Speaker 1: Missouri's Attorney General and their Supreme Court has found themselves
Speaker 1: embroiled in a civil rights case taking place on death row.
Speaker 1: And Phoebe Rose is here to fill us in. On Moore,
Speaker 1: what do you got for it?
Speaker 2: Is?
Speaker 3: Phoebe have the case the case of innocence that won't
Speaker 3: keep on with the times. The Attorney General of Missouri
Speaker 3: is determined to try to execute a man where DNA
Speaker 3: evidence has found this man to be probably an innocent man,
Speaker 3: not a not guilty finding, but probably an innocent man.
Speaker 3: And he is continuously trying his very best to block
Speaker 3: an innocence hearing for this gentleman. The innocence projects are involved,
Speaker 3: and he is absolutely determined carte blanche, no matter what,
Speaker 3: to stick that needle in this poor man's arm. The
Speaker 3: man has been on death row for a large chunk
Speaker 3: of his life, and a large chunk of the job
Speaker 3: of the Missouri Attorney General seems to be trying to
Speaker 3: kill this man. This article is from the Death Penalty
Speaker 3: Information Center on the twenty second of July twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3: And Jonathan, if you were the Missouri Attorney General, would
Speaker 3: you be spending a large chunk of your job trying
Speaker 3: to kill this poor man.
Speaker 2: No, as a matter of fact, I would think that
Speaker 2: the entire thing never should have gotten through court to
Speaker 2: begin with. The judge in the trial apparently refused to
Speaker 2: allow DNA testing. I don't know what precedent that was
Speaker 2: set on, but that sounds completely a bunch of mouthfeasance
Speaker 2: to me, and I know it's just another case of
Speaker 2: people who are not wealthy getting a second tier justice
Speaker 2: in the justice system, and people who are even lower
Speaker 2: than that by situation or otherwise are given the not
Speaker 2: given the benefit of the doubt in court. They're just
Speaker 2: assumed that the people who were bringing the charges or
Speaker 2: who were arresting the person are right and everybody else
Speaker 2: is wrong, though there's evidence to prove this man is
Speaker 2: not just not guilty, but innocent and wasn't even involved
Speaker 2: in it at all. So the fact that the attorney
Speaker 2: general is doing this is no surprise because in Missouri,
Speaker 2: attorneys general for decades have been fighting all innocence court
Speaker 2: actions just like this. It seems to be a policy
Speaker 2: that they never allow innocence things to go forward without
Speaker 2: a major fight, and they're hoping I think that the
Speaker 2: people involved will run out of funds before it gets
Speaker 2: to the Supreme Court. But you know, it's like even
Speaker 2: within the state, the Supreme court of the state. So
Speaker 2: it's like, this judge figures that if he lets the
Speaker 2: clock run out and the guy is killed, the whole
Speaker 2: case is moot. So it's like, why do we need
Speaker 2: to accept sculpatory evidence in this case when by the
Speaker 2: time any of this gets done, we'll already be done
Speaker 2: with this guy, the case will be and whoever really
Speaker 2: did do this will be free. And I would be
Speaker 2: interested to know of who they think actually did it
Speaker 2: or if they have any clue.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Kelly, Yeah, there was a quote that in
Speaker 1: this article that really jumped out at me this time.
Speaker 1: The Missouri Attorney General's Office has previously said in the
Speaker 1: past that innocence is not enough to prevent an execution.
Speaker 1: I'm going to repeat that innocence is not enough to
Speaker 1: prevent an execution. The Missouri Attorney General's Office has no
Speaker 1: problem executing an innocent man when they know that that
Speaker 1: man is innocent. So I'm trying to decide to myself, wordoff,
Speaker 1: fuck is Missouri? At are they still stuck in the
Speaker 1: middle of the dark ages? What is going on down
Speaker 1: there when the Justice Department, which is supposed to be
Speaker 1: for exactly that justice, isn't doing its job this, you know,
Speaker 1: killing somebody, executing somebody with knowing that they're innocent is
Speaker 1: definitely not justice. Phoebeu has something you.
Speaker 3: Want to say, Murder murder. The premeditated killing of an
Speaker 3: individual without lawful justification is murder.
Speaker 1: State sponsered murder.
