Mark Asay Executed, Who Will Be Next?

On Thursday August 24, 2017 the State of Florida executed Mark Asay - who we all knew as "Catfish", even though there was absolutely no question that he was illegally sentenced to death and in an unprecedented act, only days before he was put to death the Florida Supreme Court recognized that the factual basis for the theory upon which he was prosecuted was wrong.

Specifically, Asay was prosecuted on the theory that he had killed two blacks for no other reason than that they were black. The media repeatedly characterized him as a "white supremacist" and the state bragged to the media that Asay would be the first white person ever executed in the state of Florida for killing a black person. But the problem is, Asay didn't kill any black person. As the Florida Supreme Court recognized only days before Asay was executed, the one victim ( Robert McDowell) was not black (contrary to what prosecutors told the jury!), but was white, or maybe mixed white/Hispanic - but not black.

As for the second victim, Asay has always said that he did not kill Robert Booker - but nobody would listen. For 30 years the prosecutor never disclosed evidence that indicated that, according to three witnesses, Roland Pough actually killed Booker. This undisclosed evidence also revealed that shortly after these witnesses identified Roland Pough as the person who actually killed Booker, the Jacksonville police shot and killed Pough in what their own interdepartmental investigation showed was an "unjustified" shooting - the cop claimed that his gun accidentally misfired, killing Pough. That was awfully convenient - Asay's jury never knew about that.

Last year when I was on death watch counting down the days to my own scheduled execution, Mark Asay was also down there with me. I've personally known 'Catfish" for about 30 years and he's never once wavered in admitting that he shot the transvestite prostitute McDowell that night when he "spontaneously" stripped while drunk - but that he did not kill Booker. And that while he was previously associated with a "white supremacy" group in a Texas prison, he got away from that and race had nothing to do with what happened that night - he was drunk.

                                                                    

One consolation is that I also knew that "Catfish" found comfort in his own strong religious beliefs as a "born again" Christian. As with so many victims of injustice he had long ago abandoned any faith in the politically corrupt "justice" system, and accepted that truth means nothing to the courts when it comes to carrying out the death penalty - and prosecutors will never admit they were wrong.

The question now becomes who will be the next? To be honest, I expected them to immediately reschedule my own execution the next day after they killed Catfish and I am now the only other person (in Florida) under an active death warrant and previously granted stay of execution lifted. In the past Governor Scott has consistently signed a new death warrant (or re-cheduled one previously signed) the morning after an execution was carried out, and then scheduled each execution precisely 5 weeks apart. This is why he has put more people to death than any other governor in Florida history - and he still has over a year left in office.

For that reason, the morning after they killed Catfish I was expecting them to come get me and take me back down to death watch. But they didn't come. And so I went through a long weekend of uncertainty, assuming that they'd come early Monday morning instead. But again, they didn't come. And nobody else was scheduled either. Governor Scott had broken his pattern - but why? Could it be that now that Scott is running for a seat on the United states senate (elections are in early November 2018) he's starting to see the death penalty as a political liability?

The reality of it is that public support for the death penalty has been consistently dropping and is now at almost historic lows, barely over fifty percent - and that support drops even lower if people are given a choice of mandatory life sentences instead of death.

Equally so, Governor Scott knows that while his won political base - rural deep south Rabid Redneck Republicans - ("R.R.R.") fanatically support the death penalty - but he cannot win that seat on the US Senate he wants with only their support as he's running against a very popular Democratic incumbent, Senator Bill Nelson. That means that Scott will need support beyond his typical R.R.R. base.

That also means that any controversy surrounding even one execution could easily cost him any chance of winning next years Senate election and as we all know only too well, when it comes down to it, the administration of the death penalty is not about justice, but the politics of a vengeance driven system.

It was for that reason that up until recently Governor Scott was all but pathologically methodical in selecting whose death warrants he would sign - he deliberately focused on so called "serial killers" and the child killers and those who killed law enforcement. each death warrant he signed was a strategic play to win votes.

