Letter to Governor Riley - 15 October 2007

15 October 2007

Governor Bob Riley


Dear Governor Riley,

I am writing to you from, what you would term, a “third world” country, South Africa. However, what makes us a “first world” country in this instance is that we, on 6 June 1995, abolished the death penalty, holding that “everyone, including the most abominable of human beings, has the right to life, and capital punishment is therefore unconstitutional.” You are welcome to read this landmark case opinion in our country at http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/uhtbin/hyperion-image/J-CCT3-94.

In using the words “in this instance”, I am referring to the matter on which you must have received thousands of emails, letters, telephone calls, etc…the fact that you are denying Thomas Arthur the opportunity to have DNA testing done, at his own cost. I thus take it that your denial of this is NOT as a result of spending and that your motivation is outside the monetary sphere.

I again refer to our decision to abolish the death penalty and respectfully draw your attention to the words of the last paragraph of the opinion of our Constitutional Court…” everyone, including the most abominable of human beings, has the right to life”. I think you will agree that this is similar than Section 1 of your Constitution in Alabama viz. “That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Likewise, I draw your attention to Section 2 of your Constitution, which states “That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit…” I take it I would be correct in interpreting that “the people” referred to, throughout, your Constitution, would include Mr. Thomas Arthur and that such Government would be instituted for his benefit as well, not so?

I also wish to refer you to Section 6 of your Constitution, which uses the term “due process of law”. I take it this would apply to Mr. Thomas Arthur as well, not so?

I further refer you to Section 7 of your Constitution, which ends with the words “legally applied”, which I assume would apply equally to Mr. Thomas Arthur, not so?

In addition, would I be right to presume that Section 13 of your Constitution, containing the words “That all courts shall be open; and that every person, for any injury done him, in his lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have a remedy by due process of law; and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, or delay.”, would equally apply to Mr. Thomas Arthur?

Am I also right in interpreting that Section 17 of your Constitution, which states “That the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended by the authorities of this state.”, would be an inalienable right of Mr. Thomas Arthur?

I also looked at Section 35, which states “That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.”, which I presume applies to Mr. Thomas Arthur as well, not so?

Lastly, am I right is presuming that Section 36, which states “That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.”, would apply to Mr. Thomas Arthur as well?

Questions thus arising from the above Sections of your Constitution are:

Would you agree that your denial/delay to allow Mr. Thomas Arthur to have DNA testing done, at his own expense, would be a violation of due process, in terms of Section 13 of your Constitution and that your actions, as the ultimate custodian of the Constitution, by denying/delaying this, would be unconstitutional in terms of this section? The words of Section 13 do say “SHALL HAVE”, not so? Why is he not “having” this then?

Would you agree that your denial/delay to allow Mr. Thomas Arthur to have DNA testing done, at his own expense, would be contrary to Section 35 of your Constitution as you, as the ultimate custodian of the Constitution, are not protecting him, as to his rights entrenched in the Constitution? Section 35 does say that it is the sole object and only legitimate end of Government, not so?

Would you agree that your denial/delay to allow Mr. Thomas Arthur to have DNA testing done, at his own expense, would be contrary to Section 36 of your Constitution, as his rights are being “impaired” and “denied” and that your denial/delaying of such testing is an encroachmentguarding against, as is said in Section 36?

Would you agree that your denial/delay to allow Mr. Thomas Arthur to have DNA testing done, at his own expense, would be contrary to Section 1 and that you are violating the “inalienable rights endowed by our Creator” as to “the right to life?”

Governor, let’s look at a few facts…

FACT 1

You have a situation here where a witness, having received a life sentence for murder, suddenly, after years and years of denying Arthur’s involvement, now implicates him. Why did she wait so long? Why did she only come forward AFTER promised freedom? Does this not create ANY“reasonable doubt” is “a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.” I mean, we are talking about a life/death situation here, aren’t we? Shouldn’t one look at ALL the evidence, even that which creates ANY doubt, in order to ensure that a person is not killed innocently?

FACT 2

In referring to the above witness, she firstly alleged she was raped by someone and then changed it to “Arthur had sex with her”. In my mind, by testing the DNA of the rape kit, it would either confirm what she said, if Arthur’s DNA is found or it would confirm that Arthur did not have sex with her and that she was possibly lying. In the first instance, if it is Arthur’s DNA, inject him. She was right. In the second instance, if it is not Arthur’s DNA, she was lying and could have been lying all along, concerning his involvement. In addition and in the second instance, you would then be in a position to run the results through your DNA database and then possibly identify a new suspect, not so? Why take the chance of killing him and not knowing whether she actually talked the truth or not?

FACT 3

She had blood on her. Now we all know the extent of her injuries and the fact that, invariably, a rape victim would have put up a struggle and that DNA from the perpetrator, in the form of skin flakes or blood, could have landed on the victim. It can be tested for DNA, not so? Again, by testing such items of clothing, one would know if she was lying or not, not so?

FACT 4

Two impartial witnesses came forward and made statements that Arthur was seen by them the morning of the murder, placing him well out of range of the act. ONLY after visits from the Prosecutor’s offices, did they change their statements. Now, don’t you think that Arthur has the right to explore this, especially the lame excuses they gave in their second statements, changing the original statements made?

Governor Riley, one of the most respectful incidents happened a while ago in Texas, known as the top “killing state” in the USA, when District Attorney Craig Watkins has agreed to allow the Innocence Project of Texas to review whether DNA tests should be done in any of the cases of 354 people convicted of rapes, murders and other felonies as far back as 1970. His reason? "It's just simply the right thing to do."

Governor, it is FACT that more than 190 people have been cleared nationwide through genetic testing since the first post-conviction DNA exoneration in 1989. Doesn’t this say something to you?

In my view, your letter stating that “there is overwhelming evidence against Arthur”, which I don’t believe there is, is now starting to be weighed up against the call for mercy, justice and decency, in the face of the facts aforementioned.

I thus ask you, for the sake of decency, humanity, mercy and justice, to allow DNA testing to be done in this case. Your Creator, who entrenches the right to life in Section 1 of your Constitution, demands it of you.

Yours Faithfully,

Dr. Thinus Coetzee
justicefortommy@gmail.com