20 Comments
Jan 15, 2023Liked by Debra J. Saunders

Talk about a classic case of “confirmation bias” by Kristof.

Expand full comment
author

Confirmation bias squared — there is a section of the anti-death penalty lobby that wants to think everyone on death row is innocent. They need to believe it, despite the time and money that goes into capital cases.

Expand full comment
Mar 2·edited Jul 12

Uh no. Appeals courts are worthless rubber stamps that often knowingly lie to protect the fee fees of dirty prosecutors.

1.) The fact that the firm openly refused to subpoena documents that weren't presented at trial (even though one of the single biggest causes of wrongful convictions is the police and prosecution forging or withholding evidence) just shows that they were either lazy, naive or actively trying to reinforce a dirty verdict.

Compare Henry McCollum and Richard Glossip. In both cases they pushed onward despite the state protesting. In both cases they proved the police and prosecution either knowingly ignored other suspects or forged evidence to win.

2.) Contrary to what Judge Huff argued there WAS a second bloody shirt (it was not only said to be a different color, it was also said to be found on a different day in a different location. Moreover, the record type was only used if a civillian found evidence, while the shirt at trial was found by an officer.) That alone proves that there was more than one attacker.

3.) The fact that a bloody paint chip miraculously reappeared AFTER Gregonis was caught checking evidence out off the books (and that his name and date being on the seal proves he DID open the envelope despite claiming otherwise) shows only that Ed Blake could be wrong; it's possible Dan Gregonis played him for a fool (though given that he signed off on Alan Keel's misconduct in the Jane Dorotik case it could be that he has massive blind spots and isn't infallible.). Tellingly he tried to deny the paint chip reappearing.

He was essentially relying on Gregonis's reading in 1983 and Gregonis's misconduct with Bill Richards only means that Blake was a fool to trust him.

3.) Moreover, the EDTA results DID actually back Cooper up. The fact that it was possible to get legitimate measurements means that it was reliable under Daubert, and the fact that 4 of the "controls" had DNA means they weren't controls. Once you factor that in the DNA and EDTA correspond perfectly. Siuzdak only claimed contamination AFTER the results seemed to clear Cooper, which is also rather suspect

4.) The vial containing his blood had blood from an unknown contributor. Tellingly when it was supposed to be retested it was all gone, after the state obstructed for 15 years. A-41 also had an unknown contributor at the time.

5.) Lee Furrow himself thinks Cooper's innocent. He literally said "I'm not doing blood work and end up on evidence like whatever they did to Kevin Cooper." Both his daughter and stepdaughter also believe he's responsible for the killings

Edit: Maybe Cooper is guilty, but the state's reluctance to tackle these issues makes it harder to have confidence.

Expand full comment

Josh Ryen was bamboozled, as were the Hughes. That they think Cooper guilty is meaningless.

Expand full comment

The issue here is that even if Cooper did do it there were unambiguous signs of both incompetence and foul play on the part of prosecutors. Debra seems to view it as a zero-sum game and refuses to countenance the idea that misconduct occurred. Even if Cooper is guilty (and unless they can prove the peptidase testing was done well enough in 1983 to avoid that I won't be wholly convinced) the sheer amount of incompetence and misconduct means I'm not comfortable giving the death penalty.

Expand full comment

Any report that fails to examine undisclosed documents is utterly worthless. Morrison Foerster themselves admitted it was important to examine ALL documents, and yet they basically surrendered the SECOND the state pushed back. That shows they weren't trying that hard, and when someone's life is on the line you have to try hard.

Any competent investigation would have gotten those documents even if the state violently resisted. That the state violently resisted is more likely proof they have something to hide.

Expand full comment

Anti-death penalty folks lie about the "innocent"/"exonerated" from death row, 71-83% of the time, depending upon review.

The Death Row "Exonerated"/"Innocent" Frauds

71-83% Error Rate in Death Row "Innocent" Claims,

Well Known Since 1998

https://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-exoneratedinnocent-frauds.html

Expand full comment

No it hasn't. You're citing your own research, and those ignore how violently the state resists admitting fault.

99% of all people exonerated are innocent Dudders. The sooner you accept that the better off you'll be

Expand full comment

Ryan:

Totally untrue, as all those who fact check and vet know.

All of the 41 articles presented, overwhelmingly, use, confirmable sources, WHICH ARE NOT ME.

You didn't even read it! Do better

Expand full comment

Yeah, you’re a liar. Frankly Joshua Marquis and the other “sources” have lied (the idiot compared the number of exonerations for rape and murder with all felonies PERIOD. That’s dishonest methodology at best. Paul Cassell openly lied about details in the glossip case to avoid admitting that Connie Smotherman gleefully buried evidence to help her case (which is as natural to prosecutors as breathing).

Expand full comment

please. You only ever cite your blog

Expand full comment

Ryan:

The blog is where all the confirmable sources are. Where else would I direct you to?

