And They Call Us Monsters

On Wednesday July, 23 2014, the state of Arizona attempted to carry out the execution of condemned killer Joseph Rudolph Wood. For at least the fouth time in recent months, this intended execution went horribly wrong and the witnesses reported watching Woods as he gasped for breath and grunted in pain. Subsequently medical reports documented that during the prolongued two-hour ordeal Arizona actually injected Woods 15 times, and only then finally accomplished their intent to kill.

But even as horrible as this spectacle of diabolically inhumane infliction of death may have been, it was the response to this event that was by far even more disturbing. After the newspaper ran articles about this "botched execution" almost without exception one after the other God-fearing American responded with comments of unequivocal support for inflicting painful death upon another human being. (please read: Death Penalty now Cruel and Usual" USA Today, July 29, 2014 by James Alan Fox)

Having been on Florida's death row now myself for over 30 years for a crime I am innocent of (please check out www.southerninjustice.net ) I'm certainly no stranger to "botched executions" as Florida has a long history of it's own failure to competently carry out executions.

But what separates this spectacle of gruesome death from all others that I've heard about in the past was this seemingly organized show of support for making the condemned man suffer a most horrific death. What is clearly reflected in the responses of so many is not merely an indifference to the unintentional infliction of pain, but the all but fanatical if not rabid advocacy for the infliction of suffering. For these people it's not enough that we condemn a man (or woman) for a particular crime and then carry out that sentence of death - they actually want the condemned man to physically suffer as much as possible and (as one said) "the more pain the criminal feels, the better!"

All of this got me thinking about the countless conversations I've had with the hundreds of condemned men I must live amongst, some of whom are considered by society as being the epitome of 'cold-blooded killers" and labeled as nothing less than mortal "monsters". Through the many years I've personally lived among and came to know such infamous kilelrs as Ted Bundy and others. And in the tens of thousands of conversations I've had with these "cold-blooded killers" I have never, not even once, heard a single one say that he wisehd his victims had suffered more. I have never heard even one say that he wished that he had inflicted more pain upon the victim - not even once.

Some may want to doubt my words, but I challange you to look at the recorded "last words" of the now over a thousand condemned men and women who have been put to death in this country since capital punishment was reinstated in 1974 and you will not find a single one who showed this same measure of intent to inflict pain and suffering upon their victims that those in our society today so zealously advocate inflicting upon the condemned.

Almost without exception when the condemned man is given that final opportunity to say what will be his last words, their words reflect remorse and the Christian values of pleading for forgiveness. Not even one person in the past 40 years went to his or her intended fate with that measure of hate in their hearts that these members of our so-called "civilised" society so clearly do possess.

Perhaps the real problem here is that carrying out these state sanctioned executions are too far removed from sociaty as a whole. Thet've become too sterilized and society has become too detached from the reality that under the pretense of administering justice we are taking a human life.

Through the years I've known many who actually witnessed executions and each was profoundly moved by this experience. Sitting not more than a few feet away from the condemned man (or woman) separated only by a thin sheet of glass and being able to actually look into the eyes of the condemned man as he confronted his fate, and then watch as that life slowly drains out of his body before their eyes and then the voice announcing that the sentence of death has been carried out, not one of these witnesses will ever forget that event.

Still even more traumatic (at least to those who have a conscience) would be to witness the execution of another person as it goes horribly wrong. Those who sign up to witness what they expect to be a "routine" execution are undoubtedly scarred for the rest of their lives. For that reason I think all executions should be publically broadcast on network TV, even pre-emptying regularly scheduled programming and only carried out during "prime-time" hours. Every man, owman and child in America should watch as the state takes that life, which the state is only empowered to do in the name of the people. Perhaps then there wouldn't be such widespread indifference to the fact that we are taking a human life.

Myself, many many years ago I was compelled to involuntarily to take the life of another man and to this day, even over 30 years later, not a day goes by that I am not haunted by that momory. I din't rob anyone or rape anyone. I only found myself in a situation where I was forced to respond (please check out: www.southerninjustice.net ) and even though i might justify my actions within that letter of law, it does not relieve me from the nightmares that follow when I can still see the face of that man whose life I was forced to take. And I'm sure that those who witness the execution of a condemned man, to sit and watch another human being put to death, they too will be haunted by that for the rest of their lives.

As a matter of moral conscience, the taking of any life should never be trivialized, much less reduced to a spectacle. But the truth of the matter is that there will always be that part of our society that will openly advocate and even delight in the infliction of pain and suffering of another---and then they call us "monsters"

Michael Lambrix #482053

Union Correctional Institution

7819 NW 228th street

Raiford, Florida 32026

 

That Ever-Elusive Glimmer of Hope

Nelson Mandela, when he was imprisoned on Robben Island, was undoubtedly subjected to substantial hostility from the guards working around him, seeing him as a threat to their way of life. However, even in the worst of times, Mandela saw that glimmer of humanity that sustained his hope and gave him the strength to endure and he often spoke about that. But few would be able to truly appreciate just what he meant by his words, as very few will ever find themselves cast down into the bowels of a maximum-security prison that is intended to methodically break not only your body, but also your spirit, until you abandon all hope and submit to the masters of your fate.

