MovieChat Forums > At the Death House Door (2008) Discussion > Sadly, the Rev. is a pathological liar

Sadly, the Rev. is a pathological liar


Why do death penalty opponents never have to explain their source information? Are never called when blatant lies are presented as fact? Is this just another 'Al Gore' kind of double standard?

As it stands today, there is NO known instance of a wrongful execution in the U.S.

Certainly an argument against capital punishment can be formulated without lying. I mean, I would bet that anyone on this board can write 500 words about the essential 'wrongness' of this law, yet opponents continue to willfully lie and distort facts.

Maybe the old fella thinks he remembers correctly--it was 20 years ago--but the sheer number of distortions makes one wonder.

As for these kinds of sad-but-laughable musings: "I knew Carlos didn't do it. It was his big brown eyes, the way he talked, he was the same age as my son . I felt so sympathetic towards him. I was so 100% certain that he couldn't have committed this crime. He was a super person to minister to. I knew Carlos was not guilty", I am not clear on why this belongs in a 'documentary'.

Big-Brown-Eyed Carlos was a oft-convicted violent felon before he finally killed.




.

reply

I just watched this film, and the quotes you list are not even close to being accurate. You are putting them together as if he said it all at once. He never said he was innocent because of his "big brown eyes." He said he looked up at him during the process of the execution. You make it sound as if he believed in his innocence because of his hangdog look. I'm not saying the film was not biased towards their point of view, but the guy was present for 95 executions; and the point of the film was how that experience changed him from being pro to anti death penalty. That's it. Furthermore, to say no person has EVER been wrongfully put to death in the U.S. is laughable:

Adams, James (black). 1974. Florida. Adams was convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to death, and executed in 1984. Witnesses located Adams' car at the time of the crime at the home of the victim, a white rancher. Some of the victim's jewelry was found in the car trunk. Adams maintained his innocence, claiming that he had loaned the car to his girlfriend. A witness identified Adams as driving the car away from the victim's home shortly after the crime. This witness, however, was driving a large truck in the direction opposite to that of Adams' car, and probably could not have had a good look at the driver. It was later discovered that this witness was angry with Adams for allegedly dating his wife. A second witness heard a voice inside the victim's home at the time of the crime and saw someone fleeing. He stated this voice was a woman's; the day after the crime he stated that the fleeing person was positively not Adams. More importantly, a hair sample found clutched in the victim's hand, which in all likelihood had come from the assailant, did not mach Adams' hair. Much of this exculpatory information was not discovered until the case was examined by a skilled investigator a month before Adams' execution. Governor Graham, however, refused to grant even a short stay so that these questions could be resolved.



Anderson, William Henry (black). 1945. Florida. Anderson was convicted of the rape of a white woman, sentenced to death, and executed in 1945 without an appeal having been made. The execution took place only five months after Anderson's arrest, perhaps in part because the sheriff wrote to the governor, "I would appreciate special attention in this case before some sym- pathizing organization gets hold of it." The victim had not resisted, screamed, or used an available pistol to resist Anderson's advances. Anderson's sister and one of his co-workers presented affidavits to the governor claiming that Anderson and the victim had been consensually intimate for several months before rape charges were filed. Anderson's attorney also wrote to the governor that "There exists well founded belief . . . that William Henry Anderson and the prosecutrix were intimate since August 1944. This belief is widespread among Negroes, but white people have been heard to express opinions likewise."



Appelgate, Everett (white). 1936. New York. Appelgate was convicted, with Frances Q. Creighton, of the murder of Appelgate's wife; both were sentenced to death in 1936. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Creighton had been tried and acquitted on two separate occasions for similar murders a dozen years before she met Appelgate. In this case, she testified that she killed the victim (by arsenic poisoning) at Appelgate's instigation. During the investigation of the case, she also confessed to one of the previous murders. "Virtually no evidence against Appelgate existed beyond Mrs. Creighton's unsupported word." Appelgate had no previous criminal record, and Creighton's version of the crime changed somewhat during the investigation. Appelgate admitted having had sexual relations with Creighton's 15-year-old daughter; that fact did not earn him any sympathy from the jury. Governor Herbert Lehman, who had doubts about Appelgate's guilt, requested the prosecutor's support for clemency for Appelgate; it was not forthcoming, and clemency was denied. Appelgate was executed (as was Creighton) in 1936. A few weeks after the execution all investigation of Appelgate's innocence ended.



