches

Robert Lynn Pruett

The story of Robert Pruett, a man sitting on death row in Texas, was my motivation for starting this Blog. After watching Robert's story on the BBC documentary Life and Death Row, I was convinced of his innocence. However, after listening to the many comments that have been left on my posts about Pruett, from supporters, close friends and others who are convinced of his guilt, I have to admit I am no longer 100% sure Robert is innocent. I do find it an absolute travesty that a 15 year old boy can be sentenced to 99 years (Pruett's original sentencing for the crime that sent him to prison). 

We don't have the death penalty in the UK, although many of the awful crimes I read about make me wonder why not on an almost daily basis. However, had the 15 year old Robert committed the same crime over here, he would, at the very worse of got a couple of years in a young offender's institute. However, because Robert Pruett did not actually murder the man, he incited his father to do the deed, there is a very good chance he would of received a slap on the wrists and given some kind of supervision order (to be honest, even that is unlikely). My point is, how can two justice systems be SO different. 

Despite not having the death penalty here, I have always admired the US for their use of it to deal with the worse of the worse. But if there is one thing the Robert Pruett case has taught me, is this is not always the case. Thanks to the felony murder law, there are plenty of young men in prison who didn't actually commit the unlawful act (the Pruett and Holle case being two that spring to mind). Maybe Pruett, had he not received prison time for his involvement in the initial murder, would of done something else to get him inside. Maybe he was destined to murder that Prison Guard (if indeed he did) but it certainly is a lot of what ifs. 

And this is why the impending execution of Robert Pruett does not sit well with me. It isn't because I believe him to be innocent, I am really not sure that he is. It is because I do not believe anyone should be executed unless his/her guilt is absolutely believed, beyond a reasonable doubt. Pruett has already had two stays in the past, a third is highly unlikely and yet this is not because there isn't any unanswered questions about the case. It is simply because the 'routine' a prisoner goes through in order to get to the point of execution is almost complete, regardless of whether there is potential doubt or questions. 

I don't normally recommend websites but I do recommend everyone -whether you believe in Robert Pruett or not - spends 30 minutes on his website reading some of the things he has written. Prison has obviously had a huge impact on him and he really is an insightful person, with a passion for living even if it is in dire surroundings with little to look forward too. I really don't know whether Robert Pruett is innocent of killing that Prison Guard, I know I was once convinced he was but I have my doubts now. This does not change my opinion that their is far too many questions to be 100% certain he deserves to executed on April 28th. 

Check out Robert's Site

Whether Innocent or Guilty, There is not Enough Evidence to Support Execution.

Casey Anthony: Justice Denied for Little Caylee Marie?

Little Caylee Anthony with her mother Casey, who many believe killed her

Little Caylee Anthony was first brought to the attention of law enforcement, the residents of Florida and the whole of the United States on July 15th, 2008. Her maternal grandmother, Cindi Anthony, had made a frantic 911 call insisting she hadn't seen her granddaughter in 31 days and that her daughter Casey's car smelled 'odd', like she had had a dead body in there. Cindi Anthony explained that Casey had given her and Caylee's grandfather a variety of excuses to account for their granddaughter's absence over the previous four weeks. However, things had come to a head that day, when Casey had told her mother she hadn't seen Caylee in weeks either. This started a series of lies Casey Anthony would tell, with the most consistent being she had left Caylee with a nanny, appropriately called "Zanny". According to Casey Anthony, when she returned to Zanny's apartment to pick her daughter up nobody was there. According to Casey, she had been too scared she would be in trouble with the police and her family for leaving her daughter with someone she didn't know very well and so she had kept the disappearance to herself,, She went on to insist she had been trying to locate 'Zanny' herself. Police soon found out that Casey Anthony hadn't mentioned her daughter's alleged kidnapping to anyone, not even the man she was having a relationship with at the time. Soon after, a woman, whom Casey Anthony insisted was the mystery nanny was taken in for questioning by the police. She was released when law enforcement were happy she had nothing to do with Caylee's disappearance. Police were also happy that the nanny called Zanny did not exist and Casey Anthony was arrested and charged with murder in October 2008. She pleaded not guilty. 

On December 11th, 2008, a trash bag containing a Winnie the Pooh blanket and the skeletal remains of little Caylee was found in a wooded area not far from the Anthony family home. The Medical Examiner said, due to the state of the remains, he had no choice but to register the death as a 'death by unknown means'. However, he said that three pieces of duck tape found on or around the skull gave him cause to believe Caylee's death was actually a homicide. 