I dare say that, although the circumstances may be different, I can find that common ground with Nelson Mandela. I can relate to his words as I too have spent not merely a few years but a few decades in solitary confinement under what is intended to be not merely physically, but psychologically oppressive conditions that take their inevitable toll in ways one cannot always see.

In all the years that I have spent ion Florida’s death row I have never seen the level of malice directed towards us by our captors as I do now. It’s a tangible presence that now hangs over us like an evil entity out to torment our very souls. I can not say how it took hold or why it has become what it is, but I can not deny this presence where once there was a level of mutual civility between the guards and convicts, now the guards almost always harbor a level of malice and even hate towards us that manifests itself in every way. Any guards who do dare show basic civility to death row prisoners are quickly transferred to another part of the prison. There’s no doubt that this level of malice comes from the very top.

As a result the environment we must live in has evolved into what could be described as a “cold war” zone. A few weeks ago I saw a sergeant who I’ve known for years and once respected because he treated us fairly. As he walked by my cell, I smiled and said “How you have been doing?” I only wanted to be civil. But his response spontaneously came back at me as if I had been physically assaulted “None of you f-----g business, inmate”! That was all he had to say, but more then I cared to hear. In that instant a man I once held in respect immediately lost all respect and in my eyes became the lowest form of scum that ever walked the earth. I quickly learned that this attitude was only too common among the guards working this unit now. What they simply cannot see is that by treating us with such malice, they only reduce themselves to something lower in the subhuman species. And I’m afraid that when one guard after other exhibits this same attitude for no apparent reason, then it doesn’t take long before the lines are clearly drawn and we come to see all the guards as the enemy.

But then in the most unexpected way my own attitude is put in check. A few weeks ago my elderly parents came up for their monthly visit. It was an extremely hot Florida summer day and as mom helped my father out of the car and into his wheelchair, she accidentally closed the car door, locking the car keys and their identification inside. They had no way to open the car door. Now standing there in the prison parking lot, it wouldn’t take long before the Florida sun took its inevitable toll. Both my parents are now quite elderly and not at all in their best health. It was at least 7 miles back to Starke, where the closest mechanic was who could be called to open the car door.

But then a sergeant saw them stranded there in the parking lot and went over to offer his assistance. He had to know they were visiting a prisoner as that would be the only reason for civilians to be at a prison parking lot on a Saturday morning. Despite the relentless heat bearing down upon him, that sergeant became as equally determined to help my parents and struggled for the better part of an hour to get their car door open. Another guard came over and offered my parents some water. Finally they succeeded in manipulating the door lock open and my parents retrieved their identification and were able to come in to visit me, and told me the story.

I was surprised and grateful to the unknown sergeant and officers who kindly helped my parents. But it also caused me to think about what Nelson Mandela said after his many years of imprisonment. In our world it is only too easy to allow ourselves to become filled with malice towards those on the other side of those steel bars, especially when the interaction between us and them is almost always an unpleasant experience. Like a dog in a cage, once you’ve been kicked so often by every guard that walks by, it’s only too easy to come to expect that from all of them.

But then there’s that one brief moment in time, when by a simple act at genuine humanity you are reminded that every person is an individual, and even if 100 guards show nothing but malice towards me for no apparent reason there are still that one or two that have found the strength to rise above this wall that exists between us. A simple act of kindness has restored that glimmer of hope in humanity, as at the end of the day it is our humanity and how that is manifested towards others that defines us as species and as along as there is still a few among us willing to follow that golden rule of doing onto others as we would want them to do onto us, then there is hope for all of us.

Michael Lambrix

Florida death row

Please check out my website

http://www.southerninjustice.net

The Monkey Trap

Many moons ago I read a story about how to catch a monkey. That story stuck with me, not because I ever wanted to catch a monkey, but because of its metaphor and application to many other aspects of life in general.

Here's basically how it went..generally monkeys are not too bright. But they can be pretty clever. If you're out in the jungle you can't just walk up to a monkey and grab it as their instinctive nature is to run away especially if they see you as a threat. People who live in parts of the world where monkeys are common often see monkeys as a source of food or income. So how do you catch a monkey?

The beauty is in its simplicity. No you don't build a monkey trap or try to chase them through the jungle as the monkey will pretty much win every time. Rather, all it takes is a common jar and a piece of fruit. You take the jar and attach it to a rope or chain, then fasten it to a tree or whatever. Then you take an apple or other round fruit that barely fits through the opening of the jar and place the fruit in the jar and walk away. Simple enough.

The monkey is going to want that piece of fruit. In fact, they'll often fight each other for the opportunity to be the one that gets that delicious piece of juicy fruit. Then the one that wins will put his hand into the jar to retrieve that fruit, only to discover that he 9or she) cannot extract the fruit as once the monkey wraps his hand around the fruit to pull it out, his hand is too big to fit through the opening of the jar.