But there were only so many of those high profile killers eligible for a death warrant and it didn't take long before he ran out of those and found himself in a real political dilemma - his support base wanted more executions but there were not many left on Florida's death row legally eligible to be executed as they still has appeals pending and had not yet had their obligatory "clemency review", required before a death warrant can be signed.

As it stands at the time I am writing this (August 31) no new death warrant has been signed. Governor Scott could sign a new warrant tomorrow - it could be me, or someone else.

It used to be that as long as you had legitimate appeals still pending they would not sign a death warrant. But as evidenced by Mark Asay's case, under Governor Scott the signing of death warrants are now being used to stack the deck in favor of the state, as they know that by signing a warrant the courts will be far less likely to grant relief.

I currently have four (4) appeals pending in various courts, with two petitions in front of the United States Supreme Court specifically arguing my actual innocence and a new state appeal arguing that because Florida law now mandates an unanimous jury vote to condemn anyone to death, my non-unanimous jury vote renders my death sentence illegal.

In the fourth and most recently filed Petition for Writ of Habeas corpus, my lawyers lay out how the readily available evidence, including DNA evidence, substantiates my consistently plead claim of innocence and that I'm constitutionally entitled to a full review of this evidence before the State of Florida puts me to death.

You can read this "actual Innocence" appeal HERE, or go to the Florida Supreme Court website and pull up Lambrix v Jones, case No SC17-5153. But would innocence be enough to avoid execution?

Florida Supreme Court Denies Review of Illegal Death Sentence

The Florida Supreme Court was supposed to be in recess for it's summer vacation until Monday August 21, so nobody expected the court to take any action on cases until then. But to our surprise, on August 10, 2017, the FSC issued an opinion in Hitchcock v State, Case No. SC17-445 that summarily rejected the challenge to the FSC ruling last year in which the FSC recognized that all non unanimous death sentences were illegally imposed - but decided that any of these sentences that were "final" prior to June, 2002 would be allowed to stand.

What the 4 member majority said that they don't care if they were wrong in Asay v State and they will not allow the issue to be debated further in the state courts. Both Justice Pariente and Justice Lewis wrote separate opinions giving their opinion as to why the majority clearly is wrong.

Although rehearing on the Hitchcock case is not due until August 25, Florida has Mark Asay scheduled for execution on Thursday August 24 (NOTE: Mark Asay has been executed on August 24, 2017) and this Hitchcock ruling directly affects Asay. In fact, on August 15 the FSC denied Asay's pending appeals challenging this partial retro activity rule as well as Florida;s lethal injection protocol that uses a drug that has never been previously used by any state. Will the Court allow Florida to proceed to put Asay to death even though there's no question that he was illegally condemned to death?

                                                              

And the sad commentary on the American Justice system is that they do that only too often - we call it "death by default" and it's applied throughout the legal system regularly, and especially in capital cases. they commonly call this concept "procedural default". This Hurst issue is a good example of how this "the ends justifies the means" mentality has infected the entire process - even when they know the evidence shows someone is actually innocent of a crime (or illegally sentenced to death), the courts refuse to address the issue by applying procedural rules they've created and proceed to put the person to death.

If the US Supreme Court will accept review of this partial retro activity rule then it will almost certainly result in having up to 200 illegally imposed death sentences thrown out, leaving only a handful of those sentenced to death on Florida's death row. But if the US Supreme Court refuses to accept review then Florida will begin to carry out it's record number of executions again - and there's a good chance that Governor Scott will reschedule my own execution again if Asay is indeed executed, as I'm the only person, other than Asay, still under an active death warrant.

Although I do have other appeals already pending in the courts - mostly focused on evidence substantiating my claim of innocence, but also challenging this same "partial retro activity" rule, but it wouldn't make any difference to Governor Scott as he has signed (and rescheduled) death warrants on others with legitimate appeals pending.

