Tuesday, June 12, 2007


My very first TCASK blog on this very important day

I’d like to first take the opportunity to introduce myself and tell you a little bit about who I am before I talk about the significance of June 12th. I was born in Seattle, WA on March 22, 1984. My time there was fleeting as my childhood consisted of frequent moves to the states of Nebraska, California, Michigan, Virginia, and Arizona. I attended Arizona State University (Go Sun Devils!) and graduated this past May with a degree in Justice Studies. I love all sports but adore soccer the most and have recently started playing in a weekly pickup game on Sundays at 3 at JT Moore junior high school. If there are any soccer players out there, I encourage you to join in! Music is my other passion and some of my favorite artists include Michael Franti, Keller Williams, The Roots, and Bob Marley.

I can’t begin to express to you what it means to me to be in this position as TCASK’s field organizer. There are so many causes and issues out there to advocate for and while in college I was engrossed in turning out young people to vote and encouraging our university’s administration to become more environmentally friendly. While those campaigns were incredibly rewarding, the opportunity to work on an issue that has plagued our country since our existence called out louder than any other. The level of passion I have viewed in my short time here amongst Tennessee’s abolitionists is inspiring and I promise to do my best to match your focus and intensity as I spread our important message across this great state.

June 12, 2007 marks the one year anniversary of the United States Supreme Court ruling that in the case of Paul House “no reasonable juror viewing the record as a whole would lack a reasonable doubt.” In other words, no juror in America would find Paul House guilty of the 1985 murder of Carolyn Muncey. I have just begun studying this case and some of the most alarming facts I found include: weak eye witness accounts, exculpatory DNA evidence in regards to the blood and semen samples that played a large role in convicting House, strong evidence pointing towards tampering by police officers, strong evidence pointing towards Hubert Muncey’s guilt. The list goes on and on and any individual, or the highest court in our country, will conclude that House’s conviction was utterly wrong.

Furthermore, while on death row Paul House was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, an extremely painful and debilitating disease. Paul House has spent almost the entirety of my life in prison. When I think back to all that I’ve experienced in the past 23 years and then envision Paul, an innocent man, confined to prison and kept away from his loving mother, it makes me want to cry. So, let’s continue to work hard by encouraging our legislatures and senators to sign on to the letter asking Governor Bredesen to free Paul House and send him home to his mother.

Comments :
Only a true believer would flatly declare that House is innocent. I think him guilty as sin. At the very least, there is evidence to support House's guilt.
Oh, and Ike, the "evidence" supporting Muncey's guilt is almost non-existent. Muncey had sex with his wife. So what?

And don't give me the nonsense about the two women. A federal judge specifically found that they lacked credibility.
Hi Ike,

Welcome to the TCASK mission. Looks like the first two comments should break you in well ;-)
Hey if I wasn't so old and fat I'd be out there playing soccer with you! Love the game too.
Anyway glad you're onboard!
Well, to begin with, the United States Supreme Court disagrees with our anonymous friend, since it ruled that House met the stringent "actual innocence" standard obviously House isn't "guilty as sin." And a lot of people that are not "true believers," as you so scornfully refer to us, believe that House is innocent. In fact, a number of legislators who strongly support the death penalty have signed a letter calling on the Governor to issue a full pardon to Paul House.

I'm not going to go over all the evidence for the nth time (check out the "Cases" section of our website), but I will point out that two witnesses (that the U.S. Supreme Court gives weight to) heard Muncey confess to the murder, Muncey asked another to provide an alibi for him the morning after the murder, and yet another witness proves that Muncey lied to police about whether or not he saw his wife that night, since this witness saw Little Hube hit her a few hours before she was killed. Not to mention Muncey's history of abuse of his wife.

I suppose that I can understand supporting the death penalty. And most people on death row are guilty. But if we're going to have a death penalty, we need to face the fact that even our criminal justice system makes mistakes, and Paul House's conviction is clearly one of them. The facts are there for anyone to see.
Hi, I’m starting a new Nashville website and was wondering if you would swap links with me. My address is http://www.NashvilleNoise.com

The website is aimed at being a local, community forum. I’d really appreciate it if you would link to me and help get my site off the ground. I’ll return the favor, of course.

Interesting how Muncey doesn't get the benefit of the doubt.