The monkey now has a choice...let go of the fruit to allow his hand to get out, which would mean that another monkey will quickly move in to take the fruit, or hold fast and never let go. Most monkeys will become so fixated on the objective of getting the fruit - and not letting another monkey get it - that this simple jar becomes a monkey trap. This poor monkey simply doesn't have the basic, common sense to just let go even when the starving natives walk up and bash his head in with a stick or club.

This is a really good metaphor about how the death penalty in America is now administered. The death penalty politicians and our society as a whole have become so blinded by their narrow minded objective of killing the condemned that they cannot let go even though the fundamental failure of this death penalty experiment now threatens to take down the whole system.

Putting society's apparent need for vengeance aside, objectively speaking can anyone truly say that the death penalty works? In Florida, those of us on death row are now more likely to die of old age and natural causes while spending decades in continuous solitary confinement awaiting the uncertainty of our fate than face actual execution. I have personally been on Florida's death row since early 1984 - going on 28 years - despite the fact that I have consistently pushed for speedy review, even filing legal actions against the state arguing my right to a timely review. Politicians and the courts want to blame the condemned for dragging out appeals when they know that is not true - its just a lot easier to blame the condemned as we have no voice and are pawns of the system.
The actual truth is that it’s the pro death penalty politicians and judges who cause the delays by repeatedly frustrating the process itself. Blinded by their own zeal to kill, they constantly tinker with the appellate process trying to figure out ways to kill more of us a lot quicker. But each time they play these political games it actually slows the process down as new rules means a whole new round of constitutional challenges to these draconian rules.
Worse yet, each time they play with the rules governing appellate review of death penalty cases, it recruits in eliminating a level of appellate review and substantially increases the inevitable likelihood that innocent people will be put to death. But these politicians can not see that. They are so fixated on the fruit in the jar that they can not see how their actions will have irreparable consequences upon the integrity of our judicial process itself – and actually lead to having the death penalty declared unconstitutional, as it should be anyway.
Although the majority of Americans continue to favor capital punishment, support has substantially decreased in recent years as more people learn that the rate of wrongful convictions is substantially higher than anyone previously thought possible. DNA exonerations have proven that fact. But these DNA exonerations actually account for a very small number of the wrongful convictions in the country. In Florida, at least 26 inmates have been exonerated since the death penalty was reinstated after being previously declared unconstitutional. That means that for every two people Florida has executed since 1979, one person was wrongfully convicted and condemned to death. But of that alarming number only 2 have been exonerated through DNA evidence. The inconvenient truth that nobody wants to talk about is that very few of those at death row who are innocent have DNA evidence to prove their innocence. Most of those – including myself – who were wrongfully convicted and condemned to death in spite of innocence were convicted upon specious circumstantial evidence; without any eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence, and no confessions. (Read my entire capital case, including trial transcripts, appeal briefs, etc at www.southerninjustice.com
Then there’s the political corruption of the courts themselves. Most of the judges on American courts are either publicly elected or politically appointed. Either way, these judges must publicly declare their support for the death penalty or they will stand no chance of being elected or appointed. Most judges are political cowards and lack the moral courage or integrity to do what’s right and would rather send an innocent man to his execution rather than risk political retribution for being too ‘liberal’.
Truth and justice have become irrelevant in the face of this insidious cancer of the “politics of death” No matter how convincing and even irrefutable the evidence is that the fundamental flaws of today’s death penalty is eroding public confidence in the judicial system as a whole, they will justify their actions and blindly continue on their journey of self destruction as their need to kill blinds them to all logic or reason.
So how do you get the monkey to let go of the fruit? The answer is really very simple – just don’t put the fruit in the jar in the first place. Take the death penalty off the table and join the rest of the civilized world by declaring the death penalty unconstitutional. This is not about letting the guilty go, but protecting the innocent from being executed. The simple truth is that if we as a society put even one innocent person to death, then we as a society become guilty of an act of deliberate cold blooded murder of an innocent man. Monkey traps only work if we refuse to let go of the fruit, so just let go!

Michael Lambrix
Death Row
Florida State Prison

Hello From Death Row

Hello to my faithful friends and those who follow my blog. From time to time I just want all of you to know that it really means a lot to me to know that all of you keep me in your thoughts and send positive support my way. No matter how hard my seemingly never ending struggle for justice and freedom may seem at times, knowing that I'm not alone gives me strenght and support. I need to make it through another day - and then one day at a time after that.

Recently I've had to struggle with the question "why?" as things have been especially difficult the past few months. Some of you sent me cards after reading my previously posted blog "The paradox of Hope" and each one touched me in a very special way. Its times like that I do realize just how truly blessed i am as there is no greater treasure in Heaven or earth then that of the compassion and love of a faithful friend.

Being condemned for a crime I did not commit is itself a virtual hell few could even begin to imagine. Each day I awake to a never-ending nightmare, the reality of my circumstances so tangible that its the first thing that I'm aware of each morning. Sometimes it is all I can do to just lay there on my steel bunk and stare at the ceiling until I find the strength to rise up and begin my day. Sometimes I really don't want to get up at all.

In my recent blog I spoke of how elusive hope can become when one thing after another comes along to pound me down into the ground. When it comes down to it, I'm only human and it is only human that i will have moments, even hours and days, when I am overwhelmed and find myself asking why I bother to fight anymore when I cannot see a light at the end of the tunnel anymore. The truth is that the struggle does become more difficult each time the judicial rug gets pulled out from beneath me by a politically corrupt judicial system.

