October 16, 2024 • 26 mins
Is justice truly served when new evidence is ignored? Our latest episode challenges the integrity of the legal system as we scrutinize the controversial case of Robert Roberson, a Texas death row inmate who faces execution despite emerging evidence suggesting a wrongful conviction. With serious gaps in the initial diagnosis of Shaken Baby Syndrome, leading figures now question their past conclusions, casting doubt on the very foundation of Roberson’s conviction. We explore the unsettling reality of how the justice system handles such cases, and the implications of the 2013 junk science law.
The relentless pursuit of truth by the Texas Innocence Project brings into sharp focus the biases and systemic flaws that can plague legal proceedings. As they battle for a reevaluation of Roberson’s case, we uncover the emotional complexities involved, including the possible misinterpretation of his autistic behavior by medical staff. With the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles upholding the execution, the discussion turns to broader themes of due process and the urgent need for reform.
Amidst these heavy discussions, we offer a moment of warmth and reflection, sharing our experience of pairing a rich Alicante Boucher wine with a comforting homemade chili, as the first cold snap of the season sets in. This episode not only highlights the critical importance of pursuing truth and justice but also finds moments of solace and humanity in the face of life's injustices. Join us as we balance the weight of these vital issues with a shared commitment to truth and compassion.
They're the crimes that continue to haunt grieving family members and the wider...
Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify
www.texaswineandtruecrime.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Welcome all of you wine and true crime lovers.
I'm Brandi and I'm Chris andthis is Texas Wine and True
Crime.
Lovers, I'm Brandi and I'mChris, and this is Texas Wine
and True Crime.
Thank you for being here,friends, for this week's episode
, the Conviction and DeathSentence of Robert Robertson.
Hey, chris.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Hey Brandi.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
All right, big case, big news today in this case.
So we're going to jump intothat in a second, but right now
we're going to talk about thewine we're having tonight and
the meal and the meal.
And the meal we had tonight.
So we are enjoying an AlicanteBoucher, which is a red wine.
(00:53):
First of all, it's delicious.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
I loved it.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
I mean loved it.
It's so good.
I don't even know if I've everhad an Alicante Boucher have you
.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
I believe at some point we've had it.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
I thought it was great, though it was very good.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Kind of oaky, oaky nose, very black curranty, very
luscious wine.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Yes, very luscious wine, Longhorn Cellars.
Thank you again for sending usthis one.
So, chris, you're going to tellthem in just a sec what you
paired it with.
But Longhorn Cellars brings youthe superior handcrafted wines
with the hallmarks of genuineTexas hospitality big, bold and
proud, and the very best.
This full-bodied, smooth andjammy wine pairs well with roast
(01:38):
beef, prime rib andtomato-based pasta dishes.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Now, you did not pair it with any of those.
No, but jammy is a really good,very good description.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Very good description , all right, but what did you
pair with this wine tonight?
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Well, since we had our first cold snap, we did.
Here locally.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Brr.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
In the Great Farmers Branch.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
I think this is the first day our air conditioner
did not turn on in the last sixmonths.
Probably so it's been sixmonths.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
So you, um I, I had a something in mind, but you
wanted me to make chili.
I did.
To mark our first cold, I meanit's not that cold.
But yeah, you're a chili girl,cause it was chili outside and
so I made a beef and pork chiliwith roasted corn.
So I'm sure any true, true blueTexan or red Texan, whatever
you are, maybe um sees thepicture of this and probably
(02:31):
think it'd be actual, absoluteheresy, uh, to put roasted corn
in chili.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
but you do?
What did I think?
I think I could have hadanother bowl of it, but it was
kind of spicy and good and thenand then I made a nice big wagon
wheel of um Monterey Jack, umand um cheddar cornbread.
Oh my gosh, your cornbread wassmelled so sweet coming out of
(02:57):
the oven.
I had that.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I don't know what it wasn't sweet.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
I know, but whatever, whatever you were doing.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
all of the love, all the sweetness.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
I don't dig on the sweet cornbread, no, I know you
don't, but it was so good and Ihad an extra piece of cornbread
Excellent.
And yeah, because I like to dipit in my chili and thank you
for making chili, and it wasspicy.
I know you're not like thebiggest chili person.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
And I love chili.
I, I like chili.
I know I kind of bug you for itover the winter.
I'm turning into an old person,so you got to eat chili around
five to make sure it goespost-pylorus and gets down nice
and deep in the gut.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
By bedtime.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Yeah, by bedtime, before we lay down, sack out.
But yeah, it was a nice pairing.
And then, once again, the wine.
I really enjoyed it, it wasgreat.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
Oh, it's so good, good and we can't wait to be at
longhorn sellers right there infredericksburg.
So, friends, if you're planninga trip to fredericksburg, don't
forget to stop by our friendsat longhorn sellers.
But we will see everyone onnovember 2nd, so if you haven't
got tickets to that show, comeand see us.
It's going to be a great time.
It's a weekend of celebrations.
We have a show anniversary, awedding anniversary, and we're
going to be doing a live show atLonghorn Cellars.
(04:06):
So grab your tickets.
Thank you, longhorn Cellars andChris, thank you.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
You're welcome.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
All right.
So we're going to talk about acase of Robert Robertson, chris.
We are talking live tonight, onWednesday.
He is set to be executedtomorrow at 7 pm in Texas.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
No stay.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
So clemency was denied today.
We're going to get into that injust a bit, but no stay yet.