Obviously, again, you do no research, no fact checking and no vetting. I do.

And you do nothing constructive, on purpose.

Do better.

Expand full comment

In just this case Debra Saunders cheerfully ignored that a second bloody shirt was found, that when you looked at the state’s full results in 04 the “controls” weren’t controls "(which in context actually PROVED Cooper’s blood was planted), and she ignored that Dan Gregonis unambiguously lied when he denied opening A-41 (his initials and the date he returned it were on the seal. you ONLY do that when you open evidence, so Gregonis flat out lied through his teeth when he said he didn’t.) Judge Fletcher’s analysis on the EDTA has never been challenged beyond people calling him a meanie, and Debra Saunders threw a fit when Mary Smith rightfully pointed out that Morrison Foerster deliberately cut corners in the investigation. Hell even appeals judges lied their asses off (the defense proved that the shoes were NOT unique to prison; the state immediately did a 180 and said “we never claimed that” even though they did repeatedly.)

And no Joshua Marquis is a liar and a fool. The idiot literally compared all exonerations for rape and murder against the total number of felonies period. That’s dishonest. That alone shows he’s an idiot. Paul Cassell lied about what Smothermon’s notes said to avoid admitting that she was a corrupt idiot who suborned perjured testimony.

Your sources are GARBAGE. You’ve attacked the Central Park 5 and West Memphis Three even though those cases have been demolished thoroughly.

Go back to shitting on the graves of the dead. It’s all you are doing, and all Debra Saunders Joshua Marquis and Paul Cassel are doing.

Expand full comment

No you don’t. You literally just quote pro death penalty sources that shamelessly lie their asses off.

Expand full comment

Ryan:

I am more than happy to review what you consider lies, right here, under these thoughtful conditions.

As you have, already, confirmed that you do not read, research nor fact check nor vet, prior to voicing your criticism, please do so, factually confirming those alleged lies, prior to announcing them, here, with your detailed confirmation of those alleged lies, shown, herein, as I have done. Please.

We await.

Expand full comment
Mar 4·edited Jul 12

The fact that Debra refuses to acknowledge the issues surrounding the blue shirt, the fact that Cooper was unambiguously in Mexico when the Ryen's car was deposited in Long Beach, or misconduct by Dan Gregonis shows that she's overly credulous.

The President of the ABA has dismissed the report as flawed.

Edit: I'm not entirely sure if Cooper did it or not. There are questions. But there are legitimate questions and raising them does not make one naive.

Expand full comment
Mar 4·edited Jul 12

The Commission proved only that even independent law firms can cut corners.

Expand full comment

You've got a good case of selective amnesia here Debra. Kristof actually wrote 3 op-eds about this sham of a case. The re-investigation ordered by Newsom was prosecutors investigating prosecutors. And from the same county, most likely the same views with very few degrees of seperation. DNA evidence was ignored, and in one instance even thrown away by investigating officers. New DNA testing has been put off. If this case is the slam dunk you claim, why not test and put it all to bed. What are you scared of. Test. It will only confirm your version of the fantasy the he did it. Writing for such conglomerates as the daily caller and the post and courier, one would think you would have researched and followed up on this.

Expand full comment

DNA was done, but was largely inconclusive. A Hand Towel taken from the scene was found to have an unknown profile. Alan Keel tried to dubiously claim it couldn't be tied to the murder, but used dubious logic (he claimed that since the profile was intact it had to be new. How intact a profile is depends on how well it's stored.) Keel was also close friends with Dan Gregonis (the guy who forged evidence) and Ed Blake (the guy who failed to realize tampering occurred) AND falsified evidence in the Jane Dorotik case (Dorotik fully believes Cooper to be innocent).

Paul Ingels also walked back believing Cooper's guilt; Bruce Lisker (who Ingels helped) also thinks Cooper innocent, as does William Richards (who was framed by Dan Gregonis.)

I've spoken with quite a few wrongfully convicted people. They ALL Think Cooper is innocent.

Morrison Foerster's problem was more that they niavely assumed the state was acting in good faith and wouldn't do something that awful. They also assumed the courts wouldn't gleefully ignore misconduct (when in almost every exoneration case the appeals courts were shamelessly dishonest at worst and niave at best).

Compare the investigation into Henry McCollum and Richard Glossip.

In McCollum's case, the state falsely claimed all the documents were gone. The investigators twisted the state's arm and sure enough the Sheriff was lying his ass off. Reading the documents proved that they intentionally ignored evidence pointing to a vicious serial rapist. DNA testing proved the rapist was the actual killer.

In Glossip's case the firm discovered that a.) there never was any embezzlement (Which killed the state's motive stone dead) b.) that the prosecution not only allowed the witness to lie about his mental state but illegally coached him to help him iron out holes in his story and c.) That the star witness was actually a manipulative sociopath rather than a hapless dupe. They also discovered that the prosecutor intentionally burned evidence that could have clarified the issue.

