Patterico's Pontifications

10/10/2007

Did Balko Open His WSJ and Reason Pieces with a Distortion, or a Fair Characterization of the Facts? You Be the Judge!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:01 am

This post is about whether the lead anecdote in Radley Balko’s recent Wall Street Journal and Reason pieces is accurate and fair.

Specifically, Balko opened both pieces with a startling anecdote about how Dr. Steven Hayne can magically divine how many people were holding a gun, just by looking at a wound track. I have pointed out that there is some dispute about whether Dr. Hayne’s testimony was as simplistic and laughable as Balko portrays it — given that the state Court of Appeals said that Hayne most certainly said no such thing.

I just saw that Balko has responded to my post pointing out the missing context from the Edmonds case, which was provided by the Court of Appeals. Balko argues that the Court of Appeals misanalyzed what Dr. Hayne really said, and supports his argument with a quote from the trial transcript.

Which is fine, except that Balko snips the quote precisely before the part that undermines his argument.

I’m assuming your familiarity with my previous post on the Edmonds Court of Appeals decision. Recall that, in that decision, the Court of Appeals held that — contrary to Balko’s claim — “it is clear that the point which Dr. Hayne was attempting to make is that, given Edmonds’s testimony that Edmonds did not aim the weapon at anything, it was more likely than not that another person assisted.” In other words, the Court of Appeals believed that Dr. Hayne’s testimony that a second person was involved was given entirely in the context of the defendant’s confession.

Balko tries to argue the opposite, and quotes language from the opinion to support his contention — which was front and center in both his Wall Street Journal op-ed and his Reason piece — that Hayne was testifying based on the wound track alone. To support his point, he gives an extensive quotation from Dr. Hayne’s testimony. But as we shall see, the quotation is surgically snipped just before the evidence that contradicts Balko’s argument.

Here’s Balko:

The appeals court writes, referring to Hayne:

He knows that you cannot look at a bullet wound and tell whether it was made by a bullet fired by one person pulling the trigger or by two persons pulling the trigger simultaneously.

Except that that is exactly what Hayne was saying. Consider this passage, from the trial transcript:

Q:

Dr. Hayne, you testified earlier that the defendant’s statement that you saw was consistent with how the gunshot wound occurred?

[Note: This would by Edmonds' initial confession, later recanted, but now endorsed by the prosecution.]

A:
It would be consistent with the physical findings that I observed and the information provided to me by opposite side counsel.

Q;
And do you understand that the evidence is that two people fired that shot?

A:
That was essentially the summary of the information given to me and seen on the video.

Q:
And let’s suppose if one person had fired that shot, would your opinion be the same?

A:
I could not exclude that; however, I would favor that a second party be [sic] involved in that positioning of the weapon.

Q:
And what would be the distance of the shot?

A:
The distance?

Q:
Based on the fact that if one person had done this?

A:
The distance of the shot, if you’re addressing the muzzle of the weapon to the back of the head, all I can tell you it’s at least two to three inches away. If you are talking about the relative position of the weapon, then I would indicate that the weapon was placed much more towards the bed and that would be consistent with one person assisting another person to achieve that trajectory, the aiming of the weapon. Since it would be past the center line of the decedent’s head when fired, 20 degrees past the center line of the head, so, therefore, it would be consistent with two people involved. I can’t exclude one, but I think that would be less likely.

That bold emphasis is Balko’s, and he jumps on the language to argue that Dr. Hayne had moved past the confession, and based his opinion entirely on the wound track and bullet trajectory:

In the emphasized passage, Hayne is very clearly claiming that based on the trajectory of the bullet in the victim’s head, he thinks it’s likely that two hands were on the gun that fired it. He has left Edmond’s confession, and is speculating now about where the gun was in relation to the bed, and about two hypothetical people assisting one another in positioning it–again based not on other evidence already presented, but on the where the bullet entered the victim’s head.

Hayne has “left Edmond’s confession,” eh? The Court of Appeals didn’t think so. I wonder why?

Maybe it’s because they read Dr. Hayne’s testimony past the place where it is snipped by Balko. If we do that, then lo and behold! we see that in the very next line Dr. Hayne makes an immediate reference to the “video” — meaning the defendant’s videotaped confession. Let’s pick it back up again with the bolded part quoted by Balko, and keep reading:

Q. Based on the fact that if one person had done this?

A. The distance of the shot, if you’re addressing the muzzle of the weapon to the back of the head, all I can tell you it’s at least two or three inches away. If you are talking about the relative position of the weapon, then I would indicate that the weapon was placed much more towards the bed and that would be consistent with one person assisting another person to achieve that trajectory, the aiming of the weapon. Since it would be past the center line of the decedent’s head and fired, 20 degrees past the center line of the head, so, therefore, it would be consistent with two people involved. I can’t exclude one, but I think that would be less likely.

Q. And of course, this was information provide[d] to you by opposite counsel; isn’t that correct?

A. Not all. It’s provided on video. Also, some of the information derived from the autopsy itself, and then also looking at the photographs of the scene.

And so we see that, despite the fact that Balko claims Dr. Hayne has “left Edmonds’s confession,” the transcript testimony is to the contrary. In his very next answer, Dr. Hayne makes clear that he is basing his answer on “the video” — i.e., Edmonds’s videotaped confession, which Dr. Hayne had just been asked about a few questions earlier.

Now, Balko may have something of a point when he says that, when Dr. Hayne takes a confession into account in forming any kind of opinion, “this is no longer the expert opinion of a forensic pathologist. It’s weighing all of the evidence together, as a juror would, and coming to a conclusion.” But that’s a far cry from the far more incendiary claim that Dr. Hayne “can tell from an autopsy how many hands were on the gun that fired a bullet,” as Balko characterized Dr. Hayne’s testimony in his Reason piece.

But wait. Didn’t the Supreme Court overrule the Court of Appeals and take the position that Dr. Hayne testified to what Balko claimed he testified to? Indeed they did, as I acknowledged in my previous post — but they offered no analysis whatsoever. As I said in my previous post:

How did the state’s Supreme Court opinion address this analysis? It really didn’t. Instead, the Supreme Court took the second-to-last sentence in the quoted paragraph, and chopped it up to make it mean something completely different from what it meant.