Florida Prison System on Lockdown

As if decades of continuous solitary confinement on Florida's death row wasn't enough, a few days ago we all got blindsided with the news that the whole Florida prison system was being put on a high security "lock down" from Wednesday August 16 through Sunday August 20...but they didn't lift it that Sunday so it really dragged through until the afternoon of Monday, August 21 - apparently the powers that be decided to just keep everyone across the state locked down after the eclipse passed by around 3:00 that afternoon. Could it be that maybe, just maybe, they thought that an eclipse might had brought the beast out in the prisoners?

Myself, while this whole lock down thing kind of sucked in most ways - they cancelled all social visits for the whole weekend so I didn't get a visit I was hoping for. And all yard times were cancelled too. That's the disadvantages. Fortunately, they did allow us to phone our "people" if we were expecting a visit so I was able to call my sister to let her know they couldn't come.

When I got the call through, by coincidence she had other members of the family at her house - I quickly accused them of throwing a keg party and not inviting me. And I'm pretty sure I smelled some BBQ through the phone, technology today is awesome! But what mattered most is that by coincidence one of my older brothers was at my sister's, and so for the fist time in almost 40 years I was able to talk to him and that was cool. It was only for a few minutes, but just being able to say hello made the whole lock down thing worth it for me.

And I missed the freaking eclipse. Maybe for most that's not such a big thing but considering it's been going on 40 years since I've been outside at night as a free man, it would have been truly awesome to watch it. That's alright - I read that there will be another eclipse on April 8, 2024 stretching from Texas up trought the Ohio valley and I noticed that one will pass over central Indiana, and when it does, I want to be on the banks of Lake Monroe in that part of Indiana wishing upon that first star I might see that I don't have to live the rest of my life alone. Yeah, that's the stuff that dreams are made of. But even dreams die, if not nurtured.

One thing that was great about this lock down was that at least for a few days they fed us food we could eat. That kind of makes sense, as it's really all about pacifying us. It's no secret that one of the biggest complaints all Florida prisoners have is that the food we are fed is so bad. In fact, if they fed this crap to a dog they would get thrown in prison for animal cruelty - yes it's that bad!

And it's not by coincidence. The reason what they feed us is of such poor quality is because the prison system is legally required to feed us 3 meals a day and they don't make any money from that. They buy the cheapest crap they can find and then cook it in such a way it can hardly be consumed. Then the 100.000 plus Florida prisoners are forced to purchase food from the prison "canteen" (store) of which the prison system gets a healthy cut of the profits, making tens of millions every year!

But I got to admit that at least for those few days that they had us all on security lock down, I was actually impressed by the quality of the food they served. One thing we do know for certain is that they can cook good meals if they wanted to!

                                                                   

They really caught us by surprise - last Friday evening we expected them to serve us what they call "turkey sausage" with "oven baked potatoes" (they make it sound so good on paper!). But instead, they brought us a dinner of real roast beef with mashed potatoes and gravy, canned baby peas and a couple of soft (even fresh!) dinner rolls. It was unlike any meal I've seen in the too many years I've been here and was both prepared and served to restaurant quality standards - and it was freaking good!

The next morning we expected the Saturday morning ritual of so-called "coffee cake" with cold and tasteless mush they call oatmeal. But instead, they brought us breakfast burritos - seriously. two small tortilla shells with scrambled eggs, 2 sausage patties and a generous portion of shredded cheese, with a side serving of edible potatoes. And as if that wasn't enough, they threw in a large glazed donut! It was so good that I almost didn't want to eat it - I just wanted to look at it and smell it for a while.

Yeah, some of us though they might be tricking us! But we knew it wouldn't last, and enjoyed it while we could - then talked about how good it was for hours! By the time lunch cam around we were mentally preparing ourselves for disappointment...

But we were on a roll! They brought us a real bacon cheeseburger, with lettuce and pickle, and oven baked tater tots on the side, with a big piece of chocolate cake with thick frosting! Half the guys here would have sold their soul for a bacon cheeseburger - and they just came around and gave it to us.

