|
Other Voices: Petro Wrong About Spirko Case
State's claims about photos and more are erroneous.
August 20, 2005 Re: "Editorial's errors on Spirko need corrected," Aug. 13: Attorney General Jim Petro asserts that the Dayton Daily News, in its editorial concerning death row inmate John Spirko, made factual errors that should be corrected. Rather, it is the State of Ohio that has made factual errors. Petro asserts that the state told Spirko's attorneys prior to the trial that witnesses claimed to have pictures of Delaney Gibson taken in North Carolina the weekend before the Mottinger crime. The state indeed informed Spirko's attorneys that "pictures are purported to have been taken of the weekend in question." At the same time the state made these statements, it had in its possession photographs that not only showed Gibson in North Carolina that weekend, but that also showed Gibson could not have been the person the witness saw in front of the Elgin post office because Gibson had a full beard and the witness saw a clean-shaven person. The state's representation that photographs were "purported" to have been taken was simply not true, nor was its statement that it had turned over all photographs. Petro asserts that Spirko has never repudiated his trial testimony that Gibson committed the Mottinger crime. In fact, Spirko has acknowledged consistently in court filings for nearly the past 10 years that his trial testimony was not true and has made clear in recent interviews with The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer and the parole board that he lied to investigators and at trial. Petro seeks to minimize the involvement in the case of Paul Hartman, the investigator who has just recently stated that he had concluded prior to trial that Gibson had absolutely nothing to do with the Mottinger crime. Petro misleadingly refers to Hartman as merely one of 40 investigators on the case. However, Hartman conducted almost all of the interviews of Spirko, led the investigation concerning Delaney Gibson, and was, without question, the state's chief witness at trial. Petro complains that Spirko failed to request a deposition of Gibson, suggesting that Gibson's testimony would somehow weaken Spirko's claims. The suggestion is absurd. As the attorney general well knows, Spirko's attorneys long ago obtained testimony from Gibson, who provided an affidavit swearing that he had nothing to do with the Mottinger crime. Spirko's attorneys filed that affidavit with the federal court. Gibson's sworn statement is consistent with extensive evidence gathered by the state from Gibson and numerous other witnesses demonstrating that Gibson had nothing to do with the Mottinger crime. What is telling is that the state did not seek to depose Gibson. Petro asserts that the recent depositions did not uncover any additional evidence that would preclude Gibson's participation in the Mottinger crime. To the contrary, the depositions revealed that investigator Hartman searched for and could not find any evidence that Gibson and Spirko communicated prior to the Mottinger crime — evidence that he asserted he would have expected to find, that contributed to his conclusion that Gibson had nothing to do with the Mottinger crime, and that, until Hartman's deposition, had also been concealed from defense counsel. Finally, Petro asserts that Spirko told the Ohio Parole Board that he was wrongly convicted of murder in Kentucky. To the contrary, Spirko told the parole board that he was present at the murder, that he participated in the crime, and that his conviction was just. Petro claims to believe that the imposition of the death penalty requires that the defendant receive "super due process." Sadly, his office's actions do not come close to reflecting that belief. Thomas C. Hill and Alvin Dunn are attorneys at the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, which represents John Spirko. Reprinted with permission.
|