Casey Anthony's trial began on May 24th, 2011. The prosecution told the jury Casey Anthony murdered little Caylee using a mixture of chloroform and duck tape to free herself of the burden of parental responsibility. Prosecutors also sought the death penalty. The first shock of the trial was when the defence, led by Casey's attorney Jose Baez, countered with a story that little Caylee had accidentally drowned in the pool at the family home and that her grandfather and Casey's father, George Anthony, had disposed of the body.  

Casey Anthony's entire defence revolved around her alleged dysfunctional upbringing and the sexual abuse she had allegedly endured at the hands of her father. The defence team did not produce any evidence of the alleged abuse, nor did they have any evidence to support how they said Caylee really died. The prosecution on the other hand appeared to have plenty of evidence supporting their opinion that Casey Anthony was guilty of premeditated murder. A forensic researcher told the jury how he had found compounds associated with decomposition in samples taken from the carpet, spare tyre cover, wheel well and air in Casey Anthony's car. A hair found in the car was also proven to have come from a dead body. Mitochondrial testing proved the hair had come from Casey Anthony's maternal line, as Casey, Cindy and Cindy's mother were allegedly ruled out - that only left Caylee as the most likely owner. The prosecution also submitted records of several Google searches that had been taken off the Anthony family's home computer, the searches included 'how to make chloroform' and 'neck breaking'. According to the computer investigations expert, the word 'chloroform' had been searched 84 times. However, it emerged that the expert made a mistake and had misread the data produced by certain software he had used. It transpired that the word chloroform had only been searched for once. Still determined, the prosecution revealed that the Winnie the Pooh blanket was part of a set from the Anthony home. Altogether 400 pieces of evidence were entered in the trial. 

The trial lasted six weeks and on July 5th, 2011, the jury returned their verdict. Much to the shock of the prosecution, law enforcement and virtually everyone all over America and the World, Casey Anthony was found not guilty of murder. She was also find not guilty of aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. She was found guilty of four counts of providing false information to the police for - lying about dropping Caylee of with Zanny at her apartment, lying about working for Universal Studios during 2008, lying about informing two other people that Caylee had disappeared and for falsely saying she had talked to Caylee on July 15th 2008, which had led to police expanding the search area and increasing manpower. Although the defence wanted all four counts to be counted as one, so as the sentence would run as one, the judge refused and instead acknowledged that the July to December 2008 search for little Caylee had cost a significant amount in police time, resources and costs. Casey Anthony was fined $1000 for each count and sentenced to one year in prison. However, she was credited with 1043 days for time served and she walked free on July 17th 2011. 

Today, almost seven years after little Caylee Marie Anthony died, Casey Anthony allegedly lives the life of a virtual recluse. An apparent 'victim' of her own notoriety, only the odd picture and interview has surfaced in the press since her trial ended. While some people will show her some sympathy, many more believe the real victim, Caylee Anthony, was denied justice and that her mother literally got away with murder. 

I have to say the Caylee Anthony case frustrates me. The prosecution dropped the ball more than once. The defence were able to counter the prosecution's claims about the chloroform found on the carpet of Casey Anthony's car because the prosecution's expert used a technique never before used in a homicide investigation. Add to that the Google searches mistake and the fact that the hair found in the car, that was said to have come from a dead body, was not 100% reliable, and it is no wonder the jury could not convict beyond a reasonable doubt. Considering the mountain of evidence, it almost feels like the prosecution jumped the gun and they ended up paying for it, or Caylee Anthony did. Her story just did not make sense. What sort of mother waits 31 days to tell police and her family that her 2-year old daughter is missing? I tell you what sort, a guilty one! A mother whose child has a fatal accident calls for help! A mother who has something to hide, comes up with one ridiculous excuse after another in order to cover up what really happened. 

What are your thoughts on the Casey Anthony case? Was she really just a compulsive liar who lost her young daughter to a tragic accident? Or was she really guilty of premeditated murder, driven by a need to have no responsibility in her life? 

Casey Anthony Today

Ryan Holle - Life in Prison for Lending his Car to a Friend!

