Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It feels like 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.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
It's a nice little moment in time.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
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 2 (00:32):
Named Robert Roberson.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
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
(00:55):
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. Nicki died in two thousand and two
(01:15):
from brain injuries initially attributed to violent shaking, they say,
and since then some have claimed there's new evidence that
suggests she had chronic illness and a fall could explain
her death.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
And Robertson, who.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Was apparently, they say, has undiagnosed autism.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
They claim.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
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.
It was halted October sixteenth, reminding the case for review
(01:55):
under the twenty thirteen Junk Science law, they say, citing
that the what is it shaken baby syndrome is now
science that's not eligible for a case like this.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Now.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
I am neither a lawyer or a forensics.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
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 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,
(02:30):
they don't always agree on things. So I've asked them
both to join us on the show today to do
two separate 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
(02:51):
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.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
It's hard to do obviously, you know.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
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.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
I didn't grow up in Texas. I don't remember this happening.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Do you think I explained it fairly before we get
into the questions?
Speaker 3 (03:13):
In many respects you did.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
I think the only thing I would take issue with
Kenny is whether this is a shaken baby case.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
And that.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
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 2 (03:33):
Okay, so let's start off with that.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
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
(03:56):
a politician said or everything a court case said. Very
rarely does artificial intelligence like GROC or chat GPT take
a position on something, and I found it to be
impossible to get GROC to say that this guy does
not deserve a retrial. How would you react to that?
Speaker 4 (04:13):
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
(04:35):
unavailable on most corners of the Internet, I don't think
ROCK 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
(04:56):
telling you that this is a shaken baby junk science case,
and they're for Robert Robertson as innocent should.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Go free, okay, And so why should he not go
for you?
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Why if the shaken baby syndrome theory isn't central to
the case, why should he remain on death row?
Speaker 4 (05:15):
You need to so you need to know and your
your listeners need to know and understand the facts in
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.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
He had never been alone with her. He was apparently.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
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.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Who testified in the case.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
He said that they had seen Robert Robertson on at
least ten occasions violently shake Nicky Curtis, a two year
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,
(06:18):
who would not permit Robert Robertson to 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,
(06:41):
Teddy Cox was in the hospital 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.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Her for the night.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
This is a little girl who's been portrayed as very
sickly having all types of medical problems. She was not
in medical peril when 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
(07:19):
have a skull fracture, she had bruises on her shoulders,
on her back, and blood coming out 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
(07:39):
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 about it.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
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 necess sssarily have anything to do with
how they reached the verdict that it was about the
shaken baby syndrome. You know, roll aw due process. Here,
(08:09):
it 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
(08:29):
a constitutionalist.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
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 Sotomayor writes the opinion, you've had
due process. The United States Supreme Court has stated that
Robert Robertson does not have a federal claim. The elast
remaining resort for him is asking clemency from the governor,
(08:54):
which he has not requested. Robert Robertson has brought the
junk science writ and the habeas writs off before the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on multiple prior occasions. 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 Geina Parker from Justice from Judge Ary,
(09:19):
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
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
(09:40):
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
all convicted on a shaken baby syndrome case, which is
predicated on the scientific triad of encephalopathy, brain swelling of
(10:03):
the child, subdural hematoma, bleeding inside the skull, and bilateral
retinal hemorrhages, which Nicky Curtis had all three of those.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
So, of course.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Roverson's proponents and defenders are saying, well, there you have it,
this was a shaken baby syndrome case.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Not so fast.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
If you look at the trials transcript and you look
at Jill Ervin'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 trauma to
(10:44):
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 history 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 time she
came into the hospital until the time she passed away
(11:07):
said the same thing. These were intentionally inflicted injuries that
are not consistent with Robert Robertson's story or a shortfall.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
All right, let's go back to that for just a
second there. 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 4 (11:31):
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 Robert Robertson's flat
affect when he came to the hospital, he wasn't upset,
he wasn't worried about Nicky, etc. And now, of course
we know that Robert Robertson's on the offism spectrum, so
(11:53):
that explains his flat affect. Therefore, there's no reason for
the detective to have thought that Robert Robertson and murdered
Nicki Curtis. The problem with that is the actual trial
testimony that Brian 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
(12:15):
stayed over with Robert Robertson that night and was not injured,
and she showed up at the hospital with extensive injuries.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Period.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
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 1 (12:42):
Okay, So it's my understanding here that there wasn't necessarily
any evidence of prior abuse. Would you not agree with that?