But often it is at these darkest moments that a "light" shines down upon me, renewing my strength in the most unexpected ways. Maybe the truth is that we need to reach rock bottom to keep things in context and realize that there is still something worth fighting for. Maybe this is an inherent gift we all share as I'm certainly not the only one who struggles with hopelessness and despair when our lives seem to become a prison of its own making. Spend too much time basking in the light and the light itself becomes irrelevant. It's only too easy to take everything we have for granted without even realizing that we are doing so. When it comes down to it, from the moment we are born we are all condemned to die. I've clung so desperately to this thing we call "life", yet in the end, nobody comes out alive.

So, if its not about the beginning and in the end our fate is inevitably sealed, then it has to be about the journey between that matters. I used to say that "life itself is the mortal condemnation of an eternal soul" and I still believe that. Although i struggle with the contemporary definition of "God", I remain convinced that God must exist - just not the Supreme being many use to exploit and coerce fear into others for fullfillment of their own self serving agenda. The truth is that I've grown to hold in contempt this contemporary "Christianity" that only too quickly embraces God to justify their own hate and intolerance. I cannot believe in a God that could be so malicious and petty.

All of this is relevant to the restoration of the strength necessary to sustain my hope and through that the strength to fight the fight. Its like I have been thrown down into a dark abyss and I must struggle to climb up the slippery slopes of my prison if there is any hope of surviving. At times I will slip and fall backwards, descending into the darkness of the abyss that imprisons me. But it is at these times that I realize that I'm not alone - that there are those faithful friends willing to catch me when I fall.

For that, I'm grateful beyond any words can say. In my recent struggle, I was reminded just how fortunate I am - and how much my own struggles effect those who truly do care about me. So thank you to those of you who send me cards and letters with words of encouragement and for caring enough to catch me when I fall.

Now I am climbing the walls upwards again. I do not have much faith left in our corrupt judicial system - but I do have faith in my true friends and its because of their genuine concern that I find that strenght and will to renew my never-ending battle for justice.

The truth is that with both the State and Federal courts now denying reviews of the virtual wealth of evidence substantiating my innocence, there is not much left to go on. I am already pursuing a new state appeal that is based upon the discovery of deliberately concealed state crime lab records that show that the alleged "murder weapon" introduced as evidence at my trial was deliberately fabricated by the key witness and the state attorneys office.

Unable to find any lawyer willing to assist me, I recently filed my own legal action to the United States Supreme Court, asking that they exercise jurisdiction under "exceptional circumstances" to review the evidence substantiating my innocence.

But in what is only too common in the American courts, after I sent this 46 pages habeas petition to the US Supreme Court on January 24, 2011 about a week later the clerk of the court sent it back to me, refusing to formally file this innocence appeal because of a technical imperfection. Once again the incidious true nature of the American judicial system exposes itself - its not about truth and justice, but the politics of death, and irrelevant technical imperfections are exploited as a means of denying review altogether.

The clerk of court instructed me to correct the error and submit a "corrected petition". But that's not so easily done as when the court sent the box of copies back to me, someone here at the prison went out of their way to open the "legal mail" (which is prohibited) and maliciously destroyed the entire contents. Prison warden Steven Singer says that they are now conducting a formal investigation into the illegal destruction of this legal property, but I've been around here long enough to know how these so-called "investigators" always go... No matter that the officer delivering the legal mail even wrote a formal "incident report' to cover his own butt once he saw the over 2800 pages had been deliberately destroyed, and two lieutenants also verified this - it will still come out with the typical "the allegations of destruction of your legal property by FSP staff connot be substantiated"

This is just what we must deal with. The prison only too often goes out of its way to obstruct our ability to file appeals, even deliberately destroying our legal property and if we are lucky enough to get it to the court, then the courts go out of their way to deny review upon any irrelevant imperfection. Then if we do finally get a "corrected" petition filed so that the court will review the claims of innocence, the pro death penalty politically appointed judicial activists on the court will invent reason to deny relief anyways.

And yet I will keep banging my head against that proverbial brick wall, still wondering why. But at least I know I'm blessed with true friends.

Mike Lambrix 482053
Florida State Prison

Please check out my site
www.southerninjustice.net

Screw the Truth – Execute the Innocent

Don’t you just hate it when inconvenient truths get in the way of killing people? Where do people get off thinking that carrying out executions has anything to do with such concepts as “truth and justice”? When it comes down to it, capital punishment is not about whether someone is guilty or actually innocent – it’s about the “politics of death” and feeding our twisted societies primitive need for vengeance. When a brutal crime occurs, we need to know someone will be held accountable and we are driven to find great satisfaction in knowing the crime has been avenged. That’s just human nature, and whether or not the person we ultimately put to death for the crime actually committed the crime really is not even relevant. The only thing that really matters is that we get our proverbial ‘pound of flesh”

In fact, we don’t even want to know that we may have executed an innocent man. Such an inconvenient truth completely undermines our fundamental need to believe in our judicial system. If we are forced to confront the truth then our own support for the death penalty makes us personally complicit in this morally and legally justified act of murder carried out in our name.