Bambrick, Thomas (white). 1915. New York. Bambrick was convicted of murder, and sentenced to death. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Evidence was later discovered that convinced Warden Thomas Mott Osborne and the prison chaplain that another man had committed the crime. Osborne knew who that man was. Although Bambrick also knew the man's identity, he refused to "squeal" on him. Osborne commented, "It is almost as certain that Bambrick is innocent as that the sun will rise tomorrow." Bambrick was executed in 1916.



Becker, Charles, and Frank *beep* Cirofici (both white). 1912. New York. Becker and Cirofici were convicted of murder; Cirofici was executed in 1914 and Becker in 1915. The victim, Rosenthal, was a gambling-house owner. Shortly before the homicide, Rosenthal had implicated Becker, a police lieutenant, in

gambling activities. Becker had earlier made the gambling world angry because of his vigorous work in suppressing their activities. He was convicted largely on the testimony of gamblers and ex-convicts in the glare of extensive newspaper publicity about police corruption. These witnesses, allegedly middlemen hired by

Becker, were given immunity for their testimony by an ambitious district attorney. The alleged motive was graft, although no evidence was produced to support the theory. Less is known about Cirofici, one of four gunmen put to death for the crime. The then warden of Sing Sing prison, James Clancy, allegedly believed that two of the executed gunmen were innocent. Another former Sing Sing warden, Thomas Mott Osborne, who knew the closest friends of the gunmen, stated that these friends all agreed Cirofici had nothing to do with the murder and was not even present when it occurred. Warden Osborne also believed that Becker was not guilty.



Collins, Roosevelt (black). 1937. Alabama. Collins was convicted of rape, sentenced to death, and executed in 1937. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Collins testified that the "victim" (white) had consented, which caused a near-riot in the courtroom and led the woman's husband to pull out a gun and fire it at Collins. Collins was almost lynched and received only a perfunctory defense. The all-white jury deliberated for only four minutes. Subsequent interviews with several jurors revealed that although they believed the act was consensual, they also thought that Wilson deserved death simply for "messin' around" with a white woman. Even the judge, off the record, admitted his belief that Collins was telling the truth. "An innocent man went to his death."



Dawson, Sie (black). 1960. Florida. Dawson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The victim was the two-year-old son of a white woman for whom Dawson worked. (Although the boy's mother was also murdered, Dawson was not tried for that offense.) The conviction by an all-white male jury was based on a confession obtained from Dawson after he had spent more than a week in custody without the assistance of counsel and on an accusation by the victim's husband. Dawson had an I.Q. of 64. At trial, Dawson repudiated his confession, claiming it was given only because "the white officers told him to say he killed Mrs. Clayton or they'd give him to 'the mob' outside." On appeal, the conviction was affirmed on a 4-3 vote. Dawson was executed in 1964. Years later, newspaper stories revived doubts that had surrounded the conviction from the beginning. Dawson had claimed that the victim's husband had committed the murders. There were no eyewitnesses and the circumstantial evidence was slight and inconclusive.



Garner, Vance, and Will Johnson (both black). 1905. Alabama. With Jack Hunter, Garner and Johnson were convicted of murder and sentenced to death, despite their claims of innocence. No appeals were undertaken. In 1905, Garner and Hunter were hanged. From the gallows Garner maintained his complete innocence, while Hunter admitted his own guilt and absolved both Garner and Johnson. In 1906, Johnson's sentence was commuted to life. A fourth man, Bunk Richardson, who was charged with perjuring himself in Garner's behalf, was lynched three nights after Johnson's death sentence was commuted.



Grzechowiak, Stephen, and Max Rybarczyk (both white). 1929. New York. Grzechowiak and Rybarczyk were both convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death. Co-defendant Alexander Bogdanoff insisted that neither Grzechowiak nor Rybarczyk had been involved in the crime, and that each had been mistakenly identified by the eyewitnesses. He refused, however, to reveal the names of his true accomplices. Grzechowiak and Rybarczyk executed in 1930, after their convictions were affirmed on appeal. In their final words, they

maintained their innocence, and Bogdanoff again declared that the two were innocent.



