[Ppnews] George Wright, a Murderer? A closer look at the Plea-Bargaining aspect of the US Judicial System

[Political Prisoner News]

George Wright, a Murderer?

A closer look at the Plea-Bargaining aspect of the US Judicial System

George Pumphrey, Berlin, Germany
December 4, 2011

Many news articles had an aura of the 
"spectacular" in their reporting on Portugal's 
arrest of the Portuguese citizen, Jose Luis Jorge 
Dos Santos (George Wright), at the request of the 
US government for consideration of his 
extradition to the United States. The articles 
placed their accent on the arrest of a "convicted 
murderer," who had been a fugitive for 41 years.

Portuguese police arrested Jose Luis Jorge Dos 
Santos, earlier known as George Wright, September 
26, 2011. In 1970, after serving eight of a 15 – 
30 year sentence, Wright, along with three other 
inmates escaped from the Bayside minimum security 
prison facility in Leesburg N.J. According to the 
media, US officials are allegedly seeking to have 
Wright return "to serve the remainder of a 15- to 
30-year jail sentence for the killing of Walter 
Patterson,"[1] during a 1962 gas station hold-up 
in New Jersey. (One must add "allegedly," because 
the media quotes no specific US official alleging 
that this is the sole or even the main reason for their seeking his return.)

In 1972, Wright, and 4 other Afro-American 
(taking along 3 children), hijacked a Delta 
Airlines flight from the USA to Algeria with a 
ransom of $1,000,000 destined for the foreign 
section of the Black Panther Party, based in 
Algiers at the time. Wrights 4 companions were 
arrested in Paris in 1976 based on a US 
extradition demand for their hijacking. France 
refused extradition that same year, recognizing 
that their hijacking had been a politically 
motivated act in the struggle against US racism. 
Having refused to extradite them, France, in 
accordance with an international treaty, was 
compelled to try them in a French court, even 
though the hijacking had nothing to do with 
French jurisdiction. In 1978, they were tried and convicted of the hijacking.

One could speculate that the US government is 
insinuating merely wanting Wright to finish his 
sentence for murder, because to demand 
extradition for the hijacking, the real reason, 
would pose legal difficulties, since an EU member 
state has already refused extradition for that 
same act, judging it was politically motivated in 
the struggle against racist oppression.

November 17, 2011, the Portuguese court of 
appeals refused extradition because Jorge Dos 
Santos is a Portuguese citizen and because the 
crime, for which the US is asking his 
extradition, has long since surpassed the statute 
of limitations. November 29, 2011, the US government appealed that decision.

Given the fact that the US government puts 
forward the claim of wanting George Wright back 
because of the murder conviction, it would be 
worthwhile examining this conviction. Does one 
have to kill someone to become a "convicted murderer" in the USA?

Is George Wright a Murderer?

Wright has often been referred to as a "convicted 
murderer," leading many – both Europeans and 
US-Americans – (understandably) to believe that 
George Wright had taken someone's life. This is 
even more understandable, when the source of this information is considered.

FBI Special Agent, Bryan L. Travers, announcing 
Wrights arrest, wrote in his press release (September 27, 2011) that

"On November 23, 1962, George Wright and three 
associates were involved in the commission of 
multiple armed robberies. During the second of 
these robberies, Wright and an associate shot and 
killed Walter Patterson, a World War II veteran 
and Bronze Star recipient, during the robbery of 
the Collingswood Esso gas station in Wall, New Jersey."[2]

The FBI special agent goes on to explain that:

Wright was arrested two days later and was 
indicted on state charges along with his 
associates on December 13, 1962. On February 15, 
1963, Wright entered a plea of “no defense” to 
the charge of murder. Wright was subsequently 
sentenced to 15 to 30 years’ incarceration.[3]

For those, unfamiliar with the US penal system, a 
translation of the background of these allegations becomes necessary.

Special Agent Travers writes that "Wright AND an 
associate shot and killed Walter Patterson."

This stands in blatant contradiction to press 
reports from other sources in New Jersey – the 
state where Special Agent Travers works. The 
Newark-based Star-Ledger journal, having the 
largest circulation in the state writes:

"One of [the robbers], Walter McGhee, had a 
revolver, according to police records. McGhee 
fired two shots at Patterson and ran off with 
$70. (...) McGhee was sentenced to life in 
prison. Wright, as one of the holdup men, was 
also charged with murder. He changed his plea 
from innocent to no defense to evade a jury trial 
that could have resulted in the death penalty if 
he were found guilty, according to news accounts. 
Wright, at age 19, was sentenced to 15 to 30 
years in prison, where he served time until his escape in 1970."[4]

The Neptune N.J.-based "Asbury Park Press" daily, 
with the third largest statewide circulation, 
which holds "numerous national honors in 
journalism, including the Selden Ring Award for 
Investigative Reporting,"[5] adds these significant details:

Wright, armed with a sawed-off 22- caliber rifle, 
and McGhee, armed with a 32-caliber pistol, were 
both wearing women’s pantyhose over their faces 
when they assaulted Patterson and fired at least 
one shot during the robbery. Patterson was shot 
once in the abdomen before the four got away with 
$70 in cash. Police later determined it was a 
shot from McGhee’s pistol that led to Patterson’s death.[6]

Therefore "according to police reports" even 
though Wright had been armed and had participated 
in the holdup, "police (...) determined" it had 
been McGhee, not Wright, who had fired the fatal 
shot; a nuance that was probably not lost on the FBI.

The FBI must have had access to these police 
records. Yet, the FBI deliberately falsified its 
version of events to the public, seeking to place 
the fatal weapon in George Wright's hand, to make 
him appear dangerous. This has nothing to do with 
criminology. This is a criminal "manipulation of evidence."

The FBI, banking on the authority of the bureau’s 
reputation, spread this falsified version to the 
press, with a degree of success.

Whereas most media organs referred to Wright as a 
"convicted murderer," the NY Times, for example, 
in its early article on Wright's arrest, went further to conclude:

"In 1962, Mr. Wright was involved in a string of 
armed robberies. During one of them, at a gas 
station in Monmouth County, N.J., Mr. Wright shot 
and killed the owner, Walter Patterson (...)."[7]

When asked for the source of this information, 
the author responded, "That information came from the FBI."[8]

Several television newscasts – available on 
internet – illustrate the background of the story 
of Wright's arrest in Portugal with a 
trick-drawing animated film produced by Next 
Media News Direct.[9] This animation depicts 
Wright with another male robbing a gas station. 
The animation falsely suggests 1) that of the two 
robbers, Wright is the only one armed and 2) he 
is depicted firing 2 shots before fleeing with his partner.