But most of us are good people of moral character and we would find it troubling that an innocent person was put to death for a crime he did not commit. We really don’t need to be weighted down by that moral baggage and so we choose to learn form the ostrich – we stick our heads in the sand and pretend it didn’t happen.

But the tragic truth is that it does happen and ignoring this truth won’t make it go away. By choosing to ignore the imperfection of our judicial system, we do become personally responsible for the execution of an innocent person. This truth can not be denied as if only more people would stand up and speak out against a system that refuses to admit its own mistakes then those we entrust to prosecute questionable cases will be forced to understand that both as individuals and as a civilized society, even the execution of one innocent person is not acceptable.

This past week, renowned bestselling author John Grisham released his latest book, entitled “The confession”. In this fictional story, Grisham writes of a 19 year old Donte Drumm, who found himself accused of the brutal murder of a local pretty young cheerleader in the small town of Slone, Texas.

Donte Drumm insisted that he is innocent – but what does innocence have to do with it? Without any real evidence, Drumm went straight to Texas death row. As the years pass, Drumm’s desperate appeals proclaiming his innocence are denied by one court after another and 8 years later Drumm finds himself facing imminent execution. Only then does the real killer have a crisis of conscience and comes forward to confess. But nobody wants to hear it. As we know only too well, prosecutors absolutely never admit they were wrong, and our courts never admit that a person might be innocent. Although innocent, Drumm never had a chance, as in our judicial system the puppet master would much rather execute an innocent person than to admit even the possibility of error.

This is not the first time Grisham wrote a bestselling book that tells the story of an innocent man being wrongly convicted and condemned to death, only to have evidence substantiating innocence deliberately ignored by the courts and the injustice intentionally perpetuated by the very people (judges and prosecutors) we trust to protect the innocent.

In John Grisham’s 2006 work, “The Innocent Man” Grisham told the true story of Ron Williamson, an aspiring high school athlete with a promising career ahead of him – until he suddenly found himself charged with capital murder in the state of Oklahoma and quickly convicted and condemned to death in spite of his innocence.

Only years later was DNA evidence discovered that not only proved Williamson was innocent but also revealed the true killer. But nobody wanted to hear it and both the prosecutor and the courts refused to admit that they could have made such a mistake. The only possible explanation was that either the DNA evidence had to be wrong, or maybe Williamson acted with this other person. To silence these claims of innocence, the state became that much more determined to expedite Williamson’s execution.

This is not at all surprising. For too long now this is how the American judicial system protects itself from having its mistakes exposed…they simply create new court rules and laws to limit post conviction appeals so that the evidence of innocence cannot be heard. By denying the wrongfully convicted any chance of proving their innocence, the errors are forever concealed.

Most recently this was the case in Texas when Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death. Willingham was convicted and condemned to death for allegedly setting fire to his own home, killing his own two young daughters. There were no eyewitnesses or confessions – but the local, small Texas town fire Marshall conducted his own investigation and concluded that the fire was deliberately set. This fire Marshall had no actual training in arson investigations, but that didn’t stop him from testifying in court that there was no question that the house was deliberately set on fire. To seal Willingham’s fate, the state brought in a prisoner from the local county jail who testified that Willingham told him that he had indeed set the house on fire to kill his two young daughters and did it to strike back at his wife after they had an argument.

Willingham insisted that he was innocent and that he didn’t know how the fire actually started. He testified that after seeing the smoke, he tried to get into the house to save his children, but couldn’t. The jury refused to believe him and court after court rejected his claim of innocence.

Shortly before Willingham was executed, some of the top arson investigators in the country were brought in to re-examine the case. Virtually every one of these experts concluded that the local fire Marshall was wrong and that the evidence showed that the fire was started by an electrical short – it was a tragic accident, and Willingham was innocent of murder as no murder occurred.

But the Texas courts didn’t want to hear it and refused to allow the evidence to be heard. Willingham was executed in 2004. Only after his execution did the evidence of his innocence catch the attention of the media, and the question of whether Texas executed an innocent man started to be taken seriously.

As the controversy build, Texas governor Perry formed a panel of experts to finally review the evidence to determine whether Willingham was innocent. This “commission on forensic science” thoroughly studied the evidence and reached the inconvenient conclusion that Willingham was innocent – that the State of Texas had deliberately put an innocent man to death.

But it was an election year and Perry was running for re-election. In Texas the death penalty is all about politics and you cannot win an election by seeming soft on convicted murderers or admitting you made a mistake. Using the power of his office, shortly before the Texas “commission on forensic science” was to public ally release its report declaring Willingham innocent, Governor Perry abruptly fired the panel and appointed his own hand picked political insiders. Once again, the inconvenient truth of innocence was suppressed by the insidious politics of death.