The Supreme Court simply assumed away the issue, by deciding without analysis that Dr. Hayne had testified to what the Court of Appeals said he hadn’t testified to. As I said in my post: “Legally, the Supreme Court’s opinion is what matters. But that doesn’t mean it is necessarily factually correct. Courts get things wrong at times.”

Interestingly, Balko agrees that the Supreme Court misstated the Court of Appeals’ view. Balko says:

Patterico says the state supreme court misstated the appeals court’s argument. He’s right, here. They did.

He also agrees that the Supreme Court gave no analysis to justify its mischaracterization, saying of the Supreme Court’s misstatement: “I don’t know why they did [it].” Exactly. Because the Supreme Court doesn’t explain why it disagreed. They misquoted the Court of Appeals and assumed away the very issue to be decided.

Still, in the end, Balko says my criticism is “pretty cheap criticism” because the Supreme Court of Mississippi decided the case almost unanimously, even though it is conservative. The fact that the Supreme Court mischaracterized the lower court opinion and assumed away the issue doesn’t seem to bother him a bit. Balko seems to be saying: It’s the Supreme Court! . . . and when they agree with me, I accept their version of the facts as gospel, no matter how unreasoned and manipulative the decision is, even by my own admission.

That Radley Balko! Always speaking Truth to Power — except, that is, when Power happens to agree with him, in which case Power trumps minor things like Reasoning and Accurate Renditions of the Facts.

One imagines that if the Supreme Court of the United States had issued an opinion which seemed to misstate the facts of a case in a way he didn’t like, he wouldn’t be shrugging his shoulders and saying: “Sorry! It’s the Supreme Court! If you don’t like their analysis, keep your cheap criticism to yourself!”

Look, I said it before and I’ll say it again: I’m not defending this Dr. Hayne in general. I have previously said that, even given my severe reservations about Radley Balko’s ability to be fair, he has set forth so much evidence against Hayne that I think it’s worth a state investigation.

But it’s not hard to see why Balko is a fan of the Mississippi Supreme Court opinion in the Edmonds case. After all, the Supreme Court in that case snipped off relevant portions of critical quotations, with the effect of misrepresenting what the Court of Appeals said — just like Balko has done in his most recent post.

As long as it’s all in the name of Fighting the System, such tactics are okay. I know this is true — because Balko’s fans all tell me it’s so.

79 Responses to “Did Balko Open His WSJ and Reason Pieces with a Distortion, or a Fair Characterization of the Facts? You Be the Judge!”

  1. I believe that he’s guilty of doing what a lot of biased advocates do: not look a gift horse in the mouth, which is what the state supreme court was.

    Not intellectually honest… the only defense I’d have is I bet you most lawyers would cite this case as precedent for them if they thought it would help their position without looking too closely at whether they agreed with the basis for the decision or not. At least that’s what Jack McCoy would do.

    {last point added to drive Patterico crazy}

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  2. i’m getting a captain ahab patterico/moby dick vibe here.

    assistant devil's advocate (06dab9)

  3. Which is which? Patterico is Ahab, right?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  4. Patterico, here’s a YouTube video on Balko’s site you should watch featuring Balko, Edmonds, and Maye. The video makes a big deal of the Maye case as it relates to Balko and may support your contention this should have been disclosed on the WSJ op-ed. It also repeats the contention Hayne testified he could tell how many people were holding the gun based on the autopsy results without mentioning Edmonds’ videotaped confession nor any context at all.

    On the other hand, the report makes Hayne looks horrible. When asked, he said he was certified, but couldn’t remember the name of the organization that certifies him. Not the one which he failed an exam, I assume.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  5. Just from a semantic point of view, I had wondered at the “[sic]” inserted in Hayne’s answer here:

    … I would favor that a second party be [sic] involved in that positioning of the weapon.

    That was inserted by Balko? And the reason I ask is because it changes the tense of the answer, which then becomes a statement of fact rather than the answer to a hypothetical.

    One would have to be pretty devious to use sic in such a fashion intentionally.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  6. “Legally, the Supreme Court’s opinion is what matters. But that doesn’t mean it is necessarily factually correct. Courts get things wrong at times.”

    So the Supreme Court could get it wrong and the Appeals Court couldn’t?

    Hayne: “Not all. It’s provided on video. Also, some of the information derived from the autopsy itself, and then also looking at the photographs of the scene.”
    Here he clearly admits using the video, the autopsy and crime scene photos. By using all of those pieces of information, he is leaving his area of expertise and entering another. He’s not an expert in analyzing crime scene photos or a video confession. He clearly stopped being an “expert” witness when he left his area of “expertise”, assuming he has one since he’s not even certified.

    Clearly as a prosecutor, Patterico has a vested interest in seeing that the prosecution comes out on top of this, which they didn’t. I think his interest and criticism is directly related to making his job easier and not for justice.

    Sean (e1d31a)

  7. So the Supreme Court could get it wrong and the Appeals Court couldn’t?

    What your postulating is possible. What is your point?

    Clearly as a prosecutor, Patterico has a vested interest in seeing that the prosecution comes out on top of this, which they didn’t.

    Fair enough.

    I think his interest and criticism is directly related to making his job easier and not for justice.

    Why? How do you reach that conclusion?

    Sean, that was some of the most vacuous reasoning I’ve seen on these threads outside of alphie, and that’s saying something.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  8. Nice of Patterico not to bold nor discuss this part:

    “Also, some of the information derived from the autopsy itself”

    Hmmm…I wonder why that would be?

    Dude (7676e6)

  9. I have never said that the relevant testimony wasn’t derived in part from the autopsy. The Court of Appeals’ contention was this: Hayne was asked, in light of the videotaped confession, were the findings at the autopsy consistent with the version offered by the defendant? Answer: yes, to the extent that the defendant claimed not to be aiming, the location of the wound indicated that someone was, indicating a second person helping to aim.

    So Dude’s big gotcha is completely, 100% consistent with the theory offered by the Court of Appeals, and is no gotcha at all. Dude just doesn’t understand what the Court of Appeals was saying.

    Nice try, try again.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  10. ~8:

    Hmmm…I wonder why that would be?

    Because it’s totally unremarkable?

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  11. i’m getting a captain ahab patterico/moby dick vibe here

    Yeah, I expect a lot more crap along the lines of this idiot comment. WHY DON’T YOU CARE ABOUT JUSTICE! YOU’RE OBSESSED! ANYTHING BUT AN ACTUAL ANALYSIS OF YOUR POST!