When asked about the basis for these allegations, 
one of the persons responsible for the group producing the film responded:

“Please see NYT 27 Sept story of where. Mr. 
Wright shot and killed Walter Patterson. After 
that story a simple nexis search or google has 
examples from Gannett, CBS.”[10]

Still another illustration used in newscasts[11] 
of unknown origin, consists of a “doctored” 
presentation of a newspaper clipping, published a 
few days after the 1962 holdup. The article is 
entitled, ""Holdup Victim Dies, Four Suspects 
Held," the journal and date are unknown. A 
portion of the article is shown as a blurred 
background, with portions of sentences legibly 
superimposed in relief. The texts in relief 
contain the words/phrases "bullet," "gunmen 
fired" and "2 caliber pistol." The first digit of 
the caliber is still off-screen when the scene 
changes. The text of the article in the 
background obviously expresses that a bullet from 
a .32 cal. pistol killed the victim. [12]

As shown above, police records – also at the 
disposal of the FBI – explain that a bullet from 
a .32 cal. pistol killed the victim, and that 
George Wright was carrying a sawed-off 22. 
caliber rifle. Would the news broadcaster have an 
interest in fabricating this disinformation? 
Would the broadcaster know – or even care – about 
these details of such a cold case? Would it not 
be more plausible that the FBI contracted this illustration?

Plea[-Bargain] of "No Defense"

Another aspect that may be particularly alien to 
European observers of the US system – though it 
is now beginning to take root also in Europe[13] 
– is the question of plea-bargaining.

George Wright was convicted of a killing that 
police, prosecutor, defense counsel and judge all 
knew that not he, but someone else, had 
committed. Whereas the FBI press release merely 
states, "Wright entered a plea of 'no defense' to 
the charge of murder," the journalists, quoted above, say why.

McGhee, who had fired the fatal shot, was 
sentenced to life in prison. Wright, charged with 
this same killing, was forced to change his plea 
from "innocent" to "no defense," – meaning he 
will not defend himself against the charge.

Under US law, if during the commission of a 
lesser crime – in this case robbery – a more 
serious crime occurs – for example a killing – 
the participants in the lesser crime can also all 
be charged with the more serious violation. This 
holds true even though it is clear that not each 
participant was personally involved in the 
commission of the more serious act. This is an 
indication of the subordinate role played by the 
question of PERSONAL guilt and innocence in US judicial proceedings.

The prosecutor, having also charged Wright with 
murder, put him under pressure to obtain another 
quick conviction for this serious crime. But 
Wright insisted on his innocence, which meant he had a right to a jury trial.

The main actors in the judicial process dislike 
jury trials, because they entail much time and 
hard work for the prosecution, defense, and judge 
to prepare the case to reach a conviction. 
Conviction, not justice is the objective – 
regardless of the degree of the defendant's guilt.

Therefore, Wright, having no means to hire his 
own lawyer, had to also to rely on the services 
of a court appointed attorney or a public 
defender. These are usually inexperienced, 
underpaid and most important, very often 
indifferent to the fate of those they represent 
in these cases. Not being particularly interested 
in taking the case to trial, the court appointed 
lawyer would also probably advise his/her client 
to take a "plea bargain", meaning one of the 
versions of not contesting the charges, SO THAT 
the judge can pronounce the defendant guilty, 
without having to go through the "normal" jury 
trial procedure of examining the state's evidence.

Wright was caught in the mills of what is known 
as the "plea-bargaining" system. Jessica Mitford, 
in her very good dissection of the US penal 
system, "The American Prison Business" describes 
the plea-bargaining mechanism:

"Those who have the temerity to proclaim their 
innocence of the crime with which they are 
charged and to demand a trial will, if convicted, 
serve more than twice as long a sentence as those 
who 'cop a plea' of guilty. (...) Over 90% of all 
criminal cases are dealt out through the 
plea-bargaining process; judges say that if every 
accused or even a majority were granted a trial, 
the criminal courts would become so hopelessly 
clogged they would soon grind to a halt. (...) As 
characterized by one public defender, 
plea-bargaining is 'trial by trick and deceit.' 
In a typical plea-bargaining situation, the 
prosecutor will pile on felony charges, 
regardless of whether he has evidence to support 
them, in order to pose the threat of long years 
in the penitentiary should the accused put the 
state to expense and trouble of a trial and be found guilty."[14]

The press reports, "Wright said he entered the 
plea only to avoid the death penalty or a life 
sentence."[15] If he were found guilty by a jury, 
chances are very good, he would have received the death penalty.

McGhee, the triggerman, was sentenced in February 
1963, to a life prison term [at the time, meaning 
usually about 20 years] but was paroled in August 
1977. Wright insisted that he never fired a shot 
in the holdup and pleaded ”no defense” to the 
murder charge because his lawyer advised him to 
do so to avoid the death penalty.[16] Wright was 
given 15 – 30 years – a maximum sentence 1.5 
times longer than McGhee's. Evidently feeling 
tricked, Wright sought to appeal this conviction 
to have a full trial. After the judge rejected 
this appeal attempt, Wright was sent to the New Jersey State Prison.[17]

A "plea bargain" in fact boils down to an 
official extortion of a "guilty" plea from a 
defendant, regardless of his/her innocence, in 
exchange for a promised – but not always kept – specific sentence.

The US government's justification for 
plea-bargaining is that it speeds up the judicial 
process – from arrest to imprisonment. The 
government has an additional advantage with the 
plea-bargaining system. It provides judges extraordinary arbitrary powers.

"This is how (Soledad Brother) George Jackson was 
put in prison for a crime he had not committed. 
He 'copped a plea' hoping to get at least less 
and ended up with a sentence of 1 year to life. 
He had served 10 years in prison for supposedly 
having stolen 70 dollars, when he was assassinated in a racist conspiracy.

"There is one snag in the whole plea-bargaining 
deal: once you plead guilty, you cannot appeal 
your case or change your plea to not-guilty. One 
becomes a "felon" for life. "[18]

Former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, 
Paul Craig Roberts,[19] explains:

"In the US the wrongful conviction rate is 
extremely high. One reason is that hardly any of 
the convicted have had a jury trial. No peers 
have heard the evidence against them and found 
them guilty. In the US criminal justice (sic) 
system, more than 95% of all felony cases are settled with a plea bargain."