We have not heard from GovernorAbbott just yet, but he is
scheduled to die tomorrow bylethal injection, despite
evidence indicating he waswrongfully convicted for the
death of his two-year-olddaughter, Nikki, who police back
(04:50):
then right and medicalpersonnel felt that they were
looking at a abused child thathad probably been inflicted with
Shaken Baby Syndrome.
This is the first guy in ourcountry's history to be put to
(05:11):
death for Shaken Baby Syndrome.
There's a lot of questionsabout this, so we're going to
kind of get into this, but weare.
You know we're talking aboutthis because we talk about
finding justice all the time.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
And we're going to talk about a lot of people who
thinks that Texas is about to doa big disservice and put this
man to death.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Looking at the evidence today versus in 2002.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
That's right and medical professionals who have
come forward and said please,texas, look at this.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Yeah, and I think initially too.
I mean, it's the responsibilityof an emergency room to bring
anything like this, any signs ofpotential abuse or something
like that, to the lawenforcement's attention, be it a
baby or an adult.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
That's right.
So shaken baby syndrome is whathe was convicted on back in
2003.
And he was sentenced to death.
The Texas Innocence Project hasbeen.
They picked up this case.
They've been working withsupporters, certain Texas
legislators Chris, there havebeen people who in the Texas
(06:19):
legislator in Austin who havecome forward, who in the Texas
legislator in Austin who havecome forward, delivered
messaging that this needs tostop and that this guy needs
this evidence needs to be lookedat just one more time before
he's put to death, because youcan't reverse that.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Well, and I think too often, the people that are, you
know, standing for this tostick.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
they don't like to lose, and so, if to you know
it's interesting, I'm not seeinga lot of that about this case.
You don't see a lot of peoplegoing well, this guy did it.
In fact, his own family andfriends say he was like a gentle
giant.
He was friendly, loving, heloved his daughter.
I mean people.
(07:06):
I can't find one thing besidesthe original and I want you to
think about this the originaldoctors, the original medical
professionals who said what theysaw.
A few have recome back and saidyou know what?
Maybe we made a mistake.
Chris, the lead detective whoI'm going to talk about, the guy
who basically said he did thisand got him to trial and got him
(07:31):
sentenced to death is nowsaying he was wrong.
The lead investigator is sayingI was wrong, texas, let's look
at this again.
So this is.
I haven't seen this muchoverwhelming support for a death
row clemency.
Stay in a lot in um as long asI can remember.
(07:54):
This is a full force of people,medical professionals, um
legislators john grisham is oneof them.
He's a big supporter of him andpeople are just asking for a
reprieve.
Okay, so the lead detective,like I mentioned, said he was
(08:14):
wrong in this case.
In fact, he's been begging thecourts and the governor for a
long time, chris, to save thisguy's life.
This is not something that juststarted this week because it's
coming up.
This has been an ongoingmovement for this man.
Those calls to actions wereheard today in front of the
Texas Board of Pardons andParoles six members and they
voted unanimously to deny therequest and made the decision to
(08:38):
uphold the execution, thedecision they still want him to
be in jail, though like releasedright I think I said six
members, I think there's sevenmembers, because it can't be um.
So I'm sorry, say, ask yourquestion this is more about him
not being put to death that'sright but still being jailed oh,
(09:01):
of course, because, really,what they're asking is to look
at new evidence, which wouldthen, if he didn't, if he was
denied due process right, whichis what they're claiming from
the beginning then he gets a newtrial and that's the ultimate
goal.
Right is to get the evidence tosay, hey, you know what, there's
enough here, and maybe some ofhis, maybe some of the things
(09:23):
that didn't come up in the firsttrial, or maybe things that
were given in the first trialthat were false.
One was accusations that he wasan abuser, and it was
absolutely untrue.
But that is the position thatthe prosecution took when they
were trying to to put this guybehind bars.
I mean, this was.
I mean, from the beginning,they thought this is exactly
(09:44):
what he had done, so thedecision came as lawmakers
raised the concerns that thecourts were not properly
implementing a groundbreaking2013 junk science law.
Now, chris, this law wasintended basically to provide
the ability to get justice forpeople that have been convicted
(10:05):
based on scientific evidencethat has since changed or been
debunked.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Yeah, and I find it interesting too, because I was
kind of reading about junkscience and it didn't really
seem to lead to this per se.
You know what I mean.
Like there is such a thing asthis.
I mean, I guess to some degree,but um, you have to investigate
it further to determine ifthat's the actual cause.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Like yeah, to me junk .
Science is a lot more about, um, you know, miracle cures and
things like that, you know well,I think the reason they're
calling it this is because, well, one that's the law to help
someone who's been convicted,right so like to me.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
I think people have just gotten maybe a little bit
smarter about investigating thissort of you know, because I
mean I think, like I said, they,they show up like that in the
ER and unfortunately I think Imay not say biased or whatever,
but especially depending on whatsort of ER you work in like I
mean if a child comes into, Imean you work in a hospital.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
You don't work in the into, I mean you work in a
hospital.
You don't work in the yard, butyou work in the hospital.
If you see a child coming inwith bruises on them, what is
the first instinct?
I don't see children.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
We don't do pediatrics, but I mean, you see,
some adults come in and that'swhat I mean they look a little
little lumped up or something.
I mean, that's my first thing.
I asked is how'd that happen?
you know, that's why we askpeople too.
It's a very specific question.