In John Grisham’s book “The Confession” he writes that “death row is a nightmare for serial killers and ax murderers – but for an innocent man, it’s a life of mental torture that the human spirit is not equipped to survive”

I know only too well of the eternal mental anguish of being a condemned man, convicted and sentenced to death for a crime I did not commit. In my main website, www.southerninjustice.net my supporters have posted my entire case – complete trial transcripts, appeal briefs, etc and the evidence supporting my actual innocence.

In my recently published book “To Live and Die on Death Row” by C Michael Lambrix (available online for free at www.lulu.com) I graphically detail what life is like on death row, the never ending torment of being in solitary confinement for over 27 years and the relentless struggle to maintain my sanity as one court after another refuses to even hear the wealth of evidence substantiating my innocence, see also my secondary blog, www.doinglifeondeathrow.blogspot.com.

The past month my lawyers filed a “last ditch” appeal to the United States Supreme Court arguing specifically that they must order the lower courts to allow my evidence of innocence to be heard – or I will be executed for a crime I did not commit. But will the Supreme Court even listen? I can only hope they will. You can personally read this recently filed appeal at www.supremecourtinnocenceappeal.blogspot.com

But my faith in our judicial system to protect the innocent and even in the nature of humanity in general is suffering. If I have learned nothing else over the many years, it is that too many feel “screw the truth – just execute the innocent”

Please check out my website http://www.southerninjustice.net

Florida Court Denies Lambrix's Innocence Appeal

After denying review and final disposition of Michael Lambrix’s state post conviction appeal arguing newly discovered evidence that substantiates Lambrix’s consistently pled claim of innocence for many years, in a bizarre and even absurd ruling the Florida Supreme Court has categorically denied all relief, finding that the virtual wealth of evidence presented by Lambrix is not credible. See, Lambrix v. State, 2010 WL 1488028 (Fla.) (opinion released on April 15th, 2010)

As those who have followed this wholly circumstantial capital case already know, and as the state has repeatedly conceded itself, the state’s entire case was based upon the testimony of Lambrix’s estranged ex-girlfriend Frances Smith-Ottinger. Although, Lambrix’s conviction and sentence of death were exclusively based upon the credibility of Smith-Ottinger, in denying Lambrix relief the Florida Supreme Court has now declared Smith-Ottinger “not credible.” Of course, the court has made no attempt to explain how in a wholly circumstantial case (no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence, no confessions, etc.) dependent upon the credibility of a single key witness; the capital conviction and sentence of death can still be upheld when the same witness has now been declared “not credible.”

Apparently, the Florida Supreme Court’s concept of credibility is flexible and subjectively applied – as long as a witness is providing favorable testimony for the state to secure a conviction, even in a wholly circumstantial case; the witness is credible. But if and when that same witness provides testimony contrary to the interests of the state, then the witness is not credible. That is how justice is administered in Florida.

The Florida Supreme Court’s absurd conclusions actually are not about whether or not the state’s key witness Smith-Ottinger is credible. What this case is really about is the Florida Supreme Courts unethical and constitutionally reprehensible protection of the Florida Supreme Court’s Chief Justice, Peggy Quince. If putting an innocent man to death is necessary to protect Chief Justice Quince from allegations of misconduct, then so be it.

Although not mentioned in the recent denial of relief, but fully detailed in the appeal briefs submitted in this case; Chief Justice Peggy Quince was previously an Assistant Attorney General and part of the prosecution team during Lambrix’s initial post conviction proceedings prior to her political appointment to the Florida Supreme Court. (All appeal briefs in this case can be found and read under the hearing-briefs tab at SouthernInjustice.net)

In her former capacity, Chief Justice Quince was (“allegedly”) personally complicit in the prosecutorial misconduct in this capital case. Lambrix filed a motion to disqualify the Florida Supreme Court (click here to read this motion in its entirety), which the Florida Supreme Court summarily denied even though their own recent decision in other cases, required disqualification; see, Wickham v. State, 998 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2008). Apparently the Florida Supreme Court is not bound by its own established law.

What is clear by the Florida Supreme Courts ruling is they would rather put an innocent man to death than risk having Chief Justice Quinces own alleged acts of misconduct exposed. The fact that the Florida Supreme Court refused to even address the virtual wealth of evidence presented (see, appeal briefs) and the pled allegations of prosecutorial misconduct that collectively establish that the key witness Smith-Ottinger and the states lead investigator conspired and collaborated together to deliberately fabricate this wholly circumstantial case of alleged premeditated murder shows the Florida Supreme Court simply will not allow their Chief Justice’s own complicity in this deliberate miscarriage of justice to even be discussed.

At trial, in addition to Smith-Ottinger’s testimony that Lambrix told her that he had killed the two deceased, apparently “to take their car,” (which it should be noted, this vehicle was subsequently found in the exclusive possession of Smith-Ottinger, not Lambrix), the state presented testimony from Deborah Hanzel, who testified that Lambrix has also told her that he killed the couple to take the car. However, Hanzel has since provided sworn testimony that her trial testimony was deliberately fabricated – that key witness Smith-Ottinger and the state’s investigator deliberately coerced her to provide this false testimony in a conspiracy to ensure that Lambrix would be convicted and to protect Smith-Ottinger from prosecution herself. (Deborah Hanzel’s sworn affidavit can be read in its entirety by clicking here.)