And warns:

"Before jumping to the conclusion that an 
innocent person would not admit guilt, be aware 
of how the process works. Any defendant who 
stands trial faces more severe penalties, if 
found guilty, than if he agrees to a plea 
bargain. Prosecutors don’t like trials because 
they are time consuming and a lot of work. To 
discourage trials, prosecutors offer defendants 
reduced charges and lighter sentences than would 
result from a jury conviction. In the event a 
defendant insists upon his innocence, prosecutors 
pile on charges until the defendant’s lawyer and 
family convince the defendant that a jury is 
likely to give the prosecutor a conviction on at 
least one of the many charges and that the 
penalty will be greater than a negotiated plea."[20]

Given the presumption of innocence,[21] in fact 
and in principle, these more than 95% of the 
inmates in US prisons are innocent! Their guilt 
has not been proven – beyond a reasonable doubt – 
in a trial. They had been blackmailed and/or 
tricked into a guilty plea – regardless of the 
degree of their guilt or innocence for the crime for which they were charged.

The theory behind plea-bargaining is that "the 
confession of the defendant is considered solving 
the conflict and rendering the judicial procedure 
(particularly the analysis of the evidence) 
superfluous. This is why as soon as there is a 
confession, the judge pronounces the sentence'."[22]

Plea bargaining has robbed the criminal justice 
system of its middle name. With plea-bargaining, 
the question of personal guilt and innocence – 
the prerequisite sine qua non for JUSTICE – no 
longer plays any role. Through the 
plea-bargaining technique, the government 
mass-produces convictions. For many, the 
assumption is that "they are obviously guilty." 
For some it is obvious because they were 
"convicted." And for others because "no one would 
plead guilty if they were not."

As one observer noted: "And when, as part of a 
plea bargain, innocent people confess to a crime 
they did not commit, that isn't a breakdown of 
the system. It is the system working exactly as 
it is supposed to. If you're the suspect, 
sometimes this means agreeing with the prosecutor 
that you will confess to jaywalking when you're 
really guilty of armed robbery. Sometimes, 
though, it means confessing to armed robbery when 
you're not guilty of anything at all."[23]

In addition, as the FBI demonstrates above, 
official propaganda can always conjure up a 
"murderer" by pointing to his "conviction." This 
is how George Wright became a "convicted 
murderer" without having killed anyone.


Official Lynching

Throughout US history, lynching has played an 
important role as part of the justice system. 
 From the witch-hunts in colonial New England to 
the racist lynchings during and since slavery, to 
the Wild West lynchings, there has always been a 
particular identification with vigilante "justice."

In every US courtroom today, there are 
recurrences of the lynch mob mentality, often 
deliberately provoked by the prosecution and/or 
judge in jury trials. One famous example is that 
of the racist, fascist Philadelphia judge Albert 
F. Sabo, who had presided in the case against the 
Afro-American journalist and activist, Mumia Abu 
Jamal, as well as many of his appeal hearings. 
During the period of the Abu Jamal trial, he was 
overheard telling someone, "Yeah, and I'm going 
to help them fry the nigger." He sentenced Mumia Abu Jamal to death.

An often-used method of agitating a lynch mob is 
known as "waving the bloody shirt." This is the 
use of the demagogy of appealing to the mob to 
"avenge the victim" (and/or the victim's family). 
This is a call for vengeance aimed at eclipsing 
rationality and demands for justice. The name 
refers back to the agitator repeatedly brandishes 
a blood-stained garment, thought to have belonged 
the victim (but any blood-stained rag will do) to whip the mob into a frenzy.

In the Dos Santos case, the FBI has been waving 
two “bloody shirts.” The first is that of the US 
flag, by constantly mentioning that the victim, 
Walter Patterson, had been a decorated WW II 
veteran, a fact of absolutely no relevance to the 
case. But this "shirt" serves to suggest that the 
pursuit of Dos Santos – clearly innocent of 
Patterson's death – is a “patriotic duty,” even a 
"national priority." A question that comes to 
mind is whether the US authorities had felt this 
sense of obligation toward Walter Patterson, and 
other decorated veterans while they are still 
alive, and if so how was it demonstrated?

The second "bloody shirt" method consists of 
having convinced the victim's daughter, Ann 
Patterson to crusade in the media for Wright's 
return, based on the FBI's falsification of 
Wright having been her father’s assassin.

This particular "bloody shirt" method is widely 
used by prosecutors and police throughout the country.

It would be somewhat understandable that someone 
who has lost a loved one to a crime, would want 
to see the perpetrator justly punished. But it 
crosses the border to become a lynching, when 
that family member campaigns for the "punishment" 
of someone they either know to be innocent or 
where there is hard evidence leaving serious 
doubt about the guilt of the accused.

Ann Patterson has certainly crossed that border.

In an article dedicated to Ann Patterson's 
crusade,[24] published just one week after Dos 
Santos was arrested in Portugal, she is quoted:

"After hearing an FBI agent tell her 'Ann, we got 
him,' Patterson said she [sic] a lot of jumbled 
up emotions but a little piece of mind, too.

”'Now we have a chance to have justice for 
Daddy,' Patterson said. 'Daddy didn’t get any 
justice and he (Wright) was out living a good 
life while he took Daddy’s life away from him.'

”'It was like a burden was lifted,' Patterson said."

In the same article, one reads also that:

"Wright, armed with a sawed-off .22-caliber 
rifle, and McGhee, armed with a .32-caliber 
pistol, were both wearing women’s pantyhose over 
their faces when they assaulted Patterson and 
fired at least one shot during the robbery.

"Patterson was shot once in the abdomen before 
the four got away with $70 in cash. Police later 
determined it was a shot from McGhee’s pistol 
that led to Patterson’s death."[25]

The article returns to Ms Patterson and other family members:

"(...) And with Wright back behind bars, [in 
Portugal, awaiting the extradition decision] 
Walter Patterson’s family is focusing on seeing justice served.

”'He [Wright] needs to come back here and pay his 
debt to society. He’s had a good life for the 
past 40 years, but he took away about half of my 
father’s life. He owes this state between eight 
and 22 years on that sentence, and I’m sure he 
owes more for everything else,' Ann Patterson said.

”'I want the justice system to do its job and put 
him back in that jail,' Phil Patterson said.  'I 
want him back in jail with some extra time for the escape.'

”'God may forgive him but I never will,' Phil Patterson added."

