Anthony Sowell has been convicted of murdering eleven women and trying to kill three more.
Now that his defense team has finished lying about the evidence during the trial phase, they will now move on to lying during sentencing.
Sowell’s attorneys anchored their defense on the argument that prosecutors had no hard evidence — no DNA, no fingerprints, no eyewitnesses — linking Sowell to the women’s deaths.
That would be, no hard evidence except for the bodies of the eleven women found dismembered and scattered throughout his house. And blood from the victims on his sheets. And so on. Why does anyone tolerate this sort of behavior from the defense bar?
But there’s more.
Sentencing hearing lying:
Sowell’s attorneys, John Parker and Rufus Sims, have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on experts to build a case against executing Sowell.
That would be, hundreds of thousands of your dollars.
In the upcoming penalty phase, jurors might hear from neuroscientists who have interviewed Sowell at length or analyzed scans of his brain for insights into his disposition. A military expert is expected to testify about Sowell’s career as an officer and electrician in the U.S. Marine Corp.
Ah yes, the academic-driven “brain scan” racket. Suddenly phrenology’s in fashion again.
But let’s not leave out the rest of the gravy train:
And nearly $150,000 has been paid to a social researcher, charged with the task of scouring the globe for witnesses who can testify about how Sowell became the man he is. That could include family members, former teachers or mentors who could humanize Sowell and explain what might have gone wrong in his developmental years.
The sole trajectory of criminal justice over the past half-century has been a deliberative shifting of responsibility for crime away from the offender and onto the rest of us. Why are we paying someone to “scour the globe” for people who can “humanize” Sowell? Why aren’t we spending that money scouring the globe making sure he didn’t discard any other dismembered bits of “non-evidentiary” female skulls and torsos for his defense attorneys to deny? In one of the more sordid chapters of Sowell’s sordid trial, the AP withdrew a story about the eleven women’s bodies found in his home because the headline referred to Sowell as a “rapist” instead of an “attempted rapist.” This is pointillistic, fetishistic sensitivity to a mass murderer, built on the irrelevant fiction that his 1989 conviction for rape and kidnapping wasn’t really rape and kidnapping because of a plea deal he cut to gain reduced charges.
There is no limit to the degradation of innocents in our courts today. Why do we tolerate it?
And why do we subsidize it? I’m sure some public defense attorney charged by the hour to demand that the AP Stalinistically cleanse its headline of the undisputed fact that the woman kidnapped and tortured by Sowell in 1989 was penetrated by him, thus making it “rape” instead of “attempted rape.”
Well, at least all those systematic rapes and murders and dismemberings weren’t hate crimes. That would have been really bad.