FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - JULY 7, 2008
WE DEMAND DNA TESTING BEFORE ANY EXECUTION OF THOMAS ARTHUR.
Allowing the State of Alabama to execute Thomas Arthur in the full knowledge that strong doubt
exists concerning the certainty of his guilt, doubt which could be resolved with DNA testing,
amounts to nothing less than murder.
exists concerning the certainty of his guilt, doubt which could be resolved with DNA testing,
amounts to nothing less than murder.
Thomas Arthur was convicted of the killing of Troy Wicker on the basis of evidence supplied by
the victim`s wife. She initially claimed a stranger other than Arthur, had broken into her home,
raped her and killed her husband. She was charged and convicted of the murder. In eight sworn
statements, she stated that Arthur was in no way connected with the crime. However, after ten
years in prison for her husband`s murder, she altered her story and overturned her previous
testimony. Presumably in an attempt to secure an early release from prison, she stated that
Arthur had indeed had sex with her and that he had been the killer.
the victim`s wife. She initially claimed a stranger other than Arthur, had broken into her home,
raped her and killed her husband. She was charged and convicted of the murder. In eight sworn
statements, she stated that Arthur was in no way connected with the crime. However, after ten
years in prison for her husband`s murder, she altered her story and overturned her previous
testimony. Presumably in an attempt to secure an early release from prison, she stated that
Arthur had indeed had sex with her and that he had been the killer.
This was the only testimony against Arthur. At the time of the murder, several pieces of
evidence were collected from the crime scene and preserved. Performing DNA testing on these
items would determine the validity of the testimony given by this witness. The Innocence
Project, a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully
convicted people through DNA testing, have stressed that the remaining existing biological
evidence in Arthur`s case does meet the criteria for DNA testing and will prove conclusively his
innocence or guilt. In the course of 16 years they have exonerated 218 people from wrongful
conviction and stand resolutely behind the need for certainty in this case. Along with the
Innocence Project, Amnesty International, The Vatican and thousands of United States Citizens
and organizations have called, e-mailed or written to Governor Riley of Alabama urging him to
conduct this testing immediately so that once and for all Arthur’s involvement can be determined.
evidence were collected from the crime scene and preserved. Performing DNA testing on these
items would determine the validity of the testimony given by this witness. The Innocence
Project, a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully
convicted people through DNA testing, have stressed that the remaining existing biological
evidence in Arthur`s case does meet the criteria for DNA testing and will prove conclusively his
innocence or guilt. In the course of 16 years they have exonerated 218 people from wrongful
conviction and stand resolutely behind the need for certainty in this case. Along with the
Innocence Project, Amnesty International, The Vatican and thousands of United States Citizens
and organizations have called, e-mailed or written to Governor Riley of Alabama urging him to
conduct this testing immediately so that once and for all Arthur’s involvement can be determined.
Yet despite this repeated soliciting and petitioning, Governor Riley has held firm to this day
refusing to allow DNA testing which could resolve this case. This casts serious doubt on his
concern for the truth, and consequently on the value he places on human life and his
commitment for a government which is accountable and ethical. DNA testing can do one
important thing: It can prove Thomas Arthur’s innocence and it can prevent the state from
erroneously executing another innocent man. If we define justice as a principle of moral
rightness, of impartiality, of conformity to truth, fact, or reason, how can we reconcile Governor
Riley`s refusal to order DNA, his refusal to want the truth, as anything less than morally
reprehensible?
refusing to allow DNA testing which could resolve this case. This casts serious doubt on his
concern for the truth, and consequently on the value he places on human life and his
commitment for a government which is accountable and ethical. DNA testing can do one
important thing: It can prove Thomas Arthur’s innocence and it can prevent the state from
erroneously executing another innocent man. If we define justice as a principle of moral
rightness, of impartiality, of conformity to truth, fact, or reason, how can we reconcile Governor
Riley`s refusal to order DNA, his refusal to want the truth, as anything less than morally
reprehensible?
A recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court determined that suspected terrorists have a
right to this review, Thomas Arthur, a United States Citizen, does not. This constitutional right
was denied to him when the Supreme Court determined in November 2007 that DNA testing on
crime scene evidence in his case could not be conducted.
right to this review, Thomas Arthur, a United States Citizen, does not. This constitutional right
was denied to him when the Supreme Court determined in November 2007 that DNA testing on
crime scene evidence in his case could not be conducted.