Speaker 3: If you know an individual is innocent, and you, the
Speaker 3: state official, acting as the arm of the law of
Speaker 3: the state, go ahead and kill that person and do
Speaker 3: everything in your power to kill that person. You are
Speaker 3: engaged in murder of that person. It doesn't matter that
Speaker 3: they're in a building called to prison or a jail.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter that they're in the custody of the state.
Speaker 3: This person has civil rights, whether you like them or not.
Speaker 3: Jeffrey Dahmer had civil rights, and he eight people, he
Speaker 3: openedly admit to people. Yet he is still afforded more
Speaker 3: civil rights than this person is by the Missouri Attorney General.
Speaker 3: That is the level of lunacy and round the absolute
Speaker 3: nonsense mongering that is going on here. The Missouri Attorney
Speaker 3: General is not fit to be an attorney if he
Speaker 3: is directing his office to proceed with something that he
Speaker 3: knows is going to result in the death and killing
Speaker 3: by the state of an innocent individual. And this is
Speaker 3: why I will always and forever stand against the death penalty.
Speaker 3: It's not a deterrent in any way, shape or form,
Speaker 3: because America's had the death penalty in every state but
Speaker 3: Michigan forever. Michigan is the only state that has a
Speaker 3: constitutional block in its state constitution against the death Fentain
Speaker 3: is the only state that has never executed somebody since
Speaker 3: it gained statehood. The other forty nine states have all
Speaker 3: killed people in the name of their citizens, and they
Speaker 3: killed innocent people. And you can't undo death. And because
Speaker 3: you can't undo death, you kill one innocent person, you
Speaker 3: can't bring a back to life when you know they
Speaker 3: are innocent. And that is why I will forever no
Speaker 3: matter what arguments you give me about justice, it's not justice.
Speaker 3: It's retribution. It's revenge. It's making you feel good when
Speaker 3: you see the person that you think killed your loved
Speaker 3: one killed themselves. We are not the Biblical life for
Speaker 3: an eye cramp in the twenty first century. We don't
Speaker 3: go around killing people. We move beyond that, and when
Speaker 3: you kill an innocent person because you believe zealously that
Speaker 3: they deserve it, because you believe they are guilty, you
Speaker 3: are part of the problem. You cannot kill an innocent man,
Speaker 3: and the states will kill innocent people because the justice
Speaker 3: system is not perfect. The death penalty system is flawed,
Speaker 3: and it is irreversible. So I will never ever stand
Speaker 3: in support of killing anybody by the state or any
Speaker 3: death sentence, no matter who the individual is.
Speaker 2: Well. Fortunately, the courts do not see it the way
Speaker 2: the AG sees it. And one of the things that's
Speaker 2: interesting about this is when the prosecutor who put them
Speaker 2: on death row finds new evidence he missed or excluded
Speaker 2: a trial that proves they are not guilty and applies
Speaker 2: to have his own case vacated, which has happened in
Speaker 2: this case. Don't you think that should be listened to?
Speaker 2: You know, I mean, I agree with you. The death
Speaker 2: penalty is not is absolutely wrong in any case, because
Speaker 2: you never know what the future brings as far as
Speaker 2: new evidence or new situations to light, especially especially when
Speaker 2: you're the attorney general, you should be open minded and
Speaker 2: a little bit more less. I've got to be a
Speaker 2: strong politically a strong age, or else they might you know,
Speaker 2: have a public might have a problem with me. But
Speaker 2: you know, again, this might even be a case of
Speaker 2: historically ags who succumbed to innocence projects didn't get re
Speaker 2: elected or some stupid shit like that. But you know,
Speaker 2: I just or there is some historic unwritten rule or
Speaker 2: even written in their non public rules that you always
Speaker 2: oppose these cases, or what fighting innocence claims goes far
Speaker 2: far before the current AG. But it's just so, what
Speaker 2: is really behind this irrational stance? Political capital ass kissing
Speaker 2: a governor who wants to be seen as cracking down
Speaker 2: on crime looking to run for higher office? Or is
Speaker 2: it even more insidious? Is it because the man is
Speaker 2: a person of color? He's a black man? So we
Speaker 2: can close this case by accusing an innocent man of
Speaker 2: this and railroading him to the death chair. There and
Speaker 2: that way we can close this case, and whoever did
Speaker 2: this can get away with it, and even if we
Speaker 2: don't know who that is. That is, if you want
Speaker 2: to solve a case, solve the case and get rid
Speaker 2: of by exclusion those who could not have done it.