Speaker 4 (12:51):
That's completely false, and let me prove it to you.
Go to the trial transcript read the testimony from teddy Cox,
Nicky's 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. So
(13:12):
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
(13:33):
prior active abuse of other people.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Okay, that weren't admitted at trial.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Okay, so it's my understanding.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
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 2 (13:51):
Would you disagree with that?
Speaker 4 (13:54):
I completely disagree with that. And so if you look
at Judge Mary Luke Keel's dissent that was filed yesterday,
she makes it clear and Judge Yuri's dissent makes this
even clearer, is that all of this shaking baby syndrome
science was available to Robert Robertson at the time of
his trial. There is no new evidence. There may be
new opinions that people are trying to form to overcome
(14:18):
the subsequent wrint bar but there's no new evidence of
any of that.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
So it's important. It's important to remember.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
Yesterday and when the Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion,
it said we ought to give 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 a shortfall.
(14:54):
The difference in that case is the child in X
Partiy Rourke did not have the extensive external physical injuries
that Nicky Curtis did. The facts are different across those
two cases. 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
(15:16):
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
of her head, bruises on her face, bruises on her shoulders,
bruises on her back, a torn frienulum in her mouth.
(15:37):
This is a child that had been beaten. 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 3 (15:48):
They need to understand the evidence that was adduced to trial.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
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.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
One more question for you.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
So yesterday, as you know this, judge has now come
out and said Roberts execution is unconstitutional in light of
new evidence that it underminds his conviction.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Would you disagree with that?
Speaker 4 (16:10):
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 Yesha, 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
(16:32):
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
(16:55):
very vulnerable child who had never been alone with this
man before because he will 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
(17:15):
the grandparents' house until the time he brought her to
the hospital. And there is no explanation for what happened
to this little girl. 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
(17:37):
physically acting out against her, which he had done before
in the past.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
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 4 (17:55):
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 appalls
me about this situation is that the Innocence Project, which
is funded by George Soros's Open Society and Mackenzie Scott
(18:17):
used to be McKenzie Bezos.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
They have co.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
Opted a handful of Republicans legislators into this game.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
And here's the game.
Speaker 4 (18:26):
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 3 (18:45):
Oh well, yeah, maybe he's innocent. Look at how many look.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
At all the podcasts and and documentaries that they go
on on Netflix, Like I saw one recently, The Menindez
brothers are innocent now r 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
is to undermine our sense of shared reality and our
(19:13):
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 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.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
From my perspective, 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 2 (19:46):
So we appreciate your time this afternoon.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Sir, Amen to that. Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
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.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
The Pursuit of Happiness Radio is more than just a
talk show.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Ready, all right, we are back is 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
(20:28):
just 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 and baby syndrome and a similar twenty four exoneration,
(20:52):
potentially paving the way for a new trial. Now, in
the last segment, you guys heard from state Representative Mitch
little Stay. Representative Mitch little Stay 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
(21:15):
just slightly different principles. And Mitch laid out a case
in the last segment where he just thinks Brian's wrong,
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
(21:35):
Robert's guilty. It's because Robertson had never been alone with
the baby. 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.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Of other people in the family.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
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 Nicky was taken to
the hospital, this little girl had bruises, torn mouth, She
was in terrible shape. It wasn't just about shaking baby syndrome.
The question is I guess to start off with this
first of all, State Representative Brian Harrison here, thank you
(22:09):
so much for your time this afternoon. What you know,
how do you react to that? Why did the baby
have so many injuries when when the child was brought
in if it wasn't abused, well.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
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 say of Texas. There's
too few voices you've been talking about liberty, much less
fighting for it these days. So always great to be
with you, buddy. Yeah, 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
(22:42):
justice system. Coming out of the Court of Criminal 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 focus on the truth, on facts,
and on justice and came down on what is the
object objective correct thing, which is that Roberts should not
(23:02):
be executed right now by the state of Texas. I mean,
to keep in 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 familiar with
(23:26):
the record in this case knows that. 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
(23:50):
that includes from school, jobs, military, and in prison, 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, I've
(24:16):
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 the
(24:37):
only place that they get these absurd claims of violence.
