[pnf]

I wasn't saying he's lying or not lying, just that it's hard to take what someone in this position says at face value. When considering the words of an inmate on death row (or prison more generally), it's natural to feel sympathy and to act as if the person is sincere and just like most people if not for his unfortunate circumstances.

But it's also the case that many people in that position are habitual liars. One can quibble over the reasons but it's just something that has to be taken into account. I'm reminded of that fact when I read something that seems to be pretty straightforward. A sane person would think sincerity especially likely in one's considered final words. An experienced person would laugh at such an absurdity.

HN is a funny place. For such a smart pool of commenters in other respects, people here tend not to be very attentive or psychologically nuanced readers. I'm often surprised how quickly y'all resort to scolding without even understanding someone's point.

Let me show you what I read in this man's final words:

>>> First I would like to say I have been here since September 2005. I had the honor and privilege to know many prison guards and staff. I want to thank all of them. I would like for everyone to write the people on death row as they are all good men and I am very happy I got to know them. All of their lives are worth knowing about.

That sounds nice but also quite proud. Fine, he's not particularly sorry about his crime, if you even want to call it that. It was all in the distant past anyway, so why make a fuss about it. There's no one left alive who really cared about the old woman anyway, so it would be pointless to apologize "to all the people I hurt". That sort of victimolotry would ring false anyway (unless it's a victim of the state), so point in his favor for honesty. Hmm, I wonder what else he's telling the truth about.

He says the people on death row are all "good men" and he's "very happy" he got to know them. That's pretty interesting and contrary to intuition. Most of us would be very unhappy to spend decades around violent criminals. A charitable interpretation is that he's made close friendships over time and is generally loyal. But many have said you can know a man by his friends, so it also suggests bad judgment or, perhaps, a tendency to narcissistic splitting. His statement definitely isn't concerned with their crimes or guilt.

>>> Secondly on February 14th the medical examiner and the chief nurse were engaged in numerous false illegal acts. They tried to cover up that thousands were wrongfully convicted by Matt Powell, district attorney. This needs to be brought to justice. I call upon the FBI to investigate Matt Powell and the Lubbock County Medical Examiner.

Whoa, that's weird. He expresses no concern for crimes committed by his fellow inmates but does want to point out the malfeasance of the state. This makes a kind of sense, whether it's true or not. I do wonder how much he knows about this. Does he know a lot because he was claiming this as part of his appeal and he believes he is innocent? Is that credible? Does the fact of malfeasance mean the crimes weren't committed or only that civil rights of criminals (due process) were violated?

If he's been claiming he's innocent all these years, it would explain why he doesn't mention his conviction in his last words. But again, what was the evidence of his innocence or guilt? If the evidence is reasonable that he is, in fact, guilty then he's carrying his lie to the grave. That'd be interesting, no?

It's also interesting that he's using his "platform" to call attention to this issue, ostensibly to save innocent men (like him?) from wrongful conviction. Maybe he is innocent. I don't know. They say all men in prison are innocent. Or maybe he's guilty and has been lying about it for so long that he's lost connection to reality. Or maybe he's knowingly lying to the bitter end. Questions to be asked...

>>> Lastly, I was born and raised Catholic and it was not lost upon me that this is Holy Week and last Sunday was Palm Sunday. Yesterday was my birthday. Today is the day I join my God and father. The state may have my body but not my soul. In order to save my brothers on death row I call upon Pope Francis and all the people of the world.

Now this is interesting. A black man in Texas raised Catholic is a rarity. He's got some pretty overt martyrdom symbolism going on here. His birthday is coinciding with Holy Week? If you're not familiar here's the significance:

"Palm Sunday commemorates the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem, when palm branches were placed in his path, before his arrest on Holy Thursday and his crucifixion on Good Friday. It thus marks the beginning of Holy Week, the final week of Lent." (Wikipedia)