Speaker 2: You know, that's not how you investigate something. You know,
Speaker 2: it's not how you The original judge excluded DNA events,
Speaker 2: refused to allow DNA evidence to be gotten in the
Speaker 2: first place, because there was DNA evidence from the investigation.
Speaker 2: And it's like, then another judge on an appeal of
Speaker 2: that overturn that and when they got the results, guess
Speaker 2: what this is seventeen years this man spent in prison
Speaker 2: and he didn't do it. Get over your fucking ego
Speaker 2: about I can't have something overturned on my watch and
Speaker 2: just let it go. And that's the kind of thing
Speaker 2: that it torques my chain to the point of where
Speaker 2: I'm getting really really angry at this.
Speaker 1: This isn't Missouri the show me state exactly, you know,
Speaker 1: And here a right and here are these people trying
Speaker 1: to show this DNA evidence and they're turning a blind
Speaker 1: eye to it. I think that's kind of ironic in
Speaker 1: and of itself. And I think you make a pretty
Speaker 1: good case for some of the motivations behind what's going
Speaker 1: on here, Phoebe. You made a pretty pretty good case
Speaker 1: against the death penalty as a whole. But do you
Speaker 1: have any criticisms about the way the AG is handling
Speaker 1: this particular case. Do you think the prosecutor is just
Speaker 1: on like a scorched earth type policy when it comes
Speaker 1: to executions.
Speaker 3: It's not the prosecutor. It's not a scorched earth policy. Here.
Speaker 3: The prosecutor in this case has applied to have the
Speaker 3: conviction by case.
Speaker 1: You know what, I'm sorry. That was my bad. I
Speaker 1: should have said the age that the state ag. You know,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General.
Speaker 3: The Attorney General has every turn tried to block court cases.
Speaker 3: The execution is still penciled in for next month, still
Speaker 3: penciled into tape place in September. Let's not forget this
Speaker 3: man is still at the time of recording, and probably
Speaker 3: if you're watching this in August twenty twenty four, at
Speaker 3: time of watching this on death row, when there is
Speaker 3: evidence that this man is innocent, the prosecutor who prosecuted
Speaker 3: him has said, I want to vacate this conviction, and
Speaker 3: the Attorney General is still determined to press ahead with
Speaker 3: killing this man. I don't understand it. I do not,
Speaker 3: as a human being, understand that in a humanity fashion.
Speaker 3: I cannot get my head into the mentality of the
Speaker 3: Attorney General who is so resolute in trying to push
Speaker 3: this forwards. I can't get my head into that at all.
Speaker 3: I just cannot, in any way, shape or form, get
Speaker 3: my head around that. I don't know what's going on
Speaker 3: in his office. I don't know what his politics are.
Speaker 3: I don't know what his posses are. Frankly, I couldn't
Speaker 3: give a ratzas about his politics or his policies. Couldn't
Speaker 3: give a toss. What I give a toss about is
Speaker 3: the law itself. The law itself here says he's entitled
Speaker 3: to an innocence here. The law itself here says that
Speaker 3: when the motion of a Kate is there, it should
Speaker 3: be heard. The law itself says the evidence of innocence
Speaker 3: should be looked into in these cases. There's an Australian
Speaker 3: television show that somebody said, I do not give a
Speaker 3: toss about what you think justice is. The only thing
Speaker 3: I give a toss about is the law itself. Because
Speaker 3: everybody has their own different understandings and ideas of justice.
Speaker 3: It's a nebulous nonsense justice. What is justice? At the
Speaker 3: end of the day, The three of us have different
Speaker 3: definitions of it. The producer of this show will have
Speaker 3: a different definition of it. The people who find the
Speaker 3: articles for this show will have a different definition of it.
Speaker 3: Every talking head on other shows that the atheist community
Speaker 3: producers will have a different definition of it, and every
Speaker 3: viewer will have a different definition. The law itself here
Speaker 3: is clear. The man is entitled to an innocence hearing.