You ask every patient do youfeel safe at home, you know, and
if sometimes, I mean even ifit's a matter of having to
remove somebody from the room,because, yes, you will see some
(11:33):
signs like that, and so you dohave to raise those questions
and I think, unfortunately, youget a little myopic when looking
at a particular patientpopulation and so you never know
.
I mean, I'm not saying it'sright, but I mean it's also not
necessarily wrong too, becausethey are advocating for the
patient, I think.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Oh my gosh.
So the lead investigator, whoends up at the hospital when
this is happening because theywere called right Police, were
immediately notified.
There's probably a policeperson at the hospital, right?
So he's right there on thescene and he describes the chaos
of nurses, doctors, peopletrying to save this little girl
(12:11):
and the chaos that was ensuing.
And the father, to them, showedzero to no emotion, seemed a
little bit emotionless.
Seemed a little bit emotionlessbased on what was happening.
But but what they did not knowat the time is that he's
(12:32):
autistic and that lack ofemotion that seems to me and the
reaction may not be what anormal person is, and that is
the fact.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Right, change the whole how you're represented at
trial too, though, because thenyou have to also look at the
mental capacity to understandthat situation.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Yeah, but I don't even think they took his autism
into factor when they had thistrial.
I know, I just you know what Imean, though, like I don't think
, and I think that's the piece,also part of the due process, to
say, just you know, based on onhis condition and his autism,
(13:11):
he doesn't necessarily cry orreact like other people In
Wisconsin or whatever.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
What's the series we watched?
Who you know was for raping thegirl in Dumpter Car at the
wrecking yard or whatever.
Oh, yeah, they let him out andthen they got ahold of his
nephew or something like that,who was mentally challenged and
kind of under coercion, as theysay, convince him to make about
what they did when.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
And they're both still sitting there too.
Yeah, so all right.
Well, hours after the board'sdecision, his lawyers, chris,
filed a request for stay ofexecution and a petition for
relief from the US Supreme Court.
At the US Supreme Court,there's been no word from
Governor Abbott's team.
Abbott can give him a 30 dayreprieve, chris.
(13:56):
Now he can do this one time.
He can give a one time reprieve, but he cannot defy the board's
recommendation against clemency.
All right, so he can't say,well, we're giving up.
You know he can't go againstwhat they've, what they've
decided.
But he can give this guyanother 30 days to at least look
(14:18):
at the evidence.
Chris, I have seen GovernorAbbott do this in, I would say,
more guilty-facing people.
I would say the guilt wasreally pushing on that
particular person and GovernorAbbott had given them a 30-day
reprieve.
I think even one was maybe evenlonger than 30 days.
(14:41):
I think he gave one to IvanCantu, if I can recall.
One to Ivan Cantu, if I canrecall.
So I think Governor Abbottshould at least let people look
at this.
I think there's enough therefor him to at least maybe what's
another 30 days to give thisguy just an opportunity.
Because what if he is innocentand I mean this is the thing
(15:02):
that is so hard about.
The death penalty for me isinnocent and I mean this is the
thing that is so hard about thedeath penalty for me is the.
I mean imagine, okay, this guyis going to be going getting
lethal injection tomorrow at 7pm, okay, this is real time
right now, and he's sitting in acell thinking about this.
If he's guilty, well, that isthe law of the and that was his
punishment, and then that thatis exactly what will happen to
(15:24):
him.
But if he is innocent, and he'ssitting there thinking about
this and thinking about the 22years he has spent in prison and
knowing that they're going totake his life and he didn't do
this, and for us to be, forGovernor Abbott, just to be able
to say you know what?
Okay, what does it hurt to justgive another 30 days?
They spend enough tax dollarsand enough money to keep them on
(15:45):
death row for 22 years, whichis a huge problem in this
country anyways.
But again, I don't know howmuch time that is for people,
but lethal injection and deathpenalty used to come much
quicker 20, 30, 40 years ago.
So if you're already using theresources to keep someone there.
What's another 30 days?
Especially when you havemedical scientists coming
(16:06):
forward saying that thisevidence needs to be looked at
from a medical, scientific pointof view.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
I would agree.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
All right.
So he has argued that hisconviction was based on the
unfounded shaken baby syndromediagnosis given to his daughter,
which presumed the abuse anddid not consider the illnesses
she had before her death.
Or and it also didn't considerChris the medication that was
given to her by a doctor becauseof her, because she was sick.
(16:35):
So prosecutors maintained thatshe suffered multiple traumas
that were clearly abuse, traumasthat were clearly abuse.
But what the actual autopsyended up showing was that she
had pneumonia in both lungs, shehad pre-existing conditions for
which she was prescribedopioids that are now banned from
(16:58):
children, and she hadundiagnosed sepsis.
She also fell out of her bed,which is why he ended up
bringing her into the ER.
But, chris, she had all thesethings and I'm thinking to
myself okay, first of all, howdoes a parent, how does it get
this far?
Can you have a reaction?
(17:20):
Can a child?
Okay, what do you think they'retalking about?
That's not suitable forchildren nowadays.
The only thing I could reallyfind was codeine.
So it says like now, you don'tgive codeine to any kids less
than 12 years old, right, theyhave to be over 12.
Like the CDC for children.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
I guess we would have to know what she was getting
the prescribed opioids for.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
So I think it was the lung infection, I think she was
sick and they also have thepreexisting conditions.
Again, I don't have the actualreport of everything that but I
know what came in the autopsy.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
I guess I don't know what, um, I don't know.