Hauptmann, Bruno Richard (white). 1935. New Jersey. Hauptmann was convicted of felony-murder-burglary, sentenced to death, and executed in 1936. He was infamous as the ransom- kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby. Hauptmann's is a classic case of conviction based on an intricate web of circumstantial evidence, perjury, prosecutorial suppression of evidence, a grossly incompetent defense attorney, and a trial in an atmosphere of near-hysteria. The trial followed a 2-year nationwide hunt for the kidnappers of the baby boy of "Lindy," the nation's favorite hero, whose wife was the daughter of the wealthy and socially prominent Morrow family. Hauptmann was the victim of over-zealous prosecutors, intent on solving the most notorious crime of the decade. Although Governor Hoffman believed that Hauptmann was framed, he chose not to halt the execution. There is no doubt that the conviction rested in part on corrupt prosecutorial practices, suppression of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, perjured testimony, and Hauptmann's prior record. In 1986, his aging widow brought suit against the prosecuting attorney and a dozen other defendants in a civil action.



Hill, Joe (originally known as Joseph Hillstrom) (white). 1915. Utah. Hill was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of two storekeepers. The prosecution was based on sketchy circumstantial evidence and was in part the result of collusion between the prosecution and the trial judge in an atmosphere of anti-union hostility. Despite several appeals from President Woodrow Wilson to the Utah authorities for a reprieve, Hill was denied a new trial. He was also denied executive clemency. His appeal to the Utah Supreme Court was unsuccessful and he was executed in 1915. Hill appears to have been an innocent victim of "politics, finance and organized religion, . . . a powerful trinity"; his conviction and death are "one of the worst traves- ties of justice in American labor history."



Lamble, Harold (alias George Brandon) (white). 1920. New Jersey. Lamble was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Testimony of an alleged accomplice and Lamble's admission on the witness stand of his previous convictions led to his conviction, which was affirmed on appeal. Lamble consistently asserted his innocence, but he was executed in 1921. After the execution, Governor Edward Edwards refused requests to appoint a special counsel to investigate the case, despite what the New York Times called a "rather widespread fear that perhaps" Lamble was innocent. Lamble's attorney was disbarred for mishandling the defense.



Mays, Maurice F. (black). 1919. Tennessee. Mays was convicted of murder in the killing of a white woman and sentenced to death. A white lynch mob terrorized the entire black community in Knoxville, and several blacks were killed by white rioters; the National Guard had to be called out. Mays's conviction rested on the testimony of a police officer who had disliked him for years and on the testimony of an eyewitness who never got a clear look at the killer. On appeal, the conviction was reversed because the judge, rather than the jury, had fixed the penalty at death. Mays was retried, reconvicted, and resentenced to death, and this conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. In 1922, Mays was executed, still maintaining his innocence. In 1926, the real killer confessed in a written statement that revealed she was a white woman who had dressed up as a black man to kill the woman with whom her husband was having an affair. The authorities, however, never accepted this confession, no doubt because they had already executed Mays for the crime. Accepting the confession would have meant admitting an erroneous execution. Mays had been previously convicted in 1903 for killing a black man, but was pardoned for that crime.



McGee, Willie (black). 1945. Mississippi. McGee was convicted of the rape of a white woman and sentenced to death by an all-white jury that deliberated for only two and a half minutes. The conviction was reversed on appeal because a request to change venue was not granted. After a change of venue, McGee was retried, reconvicted, and resentenced to death by another all-white jury (this jury deliberated for eleven minutes). This conviction was also reversed because of the exclusion of blacks from juries in the indicting county. In 1948, McGee was reindicted, retried, reconvicted, and again resentenced to death; three blacks were on the jury but there was no change of venue. On appeal the conviction was affirmed, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene. The chief evidence against McGee was a coerced confession that he gave after being held incommunicado for thirty-two days after his arrest; the victim's husband and her two children, asleep in the next room, never heard any commotion from the alleged attack. Investigation by journalist Carl Rowan revealed that the victim had been consorting with McGee for four years and was angry at his efforts to terminate their relationship. Nonetheless, local blacks were too intimidated to give this evidence in court, and local whites felt the woman's consent was impossible or irrelevant. An attempt to win a retrial on the basis of newly discovered evidence failed, and McGee was executed in 1951.