    Patterico (bad89b)

  12. Does Balko (or “Dude”) offer any explanation why Fulgham has not exonerated Edmonds? She has already been convicted and sentenced, correct? Her supposed gambit of blaming the juvenile has already failed, so what’s her motivation for continuing this supposed frame of her little brother? Even though I found Edmonds “support” websites to be even more distorted and factually mashed-up than Balko’s take, I do think Edmonds should be released after a reasonable period to get on with his life, based on her level of evil influence. Review Haynes, but not necessarily over this.

    rhodeymark (e86321)

  13. Yes, it appears that Hayne couched his testimony in terms that avoided blatantly lying and saying that as a doctor, he could tell through an autopsy how many people were holding the gun. But not blatantly lying doesn’t mean that his implication wasn’t perfectly clear.

    Instead, he and the prosecution implied the lie — that somehow, as a doctor, he had something to say about the number of people holding the gun. Why call the doctor to testify to evidence that had nothing to do with the autopsy? Obviously the implication was that the autopsy showed how many people were holding the gun.

    Now, you can say that by him saying that the testimony was “consistent” with his autopsy, he was adding something. But that’s another lie. By saying it was “consistent” he’s implying that somehow he could tell if it was inconsistent — in other words, again, he’s implying that he could tell through an autopsy if there was really only one person holding the gun, and would be able to say “no, that testimony that two people are holding the gun is inconsistent with my autopsy.”

    It stinks. And by saying that the doctor testified as he did, Balko is simply stating the only rational implication of the doctor’s testimony. And if that wasn’t the rational implication of the doctor’s testimony, then what was he doing on the stand?

    In my opinion, a rule 702 Daubert motion to exclude the good doctor’s tesimony would have been appropriate, and should have been granted. That’s the sort of expert that’s there to add nothing but the aura of scientific credibility with absolutly no basis in fact.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  14. By the way, Patterico, the fact that the L.A. times and Balko are both featuring this piece — and the conservative ideloblogs are ignoring it –is an example of why you guys and your blinders drive me crazy:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus10oct10,1,2257283.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

    Balko’s talking about stuff the pro-secrecy, pro-war crowd utterly ignore. We need him.

    El-Masri was on vacation in the Balkans in 2003 when he was stopped at a border crossing in Macedonia and his passport was taken. He said he was questioned intensely and accused of associating with Islamic radicals.

    According to his complaint, he was then blindfolded, taken to an airport and stripped of his clothes by a team of masked men. He said they drugged him and chained him inside an airplane, and he was flown to Afghanistan, where he was held in a CIA-run prison for five months.

    Only then did intelligence agents conclude they had the wrong man. He was not Khalid al-Masri, a wanted terrorist and a member of Al Qaeda’s Hamburg cell that organized the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington.

    American officials did not apologize to El-Masri for the mistake or return him to his home. Instead, he was dropped from a truck on a hillside in Albania. From there, he returned to Germany and contacted a lawyer.

    Two years ago, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said after a meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that U.S. officials “admitted this man had been taken erroneously.” In January of this year, German prosecutors issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA agents for their roles in the abduction and abuse of El-Masri.

    “Love our country as it is, or you aren’t a patriot,” right? Do you guys love what happend to El-Masri? Good for you.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  15. Phil,

    As a general rule I try when possible to blog about things where I am adding to the discussion. For example, nobody else is challenging Balko on the facts of his Hayne pieces. Nobody else is publishing the results of the LAT inquiry into Andres Martinez (not even the LAT!). I have something to add on those topics. The thing you’re talking about, not so much.

    You can start your own blog if you think an Issue of the Day is receiving inadequate coverage here.

    Patterico (5f1282)

  16. Instead, he was dropped from a truck on a hillside in Albania. From there, he returned to Germany and contacted a lawyer.

    Damn! You mean he was not tortured horribly, beheaded, his body mutilated and hung from a bridge? I can see why you’d be upset, Phil.

    nk (6e4f93)

  17. Did Patterico open his latest Balko-obsessed attack with a distortion of what Balko opened his WSJ piece with?!?!?!? You decide!!!!!!

    “In January, Mississippi’s Supreme Court took an unusual step. In the murder trial of 13-year-old Tyler Edmonds, the court tossed out the testimony of the medical examiner who had conducted the autopsy of the body.

    The reason? The medical examiner in the case, Dr. Steven Hayne, had testified under oath that he could tell from the bullet wounds in the body that Edmonds and his sister simultaneously held the gun to fire the fatal shot. Of course, as the court concluded, it is impossible to make such a determination from examining bullet wounds.”

    I ask you: Is the above a startling “anecdote” about how Dr. Hayne is a magician? Or is it a statement of what the Mississippi SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY HELD?

    Patterico’s hypocrisy is becoming completely absurd.

    Dude (7676e6)

  18. I’ll analyze the post, because I think you are off base on this one – right, but still off base. First, just in keeping with the full disclosure meme, I am a Balko fan. Through one the arguments you and he were having, I discovered your site and became your fan. I don’t remember the specific argument, but I do remember I agreed with you, which is why I became a fan. Both of you are daily stops for me.

    Here is my view of the testimony in simplistic terms: Edmonds said he wasn’t aiming the gun. The police said ah ha, since the bullet hit him square in the back of the head and no one gets that lucky, there must have been a second person holding and aiming the gun. Haynes said, I saw the confession, looked at crime scene photos and then determined that the entry angle of the bullet means two people were holding the gun.

    Even after reading your post, it certainly sounds to me like Haynes is claiming that he can tell from the autopsy how many people fired a gun. I think that if I were a juror, I’d come away with the very impression that Balko claims – Haynes says the autopsy shows that the police are right – two people fired the gun.

    How does the trajectory of a bullet support the idea that two people were holding the gun? It can support an angle of entry. It can support muzzle distance. He can tell the jurors the approximate position of the gun in three dimensional space based on the wound. But, how can he say how many hands were on the gun? How can he honestly claim that scenario is the most likely? Even with the confession and the police theory taken into account, how can he make that claim?