The Florida Supreme Court now finds that Hanzel’s testimony that she was coerced to provide false testimony is “not reliable” and of course the court conveniently refused to consider any of the evidence that supports Hanzel’s claim that the key witness Smith-Ottinger and the state worked together to deliberately fabricate the entire wholly circumstantial theory of alleged premeditated murder – evidence that if fully and fairly addressed cannot be credibly disputed.

Again the Florida Supreme Court relies upon the absurd conclusion that when Deborah Hanzel testified for the state, she was the epitome of credibility – but now that she has provided sworn testimony detailing how the key witness Smith-Ottinger and the state had coerced her to provide false testimony, and that they knew all along Lambrix was not guilty of premeditated murder, the Florida Supreme Court finds that Hanzel is not a reliable witness. This is the unwritten rule of law – as long as a witness is providing favorable testimony for the state, then they are credible. If the witness admits to being coerced to lie by the state, then they are no loner credible.

Nothing reflects the Florida Supreme Courts deliberate hypocrisy and distortion of the truth more than the manner in which the Florida Supreme Court addressed Lambrix’s own post conviction testimony. What makes Lambrix’s consistently pled claim of innocence unique is that Lambrix has admitted to being in the company of the two people who were killed and that Lambrix was compelled to hit the male victim only after the make victim attacked and was assaulting the much younger female victim.

Lambrix’s claim of a spontaneous event forcing him to act involuntary self defense when attacked by Clarence Moore/ aka Lawrence Lamberson when Lambrix attempted to stop Moore/Lamberson from violently assaulting the teenage victim Aleisha Bryant is actually supported by the State own evidence, and the state has never provided any evidence to contradict this claim. In fact, the state knew all along that Moore/Lamberson was a career criminal and known associate of “drug smugglers” with a criminal history of violently assaulting other women in the same manner. A fact that the jury was not allowed to hear.

At Lambrix’s trial, the court prohibited Lambrix from testifying so the jury was never allowed to hear Lambrix’s account of what actually happened. It should be noted that key witness Smith-Ottinger also testified that she did not actually see or hear anything that transpired outside that night that led up to and resulted in the couple’s death. Her only claim was that Lambrix subsequently told her he had killed both of them.

During the post conviction proceedings Lambrix was finally provided an opportunity to testify and did then graphically testify to what actually happened outside. As the record shows, the state could not discredit Lambrix’s claim of self defense.

In the recent order denying relief the Florida Supreme Court (at page 11) “Lambrix himself (testified) at this most recent evidentiary hearing that he struck one of he victims using a tire iron, although he denied that he intended to kill either victim.” Incredibly, the Florida Supreme Court actually twisted Lambrix’s own testimony into somehow being a confession of guilt of premeditated murder.

In doing so, the Florida Supreme Court completely ignored the overwhelming weight of the evidence that actually substantiates Lambrix’s claim. As reflected in the trial transcript, the jury was not allowed to know that Moore/Lamberson (the male deceased) had an extensive criminal history, including violently assaulting women. The jury did hear Smith-Ottinger’s own testimony that there was virtually no indication of animosity or intent to commit any crime, between any of the parties. In fact, Smith-Ottinger conceded that Lambrix, Moore/Lamberson and Bryant were “laughing, teasing, and playing around” immediately before Lambrix and Moore/Lamberson went outside during the early morning hours.

Smith-Ottinger specifically testified that Lambrix remained outside with Moore/Lamberson for approximately 20 minutes then returned to the trailer they shared alone. At that time Smith-Ottinger was absolutely certain that Lambrix did not have any blood on him, was not in possession of the alleged murder weapon (a common tire iron) and “looked normal.” According to Smith-Ottinger, Lambrix then went outside again with Aleisha Bryant as she remained inside alone cooking a spaghetti dinner.

Smith-Ottinger claims that Lambrix again returned alone, but this time was “covered with blood” and was carrying the tire iron, and told her “They’re dead” then proceeded to wash up. Smith-Ottinger has consistently claimed that she did not actually hear of see anything that transpired outside and only knows that Lambrix told her he killed them, but she also insisted that “he never said why.”

For this reason, only Lambrix knows what really happened outside. But by looking at the State’s own evidence, it becomes clear that Lambrix’s claim of being compelled to spontaneously act in self defense when attempting to stop Moore/Lamberson from fatally assaulting Aleisha Bryant is, in fact, supported by this undisputed evidence.

At trial key witness Smith-Ottinger testified that Lambrix told her that he had “choked the girl” and had “hit the in the back of the head.” But the states own medical examiner Dr. Robert Shultz concluded that there was no evidence to show that Aleisha Bryant was “choked” or strangled to death. In fact, it is a medical certainty that if a victim is choked or strangled to death, there will be evidence to show this such as hemorrhaging/bruising around the neck and damage to the soft tissue and larynx as well as probable fracture of the hyoid cartilage. And if a person is strangled to death, there will always be “peticule hemorrhaging” visible in the eyes. But medical examiner Shultz found no evidence of any of these tell-tale signs, thus Smith-Ottinger’s claim that Lambrix choked or strangled Bryant cannot be true.