Sacco, Nicola, and Bartolomeo Vanzetti (both white). 1921. Massachusetts. Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of murder in the course of armed robbery, sentenced to death, and executed in 1927. Their case is probably themost controversial death penalty case in this century. They were arrested and tried in an atmosphere dominated by "the Red Scare" of the early 1920s; the defendants---described as "anarchist bastards" in an-off-the bench comment during the trial by the judge--were on death row for six years. In 1925, another man also under thedeath sentence in Massachusetts confessed to the crime. Extensive investigation of the confession convinced many that he was, indeed, telling the truth. In 1926, the trial judge denied motions for a retrial based on theconfession, and his decision was sustained on appeal. In 1977, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the executions, Governor Dukakis signed a carefully worded proclamation intended to remove "any stigma and disgrace" from their names, declaring, in part, that their "trial and execution ...should serve to remind all civilized people of the constant need to guard against our susceptibility to prejudice, our intolerance of unorthodox ideas, and our failure to defend the rights of persons who are looked upon as strangers in our

midst...."



Sanders, Albert (black). 1917. Alabama. Sanders was convicted, with Fisher Brooks, of murder, and sentenced to death. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Though he had nothing to gain by helping Sanders, Brooks testified at Sanders's trial that Sanders was innocent. Another fellow prisoner testified that he had heard Sanders confess, however, and both Brooks and Sanders were executed in 1918. In a statement from the scaffold, Brooks again insisted on Sanders's innocence, as did Sanders himself before he was hanged.



Sberna, Charles (white). 1938. New York. Sberna was convicted of first-degree murder of a police officer and was sentenced to death. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Sberna's codefendant, Salvatore Gati, testified at the trial that Sberna was innocent, and in prison, both Gati and Sberna convinced Isidore Zimmerman (see Chapter 2) that Sberna was innocent. Gati also said the head of the New York Homicide Bureau (Jacob Rosenblum) had told him that he knew Sberna was innocent, and would clear his name if Gati would reveal the name of his real accomplices. Gati refused to do this. Later it turned out this police official had also been involved in wrongfully convicting Zimmerman. Sberna and Gati were both executed in 1938. The prison chaplain said of Sberna, "This is the first time I've ever been positive that an innocent man was going to the chair, and there is nothing I can do about it. If only people would make sure they know what they are talking about before they swear a man's life away."



Shumway, R. Mead (white). 1907. Nebraska. Shumway was convicted of the first-degree murder of his employer's wife on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to death. One juror, the only one to hold out against the death penalty for Shumway, told his friends he "had not slept well any night since the trial." He later left a note in which he expressed "great worry at the trial," and he then killed himself. Shumway was executed in 1909. His last words were: "I am an innocent victim. May God forgive everyone who has said anything against me." In 1910, the victim's husband confessed on his deathbed that he had murdered his wife.



Tucker, Charles Louis (white). 1905. Massachusetts. Tucker was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The conviction, based on circumstantial evidence, was affirmed on appeal. More than 100,000 Massachusetts residents signed petitions on behalf of clemency. Among those convinced of his innocence was the county medical examiner (who lost his job because of his stand) and a clergyman who said a witness had told him she perjured herself at the original trial. Tucker was nonetheless executed in 1906.



Wing, George Chew (Asian). 1937. New York. Wing was convicted of first-degree murder (after a 30-minute trial) and sentenced to death. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. A participant in the killing testified against Wing and was sentenced to 20 years. While he was in prison awaiting execution, Wing convinced several observers that he had been falsely identified by eyewitnesses and that perjured testimony had been used against him. Warden Lewis Lawes also questioned his guilt, but Wing was nonetheless executed in 1937.

...and thats only a few of them.

reply

Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted "At the Death House Door"?
Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters, contact info below

To: Film schools, festivals, institutes, websites and reviewers, worldwide
Distributed since May, 2008

Rev. Pickett is on a promotional tour for the anti death penalty film "At the Death House Door". It is partially about the Reverend's experience ministering to 95 death row inmates executed in Texas.

Rev. Pickett's inaccuracies are many and important.

Does Rev. Pickett just make facts up as he goes along, hoping that no one fact checks, or is he just confused or ignorant?

Some of his miscues are common anti death penalty deceptions. The reverend is an anti death penalty activist.

Below are comments or paraphrases of Rev. Pickett, taken from interviews, followed by my Reply:.