    I think that it is reasonable for Balko to state that Haynes is claiming to be able to tell from an autopsy how many people fired a gun. Yes, you are correct, a very thorough, deep, lawyerly analysis of the exact statements can claim that Haynes was saying something a little different and couching his answer with the tape and pictures comment, but I think you are off base because the impression given is definitely that Haynes is saying that the wound shows that two people were holding the gun.

    In light of the other fantastic claims Haynes makes, it is reasonable to assert what Balko says.

    I would submit that any reasonable person, having seen CSI and having an average understanding of autopsies and the law would hear Haynes testimony and think, “Haynes says the autopsy shows that two people were holding the gun.” That’s pretty much what Balko said in his articles, regardless of the quotes he used to back it up.

    Chris Farley (6a96d1)

  19. You can start your own blog if you think an Issue of the Day is receiving inadequate coverage here.

    Yeah, I was just venting. It’s far more rewarding to hang out at your blog then to try to talk into the void on my own.

    Damn! You mean he was not tortured horribly, beheaded, his body mutilated and hung from a bridge? I can see why you’d be upset, Phil.

    NK, it appears that you won’t listen to criticism of our government until they become as bad as we can possibly imagine. Of course, once they get that bad, criticism will also be pointless — you can see how well the islamic fundamentalists respond to criticism.

    So it’s kind of a catch-22 — we can’t criticise them now, because they aren’t as bad as they could be. And of course, once they’re as bad as they can possibly be, criticizing them will just get us killed.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  20. The medical examiner in the case, Dr. Steven Hayne, had testified under oath that he could tell from the bullet wounds in the body that Edmonds and his sister simultaneously held the gun to fire the fatal shot.

    Nope. Nobody testified to any such thing. Patterico has more than amply demonstrated it.

    Of course, as the court concluded, it is impossible to make such a determination from examining bullet wounds.

    Undeniably true. Also a rhetorical trick to bolster the proceeding falsehood with an incontrovertible fact.

    nk (6e4f93)

  21. By the way, yes, that is my real name and no, I don’t live in a van down by the river.

    Chris Farley (6a96d1)

  22. I’m sorry Phil but you do seem to be pointing to the mote in our eye and ignoring the log in our enemies’.

    nk (6e4f93)

  23. I’m sorry Phil but you do seem to be pointing to the mote in our eye and ignoring the log in our enemies.

    Even if that’s true (and it’s not), so what? Is there some sort of conventional wisdom out there saying that you shouldn’t take a mote out of your own eye before forceably removing the log from your enemy’s eye? Do you really think you can properly see to judge the size of the log in his eye, if you don’t pull the mote out of your own?

    You’ve completely butchered the biblical saying to where it has no meaning, anyway.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  24. NK-

    Somebody didn’t do too well on the reading comprehension part of the ACT (that would be you, BTW).

    Balko states the Supreme court threw out Hayne’s testimony. Why did they do that? He states “THE REASON?” And then goes on to state why the Supreme Court found as they did. In the very next sentence he CONTINUES to state what the court concluded.

    Regardless of whether you actually agree with what the Court found about Hayne’s testimony, Balko’s statements of fact of what the court found and their reasoning is ACCURATE. Hence, Patterico, in accusing Balko of opening his WSJ piece with a distortion, IS DISTORTING HIMSELF IN THE OPENING OF HIS OWN PIECE.

    I also would encourage everyone to read the Supreme Court decision for themselves.

    http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO38911.pdf

    While Dr. Hayne is qualified to proffer expert opinions in forensic pathology, a court should not give such an expert carte blanche to proffer any opinion he chooses. There was no showing that Dr. Hayne’s testimony was based, not on opinion and speculation, but rather on scientific methods and procedures.”

    “Therefore, the testimony pertaining to the two-shooter theory should not have been admitted under our standards.”

    Dude (7676e6)

  25. Ok,

    How about, “He who troubles his own house will inherit wind, And the fool will be servant to the wise”?

    nk (6e4f93)

  26. OK, so basically, I should shut up about my government capturing and torturing innocent people, because I want to save my own inheritance.

    I gotta tell you, you have the personality to be an awesome terrorist. Whatever your side does is right, as long as it’s fighting the enemy — you’re only interested in hearing about the bad things the enemy does, not about your own side’s malfeasance.

    If you’d been born in the middle east, I bet you’d be a terrorist right now.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  27. Patterico,

    I think Balko’s take was a bit too strong when considering all this information. In looking at just the Supreme Court ruling and figuring that “they got it right” then his opening statement is okay, but as you point out, the actual facts of the matter are a bit more slippery.

    As I stated in my previous comments in your earlier post, I don’t think it is fair to let Hayne off the hook entirely here. It seems quite possible to me that once Hayne heard the confession he went back and re-thought the implications of his physical evidence. That is initially Hayne wouldn’t have said anything about how many people were holding the gun if there was no taped confession, and only upon viewing the taped confession does he change the likelihoods of the two hypotheses given the physical evidence.

    Another commenter wrote the following, which also sums it up nicely,

    Here is my view of the testimony in simplistic terms: Edmonds said he wasn’t aiming the gun. The police said ah ha, since the bullet hit him square in the back of the head and no one gets that lucky, there must have been a second person holding and aiming the gun. Haynes said, I saw the confession, looked at crime scene photos and then determined that the entry angle of the bullet means two people were holding the gun.

    Even after reading your post, it certainly sounds to me like Haynes is claiming that he can tell from the autopsy how many people fired a gun. I think that if I were a juror, I’d come away with the very impression that Balko claims – Haynes says the autopsy shows that the police are right – two people fired the gun.

    Not bad. Like I said in my earlier comment, I view this as an exercise in probabilistic reasoning. As such I’d look at it this way, if the probability that two people fired the gun given the autopsy results is the same as one person fifing the gun given the autopsy results, then Hayne’s comments about the which hypothesis is more or less likely based on the physical evidence is not good. The part that is giving problems is this part of the testimony (interestingly not the latter testimony you supply)

    Q:
    And let’s suppose if one person had fired that shot, would your opinion be the same?

    A:
    I could not exclude that; however, I would favor that a second party be [sic] involved in that positioning of the weapon.

    The questioner (based on what I’ve read, this is presumably the defense attorney) is posing a hypothetical: suppose there is one shooter, does the physical evidence fit with that hypothesis as well. At least that is how I’m reading it. At which point Hayne says the phsyical evidence would fit with that, but he’d put a lower probability on that outcome. That looks bad to me for Hayne.