And provides a key indication:

(...) Wright and McGhee were each charged in 
Walter Patterson’s murder. McGhee, as the 
triggerman, was sentenced to a life prison term 
in February 1963, but was paroled in August 1977. 
Wright escaped from prison on Aug. 22, 1970, 
after serving only 7 years and 6 months of his sentence."[26]

One could grant Ann and Phil Patterson the 
benefit of the doubt. They may not have known the 
information from police records on the case 
published in their state's most popular journal 
(quoted above). But one can be sure that they 
read their own interview, and therefore, also the 
information concerning McGhee rather than Wright 
being the "triggerman." It may not have been 
known at the time of their October 1 interview 
with the journal. But that is the extent of the doubt.

Ms Patterson has not changed a single point in 
her crusade against George Wright / Jose Luis 
Jorge Dos Santos since publication of this 
full-page article. She consistently, at every 
stage of the development in the case, has 
rejected any indication that George Wright was 
NOT the person who shot her father.

Once the victim's family members go public, the 
danger arises that they can skid into a personal 
obligation to continue insisting in the media how 
painful the loss of that loved one is. This leads 
to a hypocritical spectacle to justify seeking 
the "punishment" of the innocent, while knowing 
full well that the guilty party has long since 
paid for his crime and been released from prison.

In an interview with the International Herald Tribune, we read:

"Mr. Wright insisted that he had never killed 
anybody, despite being convicted for taking part 
in the 1962 killing of a gas station owner, 
Walter Patterson, during a botched armed robbery 
in Monmouth County, New Jersey. He said that the 
armed attack was his first crime and that he had 
decided to join two others in the robbery only 
because he was desperate for money. 'It was just 
a robbery that went wrong,' he said, adding that 
one of the other men had pulled the trigger. 
Furthermore, he said, 'the gun went off in a struggle.'"[27]

The New York Times version of this same interview 
adds, "on Friday, Ann Patterson, the daughter of 
the man Mr. Wright shot [sic] in 1962, declined 
to discuss Mr. Wright’s version of the robbery."[28]

After the Portuguese court's decision refusing 
extradition, Ann Patterson declared in an email 
that: "she hopes U.S. officials will appeal the 
case and insisted that the extradition attempt 
'has not all been done for nothing. The entire 
world now knows what this man did,' said 
Patterson, who has repeatedly expressed disbelief 
at Wright's contention that he never opened fire."[29]

After the US government announced its going on 
appeal, Ms Patterson again stated her position: 
"Ann Patterson (...) said that she was pleased 
American authorities had appealed and hoped it would be successful."[30]

"Members of Patterson’s family have said there 
can be no statue of limitation on a conviction, 
while also noting that Wright has never been 
brought to trial for his alleged involvement in 
the 1972 hijacking. To get their concerns heard, 
Ann Patterson, Walter’s daughter, is scheduled to 
meet with representatives of [Congressional] 
Representative Chris Smith (R-4th Dist.) on 
Monday. They are also reaching out to other 
politicians to put more pressure on the U.S. 
government in its dealings with Portugal. A 
petition has also been set up by family members 
on the website <http://change.org>change.org, 
with signatures calling for the Portuguese 
government to extradite Wright to the United States.[31]

In other words, she is politicizing a question of 
justice, to create a "national issue" and thereby 
insinuating a "national duty."

This single-mindedness goes far beyond her 
father's fate. The man responsible for her 
father's death has long-since paid his debt to 
society – which includes to the Pattersons – and 
was released on parole. Wright does not become 
"guilty" merely because of the injustice in the 
US penal system. The Pattersons are but a recent 
example of family "bloody shirt" wavers.

Nowhere is this family "bloody shirt" crusade 
more prevalent than in cases involving the death 
penalty. In nearly every courtroom where there is 
a possibility that the death sentence could be 
issued, or in the audience room of the execution 
chambers where a condemned is about to be killed, 
one often finds the family members "seeking 
relief." The prosecution and police usually instigate this.

Perhaps the best known case of a lynching crusade 
is that of Maureen Faulkner in the case of Mumia 
Abu Jamal. Jamal was convicted of the murder of 
Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner and 
sentenced to death in a highly political case. 
Maureen Faulkner, wife of the deceased, has 
become the figurehead of the campaign by the 
rightwing "Fraternal Order of Police" and other 
pro-death penalty advocates to execute Mumia Abu 
Jamal, a prolific and internationally widely read author and journalist.

A large amount of evidence indicating police and 
prosecution tampering with evidence and coercion 
of witnesses to obtain a conviction and the death 
penalty have been exposed to the public. In 
addition the partiality and racism of the 
presiding judge, Albert Sabo, mentioned above, is a fact of record.

In the film "Deadline," a documentary about the 
process leading to former Illinois Governor 
George Ryan's decision to commute the death 
sentences of the state's death row inmates to 
life in prison without parole, attorney and 
author Scott Turow sheds insight into this method 
of "waving the bloody shirt" in criminal trials;

"The fact of the matter is that the crime was 
committed against the community as a whole. 
Community values generally end up prevailing. And 
to a great extent, prosecutors trot out the 
victims, when they want to justify the death 
sentences. And they ignore them when they don't 
want to impose the death sentence.

"I'm not criticizing anybody for what their 
emotional needs are. But, does that make sense in 
a democracy, where we are supposed to treat like 
cases alike, where you're going to have equality 
under the law? Where it is one family's view of 
justice vs. another. [Is] that how you are going 
to decide whose living and dying?" [32]

A feeling of social obligation toward the 
victim's family, for their 'suffering' from the 
loss of their loved one, is supposed to become 
the justification for the injustice of 
"punishing" someone innocent. It is treated as a 
"personal affront" to the family, to dare demand 
equality before the law, or justice for the accused.

As Prof. Bryan Stevenson, of New York University 
and Executive Director of the Equal Justice 
Initiative in Montgomery, Alabama explains:

"Its an exploitation of the victims, to try to 
create a system where if you really loved your 
husband, you loved your child, you've got to get 
into the criminal court and fight for the death 
penalty. Because the death penalty becomes the 
"blue ribbon" of how much you really cared about 
your loved one, about how valuable their life was."[33]

The Role of the Death Penalty

The US penal system is built around 
plea-bargaining. As was stated above, without a 
plea-bargaining solution to the overwhelming 
majority of cases, the system would "grind to a 
halt" with the overload of trials.

On the other hand, the system of plea-bargaining 
is, to a certain extent, also dependent on the 
death penalty – more precisely on the execution 
of defendants, who are innocent of the charges 
they are convicted of. This forms the basis of 
credibility for the threat used to coerce the 
suspect into accepting a plea-bargain – to escape 
being found guilty by a jury and being eventually condemned to death.

