dec 10, 2019 – Attorney General Response – with Comments C.

This is the Attorney General’ s response to my Brief in the S. Ct It not really nothing more than their way of saying I should be killed despite the evidence that leans towards my innocence. It is their way of telling the courts to just ignore it.



  1. Petitioner Charles Raby was properly convicted.”    I take issue with that. I was not “properly convicted” I take it that they are saying I received a fair trial. I received anything but. My trial is full of false witness testimony. some of which I will be litigating in the near future hopefully. I can’t really comment on everything regarding that just yet. But it is powerful it all played a very big role in my conviction. But there was nothing at all fair about my trial. so how could I be properly by a court of law?
  1. This is the case where we are arguing. The Lab tech Joseph Chu used up far more of the evidence that he should have But the messed up thing about this case they are citing is, One cannot win unless one can show ‘bad faith” on the part of the accused or state. But my response to that is. How can one ever expect to show bad faith on a state employee unless one actually catches that person in the bad faith act? Or unless when questioned about it. They admit they intentionally acted in bad faith? It is an impossible standard to meet.  One that is tilted to favor the state. And you just cannot win. For everything they do wrong, be it using up far more material than they KNOW that they should. After all I am sure they teach this in school. or destroying evidence such as they did in my case with my blood. Destroying Or losing evidence as they did with a key piece of evidence in my case. The Bloody nightshirt that is to be tested, if ever found. So far, it has never been found so it was likely destroyed Or if they break the chain of custody or contaminate evidence.

Courts hold these things against me. Someone who has zero control of these things. If I cannot prove that the state acted in bad faith “Too bad, you lose”.  Like I said one must actually catch the bad actor in the act of doing wrong. or hope they will admit to it if they are ever questioned about it. I personally do not know of anyone or any case I have ever read where a defendant accuses the state of acting in Bad Faith & winning. Not unless it is a proven fact by way of getting caught or admitting to it. This case as many like it are a joke.

3. This case revolves around False Testimony. In my case, it involves the same lab tech who used up more material that he knowingly should have. You will read more of it as you read on.

Same story, this is the lab work (‘sheet by the same guy who used up too much material robbing me of my chance to retest things more fully, and who gave false testimony. In this part the prosecutor withheld this lab report from my legal team. Read on.

4. As you may have read in the 5th Cir opinion denying me on all these issues, absolutely none of it matters. That is the argument that state is trying to make with the S Ct and sadly. . .I think the high court will except it. I know my legal team is doing all they can for me. They are fighting tooth and nail. But this is one of those claims that is hard to win on. I have zero hope.

  1. I have written about this many times already, but it does not hurt to touch on it. I guess they have repeatedly misquoted the facts here. They repeat. “Although Mrs. Franklin had barred Raby from her home, her grandsons often snuck him in through a window and allowed him to stay the night.” That is completely false, and can easily be proven. I have Lee Edward Rose in his own words on live TV, a day or two after the murder. Stating for all the world to hear “she ran him off and that was the last time I seen him and he came back and killed her.” That is a far cry from ‘They would allow me in even after she made it clear that she did not want me there.’ (see Media Coverage of Murder) Also read Benge and Rose trail testimony.

So, I am at a loss at how the state can keep making this false argument by saying the grandsons kept allowing me to spend the night when we have Lee Rose on live TV saying that is not true.

Then they keep saying they allowed me to go through both windows. Look I have spoken on this topic many times, I never in my life went in that Southeast Bedroom window in my life. I have personally never witnessed anyone do so. When I hung out with them Four Years prior to the murder, nobody used that bedroom. It was off limits. The window that I did go through was 4 years prior, it’s when my ex and I used to skip school and go over there and I would go around there to the side of the house & wake Eric up by tapping on the window, he would then sit up in bed, open the window. Next, I would go in and open the front door to let Kari inside. We would go in and watch TV. But I never went in that damn window without Eric’s permission. I don’ t even know when Eric moved into the front bedroom. I had been away when he switched bedrooms. So No, I have never crawled in through that Southeast Bedroom window. It bothers me they keep lying about that.

As for that window, I will be litigating things on it pretty soon, I hope.

Y’all will see just how many lies were told about it. How those lies were used against me and how all the False Testimony comes in to serious play.

