March 12 TEXAS: Salazar loses bid to block execution The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals last week denied a stay of execution for a Lubbock death row inmate condemned to die later this month. Robert Madrid Salazar, 27, has remained on death row since his 1999 conviction for beating to death a 2-year-old girl. He is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on March 22. The issue before the court of appeals last week was whether Salazar was mentally retarded and could be executed. "He did not show facts that he was entitled to relief," said Edward Marty, general counsel for the court, although he could not comment further on the decision. A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling prohibited the practice of executing inmates who were mentally challenged, finding that capital punishment in those cases was "excessive," according to court documents. Since that decision, Marty said a number of death row inmates have sought stays of execution on claims of mental retardation. Although he did not have exact numbers, he estimated about 1/3 of Texas death row inmates with a pending execution date have made those claims. Lubbock County Criminal District Attorney Matt Powell said he has never believed the man he prosecuted is retarded. "He's not retarded," Powell said of Salazar. "He's just evil." Salazar severely beat his girlfriend's daughter, Adriana Gomez, to death while she was in his care. According to testimony during the trial, Salazar inflicted enough damage to kill her 3 times over. Adriana's abdomen was crushed against her spinal cord. She suffered blows to the chest that drove a bruise completely through her heart. And she suffered a head injury that was consistent with Salazar picking her up by the ankles and slamming her against a piece of furniture or a wall. Autopsy results revealed the girl died of multiple blunt force injuries. "These are the types of injuries you see in a car crash," Powell said. "They were that severe." A paramedic who testified at Salazar's trial began to cry when he was asked to recall the girl's condition. He told the court her arm was twisted and broken and the back of her head felt like "Jello." Salazar, after delivering the fatal beating, tucked the girl into bed and went to a friend's house to drink beer. Powell recalled that the men sat on porch and drank while they watched the ambulance that would tend to Adriana's injuries go by. A jury deliberated for more than seven hours before condemning Salazar. Powell - who has prosecuted four of five Lubbock County death row inmates - said his office takes death penalty cases seriously, and in Salazar's case the crime fit the punishment. "This was as bad a beating case as I've ever seen," he said. "Adult or child period." A New Mexico attorney who has represented Salazar during his state and federal appeals, said the execution should be stopped. Michael Charlton said that a Lubbock police officer who served on the jury played a pivotal role in Salazar receiving the death penalty by telling jurors that if they sentenced Salazar to life in prison, he would serve only between 20 and 25 years. The appeals that addressed Charlton's claims were denied. "It's been denied on issues that don't address what happened," Charlton said. "There was nothing that denied the event occurred and people changed their minds because of it." Salazar can still explore the possibility of filing motions in the federal courts. If no stay is granted, the state will move forward with the execution. "The evidence screams for him to get it," Powell said. (source: Lubbock Avalanche-Journal) ************* True-crime writer's latest centers on McFarland case There is a certain element that draws New Braunfels true-crime writer Diane Fanning to a story. After all, she says, crimes happen all the time, but not all grab her attention. Sometimes, it is the way a criminal's mind works. Other times, it is the way victims become heroes. In the case of Susan McFarland, it was the character herself. "Susan grabbed me," Fanning says. "I felt her, and when I saw her face, I felt I could see a piece of her soul." It is why, in her latest book, "Gone Forever: A True Story of Marriage, Betrayal and Murder" (St. Martin's Press, $6.99), Fanning describes going through a period of grieving after hearing story after story about the former SBC manager and mother of 3: "Then the realization struck - I would never be able to talk to her. I would never bump into her at Central Market. At that moment, I was struck by a sense of loss so visceral it took my breath away and formed pools of water in my eyes." In 2002, the McFarland boys were ages 6, 8 and 11 when their father, Richard McFarland, murdered their mother Susan and drove 25 miles to a deserted farm in Bexar County where he set her body on fire. "If a woman like Susan can be a victim, any of us can," Fanning reasons. Susan's journal entries in the book detail Richard McFarland's erratic and expensive shopping sprees, numerous times when he forgot to pick up the kids from school and various times he medicated himself and the kids. Fanning details Susan's driven desire to fix things in her family, and she ends her book with a list of statistics on domestic violence and why it was important to tell Susan's story. "There are some important life lessons to be learned from true-crime books," Fanning says. One reader knows this too well. In an e-mail sent to Fanning, the reader identified herself as Tracy, the shelter manager and court advocate at a domestic violence shelter in North Carolina. She wrote: "I truly believe that we can make a difference, and books like yours, that are so well written, can bring this blight on society called domestic violence out of the shadows and shine the light of day upon it, so good people can take a stand to stop it." Fanning begins to tell the story, through family and friends, of how Susan, a successful businesswoman rising up the career ladder, was afraid she could possibly lose custody of her boys to Richard McFarland, who had assumed the responsibility of primary caregiver. Because Fanning, herself the mother of 3, felt a connection with Susan, she became involved in the McFarland case almost immediately. "I followed the story very closely," she says. "I called in to volunteer to help with the search when I went on break for Christmas, but they called off the search during the