    Let me also add that I agree with you that the testimony is within the context of the taped confession. In that you are correct. Thus, one could criticize Balko for (possibly) being right, but for the wrong reasons.

    I also think Chris Farley has a good point as well. Hayne is supposedly an expert although this claim appears somewhat dubious. But to a peson on the jury they might not be able to parse the language at this level. To them they might conclude: The pathology expert says the wound indicates two people held the gun.

    Also the additional testimony doesn’t really work for me the way it does for you. I’m going to quote part of it that is giving me concerns with a different part of the text bolded.

    Since it would be past the center line of the decedent’s head and fired, 20 degrees past the center line of the head, so, therefore, it would be consistent with two people involved. I can’t exclude one, but I think that would be less likely.

    Q. And of course, this was information provide[d] to you by opposite counsel; isn’t that correct?

    A. Not all. It’s provided on video. Also, some of the information derived from the autopsy itself, and then also looking at the photographs of the scene.

    That seems to fit with Balko’s position. Admittedly the context of the confession does weaken his position, but it doesn’t, IMO, leave it completely without merit.

    Steve Verdon (4c0bd6)

  28. Gee Phil, the big screen production of “Rendition” isn’t enough navel gazing for you? The very fact that you think these issues are being ignored is why some folks think of your type as caricatures.

    rhodeymark (1aaf2a)

  29. OK, so basically, I should shut up about my government capturing and torturing innocent people, because I want to save my own inheritance.

    Yup!

    I gotta tell you, you have the personality to be an awesome terrorist.

    Nope. I’m really a very gentle and friendly person.

    Whatever your side does is right, as long as it’s fighting the enemy — you’re only interested in hearing about the bad things the enemy does, not about your own side’s malfeasance.

    I can’t deny that.

    If you’d been born in the middle east, I bet you’d be a terrorist right now.

    I’m a fifty-one year old lawyer from a good family. I don’t engage in violence. I got into trouble on another thread for saying so.

    nk (6e4f93)

  30. I didn’t say they were ignored by everyone. They’re ignored by the pro-secrecy, pro-torture crowd, who calls them stuff like “navel-gazing” and talks about how if you don’t like America as it is you’re not a patriot.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  31. Phil, in my short life here (46) I have heard literally thousands of things that America is doing wrong. While a few were correct, the majority turn out to be wide eyed fantasies. See the truthers about 9/11 for that. Pardon me if at this point, I don’t get all bent out of shape for something that I don’t know actually happened or happened the way it is currently being presented.

    buzz (9e5c44)

  32. don’t like America as it is

    Guess you’ve said it all there. You can call yourself a patriot and I won’t give a rat’s rear, but just remember that it does get hard to differentiate you nuanced types from those who just don’t like America period.

    rhodeymark (e86321)

  33. Hayne was butt kissing the police when he supported their two-gun theory.

    RJN (e12f22)

  34. Two-gun theory?

    Lord.

    Ain’t it great that you can have an opinion in this country without having the slightest clue what you’re talking about?

    For RJN it’s enough that Balko has a position, even if RJN has no idea what that position really is. Balko hates law enforcement so he must be right.

    Patterico (dd26e5)

  35. Hayne was butt kissing the police when he supported their two-gun theory.

    What’s the problem with that? I’ve known some hot police officers.

    Okay, ceasing inappropriate trollish behavior now.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  36. Steve Verdon,

    Read or re-read my comment 9..Either you missed it or failed to absorb it.

    Patterico (661d8e)

  37. Chris Farley,

    I enjoyed reading your comment and am happy to have you as a reader.

    For you to be correct about how any reasonable person would view Dr. Hayne’s testimony, you would have to conclude that the judges on the Court of Appeals are unreasonable. Because they clearly saw it as I have described.

    Patterico (e4f068)

  38. For you to be correct about how any reasonable person would view Dr. Hayne’s testimony, you would have to conclude that the judges on the Court of Appeals are unreasonable. Because they clearly saw it as I have described.

    And didn’t the state Supreme Court see it as Balko described?

    Just to be fair to Chris Farley.

    I think they were wrong… I think Hayne’s testimony was largely stating that the two people holding the gun theory was consistent with what he heard on the videotaped confession… Hayne said very clearly it could have just been one person… but then he also included the autopsy results as one of the reasons he favored the two gun theory, something I’m not sure I understand.

    So I’d point out that intelligent people in two different courts came to different conclusions… you’re right to advance your theory, which I lean toward… but it’s perhaps not completely beyond understanding that a cursory reading of the case and stories about it may lead some to the state Supreme Court’s view, however inadequate.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  39. Chirstoph,

    What’s the problem with that? I’ve known some hot police officers.

    Well there was an accompanying article in that issue of Reason that noted that often times the pathologists are not quite as neutral as they like to think they are. Even with no intention, there can be biases creeping into the work when the pathologist has information that may not be relevant to their work on the case.

    Patterico,

    I’ve read comment 9 and I don’t see how it does much if anything to my view here. The very fact that Hayne is saying that his views on how many people held the gun was in part based on the autopsy report is precisely what I find troubling. If this is true, then Hayne would argue that two people held the gun even without the taped confession (later recanted).

    For you to be correct about how any reasonable person would view Dr. Hayne’s testimony, you would have to conclude that the judges on the Court of Appeals are unreasonable. Because they clearly saw it as I have described.

    And can we conclude that by implication the Supreme Court Justices in Mississippi are unreasonable since they did not see it as you have described it?

    Steve Verdon (4c0bd6)

  40. Dude,

    Balko correctly summarized the Supreme Court’s opinion. But what you don’t seem to understand is that he asserted the Supreme Court’s opinion as fact, when there is plenty of reason to doubt its factual assumptions.

    Even Balko admits that the Supreme Court opinion a) misstates the Court of Appeals’ conclusion on the nature of Dr. Hayne’s testimony, and b) fails to set forth any reasoning for coming to a different conclusion.

    So yeah, the Supreme Court opinion legally governs, but as a factual matter may be wrong. Which should be reported.

    Let me give you an analogy.