1) Pickett: (In 1989) "I was so 100% certain that he couldn't have committed this crime. (Carlos) was a super person to minister to. I knew Carlos was not guilty. " "I knew (executed inmate) Carlos (De Luna) didn't do it." (1)

REPLY: There is this major problem. It appears that Rev. Pickett is, now, either lying about his own 1989 opinions or he is very confused.

In 1999, 4 years after Rev. Pickett had left his death row ministry, and he had become an anti death penalty activist, and 10 years after De Luna's execution, the reverend was asked, in a PBS Frontline interview,

"Do you think there have been some you have watched die who were strictly innocent?"

Pickett's reply: "I never felt that."(2)

For at least 15 years, Pickett never felt that any of the 95 executed were actually innocent.

This directly conflicts with his current statements on Carlos De Luna. Rev. Pickett is, now, saying that he was 100% sure of De Luna's innocence in 1989!

If he was 100% sure of DeLuna's execution in 1989, what's up with the PBS interview?.

How could Rev. Pickett forget the only "innocent" person he saw executed - he was 100% sure of his innocence - on his watch? Wouldn't anyone find that to be 100% impossible to forget, particularly when you are asked, specifically, about it during a formal interview?

When is the first confirmable date that Rev. Pickett stated he believed in DeLuna's actual innocence?

It appears the reverend has either revised history to support his new anti death penalty activism - he's lying - or he is, again, very confused. Reverend?

2) Sara Hickman, musician, anti death penalty activist, and acquaintance of Pickett's, wrote " . . . Rev. Carroll Pickett (the death row minister who witnessed 95 executions in Huntsville; he is convinced that at least 15 of those men were innocent),. . . ". (3)

Reply: In 1999 Rev. Pickett didn't believe any of those 95 executed were innocent, now, in 2008, he is convinced that 15 innocents were executed. Quite remarkable, if true.

Rev. Pickett can you tell us which 15 you are convinced were executed innocents? And what is your evidence? Or did Ms. Hickman get it wrong? Reverend?

I have inquired with Ms. Hickman ([email protected]) and Rev Pickett
([email protected]) but, so far, no reply.

3) Introduction: In 1974, prison librarian Judy Standley and teacher Von Beseda were murdered during an 11 day prison siege and escape attempt. Ignacio Cuevas was sentenced to death, as one of three prisoners who were involved. The other two died in the shootout.

Ms. Standley and Ms. Beseda were part of Rev. Pickett's congregation, outside of prison.

Pickett: After Cuevas was executed, Rev. Pickett alleges that he met with Judy Standley's family and they told the reverend that "This (the execution) didn't bring closure." "This didn't help us." According to Rev. Pickett, "They didn't want him (Ignacio Cuevas) executed." (1)

Reply; There might be a big problem. Judy Standley's five children wrote a statement, before the execution, which stated: "We are relieved the ordeal may almost be over, but we are also aware that to some, this case represents only one of many in which, arguably, `justice delayed is justice denied," "We are hopeful the sentence will finally be carried out and that justice will at last be served," said the statement, signed by Ty, Dru, Mark, Pam and Stuart Standley. (4)

Sure seemed like the kids wanted Cuevas to be executed. Doesn't it? Reverend?

4) Pickett: spoke of the Soldier of Fortune murder for hire case, stating the husband got the death penalty, while the hired murderer got 6 years. (1)

Reply: Rev. Pickett's point, here, appears to be the unfairness of the sentence disparity. More fact problems. John Wayne Hearn, the hitman, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Sandra Black.

5) Pickett: "A great majority of them (the 95 executed inmates he ministered to) were black or Hispanic." (1)

Reply: The reverend's point, here, appears to emphasize the alleged racist nature of the death penalty. There is a problem for the reverend- the facts - the "great majority" were 47 white (49%) with 32 black (34%), and 16 Hispanic (17%).

6) Pickett: "Out of the 95 we executed only one that had a college degree. All the rest of them their education was 9th grade and under." (1)

Reply: Not even close. Rev. Pickett's point, here, seems to be that capital murderers are, almost all, idiots who can't be held responsible for their actions. But, there are more fact problems for the reverend. In a review of only 31 of the 95 cases, 5 had some college or post graduate classes and 16 were high school graduates or completed their GED. Partial review (Incomplete Count) , below.