And as for House, that five judges said that the evidence, as presented plus new evidence, don't add up to reasonable doubt, doesn't mean that he didn't do it. I've read each and every House federal appellate opinion, the oral arguments and the Supreme Court briefs. House did it. We'll see if he gets retried.
Actually, the majority of the Supreme Court said specifically that the new evidence does add up to a reasonable doubt thus, "no reasonable juror would lack a reasonable doubt." This standard is known as the actual innocence standard.

If you've actually read all the arguments, as well as actually examined the evidence, as you say you have, then I cannot imagine on what facts you abse your conclusion. There is no physical evidence linking House to the crime, no witness that actually links House to Muncey, and no motive or theory of the crime. That's exactly why the court ruling cncludes that no jury would convict him! And just remember, if he's so guilty, why is the state terrified to have a court look at all the evidence? Even after the Supreme Court ruling they are still fighting to suppress it. If the evidence is as overwhelming as you claim, why not just have it all examined and be done with it?

As for Muncey, I'm happy to consider him innocent until proven guilty, but I have to point out that there is more evidence linking him to the murder than Paul House, and House has sat on death row for 22 years while Muncey has walked free. Let's have some true justice and truth here and examine all the facts in a fair and open hearing!
TJ, we only do retrials if the law requires them. The state is arguing that the law doesnt require one. It has nothing to do with their fear.

And TJ, you misapprehend what the Supreme Court's judgment said. They are just saying that the state of play now--they are not looking to what the state could present in a new trial. If they get more experts to look at blood evidence etc. and they agree that it wasn't spilled, House's goose is cooked.
Actually, you've hit the nail on the head, the problem is that the appellate appeals system (so vaunted by death penalty proponents) has nothing to do with truth or fairness. It doesn't matter, the state says, that the jury in Paul House's case was told that the semen on Muncey's body proved that House raped her. The law doesn't call for a retrial. You've moved from, House is guilty as sin to the law doesn't call for a re-trial.

And the Supreme Court took all the evidence into account, including everything the state could do to prove that the blood didn't spill, and they ruled for House. Those are the facts.
I haven't moved from anything--I am just explaining the state's position. I think House did it.
You're entitled to your opinion, but the facts do not support you and neither does the U.S. Supreme Court. The state continues to claim that House is guilty but fights tooth and nail to not let anyone actually look at all the evidence and see if that conclusion is merited. That should tell you something!
Well, we'll just have to see how things work out, now won't we? The Supreme Court did not opine that House didn't do it. That's what innocence is . . . . . . .

The fact remains that Tennessee is free to retry this sex offender if need be.
Exactly! Tennessee is free to retry House, but won't because they know they could never convict him! And that is exactly what the Supreme Court says. What do you call it if someone is found not guilty?
Well, it depends. Kirk Bloodworth is "innocent". House would be "not guilty".

People get away with murder. It is an unfortunate fact of life. I find it interesting to juxtapose your out-of-the-box pronouncement that Hubert Munsey killed his wife, but reject out of hand the possibility that House (for all of the bs stories that he concocted) actually did it.

I also find it interesting how much you trust the Supreme Court's resolution of the facts in this case; whereas resolution of facts by courts in other cases are treated with scorn.

TJ, your opinion of the death penalty clouds your judgment about guilt/innocence (are you going to be telling me that Mumia is innocent too). That's why debating you guys is at once easy, but ultimately frustrating. There is plenty of evidence implicating House, hence the ability of state, which no one questions, to retry this sex offender.
Actually I think it's the other way. Support of the death penalty clouds judgement about guilt or innocence, because if you start admitting that people on death row are innocent, how can you support the death penalty? Whereas I oppose the death penalty even for those who are guilty. The fact that House is clearly innocent (if you actually look at the facts the "implication" of House's guilt is so weak as to be comical if we weren't talking about a man's life) just reaffirms my belief that human beings are not qualified to decide who lives and who dies. I don't know if Hubert Muncey killed his wife, but I do know that there is more evidence pointing toward him than toward House.

As for your last sentence, the state can attempt to try (or re-tru) anyone they want. The point is that the state has fought any retrial or full hearing of the evidence because it's clear that there is no way anyone (except maybe you, "anonymous") would convict House.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post :

Create a Link

<< Home