    Let’s say I want to write a hit piece on Radley Balko, and one of my themes is that he defends guilty people. I begin my piece by asserting, without qualification, that he has defended Cory Maye, who is guilty of deliberately murdering a police officer.

    I don’t say that there is any question about it. I don’t say a jury convicted Maye of murder, but many argue he is innocent. I just say Maye is guilty.

    Balko (and you) would flip out. There’s another side to the story! you would scream. It’s outrageous not to tell it or at least mention it!

    And you would be right.

    But applying Balko’s standards, I could just say: the jury has spoken and I just summarized what they found.

    Patterico (7e6b45)

  41. Comment by Steve Verdon — 10/10/2007 @ 11:52 am

    Steve, I was commenting on the quality of many hot police officers’ asses I’ve seen, not making a deeper point. Thanks for taking it seriously, however.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  42. Christoph,

    …but then he also included the autopsy results as one of the reasons he favored the two gun theory, something I’m not sure I understand.

    Wouldn’t this suggest some degree of “inadequacy” on the part of the Appeals Court?

    I agree the above is a weaker interpretation of the incident than Balko described in his articles, but then again, going with a State Supreme Court decision isn’t vs. the Appeals Court Decision that was over-turned isn’t that unusual either.

    Steve Verdon (4c0bd6)

  43. Christoph,

    Steve, I was commenting on the quality of many hot police officers’ asses I’ve seen, not making a deeper point. Thanks for taking it seriously, however.

    Well if she was a hot police officer….I see your point.

    Steve Verdon (4c0bd6)

  44. Wouldn’t this suggest some degree of “inadequacy” on the part of the Appeals Court?

    Steve, not really, not if he meant the autopsy results were consistent with (something pathologists fall back on a lot, I gather) the videotaped confession and other evidence.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  45. Steve-

    What Patterico is saying is that all poor Dr. Hayne testified to was that SOMEONE aimed the gun. This is within his purview, as he might be able to make a judgment about it given the trajectory of the gun, etc.

    However, what Patterico then asks you to do is to just ignore all that stuff where he speculates and opines how two people are more likely than one person to have fired the bullet. You know, that stuff outside of his purview.

    Even if you GRANT Patterico’s theory that poor Dr. Hayne is testifying within the context of the previous confession, the Supreme Court, within their decision, explicitly states that these opinions and speculations OUTSIDE HIS PURVIEW are not to be allowed.

    Just ignore that.

    BTW:

    “Balko hates law enforcement so he must be right.”

    What was that about straw men, Patterico?
    Seriously, how much hypocrisy can you commit in one thread?

    Dude (7676e6)

  46. …the Supreme Court, within their decision, explicitly states that these opinions and speculations OUTSIDE HIS PURVIEW are not to be allowed.

    That’s a fair point. He should only testify about the forensic evidence and what it suggests/is consistent with… not use other evidence to support the forensic evidence (other than to say it is consistent).

    Does that make sense?

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  47. Steve, not really, not if he meant the autopsy results were consistent with (something pathologists fall back on a lot, I gather) the videotaped confession and other evidence.

    In his testimony Hayne doesn’t just say that. He also says the other hypothesis (one person holding the gun) is less likely than two holding the gun.

    This brings up another thing I wonder about, what exactly does it mean when somebody says “consistent with…”? According to this testimony, one could argue Hayne sees both hypotheses as being consistent with the data, but that one is, I guess, slightly more consistent than the other. Doesn’t strike me as very precise language…sounds spiffy, but in the end it is rather ambiguous.

    Steve Verdon (4c0bd6)

  48. He should only testify about the forensic evidence

    Makes sense, but is it his job as an expert witness to filter his statements like that, or is it the job of the opposing counsel to point out that his testimony went beyond his area of expertise?

    kenB (1ad56f)

  49. “Doesn’t strike me as very precise language…sounds spiffy, but in the end it is rather ambiguous.”

    One thing I think we can all agree on:

    Either English isn’t the first language of both Dr. Hayne and whomever the attorney asking the questions is OR the court reporter deserves to be shot.

    Dude (7676e6)

  50. Kenb-

    The opposing counsel DID object that Hayne’s testimony was outside his purview. In the original trial, that objection was overruled.

    Dude (7676e6)

  51. Dude says I am trying to get readers to ignore the problem that Hayne may have been testifying outside his area of expertise, even granting my scenario.

    Dude is illiterate or a liar.

    From my post: “Balko may have something of a point when he says that, when Dr. Hayne takes a confession into account in forming any kind of opinion, ‘this is no longer the expert opinion of a forensic pathologist. It’s weighing all of the evidence together, as a juror would, and coming to a conclusion.’”

    Patterico (852fb7)

  52. I believe Dude’s theory is you tried to get us to ignore that by not putting “bold tags” around it. Philosophically this is the argument from ADHD.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  53. Patterico, what about my point, that because Dr. Hayne was there as an expert witness, the fact that he was testifying about the number of hands on the gun implied that he could tell, forensically, how many persons had been holding the gun — even if he never did directly say that?

    So while you can now go through the transcript and note, accurately, that the good doctor never actually expressly lied, the very fact that he’s testifying validates Balko’s conclusion that he’s saying he can tell though science how many hands were on the gun?

    After all, as I said — if he’s really just saying what his express words add up to when you read them back in the transcript, then what is he doing on the stand in the first place?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  54. Phil #53: Please note this comment.

    DRJ (74c23b)

  55. Phil, while Haynes’ testimony is problematic even so you are mischaracterizing it.

    SPQR (6c18fd)

  56. DRJ, I read that post. Patterico says Balk “may have a point.” I think Patterico is backwards in his analysis.

    Patterico’s is saying that the reality of Dr. Hayne’s testimony is

    “a far cry from the far more incendiary claim that Dr. Hayne “can tell from an autopsy how many hands were on the gun that fired a bullet,” as Balko characterized Dr. Hayne’s testimony in his Reason piece.”

    But if Dr. Hayne isn’t saying he can “tell from an autopsy how many hands were on the gun that fired the bullet” then what is he doing on the witness stand?

    And conversely, if he’s on the stand, isn’t he, and the prosecution blatantly implying that he CAN tell how many hands were on the gun no matter what he actually says? His whole testimony is about whetehr the autopsy is “consistent” with a certain number of hands.