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, here's the facts that let
me make this real simple. If if if your previous
guests and others on you know what I kind of
call the big government right or blindly trust the government crowd,
(24:59):
here is that she was beaten to death. They got
a problem, because here's the thing. He got a pick.
Was it shaken 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 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
(25:22):
the shaken baby theory. And if that's true, then under
Texas junk science law, he should have had a new trial.
He should have had a new trial many years ago
if it was beaten. As the state is engaged in
revisionist history, here's the problem. 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
(25:45):
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 severely she died, but
yet did not have one single bruised 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
(26:09):
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 the shadow of it out not
one single serious bruise on her body. The prosecution's own
medical witness, the child abused pediatrician testifying for the prosecution,
had to tell the jury under oath that when she
(26:31):
examined Nikki Curtis, she only saw minimal bruising, which she
thought was quote completely insignificant. That's what she told the jury,
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
(26:51):
breathing at na, her double pneumonia, her toxic fatal doses
of finnergen and coding in her sister. That they didn't
know any of this. All they knew was two things.
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?
(27:12):
Because there's no external signs in trump But so I
theorized the shaking baby syndrome, which has fallen completely out
of favor. 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 talks to the
natural likely causes of her tragic and unfortunate death. So
(27:32):
for everybody who's now going with what the OG had
conscert said that she was beaten to death. 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. And I can send you photos.
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,
(27:52):
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 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 dead when he
was four years old, and the bruises on his body
(28:13):
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. 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. And then here's the thing for me. If
(28:36):
people can, let's say, you even have different opinions on
guilter 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
(28:58):
ever heard a single argument, a single piece of evidence
of which is a mountain of potentially exculpatory evidence that
points to the very real possibility. But not only did
a murder not 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,
(29:18):
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 the evidence that undermines his
conviction incentence. That's a direct quote from the new presiding judge,
Shank Okay.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
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.
(29:58):
You're saying that's not true.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
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.
(30:23):
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 as a cat scan, well, guess
what the jury ever 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
(30:46):
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 discussed and so reprehensible.
The jury was told in graphic detail that he sexually
abused Nikki. Well, if we know anything about what happened
that night or around that time, it's that she wasn't
(31:08):
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. And that's how they get to the cut,
the little smaller 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
(31:30):
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 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
(31:53):
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 on the little cut thing,
which they turned into a sexual abuse as in the
most disgusting thing you could do, should have had a
mistrial at that time. This girl had been multiply intubated
(32:14):
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 you about sexual abuse,
go figure out whether he killed killed the girl. It's
(32:36):
out outrageous, it's 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, a crushed skull. And
here's the reality. I mean, some people's judgment, based on
(32:57):
their statements for last year I believe has been reparably
destroyed by their public statements mis case, because they advocated
for somebody to die, 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 irreparably destroyed here.
She didn't know in fact the doctor. By the way,
(33:18):
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 she had passed out. Turn Blue 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
(33:39):
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,
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
(34:00):
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 forensic lung pathologists have testified to me and in public,
they missed that, and they gave her Fendergen. I used
to oversee the FDA as the chief of staff of AHHS.
(34:22):
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 disease of
the lungs, which Nikki had. This girl had a tragic
and sick life, but this state never demonstrated that Robert
(34:47):
and had no direct physical evidence to corrobrate to claim
that Robert abused her or anybody else. Quite frankly, and
all the allegations that are being thrown around recklessly on
Twitter are discussing their vie aile, they're dishonest. And let
me tell you, Kenny, I know you share that small
government conservatives, we should never blindly trust the government if
we believe government gets things wrong on energy policy and
(35:09):
health care policy and every other, every other area the
whole panifiy of public policy debates. Why is it that
some supposed small government conservatives say, you know what, on
the 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
(35:31):
has mad I'm going to tell you, 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 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
(35:52):
nonsense like has happened here.
Speaker 1 (35:54):
So it sounds like you're saying you don't even think
he's guilty. Of a retrial risks releasing a potential 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 3 (36:12):
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. And let me tell
you something. 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. The people that have been advocating for execution
are actually doing the greatest possible harm to the state
(36:34):
of Texas to the ability to maintain the death penalty,
because the fastest way to get rid of the death
cicility in the state of Texas would be to start
executing people that it later comes out, we're innocent. I'm
telling you this guy. 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
(36:55):
to come out, and it will be very clear in
time who was on the right side of history and
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 1 (37:09):
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 some I think of getting it wrong, right, was
that somebody dies?