Wright, like most other first-time offenders, did 
not understand what was happening. What he was 
experiencing corresponded to nothing he had ever 
heard or read concerning how a "justice system" 
was supposed to function. However, one thing he 
had understood was that police and prosecution 
would use every means available to have a jury 
pronounce him guilty, if he continues to uphold 
his plea of innocence. And if that happens at the 
end of a jury trial, that could bring him the 
death penalty. As mentioned above, "Wright 
insisted (...) that he never fired a shot in the 
holdup and pleaded ”no defense” to the murder 
charge because his lawyer advised him to do so to avoid the death penalty."[34]

This explains why so many of the executed in the 
USA go to their deaths still insisting on their innocence.

For a recent example, September 21, 2011, despite 
pleas for clemency from around the world, 
including from the European Parliament, the 
Council of Europe and the Pope, the state of 
Georgia executed Troy Anthony Davis for a murder, 
he had obviously not committed. Seven of the nine 
witnesses against him had retracted and recanted 
their testimonies, declaring in written 
statements that police and prosecution had 
coerced them into a false accusation of Davis in 
court. One of the two witnesses, who had not 
recanted, is the most likely murder suspect. It 
was he who had placed the original blame on 
Davis, to save himself. Nevertheless, the US 
Supreme Court had long since ruled against 
admitting new exonerating evidence in court. This 
not only could have resulted in Davis being 
liberated, but possibly in bringing the real culprit to trial.[35]

Davis, strapped to the gurney for execution, 
issued his final statement. He began by 
addressing the family members of Mark MacPhail:

"Well, first of all I'd like to address the 
MacPhail family. I'd like to let you all know 
that despite the situation -- I know all of you 
still are convinced that I'm the person that 
killed your father, your son and your brother, 
but I am innocent. The incidents that happened 
that night was not my fault. I did not have a gun 
that night. I did not shoot your family member.

"But I am so sorry for your loss. I really am -- sincerely.

"All that I can ask is that each of you look 
deeper into this case, so that you really will 
finally see the truth. (...)"[36]

After the execution, members of the MacPhail 
family were quoted saying that now they can find 
peace. They have been indifferent to all the 
evidence that has been uncovered placing Troy 
Davis' guilt into question. They, like Ms 
Patterson mentioned above, are obviously 
indifferent to what really led to the death of 
their family member. To claim that they still 
blindly believe that Troy Davis was the murderer, 
is but a threadbare justification for complicity in his pre-meditated murder.

These examples and the many others like them, 
show that these are not "mistakes." The role of 
the US penal system is not to catch criminals, 
but to criminalize the innocent. Not only does 
the system do everything in its power to convict 
innocent people, it continues its efforts by 
blocking the convicts' access to exonerating 
evidence that could lead to overturning the conviction.

Hank Skinner, a Texas death row inmate, recently 
had to race the clock. He had successfully sued 
for the right to have the police and prosecutor's 
evidence against him examined for DNA. He is sure 
that the results will exonerate him from the 
charge of murder. These pieces of evidence had 
never been forensically examined.

Although the US Supreme Court had recognized his 
right to have the evidence examined, it took an 
international protest to have the execution date 
postponed to allow an examination of the evidence – while he is still alive.

(As in other known cases, this is also no 
guarantee that the police and/or prosecutor's 
office will not manipulate the evidence once 
again to have their guilty verdict confirmed in 
the DNA test. This happened in the case of Roger 
Keith Coleman in Virginia. Executed BEFORE his 
evidence could be analyzed, the police falsified 
the "evidence" it gave to the lab, resulting in a 
positive DNA match to Coleman. But it soon became 
clear that the "evidence" they had furnished was 
not the evidence from the case.

  [37] This particular manipulation of evidence 
was publicly exposed. How many others were not?)

All of these reasons show why prosecutors and 
police in the USA so vehemently resist prisoners' 
access to DNA analysis of evidence, or why over 
the years, courts have systematically restricted 
possibilities for appeal and the introduction of 
newly found exonerating evidence.

In January 1993 the US Supreme Court ruled by a 
vote of six to three in Herrera vs. Collins that 
"neither federal nor Texas courts were required 
to hear evidence purporting to prove that Leonel 
Herrera was innocent. Under Texas law, 
post-conviction evidence must be filed within 
thirty days of the end of the trial, but the 
evidence Herrera's attorneys believe would have 
acquitted him was not available to him until 
eight years later. Chief Justice William 
Rehnquist, writing for the court, declared: [W]e 
cannot say that Texas' refusal to entertain 
petitioner's newly discovered evidence eight 
years after his conviction transgresses a 
principle of fundamental fairness."[38]

This ruling in fact declared that executing 
innocent prisoners is constitutional. It reduces 
the function of courts to administering laws, rather than dispensing justice.

Elastic Sentences – Plea-Bargain No. 2

Whereas Walter McGhee was sentenced to life in 
prison (roughly 20 years), George Wright was 
sentenced to an elastic 15 to 30 year prison 
sentence. Elastic sentences have provoked much 
curiosity about the functioning of US "justice.

Criminal cases elsewhere usually have a limited 
range of penalties for a particular crime. 
Theoretically, this applies regardless of who is 
found guilty of that particular crime. There are 
variations, but arbitrary penalties stretching 
from a minimum to a maximum, such as those in the 
US are very rarely found elsewhere.

In the Wright case, one could theoretically 
assume that his minimum sentence – 15 years – was 
the sentence for murder, to which he pleaded "no 
defense." The second 15 years – judging from 
other cases – is the time he was given to accept the fact that he was "guilty."

George Wright was coerced into waiving his rights 
of innocence – which would have forced the state 
to prove his guilt. The judge's pronouncement of 
his "guilt" and the accompanying sentence do not 
change the facts of the case: Wright had not 
fired the fatal shot. He remains innocent of 
murder. Wright was given a "day in court" but was refused a trial.

The second 15 years, of the 15 – 30 year sentence 
constitute, in effect, a second round of official 
coercion, a second plea-bargain. The state wanted 
a second "guilty" plea. Wright would have begun 
appearing before the parole board, where he would 
have been asked if he "recognizes" his guilt. If 
he would have answered "no" or if his "yes" would 
not have been too convincing, he would have been 
deemed "not yet rehabilitated" and told to come 
back and try again next year. As long as Wright 
would have insisted on his innocence, he would 
have remained in prison. Year after year, the 
authorities would have dangled this deal before his eyes.

The prisoner is being forced to proclaim the 
"infallibility" of the US court system.