But then the next day it was back to the regular menu for both breakfast and lunch and we just knew the good times were over. Oh, but how sweet it was while it lasted! Oops - not so quick! When dinner came around much to our astonishment it was a rice/vegetable with meat mixture and two burritos (tortilla) shells. while it was a bit dry for my taste, I quickly broke out a pack of the hot chili and jalapeno cheese spread I bought off the canteen and added that to the mixture, generously spreading the spread across the tortilla shells and yeah, it was good!

But now several days have passed and the lock down is over and we are back to regular meals as if nothing has changed. i guess the puppet masters feel that they've pacified us enough for now and after 5 days of lock down, things resume their normal routine.

Now my biggest concern is that this Thursday (August 24) Florida plans to kill Mark Asay - the first execution since they killed Oscar Bolin on January 7, 2016 when I was on death watch only feet away. Hopefully Mark (we call him "Cat Fish") will get a stay of execution. But if he doesn't then there's a good chance my execution date will also be rescheduled and I will be moved back down to "cell one" on death watch and count down the days yet again to my own date with death.

Class Action Lawsuit Filed on Death Row Solitary Confinement

Several weeks ago lawyers representing death sentenced prisoners in Florida formally filed a Federal lawsuit against FDOC Secretary Julie Jones, as well as Florida State Prison Warden Barry Reddisch and Union Correctional Institution Warden Kevin Jordan, arguing that the continuous solitary confinement of death row prisoners violates the US constitutions provisions of due process and 8th amendment prohibition against infliction of "cruel and unusual" punishment. The case is now pending before the US district court in Jacksonville, Florida.

The only real surprise is that it has taken so long that lawyers to file this lawsuit, as the issue of whether the placement of all death sentenced prisoners in solitary confinement is constitutional has been debated for many decades. In fact, in 1890 (127 years ago!) the United States Supreme Court recognized that solitary of a death row prisoner is unconstitutional - but our courts have since grown cold and politically indifferent to these claims - until in recent years several justices on the Supreme Court have spoken out about it, and condemned the long term solitary confinement of death sentenced prisoners.

At issue is that in Florida and most other states, all prisoners sentenced to death are automatically placed and continuously kept in single man cells that are without doubt solitary confinement", where they remain as long as they are under a sentence of death.

This often amounts to not merely months or years, but decade after decade of solitary confinement  (see: Death Row, The Ninth Ring - by Michael Lambrix). Most of those sentenced to death are subsequently removed when their conviction or death sentence is vacated. Of the almost 1000 men and women sentenced to death in Florida since 1974, 26 have been judicially exonerated and released due to innocence, while less than 90 were executed, and at least 40 other succumbed to death by "natural causes" or suicide. At this time, approximately 350 prisoners remain on Florida death row, although in coming months that number will drop as more of Florida death row inmates will have their illegally imposed death sentence vacated under Hurst v Florida.

I have been on death row, and in solitary confinement, for over 33 years. I was 23 years old when I arrived here at Florida State Prison in March 1984 and I'm now 57 years old. You can read about my death row experience in my series "Alcatraz of the South", posted at the website "Minutes Before Six" and you can also download my book To live and Die on Death Row for free at my website  Southern injustice.

I do realize that there are some who believe that all prisoners, especially those sentenced to death, automatically deserve to be treated in a way that inflicts as much pain and suffering as possible. That says a lot more about who they are - their own moral deficiencies - than it does about us. Making a conscious decision to inflict pain and suffering upon another cannot be morally justified under any circumstances - one would like to think that it's not who we are as a society.

                        

But the inconvenient truth is that while most Americans claim to be "Christians" we are in fact a vengeance driven society that only too often finds gratification in the suffering of others. It's not enough to merely hold someone accountable for a crime - we demand that the transgressor suffer and that's why all death sentenced prisoners are placed and kept in continuous solitary confinement.

Just as much as every person has the capacity for good, within each of us without exception is an equal, if not greater, capacity for pure evil. And while it is easy to recognize evil in another, few are capable of recognizing that same evil within themselves.