Speaker 2 (37:20):
I understand that.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
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
(37:44):
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 2 (37:49):
What is your response to that.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
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, why must have out spoken about this.
I am a lifelong supporter of the death penalty, But Kenny,
I 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. Like
(38:16):
that matters. 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.
I don't understand it. You know, the big government, right,
the same people that want to ban Bates and Van Hemp,
(38:36):
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 gets things wrong all the time.
And it was refreshing to read the judges the judge's
opinion in this case, yessay, 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
(38:57):
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 opportunity for
the quarter of criminal appeal and no 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
(39:17):
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 written concurrence yesterday.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
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
Little 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
(39:52):
topic is because you simply don't like each other.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
And I'm curious how you'd react to that.
Speaker 4 (39:57):
Well, that's silly.
Speaker 3 (39:58):
I endorsed Mitch paign for Mitch, you know, and I
took a lot of put my reputation on the line
to help get him elected 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 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,
(40:19):
calling me names or smaring or disparaging me online, I
have taken the high road, not engaged, 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
(40:41):
the line, I'm never going to be bascheful. I'm never
going to be shy, and 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 1 (40:53):
Hey, to your point, he gave a very similar answer
that when I asked him the same question He was
very respectful about you. 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,
(41:14):
and somebody already did die, and this really matters. So
stay representative. Brian Harrison.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
We thank you very much for your time this afternoon, sir.
Speaker 3 (41:21):
Always great to be with you, my friend. God bless you,
God bless the great state of Texas. Having a great weekend.
Speaker 2 (41:25):
Amen, this president of Bobby You listen and pursue what
happened is radio. It's a weird time for that liner.
It feels like 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.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
It's a nice little moment in time.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
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 2 (00:32):
Named Robert Roberson.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
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
(00:55):
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. Nicki died in two thousand and two
(01:15):
from brain injuries initially attributed to violent shaking, they say,
and since then some have claimed there's new evidence that
suggests she had chronic illness and a fall could explain
her death.
Speaker 2 (01:27):
And Robertson, who.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Was apparently, they say, has undiagnosed autism.
Speaker 2 (01:34):
They claim.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
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.
It was halted October sixteenth, reminding the case for review
(01:55):
under the twenty thirteen Junk Science law, they say, citing
that the what is it shaken baby syndrome is now
science that's not eligible for a case like this.
Speaker 3 (02:06):
Now.
Speaker 2 (02:06):
I am neither a lawyer or a forensics.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
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 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,
(02:30):
they don't always agree on things. So I've asked them
both to join us on the show today to do
two separate 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
(02:51):
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.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
It's hard to do obviously, you know.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
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.
Speaker 2 (03:06):
I didn't grow up in Texas. I don't remember this happening.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
Do you think I explained it fairly before we get
into the questions?
Speaker 3 (03:13):
In many respects you did.
Speaker 4 (03:15):
I think the only thing I would take issue with
Kenny is whether this is a shaken baby case.
Speaker 3 (03:20):
And that.
Speaker 4 (03:22):
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 2 (03:33):
Okay, so let's start off with that.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
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
(03:56):
a politician said or everything a court case said. Very
rarely does artificial intelligence like GROC or chat GPT take
a position on something, and I found it to be
impossible to get GROC to say that this guy does
not deserve a retrial. How would you react to that?
Speaker 4 (04:13):
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
(04:35):
unavailable on most corners of the Internet, I don't think
ROCK 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
(04:56):
telling you that this is a shaken baby junk science case,
and they're for Robert Robertson as innocent should.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Go free, okay, And so why should he not go
for you?
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Why if the shaken baby syndrome theory isn't central to
the case, why should he remain on death row?
Speaker 4 (05:15):
You need to so you need to know and your
your listeners need to know and understand the facts in
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.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
He had never been alone with her. He was apparently.
Speaker 4 (05:41):
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.
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Who testified in the case.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
He said that they had seen Robert Robertson on at
least ten occasions violently shake Nicky Curtis, a two year
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,
(06:18):
who would not permit Robert Robertson to 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,
(06:41):
Teddy Cox was in the hospital 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.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Her for the night.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
This is a little girl who's been portrayed as very
sickly having all types of medical problems. She was not
in medical peril when 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
(07:19):
have a skull fracture, she had bruises on her shoulders,
on her back, and blood coming out 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
(07:39):
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 about it.