Maybe that's just copium but he isn't much of a theologian if he is, in fact, guilty, as that would require confession and repentance to save his soul. If he doesn't do that part, the state would still have his body, but God would be sending his soul to hell. Maybe he confessed elsewhere with his priest and chose not to repeat his confession publicly. That's his right. Still, it raises suspicions about his state of mind and his character. Similarly, his call upon Pope Francis doesn't make much sense. Francis already issued a bull against the death penalty. Even so, as a Catholic, he would know the pope isn't needed to save the souls of his "brothers on death row", only a confession and repentance before an ordained priest. And as a Catholic so close to death, he would also know that is the only "saving" that would help them. The last thing that would help them is to be affirmed in false protestations of innocence. So, again, what's he thinking? He surely knows that most of the "good men" on death row did commit their crimes. And that most of the "good men" on death row are claiming innocence. If anything, as a Catholic he should be calling upon his "brothers on death row" to confess their crimes and repent before a priest. But that's not what he's doing. Why?

>>> Lastly, I want everyone to boycott every single business in the state of Texas until all the businesses are pressed to stop the death penalty.

Based on other things he said, I believe he is mentally coherent, but this statement makes little sense. Businesses don't execute convicts, the state does. This call to action would punish all people in Texas regardless of their support for the death penalty. Why would he want to do that? Faith, hope, and charity are the cardinal Catholic virtues. It's not very charitable to punish the innocent. If he is himself innocent, then why would he want to punish other innocents? Is he acting in a spirit of resentment? I don't know. But it makes me wonder about the degree of his sincerity. It would make more sense if he was calling upon the people of Texas to end the death penalty in order to save their own souls. But he doesn't say that.

(As an aside, the history of the Catholic position on the death penalty is pretty long and the period after the 1970s is unique in its opposition to the death penalty. The catechism wasn't officially revised until 2018, so this is a pretty recent thing. Is it coincidental that the changes track pretty well with the rise of "Liberation Theology"? I don't know. Pope Benedict XVI was no liberationist but he was also on record advocating abolition, so there's that.)

>>> With that Lord I commend my spirit. Warden I am ready to join my father.”

Not trying to be harsh but if he's a Catholic and he's guilty and he hasn't confessed and repented and there is a God and the Catholic faith is correct, then he's going straight to hell.

So, I hope that clarifies the spirit of my parent comment, which was a lament about the lack of trust created by the commission of crimes. I'm not digging into his case, just pointing out that, to an attentive reader, there's a lot to unpack in this short statement.

[chaps]

  Now this is interesting. A black man in Texas raised Catholic is a rarity. He's got some pretty overt martyrdom symbolism going on here. His birthday is coinciding with Holy Week? If you're not familiar here's the significance

I stopped reading here. He wasn't black. Again, you should attempt to do some basic research before you make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

[pnf]

That's an honest mistake. There are several links floating around in the HN parent thread and quotes without attribution. I mistakenly thought we were talking about this man linked above: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Quintin_Jones

Turns out we're actually talking about this fine gentleman? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosendo_Rodriguez

I was mildly sympathetic to the first guy, who only killed his great aunt. This guy killed two young prostitutes, one pregnant, the other 16 years old. Confessed to the crimes, the. Spent 20 years trying to get off on a technicality. Nice guy. Really going to take his last words at face value.

It would have been more interesting to learn about someone with an unusual background (black catholic texan) and whether that played a role in his story, but it's an incidental aside to my argument about catholicism. Those arguments stand. Do me the honor of reading them.

Thanks for correcting my mistake, though. This guy is even more suspicious in his appeals to catholicism and his lack of public repentance. His unmentioned victims even more glaring tells than an old dead aunt. Not as curious, not a rarity, but even more "damning".

To your point, I do know one important thing about this person: He was executed for a capital crime. That's a pretty significant fact. I'm not obligated to learn much more about him to make assumptions about the truth value of his last words. I may be wrong in my suspicions, but my point was that I don't have to go digging into the details of every inmate's case to be suspicious of their claims. It's the sensible default stance. All liars say true things.

If you don't want to address the psychological substance of my argument that's your prerogative but nothing about googling a specific felon is going to change a justified bias against taking their claims at face value. Innocent until proven guilty, ok. Presumed innocent after found guilty? No way.