Statistics Show 4% of NY Times Reporters Are Serial Killers

save_troy_davis_posterThe New York Times has been touting a study purporting to show that 4 percent of death row inmates have been “falsely convicted.” “Falsely convicted” is not “innocent.” But after being processed through the lawyer-to-journalist telephone game, “insignificant procedural errors” quickly becomes “27 guys didn’t do it!”

What the study actually shows is that those sentenced to death are more likely to have their convictions overturned than those sentenced to prison.

Yeah, we knew that. Anti-death penalty fanatics fight every execution tooth and claw. Sometimes they get lucky. What the statisticians have proved is that it’s very difficult to be executed in this country.

Most of the media cited this pointless study to proclaim that “statistical analysis” proves that 4 percent of people on death row are innocent. They just have to be! And if you disagree, you must hate science.

Whether innocent people have been executed is not a matter that lends itself to statistical analysis. We have the names of every person who has been executed — 1,373 since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

A few dozen lawyers could each take home a stack of case files for the weekend and find the innocent guy — if there were one. But despite years of searching by single-minded zealots, they still don’t have the name of one innocent person executed in at least the last half-century.

Identifying the innocent has lead to embarrassments in the past. In this week’s and next week’s columns, we’ll review the left’s last few poster boys for “innocence.”

First: Troy Davis.

The day of Troy Davis’ execution, MSNBC and CNN went live until midnight to cover it, much like the 9/11 terrorist attack. Rachel Maddow posted an article claiming there was “persistent doubt that the death-row inmate is guilty of the crime of which he was convicted,” under the headline, “Georgia plans to kill Troy Davis tomorrow.”

(This was a delightful change from Rachel’s usual nightly smirk-fest.)

A reporter for the British Guardian claimed Davis was “very possibly innocent.” Amnesty International issued a statement after the execution, announcing that Georgia had “executed a person who may well be innocent.” (In the same sense that I “may well be” an astronaut named Smitty.)

The New York Times editorialized about “A Grievous Wrong” being done to Troy Davis, citing “reports about police misconduct, the recantation of testimony by a string of eyewitnesses and reports from other witnesses that another person had confessed to the crime.”

In all criminal appeals, defense lawyers roll out claims of “police misconduct,” preposterously unbelievable “new” witnesses and a surprise “confession” by someone else.

In fact, that’s a single typewriter key at the Times, used for all reports on criminal convictions. I have my own typewriter key to describe Times’ editorials on executions: “reports about extreme self-righteousness, excessive moral preening, obliviousness to the facts, and lies from a string of journalists.”

Always check to see if the person suddenly confessing to a crime will face any penalty for doing so. You will find that surprise confessions invariably come from those already serving the maximum sentence or that the statute of limitations has run.

(The Times editorial didn’t mention the police officer murdered by Davis. A few days later, an article on the execution did mention the victim in the fifth paragraph — and then spelled his name wrong.)

Those of you who follow my work assiduously know that Davis shot and killed an off-duty cop, Mark MacPhail, in a busy Burger King parking lot in front of dozens of witnesses, including people who knew him, as well as a van full of Air Force airmen. (He didn’t recant.)

After shooting the cop once, Davis sauntered up to the cop’s body and shot him again, directly in the head. As one of the airmen told the jury in identifying Davis: “You don’t forget someone that stands over and shoots someone.”

The much-ballyhooed “recantations” in Davis’ case were typical, which is to say: nothing of the sort. Years after the trial, defense lawyers trick witnesses into making small, inconsequential alterations to their testimony. Then the lawyers rush to the press claiming the witness has “recanted.”

For example, Davis’ lawyer prepared an affidavit for the girlfriend of the homeless man Davis was beating when MacPhail intervened and got shot. The affidavit was consistent with her trial testimony in all respects — including identifying Davis as the killer — except that the lawyer altered her description of events to say that Davis had been “arguing” with her boyfriend before shooting the cop.

The girlfriend would have had no way to know — years later — that this was any different from her original trial testimony. She signed the lawyer-drafted affidavit, but didn’t consider it important enough to get notarized. Then she died.

Out of 34 witnesses for the prosecution, that was one of the five purported “recantations.” Normal people hear that and say, “ARE YOU KIDDING ME? THAT’S WHAT YOU’RE CALLING A ‘RECANTATION’?”

One begins to see why the criminal lobby has turned to statistics, rather than specific cases, to claim that America executes the innocent.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Bruce

    Death penalty opponents will lie to get killers released on the public. If we didn’t have a death penalty, I’m pretty sure they’d still be lying to get killers released.

  • Katherine McChesney

    The world is a better place without Troy Davis in it. Funny thing it’s only the black criminals who have the press as friends. If he had been White it would have gone down without intervention from the MSM.

