Wednesday, April 8, 2009

Someone is freaking out...

Someone is terrified. Someone's attorney is terrified. I wonder why. Don't they have the truth on THEIR side? Isn't it true that the prosecution just has absolutely nothing on him? Isn't the evidence against him non-existent? Aren't they anxious for their day in court so the truth can come out?

Now the defense is scrambling. Scrambling and making stuff up. Thursday's arraignment and obligatory bond-reduction hearing is turning into,oh, so much more. Let the drama mount.

In an article by Tommy Witherspoon for the yesterday, you see that Matt's attorney is upset at the request for a DNA sample. Why? Really? Don't you want to clear Matt of any wrong doing? What are you afraid it's going to show? The TRUTH? I obviously wasn't there at the jailhouse. But I doubt the McLennan County DA's office would breach any kind of legal or ethical boundries in this highly analyzed, highly publicized case. Defense is desperate here.

Now, Matt Baker needs/wants experts and he wants McLennan County to pick up the tab? Tommy Witherspoon's article Former Waco-area preacher asks court to appoint defense experts in his murder trial in his wife's death today states:
"Former Waco-area Baptist preacher Matt Baker says he is indigent and is asking McLennan County taxpayers to pick up the tab for expert witnesses to help defend him on charges he murdered his wife.

In a motion filed Tuesday seeking funds to hire court-appointed experts, Baker’s attorney, Richard Ellison, of Kerrville, says 'fairness and due process' require that 19th State District Judge Ralph Strother approve funds for defense experts in psychology, toxicology, pharmacology and crime scene reconstruction."

Say it isn't so. Oh, much as I don't want to pay for his defense, I'm fine with paying for him to have a good enough attempt now so he can't come back later and cry foul. The truth will stand loud and clear all on its own.


sadie said...

You're right, Shannon. Ellison is desperate and it shows. Involving himself in this case is pure showboating; he thinks he has something to gain by latching onto such a highly publicized case...well, think again. Just what kind of notch does he expect this case to put in his belt? He's showboating on a doomed and sinking ship. Wonder if he will end up staying the course and going down with the ship... Time will tell.

It doesn't take a paid expert to see what happened. Anyone with an inkling of intelligence and/or common sense can figure out the truth by just listening to Matt's bogus stories and looking at the known evidence. His lies are so outrageous as to be offensive. Matt could save so many people so much money, time, work, and heartache if he would just do the right thing and TELL THE TRUTH.

Of course I realize that Ellison is just doing a job. And every citizen is entitled to a proper defense, as you point out, Shannon. True. (Even if the community his client betrayed ends up having to foot the bill for it.) But in the end, there will always be a clear, undeniable difference between right and wrong. Ethics.

Those who defend Matt Baker for their own personal reasons (of gain or fame or whatever it may be) will have to find a way to look in the mirror when it's all over. They'll have to find a way to sleep at night. Anyone who seeks personal or career gain through the death of Kari, a beautiful and beloved wife, mother, and teacher who did not deserve to die, will carry that burden on their conscience and will someday have to answer for it in a higher court.

(sorry for the rant)

BTW, the case law cited by Ellison regards a living DEFENDANT's right to a psych evaluation for a chance at an insanity defense! -- Not the right of a murderer to pay an expert (with taxpayers money, at that) in a sick attempt to vilify or blame his own innocent victim.

Anonymous said...

(In Ake v. Oklahoma) The court concluded that the risk of an inaccurate verdict was high where the defendant was not assisted by a psychiatrist to help determine whether the insanity defense is viable, to present testimony, and to assist in preparing the cross-examination of a state’s psychiatric witnesses. In this case, the mental state of the decedent is no less critical. That was a quote from Baker's lawyer.
Is there really an expert psychiatrist who can determine the mental state of a woman who has been dead for three years? A woman they can not interview? Can anyone do a complete psychiatric evaluation based on biased second hand information? Chasing your tail already Baker? My, my this is gonna get interesting real fast.
And why is the talented charismatic Baker indigent? Could he not find a job doing anything? Sacking groceries? Flipping burgers? Building fences? Throwing papers? Too good for manual labor Baker? prison will be very educational for you!