Would Rev. Pickett tell us about the educational achievements of all the true innocent murder victims and those that weren't old enough for school?

7) Pickett: believes that, no way, could someone, so afraid of lightning and thunder, such as Carlos De Luna, use a knife (in a crime). (1)

Reply: Is the reverend not aware of DeLuna's record? In 1980, "De Luna was charged with attempted aggravated rape and driving a stolen vehicle, he pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 2 to 3 years. Paroled in May 1982, De Luna returned to Corpus Christi. Not long after, he attended a party for a former cellmate and was accused of attacking the cellmate's 53-year-old mother. She told police that De Luna broke three of her ribs with one punch, removed her underwear, pulled down his pants, then suddenly left. He was never prosecuted for the attack, but authorities sent him back to prison on a parole violation. Released again in December of that year, he came back to Corpus Christi and got a job as a concrete worker. Almost immediately, he was arrested for public intoxication. During the arrest, De Luna allegedly laughed about the wounding of a police officer months earlier and said the officer should have been killed. Two weeks after that arrest, Lopez was murdered." (Chicago Tribune) Being a long time criminal, we can presume that there were numerous additional crimes committed by De Luna and which remained unsolved.

Was De Luna capable of committing a robbery murder, even though he had big brown eyes and was scared of lightning? Of course. Rev. Pickett?

8) Pickett: speaks of how sincere hostage taker, murderer Ignacio Cuevas was. Rev. Pickett states that "between 11 and midnight (I) believe almost everything" the inmates say, because they are about to be executed. (1)

Reply: Bad judgement. Minutes later, Cuevas lied when on the gurney, stating that he was innocent. This goes to show how Rev. Pickett and many others are easily fooled by these murderers. Pickett concedes the point.

9) Pickett: "In my opinion and in the opinion of the convicts, life in prison, with no hope of parole, is a much worse punishment (than the death penalty)." "Most of these people (death row inmates) fear life in prison more than they do the possibility of execution." (5)

REPLY: More fact problems. We know that isn't the opinion of those facing a possible death sentence of those residing on death row. This gives more support to my suspicion that Rev. Pickett is putting words into the inmates' mouths.

Facts: What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence, rather than seeking a life sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero (less than 2%). They prefer long term imprisonment. This is not, even remotely, in dispute. How could Rev. Pickett not be aware of this? How long was he ministering to Texas' death row? 13 years? So, what? Did he just make this up?

10) Pickett: stated that "doctors can't (check the veins of inmates pending execution), it's against the law." (1)

Reply: Ridiculous. Obviously untrue.

11) Pickett: Pavulon (a paralytic) has been banned by vets but we use it on people. (1)

REPLY: This is untrue and is a common anti death penalty deception. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) states, "When used alone, these drugs (paralytics) all cause respiratory arrest before loss of consciousness, so the animal may perceive pain and distress after it is immobilized." Obviously, paralytics are never used alone in the human lethal injection process or animal euthanasia. The AVMA does not mention the specific paralytic - Pavulon - used in lethal injection for humans. These absurd claims, falsely attributed to veterinary literature, have been a bald faced lie by anti death penalty activists.

In Belgium and the Netherlands, their euthanasia protocol is as follows: A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg sodium thiopental (Nesdonal) (NOTE-the first drug in human lethal injection) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). Then a triple intravenous dose of a non-depolarizing neuromuscular muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) (NOTE-the second drug, the paralytic, in human lethal injection) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should preferably be given intravenously, in order to ensure optimal availability (NOTE: as in human lethal injection). Only for pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) are there substantial indications that the agent may also be given intramuscularly in a dosage of 40 mg. (NOTE: That is how effective the second drug in human lethal injection is, that it can be given intramuscularly and still hasten death).

Just like execution/lethal injection in the US, although we give a third drug which speeds up death, even more.

12) Pickett: "Most of the inmates would ask the question, "How can Texas kill people who kill people and tell people that killing people is wrong?" That came out of inmates’ mouths regularly and I think it’s a pretty good question to ask." (5)

REPLY: Most? Would that be more than 47 out of 95? I simply don't believe it. 10 out of 95? Doubtful. I suspect it is no coincidence that "Why do we kill people to show that killing is wrong" has been a common anti death penalty slogan for a very long time. I suspect that Rev. Pickett has just picked it up, used it and placed it in inmate's mouths. Furthermore, we don't execute murderers to show that murder is wrong. Most folks know that murder is wrong even without a sanction.