I guess I don't know what Idon't know.
I guess I'd have to see whatyou would be prescribed.
So she had a lung conditioninitially, for which she was
prescribed the opioids.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
Yeah.
So it was prescribed opioidsand she ended up having Opioids
were like a cough suppressant orsomething like that, which is
why I thought it was codeine,and she had pneumonia in both
lungs that showed up in theautopsy.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
They know she had preexisting conditions with the
chest and they also know thatthe opioids in the medicine she
was given was fibrosis orsomething, but I think that's um
, I don't know.
I guess we had to dig a littledeeper and find out what the
condition was exactly.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Yeah, but CF, well, I mean, and she's two years old
so that's a tough one becausewith cf you there's treatment to
that, but that's a dailyregimen of treatment for for cf.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
so I think that's more breathing treatments and
like the little thing that'll beon your back and kind of knock
the phlegm loose and stuff likethat.
But how do?
Speaker 1 (18:52):
you get sepsis.
I mean, I know how you get it,but I guess is, I guess I'm, I'm
going with like the neglectthing.
Okay, he's already on death row.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
They've convicted him of killing his daughter is an
infection.
You usually get an infection.
You usually get sepsis if yourbody has an infection.
So if she developed pneumoniain both lungs, I mean that could
have turned her septic and, bythe way, she had seen a doctor
and he was, um you know, lackingperhaps, um, perhaps, the
capability to recognize that.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
And take care of her properly, right, because?
Speaker 2 (19:25):
I thought as a parent Where's the mother?
Speaker 1 (19:27):
I don't know, I don't know.
I haven't found any informationon the mom and because this is
such a case that everyone rightnow in Texas is talking about, I
wanted to make sure that we gotit out tonight, like the child
was poorly taken care of too.
Okay, which again is like theabuse factor, but but does that
(19:48):
mean you know you have?
You have kids who are in poorconditions and aren't treated
very well, and then it's abuse.
And then you have kids who aresick and you don't know how to
take care of them and she'smisdiagnosed.
Chris, she was misdiagnosed,which is why she was given some
of these opioids and thismedicine to treat something that
wasn't even wrong with her.
(20:09):
And so, being two years old,maybe there's other things they
just don't know about that aregoing on with her but they were
trying to save her life I mean,this was very frantic and but
you know, she ends up, she endsup dying but what they believe
is that she actually had diedfrom severe viral and bacterial
(20:33):
pneumonia that they had missedin 2002, not because of any
abuse, but because doctorsmissed it.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
But they did an autopsy right.
They did an autopsy and that'swhere the pneumonia was A chest
x-ray will tell you if you havepneumonia.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Well, they didn't have time to do a chest x-ray.
I think she was dying when hebrought her in.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
No, I'm just saying afterwards, like usually.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Well, yeah, they did.
They found pneumonia in bothlungs.
Yes, yeah, but this is whatthey believed, and her illness
then progressed to sepsis, thenseptic shock, which she went
into, and they believe it's fromthe respiratory suppressing
medications that she wasprescribed during her last few
days of life.
And so the hospitals, thenurses, the doctors, you know
(21:22):
when they're, when she's broughtin, I mean, they said red flags
went up at the time becausehe's not very emotional he
brings in a daughter who is onthe brink of death and you know,
I guess to me it's like, ifhe's abusing her, why bring her
in?
Like why save her?
Speaker 2 (21:45):
abuse people in but she's but.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
But she's going to die and you've abused her so bad
she's dying, that's how they umbut your abuse are so bad she's
dying.
She's dying well, brandy.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
a lot of people bring their abused children to the ER
.
That's how they will determinethat they've been abused.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
So Seems a little strange, though to me Not
necessarily.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
People abuse people.
They don't want them to die.
I guess, so I mean as crazy asthat sounds, but I, yeah, I
would think so.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Well, we know he is autistic, chris.
Um, that came out and theybelieve that that had the
emotional disconnect while hewas in the hospital.
Um, they made a determinationvery early on that that they
believed it was shaken babysyndrome.
She had bruising which theybelieve possibly was from the
(22:36):
fall of from the bed.
Um, there were other thingsthat were happening with the
sepsis that they said that withthe skin and the way, I think
you might bloat up a little bit.
So there were things with goingon in her body that they didn't
think were really looked intoand that they just made a
determination that this isexactly what happened to her and
they honed in on him from thevery beginning.
(22:58):
Chris, 34 scientific and medicalexperts have wrote to the board
okay, this is before todaywritten letters to the board
explaining that if Nikki diedtoday, no doctor would consider
shaken baby syndrome.
So that I mean 34 medicalexperts.
(23:19):
I mean, who on death row hasthis kind of support?
Show me, because it'sincredible.
They believe Nikki's pneumonia,with the extreme levels of the
dangerous medications that wasfound in her autopsy right.
So now they know they've beenbanned from children not to give
kids codeine.
(23:39):
Again, I don't know what thedrug was.
But I do know that codeine waschanged around that time for a
long time to get this guy atleast another chance at life.
And he says quote I was wrong,I didn't see Robert, I did not
(24:02):
hear Robert.
I can tell you now he is a goodman, he is a kind man, he is a
gracious man and he did not dowhat the state of Texas and I
accused him of, john Grisham,wrote recently in the Palestine
(24:38):
Herald Press.
Nikki's death was a tragedy,not a crime.
