Are any of yall familiar with the story of Kerry Max Cook or read his book "Chasing Justice"? It's hard to believe something like that could happen in the US, but I've heard some bad things about prosecutors in Smith County.

Know the story.
Don't buy Cook's innocence.
NM

What part of his story is not believable to you? Have you read the book? Do you know any of the people involved?

quote:

---

but I've heard some bad things about prosecutors in Smith County.

---

What exactly did you hear? I was a prosecutor in Smith county for three years. They were some of the best attorneys I've ever worked with. Are you really trying to attribute a 70's case to current prosecutors? I'm just curious.

If you read the book, most of the detectives and prosecutors are still in power, at least as of 2000-2001. The original prosecutor is no longer there (AD Clark III), but the new DA's office continued to suppress evidence.

Who are these prosecutors that were there in 2000-2001 then? Because I was there in 2002 and I can't think of a single prosecutor who would have been old enough to be a part of this case. Except for the DA. Clark was gone in the 70s, Dobbs had already left and Skeen was the DA. Skeen would go on to become the District Judge. So what were the bad things you have heard about the prosecutors?

[This message has been edited by redeyeone (edited 12/2/2009 6:52p).]

AD Clark was not the prosecutor.

I was in the courtroom for much of the trial.

Just curious - did Cook ever explain his fingerprints on the victims sliding glass door any better than the 'peeping tom' defense?
Didn't buy it then.
Don't buy it now.
I have read nearly everything that has been posted on the subject, but won't be reading the book.

Skeen and Dobbs mainly. I think Dobbs has his own private practice now, and as you mentioned Skeen is now a judge. The lead detective, Eddie Clark I think, was still there.

In the book Cook explains his fingerprints using the "peeping tom story," as you described it, but I don't think that story was put into evidence at the trial. When Cook was arrested his father told him that no matter what, don't say you were ever in that apartment because they are going to pin this on you.

How can you explain the dna evidence that would later point to Mayfield? Or the recanted confession from a jailhouse snitch? Or that Linda Edward's roommate first described the murderer looking exactly like Mayfield?

And you are correct that AD Clark was not the prosecutor, it was Michael Thompson. However it seems evident that AD Clark orchestrated the entire thing. Thompson committed suicide a few weeks after the trial.

JT and Redeye, I'm curious to get a different perspective on some of the people and facts in this case. Everything I have read about it so far indicates that Cook was railroaded. I would appreciate a differing opinion. JT I think you would enjoy reading his book, especially since you were there for part of the trial. Cook recalls a lot of the courtroom details as if they happened yesterday.

it was all JBs fault!!

I can't speak to Clark or Thompson, I don't think I've ever met them. I cannot imagine any attorney I worked with at that office seeking to "railroad" someone. I was more curious about your statement that you "heard bad things" about the prosecutors.

Did you work with Skeen and Dobbs?

Here is an article I read detailing some of the prosecutorial misconduct.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/side2/575929.html

[This message has been edited by bigcheese013 (edited 12/3/2009 6:02p).]

Some of the stuff in that article is flat out false. Any good prosecutor should talk to the witnesses and victim in a case before deciding on what offer to make. That's just common sense. I never had to file some written report if I lost a case. That article doesn't remotely describe any of the practices I've seen used in the office during my time there.

And that District Attorneys office is one of the most "open" I have seen. Every case that came in, a copy of everything in the file is prepared ahead of time for the defense attorney. Whether they request it or not. It's all made available for them to come and pick up, which they all do.

A few specific things which I remember about the first trial, which hopefully we can get JT's opinion on, and also from subsequent trials while Skeen was in office:

Police detective Doug Collard testified that he "aged" Cooks fingerprints and that they were left at the exact time of the murder. Testimony that it is impossible to "age" a fingerprint was not allowed into evidence.

Despite Cook's lawyer's request for him to be in solitary confinement at the Smith County Jail, the sherriff put him in a cell adjacent to Shyster Jackson, who testified that Cook confessed to the murder. During testimony, Michael Thompson asked Jackson if he had received a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony. Jackson said no, which I guess was true. However, weeks later Jackson's charges were dropped and he was released from jail and recanted his testimony. He said AD Clark had shown him crime scene pictures and coached him on what to say.

During Cook's third trial, prosecuted by Dobbs and Skeen, a critical piece of evidence literally fell out of the victim's pants leg while jurors were examining it. Michael Thompson had contended that Cook kept the missing stocking as a souvenir, and that he was a violent sexual predator. That evidence was clearly suppressed by AD Clark, and it seems it was also suppressed by Skeen.