13) Pickett: said an inmate said "its burning" "its burning", during an execution. (1)

REPLY: This may have occurred for a variety of reasons and does not appear to be an issue. It is the third drug which is noted for a burning sensation, if one were conscious during its injection. However, none of the inmates that Rev. Pickett handled were conscious after the first drug was administered. That would not be the case, here, as the burning complaints came at the very beginning of the injection process, which would involve a reaction where the burning would be quite minor. Has Rev. Pickett reviewed the pain and suffering of the real victims - the innocent murdered ones?

Bottom line. Reverend Pickett's credibility is as high as a snakes belly.

Time to edit the movie?!

------------

Incomplete count
this is a review of 31 out of the 95 death row inmates ministered by Rev. Pickett

21 of the 31 below had some college or post graduate classes (5)
or were high school graduates or completed their GED (16)
-----------
1) Brooks 12
3) O'Bryan post graduate degree - dentist
41 James Russel 10th
42 G Green sophomore college
45 David Clark 10th and GED
46 Edward Ellis 10th
47 Billy White 10th
48 Justin May 11th
49 Jesus Romero 11th and GED
50 Robert Black, Jr. a pilot (probably beyond 12th)
55. Carlos Santana 11th
57 Darryl Stewart 12th
58 Leonel Herrera 11th and GED
60) Markum Duff Smith Post graduate College
33) Carlos De Luna 9th
95 Ronald Keith Allridge 10th and GED
93 Noble Mays Junior in College
92 Samuel Hawkins 12th
91 Billy Conn Gardner 12th
90 Jeffery Dean Motley 9th
89 Willie Ray Williams 11th
86 Jesse Jacobs 12th
85 Raymond Carl Kinnamon 11th and GED
84 Herman Clark sophomore college
83 Warren Eugene Bridge 11th
82 Walter Key Williams 12th
72 Harold Barnard 12th
73 Freddie Webb 11th and GED
75 Larry Anderson 12th
77 Stephen Nethery 12th
79 Robert Drew 10th

1) "Chaplain Discusses 'Death House' Ministry", Interview, Legal Affairs, FRESH AIR, NPR, May 19, 2007.

2) "The Execution: Interview with Reverend Carroll Pickett", PBS, FRONTLINE, 1999
www(DOT)pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/pickett.html

3) "Hickman: Texas needs to start a dialogue on the death penalty", OTHER TAKES, Austin American-Statesman, July 30, 2008

4) "Appellate court refuses to stay killer's execution", Kathy Fair, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Section A, Page 1, 2 Star edition, 05/23/1991

5) THE FAILURE INTERVIEW: REVEREND CARROLL PICKETT—AUTHOR OF "WITHIN THESE WALLS: MEMOIRS OF A DEATH HOUSE CHAPLAIN" Interview, by Kathleen A. Ervin
www(DOT) failuremag.com/arch_history_carroll_pickett_interview.html


Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters
e-mail [email protected], 713-622-5491,
Houston, Texas

Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS , VOA and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.