Speaker 1 (07:46):
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 necess sssarily have anything to do with
how they reached the verdict that it was about the
shaken baby syndrome. You know, roll aw due process. Here,
(08:09):
it 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
(08:29):
a constitutionalist.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
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 Sotomayor writes the opinion, you've had
due process. The United States Supreme Court has stated that
Robert Robertson does not have a federal claim. The elast
remaining resort for him is asking clemency from the governor,
(08:54):
which he has not requested. Robert Robertson has brought the
junk science writ and the habeas writs off before the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on multiple prior occasions. 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 Geina Parker from Justice from Judge Ary,
(09:19):
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
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
(09:40):
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
all convicted on a shaken baby syndrome case, which is
predicated on the scientific triad of encephalopathy, brain swelling of
(10:03):
the child, subdural hematoma, bleeding inside the skull, and bilateral
retinal hemorrhages, which Nicky Curtis had all three of those.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
So, of course.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Roverson's proponents and defenders are saying, well, there you have it,
this was a shaken baby syndrome case.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Not so fast.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
If you look at the trials transcript and you look
at Jill Ervin'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 trauma to
(10:44):
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 history 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 time she
came into the hospital until the time she passed away
(11:07):
said the same thing. These were intentionally inflicted injuries that
are not consistent with Robert Robertson's story or a shortfall.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
All right, let's go back to that for just a
second there. 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 4 (11:31):
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 Robert Robertson's flat
affect when he came to the hospital, he wasn't upset,
he wasn't worried about Nicky, etc. And now, of course
we know that Robert Robertson's on the offism spectrum, so
(11:53):
that explains his flat affect. Therefore, there's no reason for
the detective to have thought that Robert Robertson and murdered
Nicki Curtis. The problem with that is the actual trial
testimony that Brian 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
(12:15):
stayed over with Robert Robertson that night and was not injured,
and she showed up at the hospital with extensive injuries.
Speaker 3 (12:22):
Period.
Speaker 4 (12:23):
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 1 (12:42):
Okay, So it's my understanding here that there wasn't necessarily
any evidence of prior abuse. Would you not agree with that?
Speaker 4 (12:51):
That's completely false, and let me prove it to you.
Go to the trial transcript read the testimony from teddy Cox,
Nicky's 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. So
(13:12):
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
(13:33):
prior active abuse of other people.
Speaker 3 (13:35):
Okay, that weren't admitted at trial.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Okay, so it's my understanding.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
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 2 (13:51):
Would you disagree with that?
Speaker 4 (13:54):
I completely disagree with that. And so if you look
at Judge Mary Luke Keel's dissent that was filed yesterday,
she makes it clear and Judge Yuri's dissent makes this
even clearer, is that all of this shaking baby syndrome
science was available to Robert Robertson at the time of
his trial. There is no new evidence. There may be
new opinions that people are trying to form to overcome
(14:18):
the subsequent wrint bar but there's no new evidence of
any of that.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
So it's important. It's important to remember.
Speaker 4 (14:31):
Yesterday and when the Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion,
it said we ought to give 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 a shortfall.
(14:54):
The difference in that case is the child in X
Partiy Rourke did not have the extensive external physical injuries
that Nicky Curtis did. The facts are different across those
two cases. 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
(15:16):
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
of her head, bruises on her face, bruises on her shoulders,
bruises on her back, a torn frienulum in her mouth.
(15:37):
This is a child that had been beaten. 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 3 (15:48):
They need to understand the evidence that was adduced to trial.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
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.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
One more question for you.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
So yesterday, as you know this, judge has now come
out and said Roberts execution is unconstitutional in light of
new evidence that it underminds his conviction.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Would you disagree with that?
Speaker 4 (16:10):
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 Yesha, 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
(16:32):
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
(16:55):
very vulnerable child who had never been alone with this
man before because he will 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
(17:15):
the grandparents' house until the time he brought her to
the hospital. And there is no explanation for what happened
to this little girl. 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
(17:37):
physically acting out against her, which he had done before
in the past.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
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 4 (17:55):
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 appalls
me about this situation is that the Innocence Project, which
is funded by George Soros's Open Society and Mackenzie Scott
(18:17):
used to be McKenzie Bezos.