The case of former Black Panther, Veronza Bowers 
Jr., convicted of the murder of a park police 
officer, based on testimony of two government 
informants, provides a very vivid example.

Bowers had been given a life sentence. He is 
currently held in an Atlanta, Georgia prison. 
Having maintained his innocence, he has been 
consistently denied parole throughout his 
sentence. Bowers served every single day of his 
maximum sentence. When his mandatory release 
date[39] arrived he was informed, "you won't be 
leaving tomorrow." A telephone call had arrived 
at the prison from the National Parole Commission 
in Washington D.C. – on orders from then 
incumbent Sec. of Justice, Gonzales – informing 
the warden that Bowers should not be released. Bowers recounts:

"After 30 years of being denied release on 
parole, despite the fact that your conduct has 
been exemplary for over 20 years and you have 
long since met the criteria to be released on 
parole, finally your mandatory release date rolls around."[40]

His mandatory release date was April 7, 2004. Ten 
months later, in Feb. 2005, his parole was again 
postponed to allow relatives of the person, he 
was supposed to have killed, the opportunity to 
oppose his being released on parole. Parole was again denied in December 2005.

One observer explains: "At the expense of having 
his parole appeals denied, Bowers consistently 
maintains his innocence. Friends and supporters 
stand with him and offer testimony in his behalf. 
One is from Maynard Garfield.

"[Garfield] is treasurer of the Veronza Bowers, 
Jr. legal defense fund. (...) Garfield said: 'I 
have pleaded with him. Just tell them: 'I was 
young and did wrong. But I have found my way. I 
am a born-again Christian. I have found salvation.' "

"Bowers responds: "'Don't you understand. I have 
been here for 35 years. If the only way I can get 
out is to lie and say I am guilty, then my whole 
life is a sham. I will rot here in prison before I will do that'.

"According to Garfield, rot he may without considerable help." [41]

Veronza Bowers Jr. is today still – seven years 
later – in prison, without charges and without a 
date of release. Neither Bowers nor his case is 
well known, which is why he is being arbitrarily held.[42]

The public is rarely made aware of how many 
people are imprisoned for crimes they had not 
committed. This aspect of the US penal system 
most often reaches public attention in final hour 
death row cases. Even in these cases, this is 
most often considered an individual "mistake" in 
the justice system. The question of the innocence 
of the prisoner often becomes either a reason for 
the demand of a reprieve from execution or 
expressed as a reason for denying a reprieve.

In 2005, for example, California Gov. Arnold 
Schwarzenegger reiterated several times in his 
clemency denial statement for Stanley "Tookie" 
Williams that Williams' refusal to admit his 
guilt meant he had not been redeemed, and 
therefore should be executed as planned. Schwarzenegger declared:

"(...) Williams protests that he has no reason to 
apologize for these murders because he did not 
commit them. (...) Stanley Williams insists he is 
innocent, and that he will not and should not 
apologize or otherwise atone for the murders of 
the four victims in this case. Without an apology 
and atonement for these senseless and brutal 
killings there can be no redemption. In this 
case, the one thing that would be the clearest 
indication of complete remorse and full 
redemption is the one thing Williams will not do."

Stanley Williams had already answered the point 
about an apology. In an interview, conducted by 
Phil Gasper, professor of philosophy at Notre 
Dame de Namur Univ. in California, he answered the question:

"The media has made much of the fact that you 
have never apologized to the murder victims’ 
families in your case--you’ve said that you would 
rather die than lie about something you didn’t 
do. Do you have anything you would like to say to the victims’ families?"

Answer: If I had the opportunity to talk to any 
victims’ family members, I would say that I can 
empathize and I sympathize with their loss of a 
loved one. I would say the same thing to anyone who has lost a loved one.

However, in regards to me apologizing, it would 
be wrong of me to apologize for something I 
didn’t do. I didn’t commit those crimes. I’ve 
been averring my innocence since day one, and it 
is the truth. So I cannot apologize for something I didn’t do.

It would be wrong of me. It would be a coward’s 
act. I would be craven to proclaim guilt for 
something I didn’t do. And that’s why I say that 
I’d rather just go on and die than to lie about 
something that is so untrue.[43]

Clemency denied, Williams was assassinated, Dec. 13, 2005.

A commentator of the above mentioned Troy Davis 
case, recently encapsulated the problem in a nutshell:

If [Troy] Davis were not confronting execution, 
but instead had been convicted and sentenced to 
life imprisonment without parole by his trial 
jury, the simple truth is that he would be just 
another nameless, faceless prisoner among the 
thousands upon thousands who have been convicted 
of crimes and incarcerated notwithstanding colorable claims of innocence.

(...) But if wrongful convictions occur in cases 
that result in the death penalty, as they 
undoubtedly do, then they occur exponentially 
more often and for all of the same reasons in the 
untold number of cases not resulting in the death 
penalty -- ones that are met with a collective 
yawn or shrug of the shoulders by policymakers 
who are in a position to make meaningful systemic reforms.[44]

No other country in the world – not even China, 
four times more populous – has as many prisoners 
as the USA. There are 750 prisoners per 100,000 
people in the U.S. — the highest incarceration 
rate in the world.[45] As the social scientist 
Glenn C. Loury pointed out, with 5 percent of the 
world’s population, the United States imprisons 
25 percent of all humans behind bars.[46] And 
according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
violent crime rates fell in the 20 years from 
1987 to 2007, by 25 percent,[47] while during 
those same 20 years, the rate of incarcerations nearly tripled.[48]

This is not coincidence, this is policy.

The case of Jose Luis Jorge Dos Santos/George 
Wright provides a very good example of just how 
alien criminology is to the judicial process in 
the USA. Solving crimes and punishing 
perpetrators – and only the guilty – has long 
since ceased to be the objective.

Most police, prosecution, judges, prison 
officials and defense attorneys in penal cases 
are not interested in finding and punishing the 
guilty – they are not interested in justice. They 
are interested in sending the poor to prison, to 
stigmatize them as "felons" for the rest of their 
lives. Beginning with criminological incompetence 
and criminal manipulation of evidence, extortion 
of "confessions" or a plea before and during the 
hearing and the post-sentencing extortion of a 
supplementary recognition of "guilt" through 
elastic prison sentences, all show that this is 
not only systematic, it is systemic.

In the USA there is no "criminal justice system." 
The judicial process is itself the crime. It is 
an officially sanctioned criminal enterprise of 
mass kidnapping, hostage taking and murder. This 
explains the disparity between falling crime 
rates and rising incarceration rates.