    Patterico seems to think it’s Balko’s burden to show that Dr. Hayne said precisely that he could tell from an autopsy how many hands were on the gun. Apparently, Patterico thinks that the mere fact that Dr. Hayne is put on by the prosecution, and led throught this whole dog-and-pony show, isn’t intended to convince the jury of exactly that fact.

    I disagree. I say, if Dr. Hayne DIDN’T say he could tell how many hands were on the gun, it was only because he’s a sneaky, underhanded double-talker. His whole testimony implied exactly that. Just by putting him on the stand and asking him these questions (despite is ultimatly wishy-washy answers) the prosecution was attempting to imply exactly that.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  57. Wait a sec — he was clearly (and repeatedly) asked to consider a hypothetical (single shooter) directly opposed to the content of the (later recanted) confession. IOW, he was supposed to “leave Edmond’s confession” in his answer.

    The most charitable interpretation of his testimony is that he didn’t answer the question that was asked, since when directly queried as to how he arrives at his conclusions (the part you added) he admits he is taking into account the confession when he presents his “help aiming” scenario.

    The less charitable and IMO more logical interpretation is that he is deliberately misrepresenting the degree to which his “help aiming” scenario is based on forensic evidence. He goes to some pains to discuss stuff like the distance of the gun from the head and the trajectory in a matter that strongly implies he is presenting a scientific opinion (rather than regurgitating what opposing counsel told him) and to make clear that the autopsy provided information that informs his “analysis” of the shooting.

    Leaving aside the Balko versus Patterico word parsing vendetta (if we may! briefly, anyway), what’s the assessment of Hayne’s testimony? I fully understand post #9 — the problem is that he was also asked to consider a single-shooter hypothetical and it is in this context that the disputed testimony arose. Was he confused and just didn’t understand the hypothetical? Was he misleading in overstating the degree to which his conclusions were based on his expertise? Was his testimony “fair” in a legal sense (I have no idea, IANAL)? In a moral sense?

    brendanm98 (5b7774)

  58. And the winner is Brendanm98!!!! GAME SET MATCH.

    The question posed was

    “And let’s suppose if one person had fired that shot, would your opinion be the same?”

    And

    “Based on the fact that if one person had done this?”

    Patterico wants you to IGNORE the plain text and assume that what was meant to be asked was: “What if one person who WASN’T AIMING fired the shot, then what would have happened?”

    But that WASN’T what was asked.

    Then, Patterico asks you to IGNORE that Hayne in his response, goes ON AND ON AND ON about trajectory and the gun on the bed and the angle from the center of the head and then CONCLUDES THAT TWO SHOOTERS IS THUS MORE LIKELY THAN ONE. HE DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT BASED ON THE TRAJECTORY THAT SOMEONE AIMING IS MORE LIKELY THAN SOMEONE NOT AIMING….WHICH IS ALL HE (might) BE QUALIFIED TO DO. Instead, because of the trajectory, how close it was to the bed, etc. HE STATES IN PLAIN ENGLISH THAT TWO SHOOTERS IS MORE LIKELY THAN ONE.

    PATTERICO WANTS YOU TO READ WORDS THAT ARE NOT THERE.

    Dude (7676e6)

  59. This was an interesting discussion, until dude “where’s my bad faith” dropped in.

    JD (d27d21)

  60. Sorry: Two aimer theory.

    RJN (e12f22)

  61. Phil is jumping up and down and hollering, repeatedly, SO WHAT WAS HAYNE DOING ON THE WITNESS STAND!!????!!!!!!1!!1!

    Phil, it was a murder trial. He was the medical examiner.

    Medical examiners are always on the stand in murder trials.

    OK?

    Patterico (3f1f28)

  62. Quick, someone take away Dude’s shift key.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  63. Dude, all caps is so l33t.

    But the bottom line is that you are still misrepresenting Patterico. But its odd that you falsely claim that Patterico “wants [us] to read words that are not there” when the words were deliberately omitted by Balko.

    SPQR (6c18fd)

  64. Reads to me that he was trying to say that his expert opinion supported two shooters. It’s also apparent that he didn’t want to come right out and say it that way. Seems similar to the “what do you mean by alone” defense. Obviously not as egregious. Just my 2 cents. I think you’ve both got points. But I don’t think your point makes him wrong.

    Do you think he’s wrong?

    Joe (bf9644)

  65. I’m sorry, Patterico, I should have stated my opinion more clearly. No, I do not think that either the Court of Appeals or the State Supreme Court or you or even Balko are unreasonable. But, I also would not include any of you in the category of reasonable people in regards to the statement I made. Lawyers have far too much expertise to take a statement at face value. They parse it and thoroughly analyze it to find a way to use it to support their own argument – at least good lawyers do that, IMHO.

    You asked if Balko’s representation of Dr. Haynes testimony was a fair characterization of the facts.

    I read the testimony given, and I got impression that Dr. Haynes said that the autopsy showed that two people were holding the gun. That is why I think you are correct, but off-base. By carefully parsing the statement and surrounding testimony you make a perfectly valid legal argument that Dr. Haynes didn’t say that at all – technically. But, you didn’t ask was Balko’s statement technically correct, just whether it was fair.

    I think that Balko used some “choice” quotes to back up his claims, but I just can’t bring myself to seeing that as a misrepresentation. I’ve seen the argument on both sides, reviewed the links and come to the same conclusion as Balko. Because I consider myself a reasonable person of reasonable intelligence (though my wife would question that), I would answer the question you asked in the post’s title like this:

    Balko’s representation of Dr. Haynes’ testimony was a fair and reasonable characterization of the facts.

    If you had asked something along the lines of “did Balko give a technically correct representation of the facts,” I would have said no. So, your argument is technically correct and your reasoning clear, but the answer to the post title remains the same.

    That is why I think you are correct, but off base.

    Chris Farley (6a96d1)

  66. Patterico, having not watched a murder trial before, I didn’t know that. But thanks for being a smart-ass about it.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  67. “But thanks for being a smart-ass about it.”

    Sorry, Phil. That was uncalled for.

    Patterico (27cbb9)

  68. I didn’t think Patterico was being a smart-ass, either. The prosecution’s first burden is to prove the corpus delicti, the occurrence of a murder, before it can proceed to “who did it”. Even if a coroner or coroner’s jury has made the determination that it was murder the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require it to be proved to the jury trying the defendant. There might be a different rule in some civil cases involving a dead person but not in criminal cases.