holidays." During that time, she had signed on with St. Martin's Press for a two-book deal. But before she could deliver the McFarland book, publishers wanted the story about Michael Peterson. "Written in Blood" (St. Martin's Press, 2005, $6.99), about the murder of Kathleen Atwater by her husband, novelist Michael Peterson, is up for the Mystery Writers of America 2006 Edgar Award in the Best Fact Crime Category. The winner will be announced April 27. As Fanning went to work on the Peterson case, she continued to keep a close eye on the McFarland story. She noted right away that Richard McFarland's behavior was not appropriate. "During 53 days of searching, he never helped out. Not even once," she notes. His odd behavior caused problems for him even after he was convicted and sent to jail, causing him to be transferred from one facility to the next, Fanning says. "He is very lacking in social skills," she says. "He makes inappropriate comments. He is not a very personable man." Fanning includes some of the correspondence she received from Richard McFarland in her book: "'The Lord loves us and doesn't want us to gossip about others, even those who have done something wrong.' The message from Rick McFarland was as subtle as a tsunami." Fanning has no qualms about getting letters from convicted killers ... and that is plural. Serial killer Tommy Lynn Sells, the same man who pleaded guilty to murdering 9-year-old Mary Bea Perez in San Antonio, confessed to another murder (that of 10-year-old Joel Kirkpatrick) in correspondence with her. "I'm not stupid about it," she says. "I do use a P.O. box." Sells' execution is scheduled for May 17. Fanning's interest in real crime began after her own near-abduction when she was 9 years old. Fanning was almost pulled into a car by a man. It was then that a motorist coming up over a hill saw what was happening and laid on the car horn, she recalls. "The man (suspect) drove off with the car door still open," Fanning says. "I had been watching 'Dragnet,' so I remembered to memorize the license plate." When police tracked down the suspect, he was charged with the assault and murder of an 8-year-old girl from a few weeks earlier. For Fanning, knowing more about real crime has been empowering. And she continues to pass on those important life lessons through her books. "I talked to one mom who said 'Through the Window' (St. Martin's, 2003, $6.99) saved her child's life," Fanning says. "She had a very trusting child and had her child read the book." That book, about Sells, prevented her 14-year-old daughter from possibly being abducted, the mom claims. In "Gone Forever," Fanning includes all the details a true-crime fan would want to know, including information about forensic evidence. What readers might not expect is, just like Fanning, how well they will get to know Susan McFarland. They will learn why only bright colored balloons would do for her memorial service and why even Kate Kohl of the Heidi Search Center could not remain tearless through it all, after watching the three motherless McFarland boys. All 3 have homes now. The two youngest have been adopted by their foster family. The oldest boy was adopted by a single parent. Richard McFarland will be eligible for parole in 2024, when he is 67 years old. (source: San Antonio Express-News) USA: Is it ever a mistake to forgive? ABA GAYLE'S daughter was murdered in 1980 at the age of 19. Her murderer was sent to death row at California State Prison in San Quentin in 1982. But, Aba Gayle recalls, "(after his conviction) I continued to struggle through many years of grief, anger, and rage." The mother nursed her bitterness until one day in April 1992, she says, "I was directed by a loud, clear voice that I must forgive the man who murdered my daughter and that I must let him know." She wrote a letter and offered forgiveness and sent blessings from Christ to the killer. This woman says, "The act of mailing this letter gave me instant release from deep anger and rage. In its place I was filled with love, joy, and peace." According to the Oxford dictionary, forgiveness is giving up resentment against someone; it is pardoning someone. In other places, the act has been described as 'the elimination of all desire for revenge and personal ill will toward those who deeply wrong or betray us'. Who benefits when we decide to hold on to thoughts of revenge and hate? According to counselling psychologist, Benita Morrison, who is an associate at Family Life Ministries in Kingston, forgiveness is important as, in addition to emotional healing research has also shown that there are physical problems as a result of unforgiveness. Constant feelings of resentment are accompanied in some individuals by nervousness, hostility, and anger. The feelings of anxiety, and sometimes depression, placed a lot of stress on the body. The effects of stress have been well documented. According to Miller (1998) and Pike (1997), stress and upsetting emotions can affect the immune system in ways that cause susceptibility to disease. "From the outset, I would say a big NO! Forgiving is never a mistake," she contends. It is obvious that the individual who is being asked to forgive is one who has been wronged, hurt, or injured in some way. That person has a reason to feel resentment ? to want revenge. You may say, 'How can I forgive someone who has hurt me so much', or 'I won't forgive him/her because he/she needs to pay for what he/she has been done. I am not the one at fault, so why am I being asked to forgive?' Writer Noel F. McInnis (2001) gives a number of reasons for forgiveness, quoting several other writers: Resentment has been compared to holding on to a burning ember with the intention of throwing it at another, all the while burning yourself. When we feel resentful, we feel strongly the pain of the past again and again. Not only does this take an obvious and dramatic toll on our emotional well-being, it can powerfully and negatively impact our physical well-being as well. (source: Jamaica Gleaner) OKLAHOMA: Bill to execute child molesters in Oklahoma raising skepticism----Constitutionality in question, and some say it could hurt victims Sponsors say a bill to permit repeat child molesters to be executed is neither cruel nor unusual, but experts say it could make matters worse for victims of sex crimes. The measure by Sen. Jay Paul Gumm, D-Durant, flew though the Senate last week, 40-7. It goes