Robert Robertson may be out ofoptions unless Texas authorizes
recognition, the end, recognizethe injustice of Mr Robertson's
conviction and death sentence,reverse course and grant him a
new trial.
Chris, we have not heard yet.
At 9.25 pm on Wednesday,governor Abbott has not said
anything about this case.
We will see tomorrow ifanything comes from Austin.
Otherwise he is set to beexecuted in the state of Texas
at 7 pm on Thursday.
Thank you.
Welcome all of you wine and true crime lovers.
I'm Brandi and I'm Chris andthis is Texas Wine and True
Crime.
Lovers, I'm Brandi and I'mChris, and this is Texas Wine
and True Crime.
Thank you for being here,friends, for this week's episode
, the Conviction and DeathSentence of Robert Robertson.
Hey, chris.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Hey Brandi.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
All right, big case, big news today in this case.
So we're going to jump intothat in a second, but right now
we're going to talk about thewine we're having tonight and
the meal and the meal.
And the meal we had tonight.
So we are enjoying an AlicanteBoucher, which is a red wine.
(00:53):
First of all, it's delicious.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
I loved it.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
I mean loved it.
It's so good.
I don't even know if I've everhad an Alicante Boucher have you
.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
I believe at some point we've had it.
Speaker 1 (01:08):
I thought it was great, though it was very good.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Kind of oaky, oaky nose, very black curranty, very
luscious wine.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
Yes, very luscious wine, Longhorn Cellars.
Thank you again for sending usthis one.
So, chris, you're going to tellthem in just a sec what you
paired it with.
But Longhorn Cellars brings youthe superior handcrafted wines
with the hallmarks of genuineTexas hospitality big, bold and
proud, and the very best.
This full-bodied, smooth andjammy wine pairs well with roast
(01:38):
beef, prime rib andtomato-based pasta dishes.
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Now, you did not pair it with any of those.
No, but jammy is a really good,very good description.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Very good description , all right, but what did you
pair with this wine tonight?
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Well, since we had our first cold snap, we did.
Here locally.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Brr.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
In the Great Farmers Branch.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
I think this is the first day our air conditioner
did not turn on in the last sixmonths.
Probably so it's been sixmonths.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
So you, um I, I had a something in mind, but you
wanted me to make chili.
I did.
To mark our first cold, I meanit's not that cold.
But yeah, you're a chili girl,cause it was chili outside and
so I made a beef and pork chiliwith roasted corn.
So I'm sure any true, true blueTexan or red Texan, whatever
you are, maybe um sees thepicture of this and probably
(02:31):
think it'd be actual, absoluteheresy, uh, to put roasted corn
in chili.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
but you do?
What did I think?
I think I could have hadanother bowl of it, but it was
kind of spicy and good and thenand then I made a nice big wagon
wheel of um Monterey Jack, umand um cheddar cornbread.
Oh my gosh, your cornbread wassmelled so sweet coming out of
(02:57):
the oven.
I had that.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
I don't know what it wasn't sweet.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
I know, but whatever, whatever you were doing.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
all of the love, all the sweetness.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
I don't dig on the sweet cornbread, no, I know you
don't, but it was so good and Ihad an extra piece of cornbread
Excellent.
And yeah, because I like to dipit in my chili and thank you
for making chili, and it wasspicy.
I know you're not like thebiggest chili person.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
And I love chili.
I, I like chili.
I know I kind of bug you for itover the winter.
I'm turning into an old person,so you got to eat chili around
five to make sure it goespost-pylorus and gets down nice
and deep in the gut.
Speaker 1 (03:32):
By bedtime.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
Yeah, by bedtime, before we lay down, sack out.
But yeah, it was a nice pairing.
And then, once again, the wine.
I really enjoyed it, it wasgreat.
Speaker 1 (03:45):
Oh, it's so good, good and we can't wait to be at
longhorn sellers right there infredericksburg.
So, friends, if you're planninga trip to fredericksburg, don't
forget to stop by our friendsat longhorn sellers.
But we will see everyone onnovember 2nd, so if you haven't
got tickets to that show, comeand see us.
It's going to be a great time.
It's a weekend of celebrations.
We have a show anniversary, awedding anniversary, and we're
going to be doing a live show atLonghorn Cellars.
(04:06):
So grab your tickets.
Thank you, longhorn Cellars andChris, thank you.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
You're welcome.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
All right.
So we're going to talk about acase of Robert Robertson, chris.
We are talking live tonight, onWednesday.
He is set to be executedtomorrow at 7 pm in Texas.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
No stay.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
So clemency was denied today.
We're going to get into that injust a bit, but no stay yet.
We have not heard from GovernorAbbott just yet, but he is
scheduled to die tomorrow bylethal injection, despite
evidence indicating he waswrongfully convicted for the
death of his two-year-olddaughter, Nikki, who police back
(04:50):
then right and medicalpersonnel felt that they were
looking at a abused child thathad probably been inflicted with
Shaken Baby Syndrome.
This is the first guy in ourcountry's history to be put to
(05:11):
death for Shaken Baby Syndrome.
There's a lot of questionsabout this, so we're going to
kind of get into this, but weare.
You know we're talking aboutthis because we talk about
finding justice all the time.
Speaker 2 (05:28):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (05:29):
And we're going to talk about a lot of people who
thinks that Texas is about to doa big disservice and put this
man to death.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Looking at the evidence today versus in 2002.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
That's right and medical professionals who have
come forward and said please,texas, look at this.