Although a witness might lie, this type of evidence does not. Additionally, it is inconceivable that a healthy young woman who was not restrained in any manner would simply stand by and allow herself to be assaulted and killed without struggling and fighting for her life. Smith-Ottinger has consistently conceded that Lambrix did not have any scratches or bruises on him that would have been consistent with a struggle with Bryant.

However, the state’s own medical examiner Dr. Schultz conceded that Moore/Lamberson actually did have numerous scratches and lacerations consistent with what Bryant would have undoubtedly inflicted if he had struggled with Aleisha Bryant as Lambrix claimed he did.

Further, the medical examiner Dr. Schultz concluded that Aleisha Bryant did not suffer any physical injuries that would have resulted in a substantial loss of blood. (Smith-Ottinger was certain that Lambrix did not have any blood on him when returning to the trailer after Moore/Lamberson went outside, but before Aleisha Bryant went outside). But Dr. Schultz concluded that Moore/Lamberson did have numerous injuries that would have resulted in substantial loss of blood. Thus the only way that Lambrix could have been “covered in blood” after Bryant went out but not before was if Moore/Lamberson was still alive outside when Bryant went out — supporting Lambrix’s claim that all three were together outside and it was a spontaneous event that resulted in their deaths, not “premeditated murder.”

The states own evidence substantiating Lambrix’s claim that he was compelled to act in self defense when attacked by Moore/Lamberson is even stronger. As the trial transcript reflects, the state’s own medical examiner, Dr. Schultz, testified that Moore/Lamberson died as the result of blunt force trauma – being hit in the head with an object consistent with the tire iron.

However, Dr. Schultz testified with absolute certainty that Moore/Lamberson was struck eight times, specifically, that Moore/Lamberson died as the result of “multiple crushing blows to the head… resulting in severe fractures around the eyes and the cheeks,” and that these blows consisted of “eight (blows) – four times to the left frontal forehead, and four times to the right … applied in a continuous side to side motion.” (See, trial transcript, testimony of Dr. Robert Schultz)

More importantly, Dr. Schultz found virtually no evidence of any “defensive wounds,” and all of these blows were administered with Moore/Lamberson facing his assailant, leaving the only logical conclusion that – just as Lambrix claimed, Moore/Lamberson was coming at him and Lambrix was forced to swing in spontaneous self defense.

As if this evidence itself was not enough to substantiate Lambrix’s consistently pled claims of involuntary self defense, while ignoring the overwhelming weight of this irrefutable evidence the Florida Supreme Court also refused to acknowledge the conclusive evidence that key witness Smith-Ottinger and the state did deliberately fabricate evidence to support their allegations of premeditated murder with the intent and purpose of having Lambrix wrongfully convicted and condemned to death.

Specifically, as reflected in the trial transcript, Smith-Ottinger testified that Lambrix had deliberately placed Aleisha Bryant “face down in a pond” to ensure that she would die. This testimony was used to convince the jury that there was no doubt that Lambrix did act with premeditated intent to kill Aleisha Bryant, thus convicting Lambrix of capital premeditated murder.

But there never was any such “pond,” and no question that this extremely prejudicial testimony used to prove actual premeditation was deliberately fabricated to inflame the jury and convince the jury to convict and condemn Lambrix to death.

In the post conviction appeal now before the Florida Supreme Court, Lambrix’s legal counsel pro offered into evidence the sworn affidavit of the owner of the property, who attested under oath that there was no pond in the area where Bryant was killed. Additionally, two expert witnesses provided sworn statements as hydro-engineers and property surveyors that they went to the property and concluded that Smith-Ottinger’s claim that Bryant was placed face down in a pond to ensure she would die simply could not be true.

Not surprisingly, the Florida Supreme Court refused to even address Lambrix’s specifically pled claim of “fundamental miscarriage of justice” based party upon the pro-offered “expert report” of one of the country’s top homicide detectives, William Gaut, who was retained by Lambrix’s legal counsel to independently examine the case against Lambrix.

Mr. Gaut has over 40 years of experience in homicide investigations, and personally taught homicide investigation techniques in college classes. It was Mr. Gaut’s opinion after independently reviewing the case brought against Lambrix that the entire investigation and development of evidence used to convict and condemn Lambrix is “highly suspect” and not consistent with long established protocols. Quite simply, Mr. Gaut concluded that his own independent examination does support that the state’s key witness Smith-Ottinger and the state attorney’s head investigator Miles “Bob” Daniels, did conspire and collaborate together to wrongly convict and condemn Lambrix.

Why would the Florida Supreme Court deliberately ignore the overwhelming weight of this evidence? All of the records in the capital case are posted online, including the trial transcripts, appeal briefs, and other relevant actions so that anyone can read the record and decide for themselves.

The only logical conclusion is that the Florida Supreme Court is willing to deliberately put an innocent man to death for no reason but to protect the Florida Supreme Court Justice Peggy Quince, formally herself part of the prosecution team in this capital case, from being exposed for her own complicity in the prosecutorial misconduct that resulted in Michael Lambrix being – by deliberate intent – wrongfully convicted and condemned to death.