  1. Here they talk about the nightshirt that can’ t be found. . . but of course that is ‘my fault’& never the states’ fault. They claim to have searched high and low looking for this Shirt. But cannot find it. The last person I am aware of having it inhis hands was my Former Prosecutor. I find it odd that, that is the only thing that is missing. I personally have a gut feeling that he took it home as a trophy. Not like that kind of thing doesn’t happen.

There is a guy who lives a few cells ls down from me who is going through that very same thing regarding a hat that everyone said the killer in his case was wearing.  But for over 20 years the assistant DA had it at her house. Why would she even take it is anyone’s guess. Mine, is they like taking things home with them to have as ‘Trophies’to remind them of the people that they Sentenced to Death.

In my case, that nightshirt was the bloodiest things at the crime scene. So I am having a feeling my old DA took it home with him. Granted that is just me guessing. But why? why is it that everything else that he had logged in is accounted for except that nightshirt? If you are going to take a trophy home, may as well be one that is covered in blood and shocking to those you show it to. I could be wrong. I hope I am because I want this shirt tested. But if he took it home, then the chain of custody is broken and of course even if I can prove that he acted in bad faith…they would still deny me.

  1. I don’ t even know how to respond to this. They come to the conclusion that this evidence is not favorable to me is insane. They ignore the fact that it is Not My Blood on/under her fingernails, If not mine. Nor the grandsons then whose? Oh yeah they want to say, ‘it could had been from one of the friends, Yet I can’t have these friends tested. How do I fight and win an argument like that? I can’t. It is stacked against me.
  2. They keep saying that this DNA is a mixture of two people. yet the states own expert. and mine say it is Likely that of a person with AB blood type. But the way they made it seem is, it is A type and B type. The courts just ignore all the experts when they say it is AB blood type.
  3. This is a good one, The AG say court found Raby’s expert to be credible and persuasive when she testified at the hearing. . . Okay the expert the AG is actually talking about here is Patricia Hamby, and she was Not My Expert. She was the states’ expert. Small mistake false implications, because when they say the State’s expert that carries more weight than saying ‘Raby’s expert’. the courts are always going to be against MY experts. What happened was, my attorney Sarah Frazier has snap, she went and talked to the States’ expert and got her to clarify things. But make no mistake about it, this is the States’ expert that said this.

Again, here they admit that this A & B activity or A-antigen is Not Mine, but then in the same breath they say I cannot be excluded. does that make sense to y’all???!!

They also note that as bloody a crime scene this was, no blood was detected on ANY of my clothing. Which by the way, during the Chapter 64 hearing, my clothes were retested and still, no blood detected. Yet I am still denied.

  1. I have written much about all this already.
  2. I have also written about everything regarding this “confession” so if y’all want to read up on it all, you will just have to go back and read my other writings.
  3. You know something, when I stood before the judge at my arraignment and told my judge. Not guilty. that was the first time I entered a Not Guilty Plea. Then the very first day of my trial, I was asked to stand and asked how I Pea, l again said Not Guilty. So, when I said not guilty. I was pleading ‘not guilty’ to the WHOLE indictment, not just the Elements of capital murder, I was pleading not guilty to the whole fucking indictment, meaning MURDER. Because that is what I was arraigned under Murder, so if I am pleading not guilty to murder at my arraignment then it stands to reason I am pleading not guilty to Capital MURDER, the whole thing. Not just ‘not guilty’ to part of it.

So that is the ground I believed we were fighting on. So when my attorney. . .both of my attorneys conceded guilt I was blown away. I did not give them permission to change my plea. I didn’t even talk anything over with them they never told me what they intended to do. I know why they did it, but I never agreed to that. So this will hopefully be an issue I will be able to raise sometime down the line.

  1. I have written a lot about this, but one thing. Where is says the court found unpersuasive the affidavits’ I offered from individuals not involved in the DNA testing. I cannot wrap my head around the fact that they would let the lab tech Chu testify to HIS finding I mean whom better to tell us what they meant by testifying to “inconclusive” and his lab report findings than the man himself? The only thing I can think of is they did that to protect him because they know he is involved in many cases that could be overturned if he says the wrong thing. I think he said he testified in as many as 30-40 cases for the State. That was before the Bromwik report found him to be an idiot. They didn’t want him saying the wrong thing.

The other was my former trial attorney Felix Cantu who testified that he never received the lab report.