In the recently filed Federal lawsuit legal counsel cites the numerous recognized studies as well as a long history of court cases, that explain why prolonged and even indefinite solitary confinement is torture, as it does inflict immense pain and suffering. It's true purpose is to psychologically and physically "break" the prisoners - to reduce them to something less than human before killing them, as stated at length in the book "Death Work: A Study of the Modern Execution Process" by Robert Johnson.

Some would argue that decades in death row solitary confinement isn't all that bad - here in Florida we are allowed a small TV, an MP3 player, and other comfort items (if we can afford to purchase them). But that unreasonably ignores the true effects of solitary confinement. What really breaks the person is not those tangible comfort items, or lack thereof. Rather, it is the inability to physically and socially interact with another human being. Although I can talk to my immediate cell neighbors, I cannot see them or physically interact with them. I'm not allowed to sit down at a table in the prison dining hall and eat a meal with others as every meal is served in my cell. I'm not allowed to attend religious services and "worship" like most other prisoners are allowed to do. I cannot get out of my cell and work, or even walk around. It has been 34 years since I touched dirt or grass as the few hours I'm allowed to go outside is limited to being on a concrete yard and enclosed with fencing and razor wire.

It is an environment that is designed to methodically break the prisoner, to make him or her into a compliant form of flesh and bone, incapable of resisting - and often reduced to welcoming that final act of state sanctioned murder they call an "execution".

It's that systematic deprivation of the ability to meaningful interact with others that very slowly erodes your will to live and strips your humanity from you. If we were dogs or cats, every animal rights group in the world would be screaming for the criminal prosecution of those responsible for inflicting this suffering upon us - but that same measure of empathy and compassion is not extended to condemned prisoners - very few are willing to speak up for our humane treatment.

In the many years I've spent in solitary confinement, I've seen many men broken and reduced to insanity - or abandon the will to live and commit suicide. Hopefully this Federal lawsuit will force prison officials to treat condemned prisoners humanely and end the decades of solitary confinement - and not necessarily because the prisoner deserves it, but because as a society we must be better than that.

Are Prison Rules Prohibiting Use of Social Media Legal?

Last month the United States Supreme Court, by unanimous decision, declared that the State of North Carolina cannot categorically prohibit convicted sex offenders from using social media websites, such as facebook, Twitter and countless others. In doing so, the court recognized that these cyberspace forums are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge...they allow a person with an Internet connection to become a town crier with a voice that resonates further than it would from any soapbox.

The full court resoundingly rejected  - and even ridiculed - the State's argument that these convicted sex offenders could use access to the Internet to victimize more innocent children. But in doing so, the full courts recognized that limited restrictions that serve the purpose of prohibiting contact with minors could be constitutional as the state has a legitimate purpose in protecting the innocent, especially children.

However, just as the courts has repeatedly recognized in the past, any limitations the state imposes on "free speech" must be limited only to the extent necessary to accomplish that objective as the long standing rule is that the government "may not suppress lawful speech as a means to suppress unlawful speech" Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)

Myself, I don't exactly have a lot of sympathy towards perverts who prey on women and children. But then again, I have an equal measure of contempt towards those who are not merely satisfied with throwing stones at all convicted prisoners and find perverse pleasure in seeing us suffer.

But I do now wonder how this recent ruling in Packinghem v North Carolina, 382 U.S. (2017) will impact those incarcerated in prisons across the country, as most prison systems - especially states like Florida that are controlled by republicans - do significantly restrict our exercise of free speech. There's no doubt in my mind that if those who make the rules had it their way, prisoners would be prohibited from any and all communication with the outside world. By creating an "iron curtain" between prisoners and the free world, prison administrators would be able to run their prisons as they please.

Here in Florida prisoners are categorically prohibited from any access to the Internet, although there are rumors that within the near future we will be able to start sending and receiving emails and photos - but only because the prison system stands to make millions of dollars by charging us for each email or photo send o received.

                                                                      

However, the bigger issue is that increasingly, even the very limited access prisoners have to print forms of media, such as local newspapers, are no longer available. Newspapers and magazines now are transitioning to only digital access and without access to the Internet it is becoming harder and harder for prisoners to have meaningful access to forms of material that have long been recognized as protected from prison censorship.