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court has said so. So why is his
Speaker 3: death still on the books for a date in September?
Speaker 1: Because as innocence is in an excuse to call off
Speaker 1: an execution, we already know that that's not the law,
Speaker 1: mister Attorney General. It's just it's unbelievable. Like I said,
Speaker 1: you know, these are the people that you are expecting
Speaker 1: to uphold the law, and it's just they're just acting
Speaker 1: like they don't need to, like they're above it. It
Speaker 1: blows me away that a state justice department can get
Speaker 1: away with something like this.
Speaker 3: I always say this to anybody listening to this show
Speaker 3: that is gung hope. When you are saying that criminals
Speaker 3: have too many rights, the accused have too many death
Speaker 3: row inmates have too many rights, I ask you this
Speaker 3: question and think, honestly, if you were haul in front
Speaker 3: of a judge, what would you want for you in
Speaker 3: your own selfish self preservation of you? Because I'm pretty
Speaker 3: sure you'd want access to an attorney. I'm pretty sure
Speaker 3: you'd want a fair and speedy trial, and I'm pretty
Speaker 3: sure you'd want to know all the evidence and charges
Speaker 3: before you. And I'm pretty sure that you'd want to
Speaker 3: be able to argue your innocence and to be found
Speaker 3: not guilty of the crime. And I'm pretty sure that
Speaker 3: you would not want to be executed for somebody else's crime.
Speaker 3: And if you are not one of those people, then
Speaker 3: I'm pretty sure I don't actually want to know you.
Speaker 3: And I'm pretty sure I don't actually want to meet
Speaker 3: you because I don't think you actually have any humanity
Speaker 3: in there at all. Because it's just wrong. This is
Speaker 3: just wrong. You can't sugarcoat this. When someone's life is
Speaker 3: on the line. It is wrong to try and do
Speaker 3: everything in your power to kill them when you know
Speaker 3: that killing them could be as a result of evidence
Speaker 3: that is cramp wrong, buncum, irrelevant when they actually didn't
Speaker 3: do it. I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm
Speaker 3: saying the evidence says he didn't do it.
Speaker 1: John made a good point too. I mean, if they're
Speaker 1: going to be punishing this innocent man, we have somebody
Speaker 1: guilty running around free, And I think that's kind of
Speaker 1: a frightening idea of thought in itself, you know, So,
Speaker 1: why you would think that the Justice Department had spent
Speaker 1: instead of spending its energy to make sure that money's pardon, yeah,
Speaker 1: and money to make sure this execution goes through, they
Speaker 1: would be spending that time, energy and money on finding
Speaker 1: who it actually was who committed this crime.
Speaker 2: To start searching that to find who it is. They
Speaker 2: have a fingerprint of this guy, the DNA of this
Speaker 2: guy who did it, Go find him? Right? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Why aren't they going after they're looking for familial DNA?
Speaker 3: I say this, and I ask you to this question
Speaker 3: in an honest manner. When you are arrested, and you
Speaker 3: are and you cannot afford for an attorney, would you
Speaker 3: expect the state to be able to or be required
Speaker 3: to provide you with an attorney? So, say you had
Speaker 3: limited funds, would you expect to be given a public defender?
Speaker 2: Yes, because as part of the law, it's the law
Speaker 2: that says that you will be provided with an attorney.
Speaker 3: Forty seven states, they will send you a bill, it
Speaker 3: will make you pay for a public defender. If they
Speaker 3: determine that you can afford it. And that is the
Speaker 3: base level problem with the system that manifests in what
Speaker 3: we are discussing now, because it gives off this impression
Speaker 3: of Coppa Gander up the wazoo. The criminal justice system
Speaker 3: can do no wrong. If you've been arrested, you're presumed
Speaker 3: to be guilty, and to hell with you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's no argument.
Speaker 1: It's yeah, no argument from me either. I think we're
Speaker 1: all pretty much in agreement on this story. So uh,
Speaker 1: I think we'll just wrap it up, and I just
Speaker 1: want to remind our audience that we do have a
Speaker 1: lot of really cool merch at the ACA, and you
Speaker 1: can check it out at tiny dot c c slash
Speaker 1: ACA Merch