Ryan Holle

On March 10th 2003, Ryan Holle loaned his car to his room mate and friend, William Allen, Jr. Allen then used the vehicle to pick up three men and drove them to the address of a known drug dealer. Where the group planned to steal drugs. Once they had broken in, the men emptied a safe of around $400 and a pound of marijuana. Unfortunately, they were interrupted by the home owner's teenage daughter and, in an effort to silence her, used a rifle from the house to bludgeon her to death. The killer, Charles Miller, Jr and the other men were soon arrested, a then twenty-year old Ryan Holle was also arrested alongside them. Because Florida adopt the Felony Murder Rule, Holle was deemed an accomplice for the loaning of his car and was therefore seen just as culpable for the young girl's death. Facing a first-degree murder charge, Ryan Holle was offered a plea deal, a ten year sentence in return for his testimony on the other men. Adamant that he was innocent of the charge, Holle refused the deal and his case went to trial. 

 When Holle's trial began in 2004,  the prosecutor started by hinting that during initial police questioning Holle gave the impression he knew exactly what the men planned to do that night. The prosecutor also went as far as saying that Holle was actually the mastermind behind the whole robbery and that he had been more than aware that 'knocking someone out' was a probability. He went on to state that Ryan Holle should be found guilty of first-degree murder because 'No Car, No Crime'.  Holle testified to the contrary, saying William Allen Jr had asked him to lend his car to go get food. Ryan Holle explained that he and others had enjoyed a long night of partying and he had no qualms in lending Allen the car, as it was something he had done in the past. He insisted that he had known nothing of the robbery until after the act and even then he had thought the men were joking around. Holle's version of events was also backed up by Allen, Jr himself. The entire trial, including prosecution/defence/witness testimony, jury deliberations, verdict and sentencing, lasted just one day. Ryan Holle was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. Despite prosecutors at first seeking the death penalty, Charles Miller Jr also received life without parole, as did the other three men involved. 

I have to admit Ryan Holle's conviction and sentence do not sit well with me at all. If accountability for a murder is being pushed back to the owner of the vehicle used, then isn't the home owner who had drugs in her house just as accountable? She created an unsafe environment for her family by knowingly having (and allegedly selling) marijuana under her roof. Instead, the home owner, and victim's mother, was sentenced to just three years in prison for possession. Why did the prosecution believe Ryan Holle was aware of the potential consequences when he lent his car to William Allen, Jr and the person who had drugs in their home wasn't? After all, following the prosecutor's twisted logic, shouldn't it be "No Marijuana, No Crime"?. In my eyes, Ryan Holle has been convicted of what he may have allegedly been thinking. 

I feel it is also important to note that Ryan Holle did not have a prior criminal record, unlike the other four men who were convicted. So how did the prosecution come to the conclusion that someone who has never been convicted of a criminal act in the past could be the mastermind behind a robbery? Especially when the others involved had all spent time in jail at some point. How did any jury find the alleged evidence against Holle enough to find him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course, the prosecution are quick to point out that, on the evidence presented, twelve unbiased jury members found Ryan Holle guilty. However, when I consider that both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson were found not guilty of murder by twelve unbiased jury members, this point bears no weight with me. Ryan Holle may have exercised poor judgement and naivety, but neither of these are against the law. 

In December 2014, four cabinet members decided to 'take advisment' in Ryan Holle's clemency hearing. This means, he is still waiting for a decision. If the clemency hearing is dismissed and any further appeals fail, Ryan Holle will die in prison for a crime that was committed while he was asleep in bed two miles away. Where is the justice in that? 

What do you think about the Ryan Holle case? Do you think the conviction and sentence were deserved or, like me, do you think he shouldn't have been convicted at all?

Ryan Holle continues to protest he knew
nothing about the robbery.

If you believe Ryan Holle should be granted clemancy, you can sign his Change.org petition at the following link - https://www.change.org/p/florida-commission-on-offender-review-governor-rick-scott-grant-clemency-for-ryan-holle-who-was-sentenced-to-life-for-loaning-his-car

To keep up-to-date with the Holle case, check out the Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/justiceforryanholle

Happy New Year! Guest Bloggers Wanted!

                                                               

The death penalty debate still rages on...