    Also, never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to less than perfect direct or cross-examination. Trials are not scripted and lawyers will ask questions and say things that they will, in retrospect, wish they hadn’t.

    nk (6e4f93)

  69. Patterico, do you think that the ME intended his expert opinion to suport the claim that two people fired the gun? Or do you think he was mearly trying to say that it didn’t disprove it?

    joe (5250bd)

  70. Here’s a hilarious relating of an inquest by Mark Twain:

    nk (6e4f93)

  71. [Sorry.]
    On the inquest it was shown that Buck Fanshaw, in the delirium of a wasting typhoid fever, had taken arsenic, shot himself through the body, cut his throat, and jumped out of a four-story window and broken his neck–and after due deliberation, the jury, sad and tearful, but with intelligence unblinded by its sorrow, brought in a verdict of death “by the visitation of God.” What could the world do without juries?

    nk (6e4f93)

  72. Christoph-
    ” So the Supreme Court could get it wrong and the Appeals Court couldn’t?
    What your postulating is possible. What is your point?”

    My point is that Patterico assumes that the Appeals court got it right but the Supreme Court got it wrong, when it’s just as likely the other way around. He questions the decision of the Supreme Court but not the decision of the Appeals? Please explain your support of this.

    It seems to me that the Appeals court took a look at the technical merits of the testimony and the Supreme Court looked at what a reasonable juror would infer from the testimony. If one’s interest is in justice and allowing the jury to do their job properly, one must agree with the Supreme Court. If one is interested in convictions, one must support the Appeals court.

    ” I think his interest and criticism is directly related to making his job easier and not for justice.

    Why? How do you reach that conclusion?”

    Well, he’s a prosecutor and if a court found that your expert witnesses could only testify about what they are an expert in, that could hurt a prosecutor, as it did in Mississippi. Also, see my statement above about the jury. In court, a prosecutor’s job is to get a conviction, justice be damned. If you disagree, why did the prosecutor bring the charges and case in the first place? Prosecutors will hate anything that makes getting a conviction more difficult. If I *must*, I’ll track down cases of prosecutors arguing against defendants’ rights and full disclosure for the jury.

    Sean (e1d31a)

  73. Sean,

    You are misinformed about a prosecutor’s duty.

    DRJ (74c23b)

  74. DRJ,

    Please enlighten me then.

    Sean (e1d31a)

  75. In court, a prosecutor’s job is to get a conviction, justice be damned. If you disagree, why did the prosecutor bring the charges and case in the first place?

    IANAL, but I believe the prosecutor’s duty is to seek justice. Seeking justice can lead to a prosecutor bringing charges.

    Of course, when a prosecutor goes off the rails and pursues his own agenda instead he can also bring charges.

    Thus, bringing charges is not much of an indicator as to whether or not you are dealing with a “good” prosecutor or a “bad” one.

    Steve Verdon (4c0bd6)

  76. Sean,

    I’m sorry for not answering you sooner but I see Steve Verdon has already explained that a prosecutor’s duty is to seek justice, not personal advancement by winning cases at all costs.

    Of course, people are human and act for personal motives. That’s why it’s important to have good leadership in a prosecutor’s office that puts justice before “wins.” However, to accuse all prosecutors of acting like hired guns is as unfair as it would be to accuse all American workers of acting dishonestly or unethically in their jobs because their only goal is to make a buck.

    DRJ (74c23b)

  77. Steve Verdon & DRJ,

    Clearly by your definitions, the Mississippi prosecutor is a “bad” one. Patterico is defending that prosecutor’s action of using Hayne’s “expert” testimony in an expertise he is not an expert in. Anyone defending a “bad” person’s actions can’t exactly be called “good” in my book. It’s kind of like hearing law enforcement talking about a few “bad” apples. I don’t see the “good” apples arresting and trying the “bad” apples, do you? You cannot defend bad actions and say you are good, sorry.

    Sean (e1d31a)

  78. Clearly by your definitions, the Mississippi prosecutor is a “bad” one.

    I’d just like to point out that this is Sean’s position, not mine. I don’t know anything about that prosecutor aside from this one facet of this one case. I’d be very reluctant to conclude that this is a bad prosecutor based on just this information alone.

    Patterico is defending that prosecutor’s action of using Hayne’s “expert” testimony in an expertise he is not an expert in. Anyone defending a “bad” person’s actions can’t exactly be called “good” in my book.

    Uhhhmmmm, to put it politely, no. Patterico is looking at this one facet of the Hayne issue and is arguing that what Hayne did isn’t as egregious as Balko has made out. To go beyond that as you have is…problematic (i.e., get your shields up because I think several commenters are going to take some shots at you).

    Steve Verdon (4c0bd6)

  79. I attended Tyler Edmonds trial and have to say, it was a freak show to say the least. The defense team was shot down every time they opened their mouth by a bias judge who was rooting for his friends on the prosecution team.

    There was not one shred of physical evidence linking Tyler to this crime. The lie detector tests were not allowed in that Tyler passed, taken AFTER he recanted his confession. His sister who now has been convicted of killing her husband and who now sits on death row, failed that test.

    The investigation was practically stopped after Tyler confessed. Where were the finger print tests, the store receipts, the video footage of Wal-Mart and where were Tyler and Kristi’s clothes and shoes? Tyler’s sister begged him to take the wrap for her alone killing her husband. She told him she would never see her kids again and get the death sentence. That part is obviously true as that is what she got. But what about this innocent boy?

    What is taking Mississippi so long to do something about Dr. Haynes? Why hasn’t he been investigated? Why hasn’t an internal investigation been started on every single trial he testified in to see how many more innocent people he has put in prison for the sake of a buck? Who in the heck is in charge of this man calling himself a doctor running rapid? Does anyone really know?

    Tyler Edmonds is innocent. I pray the Supreme Court throws out his coerced confession brought on by a nagging sister the police allowed into the room. No parent or attorney present even though Tyler was just a child. Shame on Mississippi for wasting tax payers money on warehousing innocent children. Why don’t you take some of that money you spend on prisons and prosecute the real criminal, Dr. Steven Haynes.

    Cari Barichello
    Administrator of Justice For Juveniles

    Cari Barichello (8c335b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5460 secs.