Speaker 3 (18:20):
They have co.
Speaker 4 (18:21):
Opted a handful of Republicans legislators into this game.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
And here's the game.
Speaker 4 (18:26):
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 3 (18:45):
Oh well, yeah, maybe he's innocent. Look at how many look.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
At all the podcasts and and documentaries that they go
on on Netflix, Like I saw one recently, The Menindez
brothers are innocent now r 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
is to undermine our sense of shared reality and our
(19:13):
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 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.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
From my perspective, 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 2 (19:46):
So we appreciate your time this afternoon.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Sir, Amen to that. Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
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.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
The Pursuit of Happiness Radio is more than just a
talk show.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Ready, all right, we are back is 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
(20:28):
just 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 and baby syndrome and a similar twenty four exoneration,
(20:52):
potentially paving the way for a new trial. Now, in
the last segment, you guys heard from state Representative Mitch
little Stay. Representative Mitch little Stay 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
(21:15):
just slightly different principles. And Mitch laid out a case
in the last segment where he just thinks Brian's wrong,
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
(21:35):
Robert's guilty. It's because Robertson had never been alone with
the baby. 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.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Of other people in the family.
Speaker 1 (21:47):
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 Nicky was taken to
the hospital, this little girl had bruises, torn mouth, She
was in terrible shape. It wasn't just about shaking baby syndrome.
The question is I guess to start off with this
first of all, State Representative Brian Harrison here, thank you
(22:09):
so much for your time this afternoon. What you know,
how do you react to that? Why did the baby
have so many injuries when when the child was brought
in if it wasn't abused, well.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
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 say of Texas. There's
too few voices you've been talking about liberty, much less
fighting for it these days. So always great to be
with you, buddy. Yeah, 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
(22:42):
justice system. Coming out of the Court of Criminal 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 focus on the truth, on facts,
and on justice and came down on what is the
object objective correct thing, which is that Roberts should not
(23:02):
be executed right now by the state of Texas. I mean,
to keep in 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 familiar with
(23:26):
the record in this case knows that. 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
(23:50):
that includes from school, jobs, military, and in prison, 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, I've
(24:16):
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 the
(24:37):
only place that they get these absurd claims of violence.
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, here's the facts that let
me make this real simple. If if if your previous
guests and others on you know what I kind of
call the big government right or blindly trust the government crowd,
(24:59):
here is that she was beaten to death. They got
a problem, because here's the thing. He got a pick.
Was it shaken 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 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
(25:22):
the shaken baby theory. And if that's true, then under
Texas junk science law, he should have had a new trial.
He should have had a new trial many years ago
if it was beaten. As the state is engaged in
revisionist history, here's the problem. 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
(25:45):
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 severely she died, but
yet did not have one single bruised 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
(26:09):
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 the shadow of it out not
one single serious bruise on her body. The prosecution's own
medical witness, the child abused pediatrician testifying for the prosecution,
had to tell the jury under oath that when she
(26:31):
examined Nikki Curtis, she only saw minimal bruising, which she
thought was quote completely insignificant. That's what she told the jury,
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
(26:51):
breathing at na, her double pneumonia, her toxic fatal doses
of finnergen and coding in her sister. That they didn't
know any of this. All they knew was two things.
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?
(27:12):
Because there's no external signs in trump But so I
theorized the shaking baby syndrome, which has fallen completely out
of favor. 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 talks to the
natural likely causes of her tragic and unfortunate death. So
(27:32):
for everybody who's now going with what the OG had
conscert said that she was beaten to death. 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. And I can send you photos.
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,
(27:52):
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 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 dead when he
was four years old, and the bruises on his body
(28:13):
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. 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. And then here's the thing for me. If
(28:36):
people can, let's say, you even have different opinions on
guilter 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
(28:58):
ever heard a single argument, a single piece of evidence
of which is a mountain of potentially exculpatory evidence that
points to the very real possibility. But not only did
a murder not 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,
(29:18):
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 the evidence that undermines his
conviction incentence. That's a direct quote from the new presiding judge,
Shank Okay.
Speaker 1 (29:38):
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.
(29:58):
You're saying that's not true.