Like many other states, under the pretense of protecting the public from prisoners who might take advantage of people, Florida prohibits all prisoners from any form of "soliciting" penpals. This rule was adopted almost 20 years ago when the Internet was still relatively new and prisoners began placing ads seeking penpals on various forms of social sites.

Florida also strictly prohibits prisoners from having Facebook pages set up, or any other form of social media, for the same reason - that if we were allowed to do so, some prisoners could use such social networking sites to scam money (or whatever) from people.

Bottom line, Florida, and other states, have long been determined to prohibit prisoners from interacting with the public. For many years now I have been posting my "blogs" and maintain my website (www.southerninjustice.net) which I actually do not maintain as these are actually controlled by a friend who allows me to write what i will.

But as long as I don't solicit penpals to write to me, or ask anyone for money, I am allowed to run my mouth as even the prison system recognizes that they cannot silence prisoners beyond what is a legitimate and limited prohibition.

But are these rules now called into question by this unanimous Supreme Court decision? If a convicted sex offender is constitutionally entitled to put up a Facebook page so that he or she can interact with others in what has become modern days forum for social interaction, then why shouldn't all prisoners not have the same right? As the Supreme Court recognized in this Packingham case, a categorical rule prohibiting all access goes too far - and so maybe the prison system has a legitimate interest in limited restrictions tailored to actual instances of abuse - for example, the Florida prison system prohibits those convicted of sex crimes against children from having social visits with children and so a similar limitation could be adopted that would prohibit sex offenders from interactions with minor children via Internet access.

Often we hear politicians talk about the objective of rehabilitating prisoners while modern day prisons are far more focused on punishing, the inevitable fact is that the overwhelming majority of prisoners will one day re-enter society, and for that reason promoting social interaction between prisoners and the real world seems a legitimate purpose, as allowing such will substantially decrease the rate of recidivism.

Even those such as myself who are on death row have a substantial interest in being allowed to interact with others online, such as by way of Facebook. One of my favorite quotes from the Supreme Court came in a prisoners rights case long ago..."prison walls do not form an iron curtain and that prisoners are constitutionally entitled to exercise their first amendment rights.

I'm already now looking forward to the challenges that will undoubtedly follow in the wake if last months US Supreme Court's decision and perhaps in the not too distant future I will be able to put up my very own Facebook page so that I can socially interact with those who "like" me, and go online to various websites so that I can read articles on news sites and online magazines.

They say times are changing and eventually even the prison system is forced to join the real world. Just a few years ago we were not allowed MP3 players or even color TV. So, there's hope - and it would be really cool to have my own Facebook page! :)

Can Watson Save the Innocent?

Recently I watched the CBS news program "60 Minutes" and they did a story about "Watson", a a supercomputer that a few years back was programmed to take on contestants in the game show "Jeopardy". At first, the humans kicked it's butt but it went back to school and evolved, feeding off more and more knowledge and information, and adopting a logic based form of "artificial intelligence" that allowed it to consider all possible answers at cyber speed, then identify the most likely correct response...and then human brain power proved to be less than adequate...Watson kicked their butts and claimed its victory.

Since then Watson (the IBM supercomputer) has continued to "grow" and 'evolve" and is now being used to help fight cancer by using its powerful computing skills and still barely newborn artificial intelligence to consume volumes and volumes of medical information about treatments for cancer, then applying that "knowledge" to the specific circumstances of a particular patient and recommending the best course of cancer treatment.

Even in these earliest stages of application, Watson has already proven to be able to save those who might otherwise have died from cancer. What it comes down to is that the enormous volume of cancer research being done around the world and published in a wide variety of science and medical journals is simply too much for even the most dedicated doctor to consume. Even a team of the best doctors in the world could do nothing but read medical journals all day, every day for the rest of their lives and still not be able to read all the available material, much less possess the brain power to remember it all and apply it to the specific circumstances of a patient.