A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally

reply

I am amazed at the lengths to which some people go in nit picking, choosing words and phrases, pulling them out of context, then daring to write, infinitum, page after page of justifications for what they see wrong in these words. This tactic parallels that of some fundamentalist Christians who select bits and pieces of Scripture and construe the words to fit their own agenda, instead of looking at the Bible as a whole, with all it’s layers, as a social history, as a literary work, etc., conveying what the people of the time, in their own culture were experiencing and how they experienced God. This need of an individual to hammer in one’s viewpoint and justify it to serve his/her own agenda (and/or ego) neglects to see beyond the simple extremes of the black or white and take the time to reflect upon the complexities of grays that life is made up of. It’s not always an either/or issue. It may be an either/and issue. Take some time to do some genuine critical thinking. Extremism gets us nothing, except opposing extremism.
Moreover, if some people would take as much time to research the basis of the movie, as they have to dig up “facts and figures,” then maybe they would find that the main point of the movie is NOT whether or whether not the death penalty is right or wrong, NOT a for or against issue, but the profound experience of a human being that has spent fifteen long years in the business of speaking with and hearing from people that were facing death. That has got to have a compelling effect on a person. If anyone wants “facts” they may find in an interview with the producers, that the Chicago Tribune approached them. And they were doing an investigation into what they thought was the wrongful conviction and execution of Carlos DeLuna. The producers ultimately concluded that the experience of the chaplain had much more of a story with more meaning and depth. http://blog.spout.com/2008/03/09/sxsw-2008-at-the-death-house-door-steve-james-and-peter-gilbert/
No one can really prove or disprove matters of the heart and how another person has come to view an issue through their own experience of it. Some people may not be able to properly articulate these experiences and their effect on his or her heart, soul, and life. These are the limitations of language. We need not scoff at and pick apart such people as Rev. Pickett, based on superficial judgment. The experience obviously had a transforming effect on Rev. Pickett. If you haven’t walked a mile in the man’s shoes . . .
Just a final thought, since people seem to be so stuck on the matter of right or wrong and the death penalty, I wonder how many people truly get closure and receive peace by killing (by proxy) the human being that has been convicted of killing their own loved one. Conversely, I wonder if it is more emotionally releasing and peaceful to forgive (not forget), but to offer forgiveness to one who has wronged us. A matter of the heart? . . . Until we’ve walked in their shoes.

reply

That was a very reply and I believe that the others were replying to the OP who based his/her opinion on misunderstandings. I wish the movie would have presented it more unbiased, but it was the experience of this reverend.

I have a MCJ and a JD/PH.D and I study law from an academic stand point. To be honest, the death penalty does not serve a purpose practically, it is more symbolic. I am not going to throw studies at anyone, but it has been shown that there is more violent behavior and crime the month following an execution. It is not a deterrent because it is not immediate. With the death penalty comes years of appeals. There is also no real evidence that family and friends find any "closure," in fact, sometimes they feel worse or it doesn't make a difference.

I wished the movie would have shown more about the corrupt justice system, law enforcement, the DA's office, etc. It is my opinion that these elements cause wrongful deaths of people.

What I can't believe is that the OP actually believes that the US justice system has NEVER put to death of innocent people. They may be guilty of something, but not of the crime they were convicted for. There is a major problem with a lot of courtroom activities, check the studies of Elizabeth Loftus and other Cognitive psychology researchers, though she is the best.

One thing that really gets to me is that people will say some crap like "well it is not perfect, but it is the best system there is." I don't necessarily disagree, but that does not mean it cannot be made better.

Oh, this is a classic, "An eye for an eye." People say this as if it is a reason for the death penalty. It is ACTUALLY a limit on the cj system meaning that you can only give a punishment for a particular time. I guess in some ways it could be used as a way of implementing the death penalty, but it is meant as a limit to the justice system.

I believe that there is really no reason for the death penalty, but I would never say that to someone who lost a loved one to murder. It is hard for me to form a powerful position on the death penalty. It is part of Kadi justice which is taking each individual case. I do believe that there is the small part of the population (prison population) that I would apply the death penalty to, but those are rare cases.

Lets face it, if people were not treated terribly by the police, I believe more people would own up to things. If someone is killed by accident, the police treat it like first degree murder and complicate the matter to the point that the truth is lost. As officers of the court, they are ordered to find the truth. A lot of people just take their chances and not tell anyone because of that fear. If anyone has EVER been accused of something that they either did not do, or anything that gets so twisted and turned by the court that it might as well be an accusation, should understand this.

reply

Don't the 100s of people paroled from death row after being exonerated by DNA evidence. Doesn't that pretty much speak for itself?

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors

reply

What a pathetic ideological screed.

It's hard to know where to start, but I guess we'll start with whether there has ever been an instance of wrongful execution in the U.S. What level and type of evidence would you accept, since I'm betting five bucks right now that you're aware of the cases in which exculpatory evidence has surfaced after an execution, cases in which prosecutors fought hard to maintain a conviction (for "finality's sake") when DNA brought down their cases after the fact, etc.?

Further, what Carroll Pickett said in your quote above is not all he had to say on the subject, and you know it. It was also not all the evidence against his conviction from other sources. Talk about dishonest.

But it sounds like you're a "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" kinda guy. Whether or not Carlos was a "violent felon" isn't the point. The point is whether he committed _that_ murder that led to _that_ conviction.

reply