on to the House, where it is sponsored by Rep. John Carey, another Durant Democrat. "I anticipate it will come out of the House with flying colors," Mr. Carey said. The most obvious question about the bill - its constitutionality - was raised during debate on the Senate floor by Bernest Cain, D-Oklahoma City. Mr. Cain, a lawyer, called it "a redneck re-election bill." It's been more than four decades since a person was executed for a sex crime in the U.S., and in 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked an execution in a rape case, ruling it was cruel and unusual punishment. Legal scholars say that although myriad capital crimes are still on the books in many states, the Supreme Court has effectively limited the nation's ultimate punishment to murder cases. Mr. Gumm says the Supreme Court has changed so much, "I feel confident this bill would be upheld." "I consider this to be the most horrible of crimes," he said. "I think it is every bit as bad as murder, if not worse, because the ripples of child sexual abuse goes through the victim's life." Even those who feel as strongly as Mr. Gumm about the seriousness of sexual offenses, however, are not as sure such legislation would pass constitutional muster. "I would be a little bit surprised if the Supreme Court approves of that, but I have been wrong before," said Wes Lane, Oklahoma County district attorney. "Nobody around here has any sympathy for child molesters," added Mr. Lane, saying he would gladly enforce such a law if it were upheld by the Supreme Court. Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., said that Louisiana passed a similar law several years ago, and that one man has been convicted under it and sent to death row. Mr. Dieter said his organization takes no position on the death penalty but serves as a resource, supplying information on the fairness of the death penalty's application and the possibility of someone being wrongfully put to death. Along with the question of the constitutionality of the proposed Oklahoma law, he said, there are other problems with the proposal. "It takes away the disincentive" for the offender not to kill the victim and eliminate the only witness to the crime, he said. "There would be no more punishment associated with that. It does create a danger to victims in that sense," Mr. Dieter said. He added that in family situations, it would make family members more reticent to come forward and expose an offender, which is already difficult. "It actually could make matters worse," Mr. Dieter said. The last execution for a sex crime in the U.S. occurred in 1964, when Ronald Wolf was put to death in a rape case in Missouri. Before the Supreme Court rulings in the 1970s, the death penalty was imposed for a number of crimes, including criminal assault and kidnapping in California in the 1960s. (source: Associated Press) CALIFORNIA: ACLU Targets Death Penalty Drug----The group's suit says a paralyzing chemical used during executions conceals whether the inmate has been truly rendered unconscious. Contending that a drug used during executions prevents inmates from showing their pain by paralyzing them, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit alleging that the procedure violates the 1st Amendment. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the liberal Pacific News Service in San Francisco, is the latest challenge to the state's use of lethal injections for capital punishment. Such executions have been challenged in a number of states recently. The practice was temporarily halted in California in February, when state officials called off the execution of murderer Michael A. Morales because a federal judge said more evidence was needed to determine how much pain he might suffer while dying. (The judge, Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court in San Jose, gave the state the option of proceeding with the execution if it could get medical professionals to stand by, but officials couldn't meet that requirement: Doctors, as a rule, deem it unethical to participate in executions.) In California and elsewhere, controversy over lethal injections has focused on whether the method causes deaths so painful that they violate constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. But the ACLU suit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, approaches the issue from a different angle: It challenges not the method's alleged cruelty but rather its alleged potential to mislead the public. According to the lawsuit, one of the drugs used during California executions conceals inmates' reactions to the other two drugs by preventing muscle response. That makes it impossible for a dying convict to writhe, flinch, convulse, make sounds or otherwise communicate pain to journalists who are witnessing the execution, ACLU attorneys maintain. The drug, pancuronium bromide, is a paralytic agent. It is the second of three drugs administered during execution. The first drug is a strong tranquilizer to render the inmate unconscious, and the final one is a heart-stopping agent that causes a deadly, potentially painful heart attack. "We believe the second drug is only used to mask potential problems with the first," said Jon Streeter, a lawyer with the San Francisco firm Keker & Van Nest and a pro bono attorney for the ACLU in the case. "If the inmate is not unconscious - it could be that for about 10 or 15 minutes he is laying on the table in excruciating pain but unable to express that. In effect, the state is throwing a chemical curtain - a mask - over what is happening in the death chamber." Streeter cited prior court rulings that held it was a violation of press freedom for the state to bar reporters from executions or to use curtains to conceal portions of the process. Similarly, use of a paralytic drug presents "a false picture of what's happening by effectively putting a gag" on the inmate, Streeter argued. The state has not yet filed a formal response to the lawsuit, and Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for the California attorney general's office, said the office has not decided whether to do so. But he dismissed the suit's contentions, saying the paralyzing drug serves not only to keep the inmate motionless but also to stop his breathing. Its purpose, he said, is to hasten death. The state holds that its use with the other 2 drugs is constitutional, he said. (source: Los Angeles Times)