                            

But Watson can and by continuously tweaking it's program it's been able to "learn" and now routinely assists doctors around the world on identifying the best course of cancer treatment with remarkable success and as a result many lives have already been saved, and even more will be yet.

That is amazing. When I was in the military my job was "13 echo 10", Army code for "Computerized Cannon Fire Directional Specialist". I was trained to work a computer that was fed information such as wind, longitude, latitude and other factors, then it would kick out where the huge 185 Howitzers would fire their shells, hitting their targets miles away. That was 1978 and the "computer" took up a small trailer. Now my small (less than 2 inches) MP3 player has more computing power in it than that military weapon of war.

Watching this "60 Minutes" program got me thinking ...what if ISM was to program a similar supercomputer to assist our legal system in objectively analyzing cases to serve as a safeguard against fundamental injustices and protect the innocent from being executed for a crime they didn't commit?

Let's face it, our legal system is inherently corrupted by the 'politics of death'. It's not that those responsible for administering justice inadvertently make mistakes, as they inevitably will. Its far more than that - too often the courts that we trust to make these life or death decisions are themselves only too willing to quite literally lie - the ends justify the means and in this deliberate absence of integrity, innocent people will be put to death.

A good example of this is my own case. In the most recent appeals before the Florida Supreme Court we argued that evidence in the exclusive possession of the State could substantiate my consistently plead claim of innocence if subjected to DNA testing. And it could.

Unable to defend against my argument, the Florida Supreme Court denied DNA testing of this evidence by stating that DNA testing had already been done and that since a preliminary chemical test previously showed no blood on the clothing in question, no DNA evidence was available.

Both these premises are false - and the justices on the Florida Supreme Court knew that they were lying. First, no DNA testing has ever been done in my case despite repeated requests. And next, the absence of blood does not exclude the possibility of DNA evidence, especially since the specific DNA material we sought to have tested was non-blood epidermal (skin tissue, or commonly known as "touch DNA") cells on the clothing.

To err is human. I can accept that any judicial process administered by human beings is going to be fallible....there's going to b mistakes. But when our courts take it a step further and deliberately lie in a capital case, then that's indicative of a much bigger problem, and calls into question the integrity of the process itself, and whether our contemporary courts are willing to put the innocent to death, and whether, as a society that claims to pride itself in protecting the innocent should demand something better. It comes down to a very simple question...are we as a society willing to demand that extraordinary safeguards be taken to protect the innocent from being executed?

This brings me back to Watson, the IBM supercomputer and it's unique ability to consume large amounts of information and then objectively analyze that data and reach a conclusion uncorrupted by political influences. If Watson can do this for cancer patients, then why not program Watson to take on the criminal justice system?

Inevitably computers will one day do this - objectively analyze the facts and evidence of a criminal case and reach an untainted conclusion free from bias. This is one of the reasons that for the past ten years now I have methodically posted all the appellate briefs filed in my case as well as the actual transcripts of my trial on my website (www.southerninjustice.net ) in the hopes that people will read them and see for themselves why our courts can not be trusted to "fairly" administer justice as truth can never hope to prevail before politically corrupt courts.

But what if one day all the evidence and legal arguments in a capital case are fed into a computer like Watson, and everything objectively analyzed like Watson already does for cancer patients, and a result is reached that is free from the bias that infects humanity?

As I said, I think one day computers will be used to serve as a necessary safeguard against human error - and more importantly, inherent human corruption. Hopefully bu that time our society will have evolved beyond what it is today and there will be no death penalty.

But when that day does come, although i will probably be long dead, I wonder if maybe some enterprising college student might feed into that computer all the information, evidence and legal arguments on my own case (and so many others!) and patiently wait as the supercomputer methodically analyzes all the data, then just like Watson reaches it's conclusions today for the cancer patients, that computer will objectively spit out it's response ..." Based on all the available data, the defendant Michael Lambrix, executed by the State of Florida in the year 2017, is innocent of the crime he was convicted of". Although I may not live to see that day, I'll probably still smile. Bottom line, Watson could save the innocent from being executed if only we as a society were committed to saving the innocent.