  • Juan Motie

    I have become kind of an agnostic on the death penalty. While and not against the death penalty for convicted criminals, the main problem as I see it is its lack of a deterrent value, especially when one looks at the number of death penalty convictions vs. the number of actual executions. Convicted of the death penalty, these criminals seemingly have unlimited time and appeals to attempt to reverse their convictions, or at least the penalty portion thereof. How many of those sentenced to execution die of old age on death row instead? I have no solution to offer for the problem of the massive delays in carrying out death penalty executions other than reforming the judicial system, streamlining the appeals process, and perhaps some rewrite of current death penalty laws.

    • sendtheclunkerbacktochicago

      Here is one for ya Juan. I worked in a NYS Prison for 30 years and in that time became good friends with a man who brutally killed three Jewish men. Every time he went before a parole board after he served 25 years there were hundreds of Jewish letters sent to the NYS Parole Board. I witnessed this murderer appearing before the Parole Board 10 times and rejected each time. Finally an ultra liberal governor was elected in NY (Spitzer). As is the case he appointed a new Parole Board and you guessed it they RELEASED a man who murdered THREE people. Can I remind you that this murderer was on death row prior to 1976 and the libs decided to change the death penalty laws. So for those that think it is better to keep a man behind bars rather then execute him/her makes no damn sense. When you kill the murderer the deterrent is he will not kill again, it is as simple as that.

      • Juan Motie

        I understand the frustration with the way death penalty laws are applied in modern-day America. You have actually reinforce the point I make that the massive delays in carrying out death penalty executions serves not as a deterrent to future crimes by other criminals, but as a method of subverting the will of the people in states which retain the death penalty to carry out a justified sentence.

        In your example, I agree this man should have never been released! Justice in his case, and in every death penalty case, should be swift and final as I tried to point out in my original comment. Unfortunately, death penalty cases have become more or less a game for criminal defense attorneys who can prolong cases through the appeals process while they lining their pockets with fees, fees they collect whether they win or lose. But this is the agenda of the extreme radical left-wing party of death democrat in which their philosophy dictates the most vile and evil of criminals need to be protected while murdering the most innocent of human life.

        I sometimes wonder it wasn’t for the cost of keeping these criminals alive behind bars if life without parole wouldn’t be more of a punishment for these miscreants. Being confined in a small box for the rest of your natural life seems like an awful fate.

    • gray_man

      If there is no deterrent value, why do convicts on death row fight so hard to stay alive?

      • Juan Motie

        Do you have even the slightest idea of what the term “deterrent value of capital punishment” means? By your comment is fairly obvious that you do not because “deterrent value” has nothing to do with criminals “fighting to stay alive” once convicted! Perhaps you should educate yourself on the terms you use before displaying utter and complete ignorance for the whole world to see.

        • gray_man

          I know exactly what “deterrent value” means.
          Apparently you do not.
          It deters people from committing crimes that would get them the death penalty.
          The very fact that convicts do not want to die, means they want to live.
          Because they want to live, that indicates if they had thought they were going to die they wouldn’t have committed the crime.
          Death is no deterrent to someone who wants to die, or cares not if they die.
          It is too late for them personally, but as they fight to stay alive it shows the rest of the criminal community
          the indignity of prison, and the consequences of their behavior.
          And removes all of the “romance” of the criminal lifestyle.

          Maybe you should educate yourself in basic logic before running your mouth.
          If you had been educated in basic logic then perhaps you wouldn’t have proven you were an idiot to the entire Front Page Mag community.
          You have to be able to think beyond the simple spoken word, in the limited content of the comments section, and not just blurt the first bit of ignorant babble that comes into your pointy head.

          It’s probably my fault.
          I’m not used to dealing with a mental midget. Mental midgets do not usually read Ann Coulter, or FPM for that matter.
          Are you trying to rise above being a mere moron?
          Maybe a super moron?
          Good luck ! I’m rooting for you.

          Next time I respond to you, I’ll try to use little words, simple concepts, and spell it out completely for you.
          So you won’t have to think beyond the nonsense you learned with your “higher education”.

          Or, you could have simply/politely asked; “What do you mean?”

          I wonder. Did that go the way you thought it would?

          Oh … wait … you probably don’t know what ignoramus means. Look it up.

  • Adolphus

    This is a thought by the way, certainly a potential topic of another discussion: prisons, such as they are today, would be better not to exist. They perpetuate the criminal system in many ways. I could elaborate, but this isn’t the place for it. Without prisons, the death penalty must become more open and the public or society must have a hand, perhaps literally, in its institution upon the convict. Consequently our handling of such criminals will need to be more careful and responsible than it is now.

  • Sharp Shtik

    If only Democrats protected their babies the way they protect their convicted rapists, murderers and terrorists. Instead, they torture and dismember their babies while protesting stern questioning for the worst Democrats.