There are numerous other instances of prosecturial misconduct, both by Clark and Skeen.

quote:

---

There are numerous other instances of prosecturial misconduct, both by Clark and Skeen.

---

What are they? Is the chronicle article the only thing you are basing this on?

there really are too many to list. I suggest reading the book because it outlines most of the trials. If you google Kerry Max Cook you'll find a lot more articles just like the one I posted, including other defendants. There are also trial transcripts, statements from judges, etc., and first hand accounts from people who have been through the Smith County justice system. I understand that the Smith County DA's office denies this, and claims to be open, but the only thing supporting that claim are statements from the DA's office. At this point it's difficult to believe them.

quote:

---

I understand that the Smith County DA's office denies this, and claims to be open, but the only thing supporting that claim are statements from the DA's office. At this point it's difficult to believe them.

---

This might be the most ridiculous statement I've read yet. You are now saying that every prosecutor in the office, past and present, is a liar? Contact any defense attorney in the area and ask them how discovery works. They will say: guy gets charged, and then I go up to the DA's office and pick up discovery.

It looks like you went fishing for information critical of the DA's office and found it. Based on the most ridiculous article I've ever read. Instead of listening to someone who worked in the office, you take the word of a crappy reporter and two crappy defense attorneys? It is hard to believe you.

[This message has been edited by redeyeone (edited 12/4/2009 12:10p).]

I tend to agree. I have read nearly everything that I could find about the case (except for Cook's book). It is my opinion that he is guilty of the crimes of which he was initially convicted. It is understandable that his book would present a convincing case for his innocence.

I am curious to know what he says about the fingerprint. If memory serves, he said that he was a 'peeping Tom', but at the same time he was living with another man in a committed relationship. I am not an expert in human sexuality - but from what I understand, looking through the windows of attractive young women is not typical behavior for homosexual men. The fingerprint places him at her apartment. His previous explanations for that fingerprint ring hollow, thus I find it difficult to discard the impression that I reached many years ago - that he was there and guilty.

Guilty or not, he is now a free man. If he is guilty then it is clear that the prosecutors feel like they would not be able to get a guilty verdict today. Also, please consider that most of the information that is readily available online is there because it fits the worldview of those who have a vested stake in Cook's innocence. Anti-death penalty and victims rights groups advance their cause by supporting the case for his innocence (if you 'google' cook's name, the first two pages of links that come up are anti-death penalty sites and the Daily Kos). There is no corresponding group to make the argument for his guilt (once the state declined to retry.) I would be curious to know what the jurors who initially (or at his retrials) think today or what do others who followed the trial closely think?




[This message has been edited by JT88 (edited 12/4/2009 1:52p).]

Redeye: I'm not saying all Smith County prosecutors are liars. However, it's obvious that the prosecutors involved in the Cook trials were. There is irrefutable evidence of that. Evidence was suppressed and witnesses were coerced, and detectives lied under oath. There is no disputing that.

JT: It's understandable that you think Cook is guilty. If I had witnessed the first trial I would feel the same. However, DNA tests conculisively ruled out Cook and conclusively determined that Mayfied committed the crime. There is other supporting evidence, such as Paula Rudolph identifying Mayfield as the person she saw in the apartment when she first gave her statement to police.
Cook's version of the events is that he met Linda Edward's at the apartment pool several days before the murder. Edwards invited Cook back to her apartment where they made out. This was the day after he witnessed her undressing (The "peeping tom" reference). That's his version of how his fingerprints were on her door. Cook does not address his sexuality in the book. He does say that Robert Hoehn made sexual advances toward him and he refused. There is no mention of a relationship with anyone.

I'm not trying to start an argument with anyone on here. Just trying to get some opinions

tell us about yourself, big cheese. 9 of your 13 posts on texags are on this topic.

BC,

I think we are going to have to respectfully agree to disagree. I would argue that the DNA tests conclusively did nothing except to show that Mayfield had a sexual relationship with the victim - which was not in dispute.

Also, what there is irrefutable evidence of regarding prosecutorial conduct can better be described as 'unrefuted'. Not the same thing.

Regards,

JT

That works for me. I highly suggest reading his book. It's a great read.

Hi William Morrow.

[This message has been edited by Comeby! (edited 12/8/2009 4:17p).]

test

Iceman, don't you dare say a word about JB! He's family! Argh!!!!!!

And wow on believing everything in a convicted criminal's book and taking that as as fact over court documents.