Jose Luis Jorge Dos Santos is no longer George 
Wright. The metamorphosis was a complicated one. 
As one journalist neatly summarized it:

The tale of Wright's life on the run spans 41 
years and three continents. It starts in New 
Jersey with a prison break, moves to Algeria on 
the hijacked plane, to Paris where he lived 
underground, to Lisbon where he fell in love, to 
the tiny West African nation of Guinea-Bissau — 
and finally to an idyllic Portuguese seaside 
village, where he built a life as a respected family man.[49]

If the purpose of justice is to find and punish 
the guilty, but then to rehabilitate and reinsert 
the transgressor into the mainstream of society, 
one could clearly answer the question posed by 
the International Herald Tribune in the title of 
its interview with Dos Santos, is he a "Criminal 
or 'role model of rehabilitation'?[50]" with an affirmation of the latter.

The Portuguese court's decision not to turn over 
its citizen, Jose Luis Jorge Dos Santos, to the 
arbitrary penal system of the USA was the only 
verdict in the interests of JUSTICE the court 
could have reached. This verdict coincides with a 
similar verdict handed down by a French court in 
1976, concerning George Wright's 4 companions in the 1972 hijacking.

It can only be hoped that Portugal will continue 
to maintain its decision to uphold JUSTICE.

December 4, 2011



[1]   Considine, Bob, "Daughter of man killed by 
captured fugitive says she is 'numb' that George 
Wright won't be extradited to U.S.," The 
Star-Ledger, November 17, 2011, 
<http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/daughter_of_man_killed_by_capt.html>http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/daughter_of_man_killed_by_capt.html 


[2]   Travers, Bryan L., International Fugitive 
Captured After More Than 40 Years, FBI Newark 
September 27, 2011 
<http://www.fbi.gov/newark/press-releases/2011/international-fugitive-captured-after-more-than-40-years>http://www.fbi.gov/newark/press-releases/2011/international-fugitive-captured-after-more-than-40-years

[3]   ibid

[4]   Grant, Jason, "A fugitive's quiet life in 
Portugal: Seaside village, friendly neighbors," 
The Star-Ledger, September 29, 2011, 
<http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/a_fugitives_quiet_life_in_port.html>http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/a_fugitives_quiet_life_in_port.html 
(See also: Ferreira, Leonardo, Após 40 anos, 
fugitivo norte-americano de New Jersey é preso em 
Portugal, Brazilian Voice, 06/10/2011, 
<http://www.brazilianvoice.com/bv_noticias/bv_comunidade/41731-Aps-anos-fugitivo-norte-americano-New-Jersey-preso-Portugal.html>http://www.brazilianvoice.com/bv_noticias/bv_comunidade/41731-Aps-anos-fugitivo-norte-americano-New-Jersey-preso-Portugal.html)

[5]   Asbury Park Press, Wikipedia, 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbury_Park_Press>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbury_Park_Press

[6]   Webster, Charles, "A promise made, a 
promise kept" Asbury Park Press, Oct. 1, 2011, 
<http://www.app.com/article/20110930/NJNEWS/309300132/Fugitive-s-arrest-brings-relief-to-the-family-of-WWII-veteran-killed-in-Wall>http://www.app.com/article/20110930/NJNEWS/309300132/Fugitive-s-arrest-brings-relief-to-the-family-of-WWII-veteran-killed-in-Wall 


[7]   Elizabeth A. Harris, "New Jersey Fugitive 
Is Caught in Portugal After 41 Years," NY Times, September 27, 2011,
(<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/nyregion/george-wright-hijacking-and-murder-fugitive-arrested-in-portugal.html?scp=1&sq=%22Wright%20shot%20and%20killed%20the%20owner,%20walter%20patterson,%22&st=cse>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/nyregion/george-wright-hijacking-and-murder-fugitive-arrested-in-portugal.html?scp=1&sq=%22wright%20shot%20and%20killed%20the%20owner,%20walter%20patterson,%22&st=cse) 


[8]   Personal email correspondence with the author Nov. 1, 2011.

[9]   Fugitive US hijacker caught after 40 years 
on run, Sept. 28,2011 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfgH7CfXwuk&feature=related>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfgH7CfXwuk&feature=related 


[10]   Personal email correspondence with one of the authors on Oct. 29, 2011.

[11]   Fugitivo detido em Portugal procurado há 
mais de 40 anos por FBI!!!, 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTBLiRsdrVU&feature=related>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTBLiRsdrVU&feature=related

[12] 
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/a_fugitives_quiet_life_in_port.html 
and 
<http://www.brazilianvoice.com/bv_noticias/bv_comunidade/41731-Aps-anos-fugitivo-norte-americano-New-Jersey-preso-Portugal.html>http://www.brazilianvoice.com/bv_noticias/bv_comunidade/41731-Aps-anos-fugitivo-norte-americano-New-Jersey-preso-Portugal.html

[13]   Italy has passed legislation allowing 
plea-bargaining, it is also being used to a 
limited extent in England, Wales, Germany and 
France and the EU is considering its adoption in 
the EC competition law. The primary difference, 
for the time being, is that in Europe the 
objective is not yet to tag as many members of 
the population as possible as felons. The only 
institution in Europe that widely uses 
plea-bargaining is the ICTY – the Yugoslavia 
Tribunal in The Hague, an institution that has 
copied must of the inherent (in)justice in the US system.

[14]   Mitford, Jessica, The American Prison 
Business, Penquin, 1977, pp 83 - 84

[15]   Clendenning, Alan, (AP), US fugitive's 
41-year life on lam, NPR, November 20, 2011, 
12:06 am ET, 
<http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCEMBvczcxJ1UJMGe8ylorttaD9g?docId=9c2bacffb1dd4329a58d75ae963ffc61>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=142556359 


[16]   Clendenning, Alan, Hatton, Barry, (AP) "US 
Appeals Portugal Denial Of Fugitive Extradition," 
Salon, November 29, 2011, 
<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/us_appeals_portugal_denial_of_fugitive_extradition/singleton/>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/us_appeals_portugal_denial_of_fugitive_extradition/singleton/

[17]   op cit. Clendenning, Alan, (AP), US fugitive's 41-year life on lam,

[18]   Brown, George, Nous Noirs Americains, 
Evadés du Ghetto, Seuil, Paris, pg. 217 – 218

[19]   Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary 
of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, 
Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal 
editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

[20]   Roberts, Paul Craig, "America’s Injustice 
System Is Criminal," December 12, 2006, 
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts187.html>http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts187.html