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Yeah, and I think initially too.
I mean, it's the responsibilityof an emergency room to bring
anything like this, any signs ofpotential abuse or something
like that, to the lawenforcement's attention, be it a
baby or an adult.
Speaker 1 (05:59):
That's right.
So shaken baby syndrome is whathe was convicted on back in
2003.
And he was sentenced to death.
The Texas Innocence Project hasbeen.
They picked up this case.
They've been working withsupporters, certain Texas
legislators Chris, there havebeen people who in the Texas
(06:19):
legislator in Austin who havecome forward, who in the Texas
legislator in Austin who havecome forward, delivered
messaging that this needs tostop and that this guy needs
this evidence needs to be lookedat just one more time before
he's put to death, because youcan't reverse that.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Well, and I think too often, the people that are, you
know, standing for this tostick.
Speaker 1 (06:46):
they don't like to lose, and so, if to you know
it's interesting, I'm not seeinga lot of that about this case.
You don't see a lot of peoplegoing well, this guy did it.
In fact, his own family andfriends say he was like a gentle
giant.
He was friendly, loving, heloved his daughter.
I mean people.
(07:06):
I can't find one thing besidesthe original and I want you to
think about this the originaldoctors, the original medical
professionals who said what theysaw.
A few have recome back and saidyou know what?
Maybe we made a mistake.
Chris, the lead detective whoI'm going to talk about, the guy
who basically said he did thisand got him to trial and got him
(07:31):
sentenced to death is nowsaying he was wrong.
The lead investigator is sayingI was wrong, texas, let's look
at this again.
So this is.
I haven't seen this muchoverwhelming support for a death
row clemency.
Stay in a lot in um as long asI can remember.
(07:54):
This is a full force of people,medical professionals, um
legislators john grisham is oneof them.
He's a big supporter of him andpeople are just asking for a
reprieve.
Okay, so the lead detective,like I mentioned, said he was
(08:14):
wrong in this case.
In fact, he's been begging thecourts and the governor for a
long time, chris, to save thisguy's life.
This is not something that juststarted this week because it's
coming up.
This has been an ongoingmovement for this man.
Those calls to actions wereheard today in front of the
Texas Board of Pardons andParoles six members and they
voted unanimously to deny therequest and made the decision to
(08:38):
uphold the execution, thedecision they still want him to
be in jail, though like releasedright I think I said six
members, I think there's sevenmembers, because it can't be um.
So I'm sorry, say, ask yourquestion this is more about him
not being put to death that'sright but still being jailed oh,
(09:01):
of course, because, really,what they're asking is to look
at new evidence, which wouldthen, if he didn't, if he was
denied due process right, whichis what they're claiming from
the beginning then he gets a newtrial and that's the ultimate
goal.
Right is to get the evidence tosay, hey, you know what, there's
enough here, and maybe some ofhis, maybe some of the things
(09:23):
that didn't come up in the firsttrial, or maybe things that
were given in the first trialthat were false.
One was accusations that he wasan abuser, and it was
absolutely untrue.
But that is the position thatthe prosecution took when they
were trying to to put this guybehind bars.
I mean, this was.
I mean, from the beginning,they thought this is exactly
(09:44):
what he had done, so thedecision came as lawmakers
raised the concerns that thecourts were not properly
implementing a groundbreaking2013 junk science law.
Now, chris, this law wasintended basically to provide
the ability to get justice forpeople that have been convicted
(10:05):
based on scientific evidencethat has since changed or been
debunked.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Yeah, and I find it interesting too, because I was
kind of reading about junkscience and it didn't really
seem to lead to this per se.
You know what I mean.
Like there is such a thing asthis.
I mean, I guess to some degree,but um, you have to investigate
it further to determine ifthat's the actual cause.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Like yeah, to me junk .
Science is a lot more about, um, you know, miracle cures and
things like that, you know well,I think the reason they're
calling it this is because, well, one that's the law to help
someone who's been convicted,right so like to me.
Speaker 2 (10:42):
I think people have just gotten maybe a little bit
smarter about investigating thissort of you know, because I
mean I think, like I said, they,they show up like that in the
ER and unfortunately I think Imay not say biased or whatever,
but especially depending on whatsort of ER you work in like I
mean if a child comes into, Imean you work in a hospital.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
You don't work in the into, I mean you work in a
hospital.
You don't work in the yard, butyou work in the hospital.
If you see a child coming inwith bruises on them, what is
the first instinct?
I don't see children.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
We don't do pediatrics, but I mean, you see,
some adults come in and that'swhat I mean they look a little
little lumped up or something.
I mean, that's my first thing.
I asked is how'd that happen?
you know, that's why we askpeople too.
It's a very specific question.
You ask every patient do youfeel safe at home, you know, and
if sometimes, I mean even ifit's a matter of having to
remove somebody from the room,because, yes, you will see some
(11:33):
signs like that, and so you dohave to raise those questions
and I think, unfortunately, youget a little myopic when looking
at a particular patientpopulation and so you never know
.
I mean, I'm not saying it'sright, but I mean it's also not
necessarily wrong too, becausethey are advocating for the
patient, I think.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Oh my gosh.
So the lead investigator, whoends up at the hospital when
this is happening because theywere called right Police, were
immediately notified.
There's probably a policeperson at the hospital, right?
So he's right there on thescene and he describes the chaos
of nurses, doctors, peopletrying to save this little girl
(12:11):
and the chaos that was ensuing.
And the father, to them, showedzero to no emotion, seemed a
little bit emotionless.
Seemed a little bit emotionlessbased on what was happening.
But but what they did not knowat the time is that he's
(12:32):
autistic and that lack ofemotion that seems to me and the
reaction may not be what anormal person is, and that is
the fact.
Speaker 2 (12:39):
Right, change the whole how you're represented at
trial too, though, because thenyou have to also look at the
mental capacity to understandthat situation.
Speaker 1 (12:49):
Yeah, but I don't even think they took his autism
into factor when they had thistrial.
I know, I just you know what Imean, though, like I don't think
, and I think that's the piece,also part of the due process, to
say, just you know, based on onhis condition and his autism,
(13:11):
he doesn't necessarily cry orreact like other people In
Wisconsin or whatever.
Speaker 2 (13:13):
What's the series we watched?
Who you know was for raping thegirl in Dumpter Car at the
wrecking yard or whatever.
Oh, yeah, they let him out andthen they got ahold of his
nephew or something like that,who was mentally challenged and
kind of under coercion, as theysay, convince him to make about
what they did when.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
And they're both still sitting there too.
Yeah, so all right.
Well, hours after the board'sdecision, his lawyers, chris,
filed a request for stay ofexecution and a petition for
relief from the US Supreme Court.
At the US Supreme Court,there's been no word from
Governor Abbott's team.
Abbott can give him a 30 dayreprieve, chris.
(13:56):
Now he can do this one time.
He can give a one time reprieve, but he cannot defy the board's
recommendation against clemency.
All right, so he can't say,well, we're giving up.
You know he can't go againstwhat they've, what they've
decided.
But he can give this guyanother 30 days to at least look
(14:18):
at the evidence.
Chris, I have seen GovernorAbbott do this in, I would say,
more guilty-facing people.
I would say the guilt wasreally pushing on that
particular person and GovernorAbbott had given them a 30-day
reprieve.
I think even one was maybe evenlonger than 30 days.
(14:41):
I think he gave one to IvanCantu, if I can recall.
One to Ivan Cantu, if I canrecall.
So I think Governor Abbottshould at least let people look
at this.
I think there's enough therefor him to at least maybe what's
another 30 days to give thisguy just an opportunity.
Because what if he is innocentand I mean this is the thing
(15:02):
that is so hard about.
The death penalty for me isinnocent and I mean this is the
thing that is so hard about thedeath penalty for me is the.
I mean imagine, okay, this guyis going to be going getting
lethal injection tomorrow at 7pm, okay, this is real time
right now, and he's sitting in acell thinking about this.
If he's guilty, well, that isthe law of the and that was his
punishment, and then that thatis exactly what will happen to
(15:24):
him.
But if he is innocent, and he'ssitting there thinking about
this and thinking about the 22years he has spent in prison and
knowing that they're going totake his life and he didn't do
this, and for us to be, forGovernor Abbott, just to be able
to say you know what?
Okay, what does it hurt to justgive another 30 days?
They spend enough tax dollarsand enough money to keep them on
(15:45):
death row for 22 years, whichis a huge problem in this
country anyways.
But again, I don't know howmuch time that is for people,
but lethal injection and deathpenalty used to come much
quicker 20, 30, 40 years ago.
So if you're already using theresources to keep someone there.
What's another 30 days?
Especially when you havemedical scientists coming
(16:06):
forward saying that thisevidence needs to be looked at
from a medical, scientific pointof view.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
I would agree.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
All right.
So he has argued that hisconviction was based on the
unfounded shaken baby syndromediagnosis given to his daughter,
which presumed the abuse anddid not consider the illnesses
she had before her death.
Or and it also didn't considerChris the medication that was
given to her by a doctor becauseof her, because she was sick.
(16:35):
So prosecutors maintained thatshe suffered multiple traumas
that were clearly abuse, traumasthat were clearly abuse.
But what the actual autopsyended up showing was that she
had pneumonia in both lungs, shehad pre-existing conditions for
which she was prescribedopioids that are now banned from
(16:58):
children, and she hadundiagnosed sepsis.
She also fell out of her bed,which is why he ended up
bringing her into the ER.
But, chris, she had all thesethings and I'm thinking to
myself okay, first of all, howdoes a parent, how does it get
this far?
Can you have a reaction?
(17:20):
Can a child?
Okay, what do you think they'retalking about?
That's not suitable forchildren nowadays.
The only thing I could reallyfind was codeine.
So it says like now, you don'tgive codeine to any kids less
than 12 years old, right, theyhave to be over 12.
Like the CDC for children.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
I guess we would have to know what she was getting
the prescribed opioids for.
Speaker 1 (17:42):
So I think it was the lung infection, I think she was
sick and they also have thepreexisting conditions.
Again, I don't have the actualreport of everything that but I
know what came in the autopsy.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
I guess I don't know what, um, I don't know.
I guess I don't know what Idon't know.
I guess I'd have to see whatyou would be prescribed.
So she had a lung conditioninitially, for which she was
prescribed the opioids.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
Yeah.
So it was prescribed opioidsand she ended up having Opioids
were like a cough suppressant orsomething like that, which is
why I thought it was codeine,and she had pneumonia in both
lungs that showed up in theautopsy.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
They know she had preexisting conditions with the
chest and they also know thatthe opioids in the medicine she
was given was fibrosis orsomething, but I think that's um
, I don't know.
I guess we had to dig a littledeeper and find out what the
condition was exactly.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Yeah, but CF, well, I mean, and she's two years old
so that's a tough one becausewith cf you there's treatment to
that, but that's a dailyregimen of treatment for for cf.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
so I think that's more breathing treatments and
like the little thing that'll beon your back and kind of knock
the phlegm loose and stuff likethat.
But how do?
Speaker 1 (18:52):
you get sepsis.
I mean, I know how you get it,but I guess is, I guess I'm, I'm
going with like the neglectthing.
Okay, he's already on death row.
Speaker 2 (19:02):
They've convicted him of killing his daughter is an
infection.
You usually get an infection.
You usually get sepsis if yourbody has an infection.
So if she developed pneumoniain both lungs, I mean that could
have turned her septic and, bythe way, she had seen a doctor
and he was, um you know, lackingperhaps, um, perhaps, the
capability to recognize that.
Speaker 1 (19:23):
And take care of her properly, right, because?
Speaker 2 (19:25):
I thought as a parent Where's the mother?
Speaker 1 (19:27):
I don't know, I don't know.
I haven't found any informationon the mom and because this is
such a case that everyone rightnow in Texas is talking about, I
wanted to make sure that we gotit out tonight, like the child
was poorly taken care of too.
Okay, which again is like theabuse factor, but but does that
(19:48):
mean you know you have?
You have kids who are in poorconditions and aren't treated
very well, and then it's abuse.
And then you have kids who aresick and you don't know how to
take care of them and she'smisdiagnosed.
Chris, she was misdiagnosed,which is why she was given some
of these opioids and thismedicine to treat something that
wasn't even wrong with her.
(20:09):
And so, being two years old,maybe there's other things they
just don't know about that aregoing on with her but they were
trying to save her life I mean,this was very frantic and but
you know, she ends up, she endsup dying but what they believe
is that she actually had diedfrom severe viral and bacterial
(20:33):
pneumonia that they had missedin 2002, not because of any
abuse, but because doctorsmissed it.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
But they did an autopsy right.
They did an autopsy and that'swhere the pneumonia was A chest
x-ray will tell you if you havepneumonia.
Speaker 1 (20:51):
Well, they didn't have time to do a chest x-ray.
I think she was dying when hebrought her in.
Speaker 2 (20:55):
No, I'm just saying afterwards, like usually.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Well, yeah, they did.
They found pneumonia in bothlungs.
Yes, yeah, but this is whatthey believed, and her illness
then progressed to sepsis, thenseptic shock, which she went
into, and they believe it's fromthe respiratory suppressing
medications that she wasprescribed during her last few
days of life.
And so the hospitals, thenurses, the doctors, you know
(21:22):
when they're, when she's broughtin, I mean, they said red flags
went up at the time becausehe's not very emotional he
brings in a daughter who is onthe brink of death and you know,
I guess to me it's like, ifhe's abusing her, why bring her
in?
Like why save her?
Speaker 2 (21:45):
abuse people in but she's but.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
But she's going to die and you've abused her so bad
she's dying, that's how they umbut your abuse are so bad she's
dying.
She's dying well, brandy.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
a lot of people bring their abused children to the ER
.
That's how they will determinethat they've been abused.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
So Seems a little strange, though to me Not
necessarily.
Speaker 2 (22:06):
People abuse people.
They don't want them to die.
I guess, so I mean as crazy asthat sounds, but I, yeah, I
would think so.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
Well, we know he is autistic, chris.
Um, that came out and theybelieve that that had the
emotional disconnect while hewas in the hospital.
Um, they made a determinationvery early on that that they
believed it was shaken babysyndrome.
She had bruising which theybelieve possibly was from the
(22:36):
fall of from the bed.
Um, there were other thingsthat were happening with the
sepsis that they said that withthe skin and the way, I think
you might bloat up a little bit.
So there were things with goingon in her body that they didn't
think were really looked intoand that they just made a
determination that this isexactly what happened to her and
they honed in on him from thevery beginning.
(22:58):
Chris, 34 scientific and medicalexperts have wrote to the board
okay, this is before todaywritten letters to the board
explaining that if Nikki diedtoday, no doctor would consider
shaken baby syndrome.
So that I mean 34 medicalexperts.
(23:19):
I mean, who on death row hasthis kind of support?
Show me, because it'sincredible.
They believe Nikki's pneumonia,with the extreme levels of the
dangerous medications that wasfound in her autopsy right.
So now they know they've beenbanned from children not to give
kids codeine.
(23:39):
Again, I don't know what thedrug was.
But I do know that codeine waschanged around that time for a
long time to get this guy atleast another chance at life.
And he says quote I was wrong,I didn't see Robert, I did not
(24:02):
hear Robert.
I can tell you now he is a goodman, he is a kind man, he is a
gracious man and he did not dowhat the state of Texas and I
accused him of, john Grisham,wrote recently in the Palestine
(24:38):
Herald Press.
Nikki's death was a tragedy,not a crime.
Robert Robertson may be out ofoptions unless Texas authorizes
recognition, the end, recognizethe injustice of Mr Robertson's
conviction and death sentence,reverse course and grant him a
new trial.
Chris, we have not heard yet.
At 9.25 pm on Wednesday,governor Abbott has not said
anything about this case.
We will see tomorrow ifanything comes from Austin.
Otherwise he is set to beexecuted in the state of Texas
at 7 pm on Thursday.
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!