Morrison Foerster's investigation was shoddy at best. I'm being charitable and assuming that they wanted to believe that law enforcement wouldn't do something that awful and so pulled punches. The fact that they employed Alan Keel (who falsified evidence in the Jane Dorotik case and was good friends with two people who stood to loose everything if Cooper was exonerated), Mark Lillienfield (a dirty cop who was part of a unit designed purely to intimidate the sheriff's opponents and was caught on tape threatening a witness, and who would have worked with the SBCSD) and Paul Delhauer (who had no experience in reconstruction and was friends with Lilienfield) does make me wonder if they were trying to find Cooper guilty.

Here's just a short list of the problems

1.) While a button found in the house came from a green prison jacket, "uncontradicted evidence at trial showed that Cooper was wearing a brown or tan prison-issued jacket when he escaped." Deputy Patrick Whelchel would later tell Cooper's defense that he had been asked to acquire a prison issue jacket and shoes from the prison within a day or two of the murders.

2.) The chemical test used to detect blood also reacted to bleach, and since a previous occupant had admitted at trial to cleaning the shower and sink with bleach just prior to vacating, that the supposed blood in the shower and sink could have potentially been the bleach used by the tenant to clean up. Luminol testing also reacts to coppery substances, plant enzymes, microorganisms and excrement, raising an alternate explanation for the luminol results in the hallway and bedrooms.

Notably Alan Keel outright lied and claimed that testing was done and confirmed it was blood. If that's the case, why were those results never made available.

3.) The witnesses who identified the hatchet as coming from the hideout house only did so after being spoken to by Mary Ann Hughes, the mother of Christopher Hughes. When the defense sought to question witnesses about this during the trial they were blocked from doing so. Given how distressed she was, I can buy that they allowed their memories to be manipulated.

4.) The fingerprints of Officer Stephen Moran were recovered from the interior of the closet where Cooper had his sleeping nest, and were determined to have been left the day before the evidence in the closet was officially found. Moran himself would deny ever entering the closet.

5.) Judge Huff ignored testing which showed that four of the alleged control samples either had DNA or were inconclusive and thus could not be legitimate controls. Huff also failed to test the new sample to see if it was blood and ignored that the EDTA corresponded with the DNA).

6.) Prosecutors claimed during the trial that a bloody footprint found on the Ryens’ bedsheet and another print on a spa cover outside the Ryen home matched the size and type of the Pro-Ked ‘‘Dude’’ sneakers Cooper was issued inside the prison, further claiming that the shoe was distributed solely through prisons and other government institutions like the one Cooper had escaped only two days prior to the murders. As it turned out, it WAS possible to get the shoes through the company catalogue, and the prints themselves were only found after William Baird (who was later fired for stealing drugs from lockup) acquired prison issue shoes. James Taylor also recanted and said he gave Cooper PF Flyers. Hillariously, when Taylor tried to recant the recantation he pointed to a pair of PF Flyers and said "those are pro ked dudes". Tellingly, Judge Rymer lied her ass off and claimed the state "never said the shoes were unique."

7.) Multiple Cigarettes from Cooper's hideout never actually made it into evidence; the same officers who processed the hideout (Ogino and Stockwell) were also the guys who "found" the cigarettes in the victim's car.

Moreover, after initial forensic testing, paper from a hand-rolled cigarette butt supposedly found in the station wagon was described as consumed. That same paper later "reappeared" and was offered into evidence. When the paper "reappeared," it was significantly larger than the paper in the cigarette butt that had been tested, AND was a different color.

8.) The tan t shirt with Cooper's blood on it was not prison issued, and none of the people in the lease house recognized it despite identifying other items of clothing that Cooper had stolen from the house.

9.) The sole survivor, Josh Ryen, indicated with a communication board to social worker Donald Gamundoy and deputy Dale Sharp in the emergency room that 3 or 4 white men committed the murders. According to Gamundoy, Josh not only said there were multiple attackers, he unambiguously said they were NOT Mexican at all. Josh only got confused by Dale Sharp's bumbling.

10.) Records would show that a second, now missing, blue shirt had been recovered near the bar shortly before the tan shirt presented at trial. The police's own procedures meant that the shirt would have only appeared in the records if it were found by a civilian (since the tan shirt was found by an officer the records could not have been referring to the shirt), which disproved the state's claim that there was only ever one shirt. The records also described the shirt as having what looked like blood on it, and one of the state's witnesses admitted that one of the three men in the bar had been wearing a blue shirt. In spite of this, Judge Huff accepted the state's claim that there was only one shirt and blocked the defense from pursuing the matter.

Expand full comment
Jun 8·edited Jul 12

The money spent on death row cases isn't a sign of thoroughness. Even if Cooper did do it the failure to fully examine all undisclosed documents means they weren't thorough and in cases like this you have to be.

Expand full comment