[21]   The principle that one is considered 
innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[22]   Nikiforov, Boris, "Etat Actuel de la 
Justice aux Etats Unis," ed. Revue Trimestrielle 
de la section des Sciences Sociales de l'Academie 
des Sciences de l'URSS, Nr. 4, (34) 1978, pg. 221

[23]   Kinsley, Michael, "Why Innocent People 
Confess", Slate, Dec. 12, 2002, 
<http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2002/12/why_innocent_people_confess.html>http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2002/12/why_innocent_people_confess.html

[24]   Webster, Charles, "A promise made, a 
promise kept," Asbury Park Press, Oct. 1, 2011, 
<http://www.app.com/article/20111117/NJNEWS/111170001/A-promise-made-promise-kept>http://www.app.com/article/20111117/NJNEWS/111170001/A-promise-made-promise-kept

[25]   ibid

[26]   ibid

[27]   Minder, Raphael, "Criminal or 'role model 
of rehabilitation'?," International Herald 
Tribune, October 28, 2011, (transcribed)

[28]   Minder, R., Barron, J., Telling the Story 
of 41 Years on the Run, NY Times, October 28, 
2011, 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/nyregion/george-wright-tells-story-of-hijacking-from-portugal.html?scp=2&sq=wright&st=cse>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/nyregion/george-wright-tells-story-of-hijacking-from-portugal.html?scp=2&sq=wright&st=cse 


[29]   Hatton, Barry, (Associated Press), 
Portugal court denies US extradition request for 
longtime US fugitive George Wright, Newser, Nov 
17, 2011 4:57 PM CST in, 
<http://www.newser.com/article/d9r2p2eo0/portugal-court-denies-us-extradition-request-for-longtime-us-fugitive-george-wright.html>http://www.newser.com/article/d9r2p2eo0/portugal-court-denies-us-extradition-request-for-longtime-us-fugitive-george-wright.html 


[30]   op cit Clendenning, and Hatton, "US 
Appeals Portugal Denial (...) ," Salon, Nov 29, 
2011, 
<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/us_appeals_portugal_denial_of_fugitive_extradition/singleton/>http://www.salon.com/2011/11/29/us_appeals_portugal_denial_of_fugitive_extradition/singleton/

[31]   Considine, Bob, "U.S. appeals Portuguese 
decision to not extradite N.J. fugitive George 
Wright," The Star-Ledger, November 29, 2011, 
<http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/us_appeals_portugese_decision.html>http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/us_appeals_portugese_decision.html

[32]   Turow, Scott, Transcribed from the film 
"Deadline" by Katy Chevigny and Kirsten Johnson, 
Big Mouth Film Producer, 2004 (0.56.43), (0:58.16) and (0:58.53),

[33]   Stevenson, Bryan, Transcribed from the 
film "Deadline" by Katy Chevigny and Kirsten 
Johnson, Big Mouth Film Producer, 2004 (0:37.20)

[34]   Clendenning, A., Hatton, B. Salon op cit

[35]   For a good four-part summary of the Troy Davis Case see:
Part 1: 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=5SH4IpmJl6M;>http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=5SH4IpmJl6M; 

Part 2: 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajDmdDl-FhM&feature=relmfu>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajDmdDl-FhM&feature=relmfu; 

Part 3: 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mcraX7yq_0&feature=relmfu>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mcraX7yq_0&feature=relmfu; 

and Part 4: 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJxudiudK4c&feature=relmfu;>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJxudiudK4c&feature=relmfu;. 
Very interesting in this series is how the 
speakers all still give the system the benefit of 
the doubt, believing that though there is 
injustice, this is neither systematic nor systemic, that it can be fixed.

[36]   Troy Davis' Last Words Released By Georgia 
Department Of Corrections, 
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/07/troy-davis-execution-last-words_n_1000648.html>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/07/troy-davis-execution-last-words_n_1000648.html

[37]   Green, Frank, "Fate of Coleman Evidence 
Unknown," Richmond Times Dispatch Jan 7, 2006 
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1553596/posts>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1553596/posts

[38]   Radelet et al "In Spite of Innocence: 
Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases," 
Northeastern University Press, May 26, 1994 pg. xii

[39]   the date, having served his full sentence, 
beyond which it would be illegal to continue to hold him without new charges

[40]   Bowers, Veronza Jr., "You Won't Be Leaving 
Tomorrow," CounterPunch, August 27-29, 2004, 
<http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/08/27/thirty-one-years-and-counting-inside-the-belly-of-the-beast/>http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/08/27/thirty-one-years-and-counting-inside-the-belly-of-the-beast/ 


[41]   Lendman, Stephen, "Veronza Bowers, Jr. - 
Another Victim of America's Criminal Justice 
System," 
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Veronza-Bowers--Another-V-by-Stephen-Lendman-090713-165.html>http://www.opednews.com/articles/Veronza-Bowers--Another-V-by-Stephen-Lendman-090713-165.html

[42]   Visit his website, become aware, get 
involved. <http://www.veronza.org/>http://www.veronza.org/

[43]   Gasper, Phil, "Interview with Stan Tookie 
Williams; Speaking out from death row," Socialist 
Worker, Dec. 2, 2005, 
<http://ccadp.proboards40.com/index.cgi?board=cases&action=display&thread=1133353268>http://ccadp.proboards40.com/index.cgi?board=cases&action=display&thread=1133353268

[44]   Acker, James R., "Davis case helps focus 
on what's wrong with death penalty," CNN: 8:32 AM 
EST, Fri September 16, 2011, 
<http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/16/opinion/acker-davis-death-penalty/>http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/16/opinion/acker-davis-death-penalty/

[45]   Hales, Larry, "U.S. prison population 
explodes" Workers World: Mar 9, 2008 8:18 PM, 
<http://www.workers.org/2008/us/prison_0313/>http://www.workers.org/2008/us/prison_0313/ 


[46]   Carroll, James, "The prison boom comes 
home to roost" Boston Globe: November 8, 2010, 
<http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/11/08/the_prison_boom_comes_home_to_roost/>http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/11/08/the_prison_boom_comes_home_to_roost/ 


[47]   Liptak, Adam, "1 in 100 U.S. Adults Behind 
Bars, New Study Says" NY Times, February 28, 
2008, 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html 


[48]   Hales, Larry, op cit.

[49]   op cit. Clendenning, Alan, (AP), US fugitive's 41-year life on lam

[50]   op cit. Minder, Raphael, "Criminal or 
(...)" International Herald Tribune,



Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20111205/c7906cdd/attachment.htm>