Every United States Citizen has a right to a Habeas Corpus Review. Yet Thomas Arthur, whose
execution date has been set for July 31st 2008, has lost this right because he is guilty of having
filed his Habeas Corpus appeal too late, beyond the one year time limit. As a consequence, his
appeals have never been heard or reviewed at either a Federal or State level, his claim of
innocence remaining unheard. The State of Alabama has determined that he has exhausted his
appeals, when in truth no appeals in this case have ever even been heard. Alabama’s legal
process does not entitle inmates to an attorney during post conviction appeals; and because
most cannot afford a legal representative to act on their behalf as Arthur could not, they are
automatically condemned by their own ignorance, to filing papers beyond designated time limits.
execution date has been set for July 31st 2008, has lost this right because he is guilty of having
filed his Habeas Corpus appeal too late, beyond the one year time limit. As a consequence, his
appeals have never been heard or reviewed at either a Federal or State level, his claim of
innocence remaining unheard. The State of Alabama has determined that he has exhausted his
appeals, when in truth no appeals in this case have ever even been heard. Alabama’s legal
process does not entitle inmates to an attorney during post conviction appeals; and because
most cannot afford a legal representative to act on their behalf as Arthur could not, they are
automatically condemned by their own ignorance, to filing papers beyond designated time limits.
For something which we can only consider a bureaucratic timeline, Arthur has been unable to
introduce evidence collected by an investigator which would cast extremely serious doubt on his
presence at the murder scene and on other significant details. But perhaps what is more
important is that it does not allow for the facts of that night to emerge. One of the pivotal points
in Arthur`s defense involves shedding light on the inherently untrustworthy testimony of his only
witness. DNA testing and its reliability could determine conclusively the validity of these claims.
It is considered universally to be not susceptible to reasonable dispute, the one answer to the
uncertainties which have emerged in this case.
introduce evidence collected by an investigator which would cast extremely serious doubt on his
presence at the murder scene and on other significant details. But perhaps what is more
important is that it does not allow for the facts of that night to emerge. One of the pivotal points
in Arthur`s defense involves shedding light on the inherently untrustworthy testimony of his only
witness. DNA testing and its reliability could determine conclusively the validity of these claims.
It is considered universally to be not susceptible to reasonable dispute, the one answer to the
uncertainties which have emerged in this case.
It would be natural then to assume that such a test would be invaluable, essential in determining
the guilt of a man on death row who is in the fight for his life. Yet this is not what is happening.
For whatever reason, Governor Riley will not allow DNA testing to be performed on this
evidence. If we question his behavior and motives, we can only conclude that they are
unconscionable and more than just a little unjustifiable with so much outcry for justice. Clearly he
has in his hands the tools to resolve this case, and he will not. His indifference is tantamount to
murder and his intentions far removed from the principles of justice as being impartial or fair.
What he is doing is morally reprehensible.
the guilt of a man on death row who is in the fight for his life. Yet this is not what is happening.
For whatever reason, Governor Riley will not allow DNA testing to be performed on this
evidence. If we question his behavior and motives, we can only conclude that they are
unconscionable and more than just a little unjustifiable with so much outcry for justice. Clearly he
has in his hands the tools to resolve this case, and he will not. His indifference is tantamount to
murder and his intentions far removed from the principles of justice as being impartial or fair.
What he is doing is morally reprehensible.
When we prepare to execute a man who is condemned not only to die but to function within a
system which does not concern itself with his true guilt or innocence, which puts bureaucracy
above the value of human life refusing testing on DNA which could exonerate him and save him,
we have to ask ourselves what mockery are we making of justice? Liberty is a precious gift, one
which must be diligently guarded from those who would take it from us, and Governor Riley is
deliberately refusing the possibility of liberty for a man who can be proven innocent. Lady
Justice is blindfolded for a reason.
system which does not concern itself with his true guilt or innocence, which puts bureaucracy
above the value of human life refusing testing on DNA which could exonerate him and save him,
we have to ask ourselves what mockery are we making of justice? Liberty is a precious gift, one
which must be diligently guarded from those who would take it from us, and Governor Riley is
deliberately refusing the possibility of liberty for a man who can be proven innocent. Lady
Justice is blindfolded for a reason.
For all press inquiries please contact:
Sherrie Stone
Director of Communications
Telephone: 813-293-9139
Fax: 813-907-3513
SherrieStone4you@aol.com
www.ThomasArhturFightForLife.com
For information:
Dianne Abshire
9673 State Route 65
Ottawa, OH 45875
419 523-5816
afua@woh.rr.com
9673 State Route 65
Ottawa, OH 45875
419 523-5816
afua@woh.rr.com
Giuseppina Branca
Holland
31 (for Holland) 70 3246612
giuseppina.branca@yahoo.com
Holland
31 (for Holland) 70 3246612
giuseppina.branca@yahoo.com
Gloria Colonnello
New York
212 539 8415
gloriacolonnello@yahoo.it
New York
212 539 8415
gloriacolonnello@yahoo.it
Sissel Egeland
Florida Support
312-277-8780 Fax US
47 ( for Norway) 98622499
sissel@floridasupport.us
Florida Support
312-277-8780 Fax US
47 ( for Norway) 98622499
sissel@floridasupport.us
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment