October 10, 2025 • 42 mins
This very special podcast edition of Kenny Webster's Pursuit of Happiness features Texas lawmakers Brian Harrison and Mitch Little discussing the polarizing case of Robert Roberson's planned execution.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Jack gannon government sucks. Pursuit of Happiness Radio is DeLux.
Liberty and freedom will make you smile. The Pursuit of
Happiness us on your radio toil justice cheeseburger is a
limited advice at fit.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
All Right.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Today is going to be a very unusual episode of
Pursuit of Happiness Radio. We will be talking about the
case of Robert Robinson, convicted in two thousand and three
for the murder of his two year old daughter. He
is supposed to be executed, and it is a very
touchy subject. They just paused that execution. We're gonna have
two lawmakers here today, State Representative Brian Harrison and State
(00:39):
Representative Mitch Little, two of the most conservative people in
state government, who completely disagree on this case.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Stick around, we'll find out.
Speaker 5 (00:46):
Why You've got Kenny Webster's Pursuit of Happiness on KTRC
nine point fifty.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
It feels like.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Lately the left their opinions about things don't really matter
because most of what's happening in America and Texas seems
to be at the will of the conservatives. Once the
right wing populist, the liberty minded republicans, the nationalists, it's a.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
Nice little moment in time.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
But at the same time, because we're in charge of
so many things, whether it be the national government of
the state government, it's the Republican infighting that's getting all
the attention, and for good reason. It's just just true
with the Senate race between Paxton and Hunt and Cornyn,
as it is with this case of a guy.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
Named Robert Roberson.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
This is I will warn you as we get into
this radio saying it's a disturbing topic. It involves a
child dying, it involves child abuse, it involves the death penalty.
Of course, this is talk radio. I'm sure a lot
of you guys can handle that. For those of you
that are not familiar with this case, and I know
a lot of you are, because I've gotten a lot
of emails and phone calls and tweets about it. But
Robert Robertson was convicted in two thousand and three, and
(01:50):
he was convicted of capital murder for killing his two
year old daughter, Nicki Curtis in Texas Palestine, Texas based
on now what they call the I mean at the time,
what has been described in the media as shaken baby syndrome.
And he faces execution despite some doubts about his guilt right.
Nicky died in two thousand and two from brain injuries
(02:11):
initially attributed to violent shaking, they say, and since then
some have claimed there's new evidence that suggests she had
chronic illness and that a fall could explain her death.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
And Robertson, who.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
You know was apparently, they say, has undiagnosed autism. They
claim he's been on death row for twenty three years,
and there have been multiple execution stays, the Attorney General
has gotten involved in the case, and finally the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals halted his execution that was supposed
to be next week. Excuse me, it was supposed to
be the execution eight was supposed to be on October ninth.
(02:47):
It was halted October sixteenth, reminding the case for review
under the twenty thirteen junk science law, they say, citing
that the what is it shaken baby syndrome is now
science that's not for a case like this now. I
am neither a lawyer or a forensics expert. Mac A
lot of you guys know I'm you know, I tell
jokes about politicians for a living. I don't claim to
(03:08):
be an expert on this. I'll also say this, I
have a great deal of respect for two public figures
that have been two guys that have been publicly debating this,
State Representatives Mitch Little and State Representative Brian Harrison, both conservative,
liberty minded lawmakers and their own right, and as some
of you may have noticed on social media, they don't
always agree on things. So I've asked them both to
join us on the show today to do two separate
(03:30):
interviews because I want people in the greater Houston area,
those of you that eighty thousand of you that download
our podcast every day, to decide for yourself, what do
you think should happen to Robert Robertson. I've invited Mitch
Little onto the show. Mitch before we get in and
anything at all, before I even ask you any questions
the way that I explain this case, and I'm trying
to be objective here. I'm trying not to take a side.
(03:52):
It's hard to do, obviously, you know, but I you know,
it's not too hard for me because I don't have
a lot of opinions about the case, having not known
about it until fairly recently. I didn't grow up in Texas,
I don't remember this happening. Do you think I explained
it fairly before we get into the questions?
Speaker 6 (04:08):
In many respects you did.
Speaker 7 (04:10):
I think the only thing I would take issue with
Kenny is whether this is a shaken baby case.
Speaker 6 (04:15):
And that.
Speaker 7 (04:17):
Is what I would call or consider the principal disagreement
between people who have reviewed the trial record in the
appellate record and have formed an opinion about this case.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
Okay, so let's start off with that.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
You say that the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis is not
central to his conviction. Now, I only know what's on
the Internet. That's what's been written here. In fact, i'll
tell you this, mitche something I find very odd about
this case. I use AI a lot to study news stories,
to study political talking points, to do research for me,
because I can't always sit there and figure out everything
(04:51):
a politician said or everything a court case said. Very
rarely does artificial intelligence like GROCK or chat GPT take
a position on some and I found it to be
impossible to get Grock to say that this guy does
not deserve a retrial.
Speaker 4 (05:06):
How would you react to that?
Speaker 7 (05:08):
Yeah, there are lots of things that you can use
AI for In our day and age. This is not
one of them. I've had the displeasure of reading the
entire transcript from the jury trial of Robert Robertson, from
cover to cover, and for whatever reason, perhaps because it's
(05:30):
unavailable on most corners of the Internet, I don't think
Rocker or other forms of ai've had the benefit of
reading what the testimony was in the case. I think
a lot of people are suffering from a form of
primacy bias or recentcy bias with regard to what they're
hearing about the case, because generally, the leftist media is
(05:51):
telling you that this is a shaken baby junk science case,
and therefore Robert Robertson is innocent, should go.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Free, okay, And so.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Why should he not go for you, Why if the
shake and baby syndrome theory isn't central to the case,
why should he remain on death row?
Speaker 7 (06:10):
You need to so, you need to know and your
your listeners need to know and understand the facts of
the cases they were described at the trial. So let's
start from the beginning. Robert Robertson until the night that
Nicki Curtis died. Robert Robertson, who uh was with Nicki Curtis.
The only person who was nick with Nicki Curtis, a
two year old girl who was murdered in the case.
(06:31):
He had never been alone with her. He was apparently
her father was not allowed to be alone with her
because her mother, Teddy Cox, would not permit them to
be alone together. Here's the evidence that was induced in
the case. There were actually two little girls, ages ten
and eleven, Courtney Burial, Barry Hill and Rachel Ward who
(06:52):
testified in the case, who said that they had seen
Robert Robertson on at least ten occasions violently shake Nicky Curtis,
a two your old little girl to get her to
stop crying, that they had seen him beat her with
a belt, that they had seen him say he was
going to kill her if she didn't stop crying. Teddy Cox,
Nicki Curtis's mother, who would not permit Robert Robertson to
(07:15):
be alone with the child, probably because Robert Robertson had
been arrested on seventeen different occasions, had physically abused his
previous girlfriend and beat her with a fireplace shovel, choked
her with a coat hanger, would not allow Nicki Curtis
to be alone with this girl. So on the night
of Nicki Curtis's murder, Teddy Cox was in the hospital
(07:38):
recovering from a hysterectomy. Robert Robertson was not happy about
having to come to come to Nicki Curtis's grandparents' house
to retrieve Nicki and watch her for the night. This
is a little girl who's been portrayed as very sickly
having all types of medical problems.
Speaker 8 (07:57):
He was not in medical peril. Robert Robertson picked her
up that night. When he brought her to the hospital
the next morning, she was not breathing, She had bruises
on her face, She had bogginess or mushiness in the
back of her in the back of her skull. Although
she did not have a skull fracture, she had bruises
on her shoulders, on her back, and blood coming out
(08:21):
of her nose. As soon as the nurses and doctors
in the hospital treated this girl, it became obvious that
she was the victim of intentionally inflicted injuries. And I
could go on like this for an hour if you want,
but I'm I don't want to just keep going on.
I'm happy for you to ask any questions you have
(08:41):
about it.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Sure, so it sounds like the way the media and look,
I wasn't there. I don't claim to have been at
certainly wasn't at the trial, and I haven't had time
to read all the transcripts like most people have. The
media's reporting on this makes it sound like what you
just said didn't necessarily have anything to do with how
they reached the verdict that it was about the shaken
baby syndrome. You know, rle aw due process here, it
(09:04):
sounds like if what you're saying is true, and what
they're saying is true, and I have no idea if
any of it's not true, if we had another trial,
he'd still be found guilty because that evidence sounds like
it does seem to prove that he's guilty. But if
that evidence wasn't central to the original conviction, would you
not argue that there'd still be a need for another trial.
I mean, you know, after all, due process, right, you're
(09:24):
a constitutionalist.
Speaker 7 (09:27):
Yeah, let's talk about the due process issue. So when
the United States Supreme Court decides on a nine to
zero basis and Sonya Soto Mayor writes the opinion you've
had due process.
Speaker 6 (09:39):
The United States Supreme Court.
Speaker 7 (09:40):
Has stated that Robert Robertson does not have a federal claim.
The elast remaining resort for him is asking clemency from
the governor, which he has not requested. Robert Robertson has
brought the junk science writ and the habeas writs of
before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on multiple prior occasions.
(10:01):
If you look at the descents that were filed yesterday
from Mary Luke Keel from who's a judge on our
Court of Criminal Appeals, from Gina Parker Justice from Judge Ary,
what becomes obvious is Robert Robertson did not have what
he needed to overcome what is called the previous writ
bar or subsequent writ bar. Robert Robertson has brought these
(10:26):
claims to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals before I
was wrongfully convicted shaken baby syndrome case, and he just
as a matter of law, should not have been permitted
to bring this writ again. The scientific basis for the
junk science claim that they're making related to shaken baby syndrome,
it relies on the idea that he was first of
(10:50):
all convicted on a shaken baby syndrome case, which is
predicated on the scientific triad of encephalopathy, brain swelling of
the child, subdural hematoma, bleeding inside the skull, and bilateral
retinal hemorrhages, which Nicky Curtis had all three of those. So,
of course, Roverson's proponents and defenders are saying, well, there
(11:15):
you have it, this was a shaken baby syndrome case.
Speaker 6 (11:18):
Not so fast.
Speaker 8 (11:19):
If you look at the trials ran script and you
look at Jill Urvin's autopsy, this was pleaded and tried
as a blunt force trauma case. There are nine different
If you can find this on the Attorney General's website
for yourself, you can look at the original autopsy. There
were nine different components of physical abusive trauma blunt force
(11:39):
trauma to this child that were identified in the autopsy.
There were seven different physicians who signed off on it.
In Dallas, the detective who is now recanting his story
and says he thinks Robert Robertson is innocent. The detective
testified that his injuries were not consistent with Robert Robertson's story.
Every doctor and every nurse who handled her from the
(11:59):
time she came into the hospital until the time she
passed away, says the same thing. These were intentionally inflicted
injuries that are not consistent with Robert Robertson's story or
a shortfall.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
All right, let's go back to that for just a second.
Speaker 8 (12:12):
There.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Brian Wharton was the original lead investigator. He now believes
Robertson is innocent. He regrets his role in the investigation.
You just brought that up. Can you speak a little
more to that. Why is Brian Wharton's opinion now irrelevant
in your opinion?
Speaker 7 (12:26):
Yeah, So one of the things that I heard this
week was, oh, well, well, Brian Wharton believed that Robert
Robertson was guilty because of his because of Robert Robertson's
flat affect. When he came to the hospital, he wasn't upset,
he wasn't worried about Nicky, et cetera. And now, of
course we know that Robert Robertson's on the offism spectrum,
(12:48):
so that explains his flat affect. Therefore, there's no reason
for the detective to have thought that Robert Robertson murdered
Nicki Curtis. The problem with that is the actual trial
testimony that Ryan Wharton gave in the trial, which was
the reason that he participated in the charging decision on
capital murder for Robert Robertson, was the child. The child
(13:10):
stayed over with Robert Robertson that night and was not injured,
and she showed up at the hospital with extensive injuries.
Speaker 6 (13:17):
Period.
Speaker 7 (13:18):
And so now Detective Wharton he decided to go to seminary.
I believe he's now a Methodist pastor and he's against
the death penalty as a whole. Obviously you have to
color his ideological views on the death penalty as a
whole against the position that he's taking in this case
over two decades after the fact.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Okay, So it's my understanding here that there wasn't necessarily
any evidence of prior abuse. Would you not agree with that?
Speaker 7 (13:46):
That's completely false and let me prove it to you.
Go to the trial transcript. Read the testimony from teddy Cox,
Nikki's mother, who said that she was personally there and
she testified under oath that Robert Robertson had shaken and
beaten the child with a belt to get her to
stop crying, as did two little girls ages ten and eleven.
(14:07):
So the defense theory on well, there's no evidence of abuse,
or the defensive statement there's no evidence of abuse. First
of all, he flies in the face of the trial transcript,
and no one seems to explain the testimony of those
three people. I guess the theory is that they're all lying,
they all work together to convict an innocent man. Maybe
it's just consistent with his other seventeen arrests in his
(14:28):
prior active abuse of other people.
Speaker 6 (14:30):
Okay, that weren't admitted at trial.
Speaker 4 (14:33):
Okay, so it's my understanding.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
There is now new evidence, the new expert testimony on
Nikki's medical records that explain away the multiple experts who's
testified to purely natural causes of death.
Speaker 4 (14:46):
Would you disagree with that?
Speaker 7 (14:49):
I completely disagree with that. And so if you look
at Judge Mary Luke Keel's descent that was filed yesterday,
she makes it clear, and Judge Yeri's descent makes this
even clearer. Is that But all of this shaking baby
syndrome science was available to Robert Robertson at the time
of his trial.
Speaker 8 (15:07):
There is no new evidence. There may be new opinions
that people are trying to form to overcome the subsequent
wrint bar but there's no new evidence of any of that.
Speaker 6 (15:19):
So it's important. It's important to remember.
Speaker 7 (15:26):
Yesterday and when the Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion,
it said we ought to give him, We ought to
give him a new trial, just on the issue of
the junk science writ or. Shaking baby syndrome under ex
Partey Rourke X Party Rourke was a case that was
decided last year in twenty twenty four. It involved injury
to a child, It involved shaking baby syndrome, It involved
(15:49):
a shortfall. The difference in that case is the child
in X Partiy Rourke did not have the extensive external
physical injuries that Nikki Curtis did.
Speaker 6 (15:59):
The facts are across those two cases.
Speaker 7 (16:03):
You need here's what you really need to do, Kenny.
You need someone who's on the other side of this
issue to explain to you and to me and to
your listeners what explains the external physical injuries on Nicky
Curtis when she was brought into the hospital. The mushiness
and bugginess in the back of her sculpe and back
of her scalp, like the massive bruise on the back
(16:25):
of her head, bruises on her face, bruises on her shoulders,
bruises on her back, a.
Speaker 8 (16:30):
Torn frienulum in her mouth. This is a child that
had been beaten.
Speaker 7 (16:35):
And that's why it's one of the reasons that I'm
so passionate about this is people need to understand the truth.
Speaker 6 (16:43):
They need to understand the evidence that was adduced to trial.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Okay, well, we have Brian Harrison, State Representative Brian Harrison
coming up in the next segment. Mitch, I'd love to
ask him those questions. One more question for you. So yesterday,
as you know this, judge has now come out and
said Robert's execution is unconstitutional in light of new evidence
that it undermines his conviction.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
Would you disagree with that?
Speaker 7 (17:05):
Yeah, Judge, you're talking about Judge Shank's opinion. Yes, I
totally disagree. I think that's an absolute travesty. And I
know Judge Shank, and like Judge Shank, I'm very disappointed
at some of the opinions that were written, Yesh, including
by Judge Finley. This, as I said, this is a
five to four opinion, so it was a close call
on the Court of Criminal Appeals. It's going to go
(17:27):
back to Palestine for a trial on the narrow issue
of whether this in fact was a shaken baby syndrome
case that should entitle him to a reversal of the verdict.
What's tragic here is we're forgetting about the fact that
this is a two year old child all of the
atmospherics here that you need to understand is yet a
(17:50):
very vulnerable child who had never been alone with this
man before because he was violent and his family members
knew that he had a bad temper. They had seen
him act out against this child. And when he finally
brought this girl to the hospital, she was lifeless. So
something happened from the time he picked her up from
(18:10):
the grandparents' house until the time he brought her to
the hospital. And there is no explanation for what happened
to this little girl.
Speaker 8 (18:17):
Not pneumonia, not a clotting disorder, not anytime in any
form of chronic disease. They would explain the mushiness on
the back of this girl's skull and her being either
banged against something or Robert Robertson physically acting out against
her what he had done before in the past.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
All right, one more question here, and this is unrelated
to the case. There are people that believe that you
and Brian Harrison often take polarizing positions on you know,
touchy subjects like this because you guys just don't like
each other. Is that true?
Speaker 8 (18:50):
No, I don't dislike Brian Harrison at all. You know,
if you look at our voting history, we probably vote
together most of the time. What appalls yeah, what what
appalls me about this situation is that the Innocence Project,
which is funded by George Soros's Open Society and Mackenzie
(19:11):
Scott used to be McKenzie Bezos.
Speaker 6 (19:15):
They have co opted.
Speaker 8 (19:16):
A handful of Republicans legislators into this game.
Speaker 6 (19:20):
And here's the game.
Speaker 7 (19:21):
The game is to undermine the death penalty as a
whole so that they can reformatt society and reimagine criminal
justice in our country and in the state of Texas.
I think they they prey upon the toxic empathy culture
that's going on just generally in America.
Speaker 8 (19:40):
Oh well, yeah, maybe he's innocent. Look at how many
look at all the podcasts and and documentaries that they
go on on Netflix, Like I saw one recently, The
Menindez Brothers are innocent. Now, I mean how many decades
did we go thinking, I mean, without thinking that the
Menendez brothers could potentially have been innocent. So the idea
(20:04):
is to undermine our sense of shared reality and our
understanding of the criminal justice system. And I think there
are certain Republicans who are allowing themselves to be caught
up in it because it's.
Speaker 7 (20:15):
An attention grabber. I just think that this is purely
a justice issue for this little girl in her family.
It has nothing to do with personalities from my perspective.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Stay Representative Mitch little As you know, I've got a
ton of respect for both of you guys. You guys
always vote the way I want you to. And as
I'm sure a lot of people would probably agree, this
is such a touchy subject. I think at the end
of the day, what most people just want to make
sure is the government's doing the right thing.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
So we appreciate your time this afternoon, sir.
Speaker 6 (20:44):
Amen to that. Thank you for having me onan.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
Hey, God bless thanks State Representative Mitch little Hey. Coming
up after this, you get to hear Brian Harrison's rebuttal.
You are not going to want to miss that. Don't
go anywhere the.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Pursuit of happing.
Speaker 7 (20:56):
This radio is more than just a talk show.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
All right, we are back. It's an unusual episode today.
Normally on Fridays on this show, Michael Quinn Suliman calls
in and we do a review with the Texas Scorecard
guys about what's going on in Austin. This week, Brandon
Darby from Bright Bar, Texas calls in. We do a
review about what's been going on at the border, what's
been going on in immigration. But today things are just
(21:23):
a little bit different. Yesterday a judge said that Robert Roberson,
who was convicted in two thousand and three for the
capital murder of his two year old daughter, should not
be executed. That we've got to put everything on pause
and we've got to figure this whole thing out again,
remaining the case for review under the twenty thirteen junk
Science laws, citing evolved SBS science that stands for Shake
(21:43):
and Baby Syndrome and a similar twenty four egxoneration, potentially
paving the way for a new trial. Now, in the
last segment, you guys heard from State Representative Mitch Little.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
Stay.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
Representative Mitch Little and State Representative Brian Harrison are very
interesting people to be at the center of this conversation
because while their voting records are very similar, often we
notice that they have different reasons for forming their conclusion,
different philosophy. They both seem to be very principled, sometimes
just slightly different principles. And Mitch laid out a case
in the last segment where he just thinks Brian's wrong,
(22:16):
that there should not be a retrial, and you know,
he was pretty polite about it. I think, in fact,
he had some nice things to say about Brian Harrison
at the end of the segment. We'll get to that
in just a minute, but before we get to any
of that, one of the points that Mitch said was
that shake and baby syndrome theory is not proof that
Robert's guilty. It's because Robertson had never been alone.
Speaker 4 (22:33):
With the baby.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
He wasn't allowed to be alone with her. Witnesses in
the family said he threatened to kill the baby. He'd
been arrested seventeen different occasions for violent abuse of.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Other people in the family.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
So we'll start off with this according to what we
were told, according to what Mitch told us in the
last segment, Stay representative Little. When Nikki was taken to
the hospital. This little girl had bruises, she had a
torn mouth, She was in terrible shape. It wasn't just
about shaken baby syndrome. The questionestion is I guess to
start off with this first of all, State Representative Brian
(23:04):
Harrison here, thank you so much for your time this afternoon.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
What you know, how do you react to that?
Speaker 3 (23:08):
Why did the baby have so many injuries when when
the child was brought in if it wasn't abused, well.
Speaker 8 (23:14):
Kenny Webster, are always great to be with you, my friend,
and appreciate what you do to keep the fight for
liberty alive here in the great state of Texas. There's
too few voices you've been talking about liberty, much less
fighting for it these days.
Speaker 6 (23:26):
Its always great to be with you, buddy.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (23:28):
Happy to talk about this case, especially in light of
the overwhelming victory for what I believe is as truth
and for justice in the criminal justice system.
Speaker 6 (23:37):
Coming out of the Court of Criminal.
Speaker 8 (23:38):
Appeals were many conservative, brave judges put aside the completely
dishonest political smears that have been going on about this
case for many years years and focused on the truth,
on facts, and on justice and came down on what
is the objective correct thing, which is that Roberts should
not be executed right now by the state of Texas.
(23:59):
I mean mind, there's no bigger government thing that any
government can do than take somebody's life. So the bar
needs to be very high and very clear that that
you know, in this case, somebody who is convicted of
capital murder, I actually murdered somebody. But as the judges
noted in their desists, it's not clear at all that
forget that he could murder her. It's unclear that any
crime occurred whatsoever. And everybody who's actually.
Speaker 6 (24:21):
Familiar with the record in this case knows that.
Speaker 8 (24:24):
So if the claims were made that you just represented
to me that you know he had been arrested for
other violent episodes and previous records of abuse and beatings.
I mean, this is stuff that's been said for twenty years.
The only problem with it it's completely false. There's not
been one documented act of violence in mister Roberson's entire
life that that includes from school, jobs, military, and in prison,
(24:49):
so that the claims of violence have never been substantiated.
He's never been arrested, never been charged, nothing, nothing. It's
just a black and white factual falsehood on this, like
he's not allowed to be alone with her. I don't
even know where this comes from. A court had just
very recently awarded Robert's sole custody of Mickey. You know,
(25:11):
I've heard claims from you know, your previous guests and
others say that Robert was looking living with Nicky's mom,
But that's just completely false. Nicky's mom left, never wanted
anything to do with the child ever until she came
back and deliverable was basically false testimony, which she admitted
to on the on the stand in their cross examination,
because she just wanted to get back at Robert. That's
(25:32):
the only place that they get these absurd claims of.
Speaker 6 (25:36):
Violence.
Speaker 8 (25:37):
So so I mean, whether it's from her testimony or not,
they get this language from her that has just fallen apart.
So so here's the case.
Speaker 6 (25:45):
Here's the fact that let me make this real.
Speaker 8 (25:46):
Simple, if if if your previous guests and others on
you know what I kind of called the big government
right or blindly trust the government crowd, here is that
she was beaten to death. They got a problem because
here's the thing you got to pick. Was it shaking
baby syndrome that he was convicted of, or was it
beating her daughter so viciously that she died, as the
Attorney General has been saying for a year, if it
(26:07):
was shaking baby syndrome, which it was and which conservative
Judge Lee Finley put to bed, disc positively, he was convicted,
not a beating. He was convicted under the shaken baby theory.
And if that's true, then under Texas junk spines law,
he should have had a new trial. He should have
had a new trial many years ago if it was
ben as the state is engaged in revisionist history.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Here's the problem.
Speaker 8 (26:30):
It almost doesn't even matter what eye witnesses say, because
eyewitnesses are, quite frankly, as everybody knows, can be notoriously unreliable.
We have objective medical evidence that proves that not only
Robert didn't beat her, nobody beat this girl to death,
unless you believe the Nicky Curtis was the only two
year old in human history to have been beaten so
(26:50):
severely she died, but yet did not have one single
serious bruise anywhere on her body. She didn't have so
much as a single hairline fracture. She did not have
even one single serious cut anywhere on her body. That's
not just my opinion. There are photographs you can look at.
I'm looking at some right now prove it beyond a
shadow of it out, not one single serious bruise on
(27:12):
her body. The prosecution's own medical witness, the child abuse
pediatrician testifying for the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Had to tell the jury.
Speaker 8 (27:24):
Under oath that when she examined Nikki Curtis, she only
saw minimal bruising, which she thought was quote completely insignificant.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
That's what she told the jury.
Speaker 8 (27:36):
And so the only reason you get to shaken baby.
They had no idea what had happened to this girl.
They didn't know all about the medical history, her fifty
hospital and doctor visits in two years of life, her
breathing at MEA, her double pneumonia, her toxic fatal doses
of finnergen and coding in her system.
Speaker 6 (27:52):
That they didn't know any of it.
Speaker 8 (27:53):
All they knew was two things, that there was no
external signs of actual abuse, none zero. They had to
theorize something must have happened because she did stop breathing
when she was at Robert's house. So they had to
get to well, how did he do it because there's
no external signs in trump. But so I theorized the
shaking baby syndrome, which has fallen completely out of favor.
(28:14):
You can still consider, but once you precluded every other
possible possibility. And now we know there's a mountain of
medical and scientific evidence that TSKS to the natural likely
causes of her tragic and unfortunate death. So for everybody
who's now going with what the oeg had concert said that.
Speaker 6 (28:30):
She was beaten to death.
Speaker 8 (28:31):
So they really want us to believe that somebody was
a two year old was beaten to death without a
single serious bruise on her body.
Speaker 6 (28:36):
And I can send you photos.
Speaker 8 (28:36):
And by the way, we have a cast hand the
proof that this positive proof she wasn't beaten to death.
It shows one small, one small bump on the back
of her head, completely consistent with what Robert says happened,
which is a very short fall from the bed. Nobody's
claiming the short fall killed her, but it explains the
tiny little bump, which again not it didn't even accompany
with a bruise. I can send you the photo. There's
not a bruise there, and I can't I've got four
(28:58):
kids My kids are bruised all the time for things
that had nothing to do, whether their mother or me.
In fact, I had a kid call out of bed
when he was four years old, and the bruises on
his body are five hundred percent worse than the tiny
and as the prosecution said, insignificant bruises on Nikki's body.
So here's the reality. There was a rush to judgment here.
(29:19):
The lead detective in the case that put him on
death row has testified that not only does he believe
that the robber didn't commit murder, he firmly believes that
no crime occurred.
Speaker 6 (29:28):
And then here's the thing for me.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
If people can, let's say, you.
Speaker 8 (29:32):
Even have different opinions on Gilter innocence, you cannot have
a different opinion that he didn't have due process or
a fair trial. The prosecuting attorney told the jury he
shook his baby to death. Well, guess what over his
client's objections the defense, the government appointed defense attorney looked
at the jury and said, my client shook his baby
to death. Therefore, no jury ever heard a single argument,
(29:55):
a single piece of evidence of which is a mountain
of potentially exculpatory evidence points.
Speaker 6 (30:00):
To the very real possibility.
Speaker 8 (30:02):
But not only did a murder Nott happen, but no
crime of any kind occurred. And the judges on the
quarter criminal appeals absolutely to the right thing, the brief
thing yesterday, and the lead judge, I mean the chief judge,
or I guess it's called a presiding judge of the CCA,
he actually said that if if Robert was executed, it
wouldn't just violate state law, it may well violate the
Constitution of the United States in view of all of
(30:25):
the evidence that undermines his conviction incentiveces. That's a direct
quote from the new presiding judge, Shank Okay.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
So you explained that pretty clearly, and the judge clearly
agrees with you. That's why this happened yesterday. But one
person that did not agree was Attorney General Ken Paxton
and state Representative Mitch Little, who said that according to
the medical examiner's report, there was injuries to Nikki when
she was brought to the hospital, bruises, a torn mouth.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
You're saying that's not true.
Speaker 8 (30:56):
Yeah, So what I'm saying is there were were there's
zero bruises, though there was. What the prosecutor said at
trial was that there were minimal bruising, and that she
believed they were completely insignificant. And by the way, that's
proven by the cat scan. And you're gonna get every
layer of this case is worse than the previous layer.
(31:18):
You would think if there's abuse of trauma that you
would want to see a head trauma, you'd want to
see one thing, and that's a cat scan. Well, guess what,
the jury never saw a cat scan. Guess what the
cat scan proofs this child wasn't beaten to death. And
guess where the cat scan was for fifteen years not
showed to the jury. It was disappeared. It disappeared magically,
but then fifteen years after the trial, it just seriously
(31:41):
appears in the basement underneath the courthouse in Anderson County.
As to the little cut on the mouth of these people,
if this is so disgusting, I'm uncomfortable talking about it
on air. It so vile and so disgusting and so reprehensible.
The jury was told in graphic detail that he sexually
abused Nikki.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
Well, if we know anything.
Speaker 8 (32:00):
About what happened that night or around that time, it's
that she wasn't sexually abused by him or anybody because
we had DNA evidence that was tested, there was a
rape kit done. There was no DNA whatsoever to support
their grotesque claims of sexual abuse.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
And that's how they get.
Speaker 8 (32:15):
To the cut, the little small, little cut on inside
the mouth is with a jury, and I'm gonna have
to let your listeners use their imaginations here. And that's
how vulgar what was told to the jury, he did
of a sexual nature, purely to inflame, purely to poison
the well. And then when it came trying for them
to judge, they dropped all the sexual abuse charges, even
(32:37):
though that they were told about graphic allegations of sexual
abuse from a nurse who perjured herself and said she
was certified to discuss and diagnosed sexual abuse cases. On
cross examination she melted and had to confess she perjured
herself and was not actually certified. And there was no
reason whatsoever, period, full thought none to believe that Robert
sexually abused this girl or any other girl, and that
(32:58):
on the little cut thing would they turned into sexual
abuse as in the most disgusting.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Thing you could do.
Speaker 8 (33:04):
Should have had a mistrial at that time. This girl
had been multiply intubated multiple times. Okay, that easily could
explain the tiny little laceration they're talking about in the mouth,
But the jury wasn't told that. The jury was told
that it could have come from sexual abuse. But when
it came time for the prosecutor supprove the claim, they said,
you know what, we're just kidding Forget everything we told
(33:26):
you about sexual abuse. Go figure out whether he killed
killed the girl. It's out outrageous. It's I mean, there
are no words for how poorly and dishonestly the state
has handled this case. But the idea that she showed
up with bruises and battery, and some of these people,
like the guests you had on prior, have been saying
publicly for a year now that she had a smashed skull,
(33:47):
a crushed skull.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
And here's the reality.
Speaker 8 (33:50):
I mean, some people's judgment, based on their statements for
last year, I believe, has been irreparably destroyed by their
public statements this case because they advocated for somebody to
and they either didn't know the facts of this case
or they were willing to lie about it so they
don't have to commit error. Either way, I think people's
own judgment is being irrepidly destroyed here.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
She didn't know in fact, the.
Speaker 8 (34:12):
Doctor, by the way, the doctor's first response that's testified
to the first nurse that saw Nikki when he came in.
The doctor's response was, oh, no, what had we missed
because they had seen her so many times before.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
She had passed out, turned blue, but.
Speaker 8 (34:25):
Needed to be medically resuscitated because she had breathing apt me.
This had happened before, but guess what, it didn't happen
when Robert had custody it for her, and the supporters
of executing Robert never tell you that that when she
was with other family members, the exact same thing would happen.
She'd stopped breathing, turned blue, had to be medically resuscitated,
brought back to life because she had chronic breathing at me,
(34:47):
And they don't tell you that. In the two days
leading us to her alleged murder, Robert had taken her
to the er to get her medical care. Robert had
taken her to the pediatrician to get medical care, and
both of those different doctors not missing her double pneumonia,
the fact that her lung tissue was incapable of absorbing
oxygen as a forensic lung pathologists have testified to me
(35:09):
and in public they missed that and they gave her Fendergen.
I used to oversee the FDA as the chief of
staff of AHHS. Bennergen with Cody now carries an FDA
black box warning against being given to children two years
old because it will stop and it can stop their breathing,
especially with people who have respiratory or viral infection or
(35:30):
disease of the lungs, which Nicky had. This girl had
a tragic and sick life, but this state never demonstrated
that Robert and had no direct physical evidence to corroborate
to claim that Robert abused her or anybody else. Quite frankly,
and all the allegations that are being thrown around recklessly
(35:52):
on Twitter are discussing their vile, their dishonest. And let
me tell you, Kenny, I know you shared a small
government conservatives should never blindly trust the government if we
believe government gets things wrong on energy policy and health
care policy and every other every other area the whole
canifiy of public policy debates. Why is it that some
supposed small government conservatives say, you know what on the
(36:13):
criminal justice system. The government doesn't get things wrong that
we should blindly trust the government. If an innocent person dies, whatever,
that's fine with me, as long as it doesn't cause
people to question previous decisions the government has mad I'm
gonna tell Kenny, I'll be damned if I'm going to
be quiet and let my children Inherit a state where
people can have their liberty or their lives deprived of
(36:35):
them accid due process, and fair trials. Mister Roberson has
never had a fair trial. No jury has ever heard
a single argument or evidence of his innocence. You can't
execute somebody on a flimsy nonsense like has happened here.
Speaker 3 (36:49):
So it sounds like you're saying you don't even think
he's guilty. If a retrial risks releasing a potentially guilty
person due to faded evidence or witness memory, you know
you don't think that's something that that's not something you're
concerned about. Why is it worth the resource as an
emotional toll on Nikki's family.
Speaker 8 (37:07):
Because what would be jeopardized if he's innocent is the
entire criminal justice system. The integrity of the entire criminal
justices in the state of Texas.
Speaker 6 (37:15):
And let me tell you something.
Speaker 8 (37:16):
The whole irony of the situation is these people say, oh,
don't do this, don't do this, don't do this. We
support the death penality, we support the death unity.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
The people that have.
Speaker 8 (37:24):
Been advocating for execution are actually doing the greatest possible
harm to the state of Texas to the ability to
maintain the death penalty, because the fastest way to get
rid of the death cuility in the state of Texas
would be to start executing people that it later comes out,
we're innocent.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
I'm telling you this guy.
Speaker 8 (37:43):
When the truth comes out of this, and it will
come out, John Grisham's next nonfiction book is going to
be on this. The truth is going to come out,
and it will be very clear in time who was
on the right side of history of justice and who
has been championing the execution of a potentially innocent person.
And I'll say this, Kenny, our founders cared about protecting
the rights.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
Yeah, I mean well they certainly did. You're right about that.
We only have a couple of minutes left here, so
I want to leave it. I was going to ask
you something I think of getting it wrong, right, was
that somebody dies.
Speaker 4 (38:15):
I understand that.
Speaker 3 (38:15):
Well, to your point, currently the court seem to agree
with you right up until this point. Every other court
is upheld all the way to the Supreme Court. And
on that note, I want to I want to leave
on this because I think you answered a lot of
the other questions I wanted to ask you. But some
people have pointed out it's a lot of Democrats and
anti death penalty people that are siding with you on this.
You're not an anti death penalty person, but some have
(38:39):
argued that most of the people that are aligned with
you on this are only aligned with you on it
because they are that essentially.
Speaker 4 (38:44):
What is your response to that.
Speaker 8 (38:47):
Well, it's silly and it's irrelevant. I can only speak
to myself and let me be like people ask me
all the time.
Speaker 6 (38:53):
Why must have out spoken about this.
Speaker 8 (38:55):
I'm a lifelong supporter of the death penalty, but Kenny,
I've firmly believe it is most incumbent on those of
us who support capital punishment to make sure that innocence
and potentially innocent people are never subjected to it.
Speaker 6 (39:11):
Like that matters.
Speaker 8 (39:12):
That goes to the core of the entire notion that
a government even is capable of enacting justice in law
and order. So yeah, So the people that have been
on the other side of this, it's been befuddling.
Speaker 6 (39:26):
I don't understand it.
Speaker 8 (39:27):
You know, the big government, right, the same people that
want to ban Base and Van Hemp, you know, blindly
trust the government here. Don't question the government, Always question
the government. Always be skeptical of the government, because guess
what the government things gets.
Speaker 6 (39:38):
Things wrong all the time.
Speaker 8 (39:40):
And it was refreshing to read the judges the judge's
opinion in this case. Yes, say because what Lee Finley
pointed out, because people have made this claim oh so
many fields, twenty years of appeals and everybody disagrees with
the no Judge Finley read it. He makes the point
that the only reason it has had the appearance that
there's been all this due process is because of every
auct city for the Quarter of Criminal Appeal and no
(40:01):
the course to do the right thing. They have rejected
mister Roberson's appeals, but never with considering the evidence. They've
always just disregarded the evidence that undergirded the claims and
the basis for the appeal. So it was nothing more
than a government box checking operation. To save faith and
Judge Family makes that very clear and his extraordinarily well
(40:23):
written concurrence yesterday.
Speaker 3 (40:25):
All right, we only have one minute left here. We
obviously have gone along on this, but you know this
is important stuff. Stay representative, Brian Harrison, you and Mitch
Litt'll have a very similar voting record. You guys have
a lot of the same reporter supporters. Publicly, you guys
seem to debate and disagree quite a bit, and some
have some have claimed this isn't me, but some, you know,
listeners of the show have said, part of the reason
why you guys have taken such polarizing views on this
(40:47):
topic is because you simply don't like each other.
Speaker 4 (40:49):
And I'm curious how you'd react to that.
Speaker 8 (40:52):
Well, that's silly. I endorsed Mitch.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
I can't.
Speaker 8 (40:54):
I can't paign for Mitch, you know, and I took
a lot of put my reputation on the.
Speaker 6 (40:58):
Line to help get him elected.
Speaker 8 (41:00):
He can. When he campaigned, he campaigned saying that you know,
he were to fight like Brian Harrison, does you know that.
I don't know what has happened since then, but I'll
tell you what. At every opportunity for him or others
to bait me into any kind of a personal attacks,
people you know, calling me names or samaring or disparaging
me online. I have taken the high road, not engaged,
(41:21):
because to me, this isn't about personality. This is about truth,
This is about justice. This is about preserving freedom and
liberty in the state of Texas. And that's the only
thing that motivates to me on this or any other
issue that I get involved in. And when I believe life,
liberty or core questions about the role of government are
on the line, I'm never going to be bascheful.
Speaker 6 (41:37):
I'm never going to be shy, and.
Speaker 8 (41:38):
I'm because I don't believe this thirty million Texans want.
They want bold conservative Republican leadership, and I'm going to
deliver that, even if if it means that people who
are otherwise friends disagree.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
Hey, to your point, he gave a very similar answer
that when I asked him the same question.
Speaker 4 (41:52):
He was very respectful about you.
Speaker 3 (41:54):
He said he thought that you had a great voting record,
and you know, Hey, God bless America, God blessed Texas.
I think I think we all agree that this is
certainly worth the time and the effort and the energy
people had put into discussing it publicly because, like you said,
someone's going to die and somebody already did die and
this really matters, So stay representative.
Speaker 4 (42:12):
Brian Harrison. We thank you very much for your time
this afternoon, sir.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
Always great to be with you, my friend.
Speaker 6 (42:17):
God bless you, God bless the great state of Texas.
Having a great weekend.
Speaker 4 (42:20):
Amen this President of Bobby. You listen and pursue what
happened is radio. It's a weird time for that liner.
Speaker 5 (42:32):
You are listening to the Pursuit of Happiness Radio. Tell
the government to kiss your ass when you listen
Speaker 4 (42:43):
To this show.
Jack gannon government sucks. Pursuit of Happiness Radio is DeLux.
Liberty and freedom will make you smile. The Pursuit of
Happiness us on your radio toil justice cheeseburger is a
limited advice at fit.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
All Right.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Today is going to be a very unusual episode of
Pursuit of Happiness Radio. We will be talking about the
case of Robert Robinson, convicted in two thousand and three
for the murder of his two year old daughter. He
is supposed to be executed, and it is a very
touchy subject. They just paused that execution. We're gonna have
two lawmakers here today, State Representative Brian Harrison and State
(00:39):
Representative Mitch Little, two of the most conservative people in
state government, who completely disagree on this case.
Speaker 4 (00:45):
Stick around, we'll find out.
Speaker 5 (00:46):
Why You've got Kenny Webster's Pursuit of Happiness on KTRC
nine point fifty.
Speaker 4 (00:55):
It feels like.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Lately the left their opinions about things don't really matter
because most of what's happening in America and Texas seems
to be at the will of the conservatives. Once the
right wing populist, the liberty minded republicans, the nationalists, it's a.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
Nice little moment in time.
Speaker 3 (01:12):
But at the same time, because we're in charge of
so many things, whether it be the national government of
the state government, it's the Republican infighting that's getting all
the attention, and for good reason. It's just just true
with the Senate race between Paxton and Hunt and Cornyn,
as it is with this case of a guy.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
Named Robert Roberson.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
This is I will warn you as we get into
this radio saying it's a disturbing topic. It involves a
child dying, it involves child abuse, it involves the death penalty.
Of course, this is talk radio. I'm sure a lot
of you guys can handle that. For those of you
that are not familiar with this case, and I know
a lot of you are, because I've gotten a lot
of emails and phone calls and tweets about it. But
Robert Robertson was convicted in two thousand and three, and
(01:50):
he was convicted of capital murder for killing his two
year old daughter, Nicki Curtis in Texas Palestine, Texas based
on now what they call the I mean at the time,
what has been described in the media as shaken baby syndrome.
And he faces execution despite some doubts about his guilt right.
Nicky died in two thousand and two from brain injuries
(02:11):
initially attributed to violent shaking, they say, and since then
some have claimed there's new evidence that suggests she had
chronic illness and that a fall could explain her death.
Speaker 4 (02:22):
And Robertson, who.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
You know was apparently, they say, has undiagnosed autism. They
claim he's been on death row for twenty three years,
and there have been multiple execution stays, the Attorney General
has gotten involved in the case, and finally the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals halted his execution that was supposed
to be next week. Excuse me, it was supposed to
be the execution eight was supposed to be on October ninth.
(02:47):
It was halted October sixteenth, reminding the case for review
under the twenty thirteen junk science law, they say, citing
that the what is it shaken baby syndrome is now
science that's not for a case like this now. I
am neither a lawyer or a forensics expert. Mac A
lot of you guys know I'm you know, I tell
jokes about politicians for a living. I don't claim to
(03:08):
be an expert on this. I'll also say this, I
have a great deal of respect for two public figures
that have been two guys that have been publicly debating this,
State Representatives Mitch Little and State Representative Brian Harrison, both conservative,
liberty minded lawmakers and their own right, and as some
of you may have noticed on social media, they don't
always agree on things. So I've asked them both to
join us on the show today to do two separate
(03:30):
interviews because I want people in the greater Houston area,
those of you that eighty thousand of you that download
our podcast every day, to decide for yourself, what do
you think should happen to Robert Robertson. I've invited Mitch
Little onto the show. Mitch before we get in and
anything at all, before I even ask you any questions
the way that I explain this case, and I'm trying
to be objective here. I'm trying not to take a side.
(03:52):
It's hard to do, obviously, you know, but I you know,
it's not too hard for me because I don't have
a lot of opinions about the case, having not known
about it until fairly recently. I didn't grow up in Texas,
I don't remember this happening. Do you think I explained
it fairly before we get into the questions?
Speaker 6 (04:08):
In many respects you did.
Speaker 7 (04:10):
I think the only thing I would take issue with
Kenny is whether this is a shaken baby case.
Speaker 6 (04:15):
And that.
Speaker 7 (04:17):
Is what I would call or consider the principal disagreement
between people who have reviewed the trial record in the
appellate record and have formed an opinion about this case.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
Okay, so let's start off with that.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
You say that the shaken baby syndrome diagnosis is not
central to his conviction. Now, I only know what's on
the Internet. That's what's been written here. In fact, i'll
tell you this, mitche something I find very odd about
this case. I use AI a lot to study news stories,
to study political talking points, to do research for me,
because I can't always sit there and figure out everything
(04:51):
a politician said or everything a court case said. Very
rarely does artificial intelligence like GROCK or chat GPT take
a position on some and I found it to be
impossible to get Grock to say that this guy does
not deserve a retrial.
Speaker 4 (05:06):
How would you react to that?
Speaker 7 (05:08):
Yeah, there are lots of things that you can use
AI for In our day and age. This is not
one of them. I've had the displeasure of reading the
entire transcript from the jury trial of Robert Robertson, from
cover to cover, and for whatever reason, perhaps because it's
(05:30):
unavailable on most corners of the Internet, I don't think
Rocker or other forms of ai've had the benefit of
reading what the testimony was in the case. I think
a lot of people are suffering from a form of
primacy bias or recentcy bias with regard to what they're
hearing about the case, because generally, the leftist media is
(05:51):
telling you that this is a shaken baby junk science case,
and therefore Robert Robertson is innocent, should go.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Free, okay, And so.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Why should he not go for you, Why if the
shake and baby syndrome theory isn't central to the case,
why should he remain on death row?
Speaker 7 (06:10):
You need to so, you need to know and your
your listeners need to know and understand the facts of
the cases they were described at the trial. So let's
start from the beginning. Robert Robertson until the night that
Nicki Curtis died. Robert Robertson, who uh was with Nicki Curtis.
The only person who was nick with Nicki Curtis, a
two year old girl who was murdered in the case.
(06:31):
He had never been alone with her. He was apparently
her father was not allowed to be alone with her
because her mother, Teddy Cox, would not permit them to
be alone together. Here's the evidence that was induced in
the case. There were actually two little girls, ages ten
and eleven, Courtney Burial, Barry Hill and Rachel Ward who
(06:52):
testified in the case, who said that they had seen
Robert Robertson on at least ten occasions violently shake Nicky Curtis,
a two your old little girl to get her to
stop crying, that they had seen him beat her with
a belt, that they had seen him say he was
going to kill her if she didn't stop crying. Teddy Cox,
Nicki Curtis's mother, who would not permit Robert Robertson to
(07:15):
be alone with the child, probably because Robert Robertson had
been arrested on seventeen different occasions, had physically abused his
previous girlfriend and beat her with a fireplace shovel, choked
her with a coat hanger, would not allow Nicki Curtis
to be alone with this girl. So on the night
of Nicki Curtis's murder, Teddy Cox was in the hospital
(07:38):
recovering from a hysterectomy. Robert Robertson was not happy about
having to come to come to Nicki Curtis's grandparents' house
to retrieve Nicki and watch her for the night. This
is a little girl who's been portrayed as very sickly
having all types of medical problems.
Speaker 8 (07:57):
He was not in medical peril. Robert Robertson picked her
up that night. When he brought her to the hospital
the next morning, she was not breathing, She had bruises
on her face, She had bogginess or mushiness in the
back of her in the back of her skull. Although
she did not have a skull fracture, she had bruises
on her shoulders, on her back, and blood coming out
(08:21):
of her nose. As soon as the nurses and doctors
in the hospital treated this girl, it became obvious that
she was the victim of intentionally inflicted injuries. And I
could go on like this for an hour if you want,
but I'm I don't want to just keep going on.
I'm happy for you to ask any questions you have
(08:41):
about it.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
Sure, so it sounds like the way the media and look,
I wasn't there. I don't claim to have been at
certainly wasn't at the trial, and I haven't had time
to read all the transcripts like most people have. The
media's reporting on this makes it sound like what you
just said didn't necessarily have anything to do with how
they reached the verdict that it was about the shaken
baby syndrome. You know, rle aw due process here, it
(09:04):
sounds like if what you're saying is true, and what
they're saying is true, and I have no idea if
any of it's not true, if we had another trial,
he'd still be found guilty because that evidence sounds like
it does seem to prove that he's guilty. But if
that evidence wasn't central to the original conviction, would you
not argue that there'd still be a need for another trial.
I mean, you know, after all, due process, right, you're
(09:24):
a constitutionalist.
Speaker 7 (09:27):
Yeah, let's talk about the due process issue. So when
the United States Supreme Court decides on a nine to
zero basis and Sonya Soto Mayor writes the opinion you've
had due process.
Speaker 6 (09:39):
The United States Supreme Court.
Speaker 7 (09:40):
Has stated that Robert Robertson does not have a federal claim.
The elast remaining resort for him is asking clemency from
the governor, which he has not requested. Robert Robertson has
brought the junk science writ and the habeas writs of
before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on multiple prior occasions.
(10:01):
If you look at the descents that were filed yesterday
from Mary Luke Keel from who's a judge on our
Court of Criminal Appeals, from Gina Parker Justice from Judge Ary,
what becomes obvious is Robert Robertson did not have what
he needed to overcome what is called the previous writ
bar or subsequent writ bar. Robert Robertson has brought these
(10:26):
claims to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals before I
was wrongfully convicted shaken baby syndrome case, and he just
as a matter of law, should not have been permitted
to bring this writ again. The scientific basis for the
junk science claim that they're making related to shaken baby syndrome,
it relies on the idea that he was first of
(10:50):
all convicted on a shaken baby syndrome case, which is
predicated on the scientific triad of encephalopathy, brain swelling of
the child, subdural hematoma, bleeding inside the skull, and bilateral
retinal hemorrhages, which Nicky Curtis had all three of those. So,
of course, Roverson's proponents and defenders are saying, well, there
(11:15):
you have it, this was a shaken baby syndrome case.
Speaker 6 (11:18):
Not so fast.
Speaker 8 (11:19):
If you look at the trials ran script and you
look at Jill Urvin's autopsy, this was pleaded and tried
as a blunt force trauma case. There are nine different
If you can find this on the Attorney General's website
for yourself, you can look at the original autopsy. There
were nine different components of physical abusive trauma blunt force
(11:39):
trauma to this child that were identified in the autopsy.
There were seven different physicians who signed off on it.
In Dallas, the detective who is now recanting his story
and says he thinks Robert Robertson is innocent. The detective
testified that his injuries were not consistent with Robert Robertson's story.
Every doctor and every nurse who handled her from the
(11:59):
time she came into the hospital until the time she
passed away, says the same thing. These were intentionally inflicted
injuries that are not consistent with Robert Robertson's story or
a shortfall.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
All right, let's go back to that for just a second.
Speaker 8 (12:12):
There.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Brian Wharton was the original lead investigator. He now believes
Robertson is innocent. He regrets his role in the investigation.
You just brought that up. Can you speak a little
more to that. Why is Brian Wharton's opinion now irrelevant
in your opinion?
Speaker 7 (12:26):
Yeah, So one of the things that I heard this
week was, oh, well, well, Brian Wharton believed that Robert
Robertson was guilty because of his because of Robert Robertson's
flat affect. When he came to the hospital, he wasn't upset,
he wasn't worried about Nicky, et cetera. And now, of
course we know that Robert Robertson's on the offism spectrum,
(12:48):
so that explains his flat affect. Therefore, there's no reason
for the detective to have thought that Robert Robertson murdered
Nicki Curtis. The problem with that is the actual trial
testimony that Ryan Wharton gave in the trial, which was
the reason that he participated in the charging decision on
capital murder for Robert Robertson, was the child. The child
(13:10):
stayed over with Robert Robertson that night and was not injured,
and she showed up at the hospital with extensive injuries.
Speaker 6 (13:17):
Period.
Speaker 7 (13:18):
And so now Detective Wharton he decided to go to seminary.
I believe he's now a Methodist pastor and he's against
the death penalty as a whole. Obviously you have to
color his ideological views on the death penalty as a
whole against the position that he's taking in this case
over two decades after the fact.
Speaker 3 (13:37):
Okay, So it's my understanding here that there wasn't necessarily
any evidence of prior abuse. Would you not agree with that?
Speaker 7 (13:46):
That's completely false and let me prove it to you.
Go to the trial transcript. Read the testimony from teddy Cox,
Nikki's mother, who said that she was personally there and
she testified under oath that Robert Robertson had shaken and
beaten the child with a belt to get her to
stop crying, as did two little girls ages ten and eleven.
(14:07):
So the defense theory on well, there's no evidence of abuse,
or the defensive statement there's no evidence of abuse. First
of all, he flies in the face of the trial transcript,
and no one seems to explain the testimony of those
three people. I guess the theory is that they're all lying,
they all work together to convict an innocent man. Maybe
it's just consistent with his other seventeen arrests in his
(14:28):
prior active abuse of other people.
Speaker 6 (14:30):
Okay, that weren't admitted at trial.
Speaker 4 (14:33):
Okay, so it's my understanding.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
There is now new evidence, the new expert testimony on
Nikki's medical records that explain away the multiple experts who's
testified to purely natural causes of death.
Speaker 4 (14:46):
Would you disagree with that?
Speaker 7 (14:49):
I completely disagree with that. And so if you look
at Judge Mary Luke Keel's descent that was filed yesterday,
she makes it clear, and Judge Yeri's descent makes this
even clearer. Is that But all of this shaking baby
syndrome science was available to Robert Robertson at the time
of his trial.
Speaker 8 (15:07):
There is no new evidence. There may be new opinions
that people are trying to form to overcome the subsequent
wrint bar but there's no new evidence of any of that.
Speaker 6 (15:19):
So it's important. It's important to remember.
Speaker 7 (15:26):
Yesterday and when the Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion,
it said we ought to give him, We ought to
give him a new trial, just on the issue of
the junk science writ or. Shaking baby syndrome under ex
Partey Rourke X Party Rourke was a case that was
decided last year in twenty twenty four. It involved injury
to a child, It involved shaking baby syndrome, It involved
(15:49):
a shortfall. The difference in that case is the child
in X Partiy Rourke did not have the extensive external
physical injuries that Nikki Curtis did.
Speaker 6 (15:59):
The facts are across those two cases.
Speaker 7 (16:03):
You need here's what you really need to do, Kenny.
You need someone who's on the other side of this
issue to explain to you and to me and to
your listeners what explains the external physical injuries on Nicky
Curtis when she was brought into the hospital. The mushiness
and bugginess in the back of her sculpe and back
of her scalp, like the massive bruise on the back
(16:25):
of her head, bruises on her face, bruises on her shoulders,
bruises on her back, a.
Speaker 8 (16:30):
Torn frienulum in her mouth. This is a child that
had been beaten.
Speaker 7 (16:35):
And that's why it's one of the reasons that I'm
so passionate about this is people need to understand the truth.
Speaker 6 (16:43):
They need to understand the evidence that was adduced to trial.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Okay, well, we have Brian Harrison, State Representative Brian Harrison
coming up in the next segment. Mitch, I'd love to
ask him those questions. One more question for you. So yesterday,
as you know this, judge has now come out and
said Robert's execution is unconstitutional in light of new evidence
that it undermines his conviction.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
Would you disagree with that?
Speaker 7 (17:05):
Yeah, Judge, you're talking about Judge Shank's opinion. Yes, I
totally disagree. I think that's an absolute travesty. And I
know Judge Shank, and like Judge Shank, I'm very disappointed
at some of the opinions that were written, Yesh, including
by Judge Finley. This, as I said, this is a
five to four opinion, so it was a close call
on the Court of Criminal Appeals. It's going to go
(17:27):
back to Palestine for a trial on the narrow issue
of whether this in fact was a shaken baby syndrome
case that should entitle him to a reversal of the verdict.
What's tragic here is we're forgetting about the fact that
this is a two year old child all of the
atmospherics here that you need to understand is yet a
(17:50):
very vulnerable child who had never been alone with this
man before because he was violent and his family members
knew that he had a bad temper. They had seen
him act out against this child. And when he finally
brought this girl to the hospital, she was lifeless. So
something happened from the time he picked her up from
(18:10):
the grandparents' house until the time he brought her to
the hospital. And there is no explanation for what happened
to this little girl.
Speaker 8 (18:17):
Not pneumonia, not a clotting disorder, not anytime in any
form of chronic disease. They would explain the mushiness on
the back of this girl's skull and her being either
banged against something or Robert Robertson physically acting out against
her what he had done before in the past.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
All right, one more question here, and this is unrelated
to the case. There are people that believe that you
and Brian Harrison often take polarizing positions on you know,
touchy subjects like this because you guys just don't like
each other. Is that true?
Speaker 8 (18:50):
No, I don't dislike Brian Harrison at all. You know,
if you look at our voting history, we probably vote
together most of the time. What appalls yeah, what what
appalls me about this situation is that the Innocence Project,
which is funded by George Soros's Open Society and Mackenzie
(19:11):
Scott used to be McKenzie Bezos.
Speaker 6 (19:15):
They have co opted.
Speaker 8 (19:16):
A handful of Republicans legislators into this game.
Speaker 6 (19:20):
And here's the game.
Speaker 7 (19:21):
The game is to undermine the death penalty as a
whole so that they can reformatt society and reimagine criminal
justice in our country and in the state of Texas.
I think they they prey upon the toxic empathy culture
that's going on just generally in America.
Speaker 8 (19:40):
Oh well, yeah, maybe he's innocent. Look at how many
look at all the podcasts and and documentaries that they
go on on Netflix, Like I saw one recently, The
Menindez Brothers are innocent. Now, I mean how many decades
did we go thinking, I mean, without thinking that the
Menendez brothers could potentially have been innocent. So the idea
(20:04):
is to undermine our sense of shared reality and our
understanding of the criminal justice system. And I think there
are certain Republicans who are allowing themselves to be caught
up in it because it's.
Speaker 7 (20:15):
An attention grabber. I just think that this is purely
a justice issue for this little girl in her family.
It has nothing to do with personalities from my perspective.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Stay Representative Mitch little As you know, I've got a
ton of respect for both of you guys. You guys
always vote the way I want you to. And as
I'm sure a lot of people would probably agree, this
is such a touchy subject. I think at the end
of the day, what most people just want to make
sure is the government's doing the right thing.
Speaker 4 (20:41):
So we appreciate your time this afternoon, sir.
Speaker 6 (20:44):
Amen to that. Thank you for having me onan.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
Hey, God bless thanks State Representative Mitch little Hey. Coming
up after this, you get to hear Brian Harrison's rebuttal.
You are not going to want to miss that. Don't
go anywhere the.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Pursuit of happing.
Speaker 7 (20:56):
This radio is more than just a talk show.
Speaker 3 (21:03):
All right, we are back. It's an unusual episode today.
Normally on Fridays on this show, Michael Quinn Suliman calls
in and we do a review with the Texas Scorecard
guys about what's going on in Austin. This week, Brandon
Darby from Bright Bar, Texas calls in. We do a
review about what's been going on at the border, what's
been going on in immigration. But today things are just
(21:23):
a little bit different. Yesterday a judge said that Robert Roberson,
who was convicted in two thousand and three for the
capital murder of his two year old daughter, should not
be executed. That we've got to put everything on pause
and we've got to figure this whole thing out again,
remaining the case for review under the twenty thirteen junk
Science laws, citing evolved SBS science that stands for Shake
(21:43):
and Baby Syndrome and a similar twenty four egxoneration, potentially
paving the way for a new trial. Now, in the
last segment, you guys heard from State Representative Mitch Little.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
Stay.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
Representative Mitch Little and State Representative Brian Harrison are very
interesting people to be at the center of this conversation
because while their voting records are very similar, often we
notice that they have different reasons for forming their conclusion,
different philosophy. They both seem to be very principled, sometimes
just slightly different principles. And Mitch laid out a case
in the last segment where he just thinks Brian's wrong,
(22:16):
that there should not be a retrial, and you know,
he was pretty polite about it. I think, in fact,
he had some nice things to say about Brian Harrison
at the end of the segment. We'll get to that
in just a minute, but before we get to any
of that, one of the points that Mitch said was
that shake and baby syndrome theory is not proof that
Robert's guilty. It's because Robertson had never been alone.
Speaker 4 (22:33):
With the baby.
Speaker 3 (22:33):
He wasn't allowed to be alone with her. Witnesses in
the family said he threatened to kill the baby. He'd
been arrested seventeen different occasions for violent abuse of.
Speaker 4 (22:41):
Other people in the family.
Speaker 3 (22:42):
So we'll start off with this according to what we
were told, according to what Mitch told us in the
last segment, Stay representative Little. When Nikki was taken to
the hospital. This little girl had bruises, she had a
torn mouth, She was in terrible shape. It wasn't just
about shaken baby syndrome. The questionestion is I guess to
start off with this first of all, State Representative Brian
(23:04):
Harrison here, thank you so much for your time this afternoon.
Speaker 4 (23:06):
What you know, how do you react to that?
Speaker 3 (23:08):
Why did the baby have so many injuries when when
the child was brought in if it wasn't abused, well.
Speaker 8 (23:14):
Kenny Webster, are always great to be with you, my friend,
and appreciate what you do to keep the fight for
liberty alive here in the great state of Texas. There's
too few voices you've been talking about liberty, much less
fighting for it these days.
Speaker 6 (23:26):
Its always great to be with you, buddy.
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Yeah.
Speaker 8 (23:28):
Happy to talk about this case, especially in light of
the overwhelming victory for what I believe is as truth
and for justice in the criminal justice system.
Speaker 6 (23:37):
Coming out of the Court of Criminal.
Speaker 8 (23:38):
Appeals were many conservative, brave judges put aside the completely
dishonest political smears that have been going on about this
case for many years years and focused on the truth,
on facts, and on justice and came down on what
is the objective correct thing, which is that Roberts should
not be executed right now by the state of Texas.
(23:59):
I mean mind, there's no bigger government thing that any
government can do than take somebody's life. So the bar
needs to be very high and very clear that that
you know, in this case, somebody who is convicted of
capital murder, I actually murdered somebody. But as the judges
noted in their desists, it's not clear at all that
forget that he could murder her. It's unclear that any
crime occurred whatsoever. And everybody who's actually.
Speaker 6 (24:21):
Familiar with the record in this case knows that.
Speaker 8 (24:24):
So if the claims were made that you just represented
to me that you know he had been arrested for
other violent episodes and previous records of abuse and beatings.
I mean, this is stuff that's been said for twenty years.
The only problem with it it's completely false. There's not
been one documented act of violence in mister Roberson's entire
life that that includes from school, jobs, military, and in prison,
(24:49):
so that the claims of violence have never been substantiated.
He's never been arrested, never been charged, nothing, nothing. It's
just a black and white factual falsehood on this, like
he's not allowed to be alone with her. I don't
even know where this comes from. A court had just
very recently awarded Robert's sole custody of Mickey. You know,
(25:11):
I've heard claims from you know, your previous guests and
others say that Robert was looking living with Nicky's mom,
But that's just completely false. Nicky's mom left, never wanted
anything to do with the child ever until she came
back and deliverable was basically false testimony, which she admitted
to on the on the stand in their cross examination,
because she just wanted to get back at Robert. That's
(25:32):
the only place that they get these absurd claims of.
Speaker 6 (25:36):
Violence.
Speaker 8 (25:37):
So so I mean, whether it's from her testimony or not,
they get this language from her that has just fallen apart.
So so here's the case.
Speaker 6 (25:45):
Here's the fact that let me make this real.
Speaker 8 (25:46):
Simple, if if if your previous guests and others on
you know what I kind of called the big government
right or blindly trust the government crowd, here is that
she was beaten to death. They got a problem because
here's the thing you got to pick. Was it shaking
baby syndrome that he was convicted of, or was it
beating her daughter so viciously that she died, as the
Attorney General has been saying for a year, if it
(26:07):
was shaking baby syndrome, which it was and which conservative
Judge Lee Finley put to bed, disc positively, he was convicted,
not a beating. He was convicted under the shaken baby theory.
And if that's true, then under Texas junk spines law,
he should have had a new trial. He should have
had a new trial many years ago if it was
ben as the state is engaged in revisionist history.
Speaker 2 (26:29):
Here's the problem.
Speaker 8 (26:30):
It almost doesn't even matter what eye witnesses say, because
eyewitnesses are, quite frankly, as everybody knows, can be notoriously unreliable.
We have objective medical evidence that proves that not only
Robert didn't beat her, nobody beat this girl to death,
unless you believe the Nicky Curtis was the only two
year old in human history to have been beaten so
(26:50):
severely she died, but yet did not have one single
serious bruise anywhere on her body. She didn't have so
much as a single hairline fracture. She did not have
even one single serious cut anywhere on her body. That's
not just my opinion. There are photographs you can look at.
I'm looking at some right now prove it beyond a
shadow of it out, not one single serious bruise on
(27:12):
her body. The prosecution's own medical witness, the child abuse
pediatrician testifying for the prosecution.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Had to tell the jury.
Speaker 8 (27:24):
Under oath that when she examined Nikki Curtis, she only
saw minimal bruising, which she thought was quote completely insignificant.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
That's what she told the jury.
Speaker 8 (27:36):
And so the only reason you get to shaken baby.
They had no idea what had happened to this girl.
They didn't know all about the medical history, her fifty
hospital and doctor visits in two years of life, her
breathing at MEA, her double pneumonia, her toxic fatal doses
of finnergen and coding in her system.
Speaker 6 (27:52):
That they didn't know any of it.
Speaker 8 (27:53):
All they knew was two things, that there was no
external signs of actual abuse, none zero. They had to
theorize something must have happened because she did stop breathing
when she was at Robert's house. So they had to
get to well, how did he do it because there's
no external signs in trump. But so I theorized the
shaking baby syndrome, which has fallen completely out of favor.
(28:14):
You can still consider, but once you precluded every other
possible possibility. And now we know there's a mountain of
medical and scientific evidence that TSKS to the natural likely
causes of her tragic and unfortunate death. So for everybody
who's now going with what the oeg had concert said that.
Speaker 6 (28:30):
She was beaten to death.
Speaker 8 (28:31):
So they really want us to believe that somebody was
a two year old was beaten to death without a
single serious bruise on her body.
Speaker 6 (28:36):
And I can send you photos.
Speaker 8 (28:36):
And by the way, we have a cast hand the
proof that this positive proof she wasn't beaten to death.
It shows one small, one small bump on the back
of her head, completely consistent with what Robert says happened,
which is a very short fall from the bed. Nobody's
claiming the short fall killed her, but it explains the
tiny little bump, which again not it didn't even accompany
with a bruise. I can send you the photo. There's
not a bruise there, and I can't I've got four
(28:58):
kids My kids are bruised all the time for things
that had nothing to do, whether their mother or me.
In fact, I had a kid call out of bed
when he was four years old, and the bruises on
his body are five hundred percent worse than the tiny
and as the prosecution said, insignificant bruises on Nikki's body.
So here's the reality. There was a rush to judgment here.
(29:19):
The lead detective in the case that put him on
death row has testified that not only does he believe
that the robber didn't commit murder, he firmly believes that
no crime occurred.
Speaker 6 (29:28):
And then here's the thing for me.
Speaker 2 (29:30):
If people can, let's say, you.
Speaker 8 (29:32):
Even have different opinions on Gilter innocence, you cannot have
a different opinion that he didn't have due process or
a fair trial. The prosecuting attorney told the jury he
shook his baby to death. Well, guess what over his
client's objections the defense, the government appointed defense attorney looked
at the jury and said, my client shook his baby
to death. Therefore, no jury ever heard a single argument,
(29:55):
a single piece of evidence of which is a mountain
of potentially exculpatory evidence points.
Speaker 6 (30:00):
To the very real possibility.
Speaker 8 (30:02):
But not only did a murder Nott happen, but no
crime of any kind occurred. And the judges on the
quarter criminal appeals absolutely to the right thing, the brief
thing yesterday, and the lead judge, I mean the chief judge,
or I guess it's called a presiding judge of the CCA,
he actually said that if if Robert was executed, it
wouldn't just violate state law, it may well violate the
Constitution of the United States in view of all of
(30:25):
the evidence that undermines his conviction incentiveces. That's a direct
quote from the new presiding judge, Shank Okay.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
So you explained that pretty clearly, and the judge clearly
agrees with you. That's why this happened yesterday. But one
person that did not agree was Attorney General Ken Paxton
and state Representative Mitch Little, who said that according to
the medical examiner's report, there was injuries to Nikki when
she was brought to the hospital, bruises, a torn mouth.
Speaker 4 (30:53):
You're saying that's not true.
Speaker 8 (30:56):
Yeah, So what I'm saying is there were were there's
zero bruises, though there was. What the prosecutor said at
trial was that there were minimal bruising, and that she
believed they were completely insignificant. And by the way, that's
proven by the cat scan. And you're gonna get every
layer of this case is worse than the previous layer.
(31:18):
You would think if there's abuse of trauma that you
would want to see a head trauma, you'd want to
see one thing, and that's a cat scan. Well, guess what,
the jury never saw a cat scan. Guess what the
cat scan proofs this child wasn't beaten to death. And
guess where the cat scan was for fifteen years not
showed to the jury. It was disappeared. It disappeared magically,
but then fifteen years after the trial, it just seriously
(31:41):
appears in the basement underneath the courthouse in Anderson County.
As to the little cut on the mouth of these people,
if this is so disgusting, I'm uncomfortable talking about it
on air. It so vile and so disgusting and so reprehensible.
The jury was told in graphic detail that he sexually
abused Nikki.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
Well, if we know anything.
Speaker 8 (32:00):
About what happened that night or around that time, it's
that she wasn't sexually abused by him or anybody because
we had DNA evidence that was tested, there was a
rape kit done. There was no DNA whatsoever to support
their grotesque claims of sexual abuse.
Speaker 2 (32:14):
And that's how they get.
Speaker 8 (32:15):
To the cut, the little small, little cut on inside
the mouth is with a jury, and I'm gonna have
to let your listeners use their imaginations here. And that's
how vulgar what was told to the jury, he did
of a sexual nature, purely to inflame, purely to poison
the well. And then when it came trying for them
to judge, they dropped all the sexual abuse charges, even
(32:37):
though that they were told about graphic allegations of sexual
abuse from a nurse who perjured herself and said she
was certified to discuss and diagnosed sexual abuse cases. On
cross examination she melted and had to confess she perjured
herself and was not actually certified. And there was no
reason whatsoever, period, full thought none to believe that Robert
sexually abused this girl or any other girl, and that
(32:58):
on the little cut thing would they turned into sexual
abuse as in the most disgusting.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Thing you could do.
Speaker 8 (33:04):
Should have had a mistrial at that time. This girl
had been multiply intubated multiple times. Okay, that easily could
explain the tiny little laceration they're talking about in the mouth,
But the jury wasn't told that. The jury was told
that it could have come from sexual abuse. But when
it came time for the prosecutor supprove the claim, they said,
you know what, we're just kidding Forget everything we told
(33:26):
you about sexual abuse. Go figure out whether he killed
killed the girl. It's out outrageous. It's I mean, there
are no words for how poorly and dishonestly the state
has handled this case. But the idea that she showed
up with bruises and battery, and some of these people,
like the guests you had on prior, have been saying
publicly for a year now that she had a smashed skull,
(33:47):
a crushed skull.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
And here's the reality.
Speaker 8 (33:50):
I mean, some people's judgment, based on their statements for
last year, I believe, has been irreparably destroyed by their
public statements this case because they advocated for somebody to
and they either didn't know the facts of this case
or they were willing to lie about it so they
don't have to commit error. Either way, I think people's
own judgment is being irrepidly destroyed here.
Speaker 2 (34:11):
She didn't know in fact, the.
Speaker 8 (34:12):
Doctor, by the way, the doctor's first response that's testified
to the first nurse that saw Nikki when he came in.
The doctor's response was, oh, no, what had we missed
because they had seen her so many times before.
Speaker 2 (34:23):
She had passed out, turned blue, but.
Speaker 8 (34:25):
Needed to be medically resuscitated because she had breathing apt me.
This had happened before, but guess what, it didn't happen
when Robert had custody it for her, and the supporters
of executing Robert never tell you that that when she
was with other family members, the exact same thing would happen.
She'd stopped breathing, turned blue, had to be medically resuscitated,
brought back to life because she had chronic breathing at me,
(34:47):
And they don't tell you that. In the two days
leading us to her alleged murder, Robert had taken her
to the er to get her medical care. Robert had
taken her to the pediatrician to get medical care, and
both of those different doctors not missing her double pneumonia,
the fact that her lung tissue was incapable of absorbing
oxygen as a forensic lung pathologists have testified to me
(35:09):
and in public they missed that and they gave her Fendergen.
I used to oversee the FDA as the chief of
staff of AHHS. Bennergen with Cody now carries an FDA
black box warning against being given to children two years
old because it will stop and it can stop their breathing,
especially with people who have respiratory or viral infection or
(35:30):
disease of the lungs, which Nicky had. This girl had
a tragic and sick life, but this state never demonstrated
that Robert and had no direct physical evidence to corroborate
to claim that Robert abused her or anybody else. Quite frankly,
and all the allegations that are being thrown around recklessly
(35:52):
on Twitter are discussing their vile, their dishonest. And let
me tell you, Kenny, I know you shared a small
government conservatives should never blindly trust the government if we
believe government gets things wrong on energy policy and health
care policy and every other every other area the whole
canifiy of public policy debates. Why is it that some
supposed small government conservatives say, you know what on the
(36:13):
criminal justice system. The government doesn't get things wrong that
we should blindly trust the government. If an innocent person dies, whatever,
that's fine with me, as long as it doesn't cause
people to question previous decisions the government has mad I'm
gonna tell Kenny, I'll be damned if I'm going to
be quiet and let my children Inherit a state where
people can have their liberty or their lives deprived of
(36:35):
them accid due process, and fair trials. Mister Roberson has
never had a fair trial. No jury has ever heard
a single argument or evidence of his innocence. You can't
execute somebody on a flimsy nonsense like has happened here.
Speaker 3 (36:49):
So it sounds like you're saying you don't even think
he's guilty. If a retrial risks releasing a potentially guilty
person due to faded evidence or witness memory, you know
you don't think that's something that that's not something you're
concerned about. Why is it worth the resource as an
emotional toll on Nikki's family.
Speaker 8 (37:07):
Because what would be jeopardized if he's innocent is the
entire criminal justice system. The integrity of the entire criminal
justices in the state of Texas.
Speaker 6 (37:15):
And let me tell you something.
Speaker 8 (37:16):
The whole irony of the situation is these people say, oh,
don't do this, don't do this, don't do this. We
support the death penality, we support the death unity.
Speaker 2 (37:23):
The people that have.
Speaker 8 (37:24):
Been advocating for execution are actually doing the greatest possible
harm to the state of Texas to the ability to
maintain the death penalty, because the fastest way to get
rid of the death cuility in the state of Texas
would be to start executing people that it later comes out,
we're innocent.
Speaker 2 (37:41):
I'm telling you this guy.
Speaker 8 (37:43):
When the truth comes out of this, and it will
come out, John Grisham's next nonfiction book is going to
be on this. The truth is going to come out,
and it will be very clear in time who was
on the right side of history of justice and who
has been championing the execution of a potentially innocent person.
And I'll say this, Kenny, our founders cared about protecting
the rights.
Speaker 3 (38:04):
Yeah, I mean well they certainly did. You're right about that.
We only have a couple of minutes left here, so
I want to leave it. I was going to ask
you something I think of getting it wrong, right, was
that somebody dies.
Speaker 4 (38:15):
I understand that.
Speaker 3 (38:15):
Well, to your point, currently the court seem to agree
with you right up until this point. Every other court
is upheld all the way to the Supreme Court. And
on that note, I want to I want to leave
on this because I think you answered a lot of
the other questions I wanted to ask you. But some
people have pointed out it's a lot of Democrats and
anti death penalty people that are siding with you on this.
You're not an anti death penalty person, but some have
(38:39):
argued that most of the people that are aligned with
you on this are only aligned with you on it
because they are that essentially.
Speaker 4 (38:44):
What is your response to that.
Speaker 8 (38:47):
Well, it's silly and it's irrelevant. I can only speak
to myself and let me be like people ask me
all the time.
Speaker 6 (38:53):
Why must have out spoken about this.
Speaker 8 (38:55):
I'm a lifelong supporter of the death penalty, but Kenny,
I've firmly believe it is most incumbent on those of
us who support capital punishment to make sure that innocence
and potentially innocent people are never subjected to it.
Speaker 6 (39:11):
Like that matters.
Speaker 8 (39:12):
That goes to the core of the entire notion that
a government even is capable of enacting justice in law
and order. So yeah, So the people that have been
on the other side of this, it's been befuddling.
Speaker 6 (39:26):
I don't understand it.
Speaker 8 (39:27):
You know, the big government, right, the same people that
want to ban Base and Van Hemp, you know, blindly
trust the government here. Don't question the government, Always question
the government. Always be skeptical of the government, because guess
what the government things gets.
Speaker 6 (39:38):
Things wrong all the time.
Speaker 8 (39:40):
And it was refreshing to read the judges the judge's
opinion in this case. Yes, say because what Lee Finley
pointed out, because people have made this claim oh so
many fields, twenty years of appeals and everybody disagrees with
the no Judge Finley read it. He makes the point
that the only reason it has had the appearance that
there's been all this due process is because of every
auct city for the Quarter of Criminal Appeal and no
(40:01):
the course to do the right thing. They have rejected
mister Roberson's appeals, but never with considering the evidence. They've
always just disregarded the evidence that undergirded the claims and
the basis for the appeal. So it was nothing more
than a government box checking operation. To save faith and
Judge Family makes that very clear and his extraordinarily well
(40:23):
written concurrence yesterday.
Speaker 3 (40:25):
All right, we only have one minute left here. We
obviously have gone along on this, but you know this
is important stuff. Stay representative, Brian Harrison, you and Mitch
Litt'll have a very similar voting record. You guys have
a lot of the same reporter supporters. Publicly, you guys
seem to debate and disagree quite a bit, and some
have some have claimed this isn't me, but some, you know,
listeners of the show have said, part of the reason
why you guys have taken such polarizing views on this
(40:47):
topic is because you simply don't like each other.
Speaker 4 (40:49):
And I'm curious how you'd react to that.
Speaker 8 (40:52):
Well, that's silly. I endorsed Mitch.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
I can't.
Speaker 8 (40:54):
I can't paign for Mitch, you know, and I took
a lot of put my reputation on the.
Speaker 6 (40:58):
Line to help get him elected.
Speaker 8 (41:00):
He can. When he campaigned, he campaigned saying that you know,
he were to fight like Brian Harrison, does you know that.
I don't know what has happened since then, but I'll
tell you what. At every opportunity for him or others
to bait me into any kind of a personal attacks,
people you know, calling me names or samaring or disparaging
me online. I have taken the high road, not engaged,
(41:21):
because to me, this isn't about personality. This is about truth,
This is about justice. This is about preserving freedom and
liberty in the state of Texas. And that's the only
thing that motivates to me on this or any other
issue that I get involved in. And when I believe life,
liberty or core questions about the role of government are
on the line, I'm never going to be bascheful.
Speaker 6 (41:37):
I'm never going to be shy, and.
Speaker 8 (41:38):
I'm because I don't believe this thirty million Texans want.
They want bold conservative Republican leadership, and I'm going to
deliver that, even if if it means that people who
are otherwise friends disagree.
Speaker 3 (41:48):
Hey, to your point, he gave a very similar answer
that when I asked him the same question.
Speaker 4 (41:52):
He was very respectful about you.
Speaker 3 (41:54):
He said he thought that you had a great voting record,
and you know, Hey, God bless America, God blessed Texas.
I think I think we all agree that this is
certainly worth the time and the effort and the energy
people had put into discussing it publicly because, like you said,
someone's going to die and somebody already did die and
this really matters, So stay representative.
Speaker 4 (42:12):
Brian Harrison. We thank you very much for your time
this afternoon, sir.
Speaker 2 (42:16):
Always great to be with you, my friend.
Speaker 6 (42:17):
God bless you, God bless the great state of Texas.
Having a great weekend.
Speaker 4 (42:20):
Amen this President of Bobby. You listen and pursue what
happened is radio. It's a weird time for that liner.
Speaker 5 (42:32):
You are listening to the Pursuit of Happiness Radio. Tell
the government to kiss your ass when you listen
Speaker 4 (42:43):
To this show.
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!