Speaker 3 (30:01):
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.
(30:23):
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 as a cat scan, well, guess
what the jury ever 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
(30:46):
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 discussed and so reprehensible.
The jury was told in graphic detail that he sexually
abused Nikki. Well, if we know anything about what happened
that night or around that time, it's that she wasn't
(31:08):
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. And that's how they get to the cut,
the little smaller 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
(31:30):
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 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
(31:53):
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 on the little cut thing,
which they turned into a sexual abuse as in the
most disgusting thing you could do, should have had a
mistrial at that time. This girl had been multiply intubated
(32:14):
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 you about sexual abuse,
go figure out whether he killed killed the girl. It's
(32:36):
out outrageous, it's 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, a crushed skull. And
here's the reality. I mean, some people's judgment, based on
(32:57):
their statements for last year I believe has been reparably
destroyed by their public statements mis case, because they advocated
for somebody to die, 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 irreparably destroyed here.
She didn't know in fact the doctor. By the way,
(33:18):
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 she had passed out. Turn Blue 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
(33:39):
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,
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
(34:00):
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 forensic lung pathologists have testified to me and in public,
they missed that, and they gave her Fendergen. I used
to oversee the FDA as the chief of staff of AHHS.
(34:22):
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 disease of
the lungs, which Nikki had. This girl had a tragic
and sick life, but this state never demonstrated that Robert
(34:47):
and had no direct physical evidence to corrobrate to claim
that Robert abused her or anybody else. Quite frankly, and
all the allegations that are being thrown around recklessly on
Twitter are discussing their vie aile, they're dishonest. And let
me tell you, Kenny, I know you share that small
government conservatives, we should never blindly trust the government if
we believe government gets things wrong on energy policy and
(35:09):
health care policy and every other, every other area the
whole panifiy of public policy debates. Why is it that
some supposed small government conservatives say, you know what, on
the 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
(35:31):
has mad I'm going to tell you, 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 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
(35:52):
nonsense like has happened here.
Speaker 1 (35:54):
So it sounds like you're saying you don't even think
he's guilty. Of a retrial risks releasing a potential 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 3 (36:12):
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. And let me tell
you something. 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. The people that have been advocating for execution
are actually doing the greatest possible harm to the state
(36:34):
of Texas to the ability to maintain the death penalty,
because the fastest way to get rid of the death
cicility in the state of Texas would be to start
executing people that it later comes out, we're innocent. I'm
telling you this guy. 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
(36:55):
to come out, and it will be very clear in
time who was on the right side of history and
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 1 (37:09):
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 some I think of getting it wrong, right, was
that somebody dies?
Speaker 2 (37:20):
I understand that.
Speaker 1 (37:20):
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
(37:44):
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 2 (37:49):
What is your response to that.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
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, why must have out spoken about this.
I am a lifelong supporter of the death penalty, But Kenny,
I 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. Like
(38:16):
that matters. 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.
I don't understand it. You know, the big government, right,
the same people that want to ban Bates and Van Hemp,
(38:36):
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 gets things wrong all the time.
And it was refreshing to read the judges the judge's
opinion in this case, yessay, 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
(38:57):
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 opportunity for
the quarter of criminal appeal and no 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
(39:17):
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 written concurrence yesterday.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
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
Little 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
(39:52):
topic is because you simply don't like each other.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
And I'm curious how you'd react to that.
Speaker 4 (39:57):
Well, that's silly.
Speaker 3 (39:58):
I endorsed Mitch paign for Mitch, you know, and I
took a lot of put my reputation on the line
to help get him elected 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 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,
(40:19):
calling me names or smaring or disparaging me online, I
have taken the high road, not engaged, 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
(40:41):
the line, I'm never going to be bascheful. I'm never
going to be shy, and 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 1 (40:53):
Hey, to your point, he gave a very similar answer
that when I asked him the same question He was
very respectful about you. 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,
(41:14):
and somebody already did die, and this really matters. So
stay representative. Brian Harrison.
Speaker 2 (41:18):
We thank you very much for your time this afternoon, sir.
Speaker 3 (41:21):
Always great to be with you, my friend. God bless you,
God bless the great state of Texas. Having a great weekend.
Speaker 2 (41:25):
Amen, this president of Bobby You listen and pursue what
happened is radio. It's a weird time for that liner.
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!