Main Menu
Home Kenny Richey Lima News Editorial Lima News Editorial
Sunday, 30 January 2005
Lima News' editorial board puts the foot in it again. Their journalists seem to be OK, but as soon as there's an Op. Ed. they really shine.
Go read the original piece at:
http://www.limaohio.com/story.php?IDnum=11367
Or continue down and see my comment...
I'm going to recap the piece and mix it with some comment, the article and my comments will be clearly marked as such.
« Ruling might let killer go free
Editorial board
There?s no point trying to mask our contempt of the federal appeals court ruling last week that might give arsonist Kenneth Richey another day in court ? or his freedom. We?ve written before that Richey deserves the death penalty the child killer received for his drunken act of barbarism, and we still hope he gets it. Unfortunately, the ruling possibly will let him leave not only death row, but also prison. We hope the entire 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the three-judge panel?s mistake.
The panel on Tuesday overturned the dual U.S.-British citizen?s conviction on charges of aggravated murder, aggravated arson, breaking and entering, and child endangerment. The Cincinnati court ordered Richey get a new trial within 90 days or be released. It is important to note for our British friends that the court did not say Richey is innocent; it said he is due a new trial. »
I quote: "AEDPA requires that we respect any determination made by the state court unless it: (1) 'was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court,' or (2) 'was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings.'"... and: "Withing these constraints, we review the district court's legal conclusions de novo, but we may upset its factual determinations only if they were clearly erroneous."
Basically the chances of the court coming right out saying Kenny is innocent was minuscule. Given their analysis they come pretty close to do so anyway.
« The Ohio Attorney General?s Office has until a week from Tuesday to ask for a hearing in front of the full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That appears to be the best hope to keep Richey behind bars, if not on death row, given the absurdly slow pace at which criminal cases go through appeals.
Richey told The Lima News in a story published Friday that he wants a new trial, and why not? Witnesses have changed their stories or have died. There never was physical evidence linking him to the fire. It would be difficult to prove again Richey killed 2-year-old Cynthia Collins. »
Exactly! There never was any valid physical or technical evidence linking Kenny to the crime. What exists has been severly discredited, and would earn the current prosecutor nothing much more than egg on his face.
It is not Kenny's fault that all witnesses cannot be present, that is a lame point. What is more interesting and to some extent more damaging to the prosecution is that some have changed their stories - in at least one case with an affidavit, a pretty strong statement. This means not only are there no physical evidence, but the witnesses - the testimonies of whom the prosecution built its case - have turned out not to be that reliable either.
Exactly what is left to build your zealotry about Kenny's guilt is beyond me... But I suppose you "just know!"
« Richey was convicted in January 1987 for setting fire to the apartment of an ex-girlfriend the previous June, killing Cynthia by smoke inhalation in the apartment upstairs. Richey was baby-sitting the girl at the time of the fire. He received the death sentence, but a protracted legal fight has kept that from happening.
Appeals at every level failed before Tuesday?s ruling. Along the way, several news organizations, including The Lima News in 1998, have done extensive investigations and have found no strong evidence backing his claims of innocence. A court, however, did once find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But the 6th Circuit found many faults with Richey?s trial and previous appellate lawyers. It also ruled the lack of physical evidence goes against the state?s claims that the Scottish-born Richey committed the crime. Richey?s threatening that the apartment was going to burn helped convict him without any physical evidence. He wasn?t the first person to be convicted on strong circumstantial evidence. »
Indeed he is not the first one convicted without strong physical evidence. But when you try to condemn a man to death based on circumstantial evidence, you'll normally find that any competent attorney can shoot holes big enough for an elephant to enter in such circumstantial evidence. In this case the attorney not only failed that basic task, he didn't even make a big enough challenge against the ridiculous state of the physical evidence that was presented. His "expert" made no independent tests and therefore ended up on the stand witnessing for the prosecution.
This is a case of a man that was led to Death Row like a lamb to slaughter, as things were he stood less chance than the proverbial snowflake in Hell.
« The most dismaying part ? indeed, the most distressing part ? of the 6th Circuit?s ruling was its finding the conviction cannot stand because the state failed to prove Richey?s target was Cynthia. The state argued its transferred-intent law made Richey?s crime a capital offense, as he intended to kill his ex-girlfriend but instead killed a child. He set out to kill someone, and did so. It was just the wrong someone. Two of the federal appellate judges appear to believe a lesser punishment must exist for murder if you kill the wrong person.
The logic perplexes. »
If you accept that all premediated killing whatsoever deserve the Death Penalty, then you are indeed correct. If you however make difference between murder and aggravated murder, then you must have clear rules to differentiate between the two. So if you find the logic perplexing, that is a question between you and your representative - the court couldn't and shouldn't care less.
« Having once proved their case and then seeing it upheld time and again, prosecutors will have to try a case with evidence that is almost 19 years old, if the entire 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals doesn?t intervene. The court just might have opened the prison doors for a child killer to go home in the literal sense rather than the figurative one he deserves. »
OR, the court may have saved an innocent man from death in the eleventh hour. I know what I believe, and I have the evidence and the court ruling on my side - what have you? Old statements from people that were heavily intoxicated at the time and from the block-gossip, who apart from talking a lot couldn't even keep times and situations straight.
If that's the basis for killing a man I cannot but shiver.