First of all, Happy New Year to all who stop by and read my blog - I hope 2015 is a happy, healthy year for each one of you. Although I started this blog back in April 2014, I haven't had as much time to dedicate to it as I would of liked. This has especially frustrated me, because it has proved to be a popular....small....but popular blog. It is therefore my new year's resolution to spend more time on my blog. I have been lucky enough to have several people leave comments on my posts, all had differing opinions and all had a good point to make. This is why I have decided to appeal for guest bloggers. Basically, it would involve you writing a piece on ANY subject (within the criminal justice genre) that you like. It can be written as you want it, no matter what your opinion and your piece will be posted to the blog as is - it will only be checked by me for spelling errors. 

The Robert Pruett case has fascinated me from the minute I watched the Life and Death Row documentary over here in the UK. I was convinced from that, Pruett was innocent - of the murder of the corrections officer, Daniel Nagle - and that was that. Yet, when I wrote a post on this case, it received many comments, some from people who know Robert Pruett, others who are all to familiar with the TDCJ system and people who just knew more than I did about the case. I must admit I now sit on the fence with this case, something I never like to do but I believe these people and the Pruett case have helped me become more open minded. Something I would like to do for others. 

If you would like to write a guest blog piece, you can contact me directly at lollipopwrites@gmail.com . 

Write a post on a criminal subject of your choice...

Murderous Mothers: Darlie Routier

Darlie Lynn Routier

One of, if not the most, controversial female inmates resides on death row in Texas - Darlie Routier. Convicted of the 1996 murder of her son, 5-year old Damon, she is also believed to be responsible for the death of Devon, her 6-year old son. Although many will say the evidence in this case clearly points to Routier, she is not without her supporters. In fact, there are many who believe Darlie Routier is an innocent woman, a victim of incompetent police work and circumstantial evidence.

On June 6th,1996 at 2.31 am, a frantic 911 call was made from within the Routier residence. The caller was Darlie Routier, reporting that she and her young sons had been attacked by an unknown intruder as they lay sleeping in the downstairs living area. Routier reported that as well as stabbing her, the intruder had stabbed both of her sleeping sons. First responders were shocked by the brutal injuries Devon and Damon had suffered, while Darlie Routier had, what many called, superficial injuries. Despite allegedly sleeping through the entire attack on her and the children, Darlie told police she had given chase to the intruder. All of this had happened as Darlie's husband, Darin Routier, lay sleeping upstairs with the couple's seven month old son, Drake. In fact, the first Darin Routier was aware of a problem, was when he heard his wife screaming to call 911.

In the days following the murder, Darlie Routier's behavior was described as odd, even cold. Many people were already questioning whether Darlie was responsible for the horrific murders, as she did not appear particularly upset at the loss of her young sons. This was evidenced further just eight days after the murders, when Darlie and her family held a 7th birthday party for Devon at the little boys' graves. Video recordings of Darlie laughing, smiling, singing "Happy Birthday" and spraying silly string over the children's graves were broadcast across America. Her actions, which Darlie Routier described as celebrating her sons' lives as they would of wanted, seemed to cement her guilt in the minds of many and she was arrested on capital murder charges four days later.

During the Routier trial, prosecutors argued that the crime scene did not match up with Darlie Routier's version of events that night. Rather than being brutally attacked by an unknown assailant, prosecutors accused Routier of brutally stabbing the two boys and then inflicting less serious injuries on herself. They painted her as a materialistic woman, who lived well beyond her means and who, behind closed doors, was sinking under substantial debts. The worry of no longer being able to live the high life and the possibility of losing the family home drove Routier to murder her two young sons. After all, having two less children to care for would relieve some of the financial burden pressuring the family. Blood spatter experts, physcians, crime scene techs and law enforcement officers all spoke out against Routier at trial. According to these professionals the crime scene was staged and blood spatter on Routier's clothes the night of the murder was, in their opinion, cast off spray from a stabbing motion. Despite Routier's defence strongly arguing her innocence, she was found guilty and sentenced to death on Febuary 1st, 1997.

And now,  some 18 years after the murders, Darlie Routier sits on death row - still protesting her innocence. For every professional who speaks up for her guilt, there is another who will speak for her innocence. Routier has a legion of supporters who believe the police concentrated straight away on Darlie Routier being the perpetrator -therefore blinding themselves to the possibility that there may actually be a violent murderer out there somewhere.

So, what do you think? Is Darlie Routier a cold blooded killer who picked off her young sons simply to ensure she was able to continue with her lavish lifestyle. Or, does an innocent grieving mother sit on death row, imprisoned for a crime she didn't commit?

                                                               

Darlie Routier in 1996