Then there is Eric Benge. This man is nothing but a liar. He gave false statements to the police the night of the murder and repeatedly lied on the stand about that Window. I want to talk about that window so bad. A11 the new stuff we have discovered about it, but can’ t. Not yet, I have to wait. But it is good. It proves that anything this man says cannot be trusted.

  1. You see how they say, Circumstantial Evidence. I have explained all these as best as I can. They hold it against me that I was seen in MY neighborhood! Seen by people I spoke to & admit speaking to. Courts keep implying that this was Mrs. Frankins’ neighborhood and I was in that area, so therefore I must be guilty. Again, ignoring that I Lived 0.9 Mile away! I admit to the clothing I was wearing. ALL these things they use against me.

The Judge says she bases her finding on Juries strong reliance on confessions. Yes that may be true, but once the jury is confronted with truthful facts, they tend to be smart enough to know the difference between a true confession, and a forced confession backed up with all the other evidence of innocence. I really don’ t know what all to say about this. But I think my jury needs to be made aware of all the facts. I am sure that if they were, from all the lies, the misconduct, and the events surrounding the confession, they would have a different outlook.

  1. I like how the AG said Movant’ s allegations regarding the Merits of his Claims is simply beside the point. —in other words, my issues and all the DNA and other evidence should not even be considered. That is sad.

  16. Still scratching my head on this one, But this is the stuff the AG said is  ‘beside the point : ‘ ‘

  1. Here they talk about how my Trail Attorneys is “unclear” whether the evidence was withheld or not. Well we damn sure could had cleared it up if the Trial Judge in the Ch 64 Hearing would had allowed him to Testify. But they ignore that in the boxes of paper work my Trial Attorneys received from my Previous attorneys, there was no Lab Report. So, if it was not introduced at Trial and it is not in the many boxes of documents that my Attorney’s received. Then, only became aware of it due to an Open Records request they filed. I think that is good grounds to say that things regarding the withheld Lab Report are very clear. But not to the court and damn sure not to the AG.

18. Ok. This is a crazy one, recall how I said they hold it against me when a State Employee destroys evidence or uses too much material in testing? How I have to prove bad faith with is impossible?

 [An example of bad faith would be, if I could prove my trial prosecutor took that bloody nightshirt home to keep it] That is bad faith, and should be easy to prove. . . you would think right?

Now take a look at what they are saying about the fingernails. The fingernails were stored in Two Plastic Biohazard/Sterile Containers. One container for each hand. The DNA could have come from the top of or underneath the fingernails.

Okay here is 2 PERFECT examples where they say that I am to blame for those at the Crime Lab doing their job correctly. So it is my fact that they placed all the fingernail clippings from the Right hand in one container, and all of the Left hand fingernails in a Second container. As Per Crime Lab Policy. Policy! So it is my fault they follow policy. So I guess they are saying. That each fingernail should be given its own Little separate slot, so it Will hold it in place so we don’t have to wonder ‘if it came from the top of the nail, or the bottom of the nail’? Well my answer to that is, if that is what they want, then they need to rewrite the fucking policy and enforce it. To safely do this would be that it be done at the crime scene. Clip the nails right then and there. Put the fingernails in their own slot. No Contamination! That is NOT how they do it, nor is there a Crime Lab in the whole world that does that. Each and every one does it exactly the same as HPD. So due to the way they have been using this practice, what 40-50 years… at least 27 years in my case. Courts want to use that to justify denying me. People, I’ll tell you the Justice System is rigged to screw you over. That don’t even make any sense. If that is the case, then every case that someone has been convicted where the victim’s fingernails were stored Like this as PER POLICY. -Should now be in question. How can a defendant win when they get to say things like this? They want to hold all of Us (Me) responsible for everyone following policy in clipping the nails and storing them in brand new plastic containers. Somebody, please, explain the logic of that to me? I am not understanding.

  1. An incomplete DNA profile is not enough to prove my innocence. This is another one I need help understanding. . .it not mine, and not the grandsons, no matter how “weak” it is and the fact that it is blood, should prove my innocence. It’s not mine!

But it appears to me, they want me to give them a full and complete profile.

but since I cannot, it’s my fault that Mrs. Franklin didn’t scratch this person hard enough. It appears they are saying. . . “we don’t accept incomplete DNA profiles: it has to be full.” But because it is not a complete profile somehow that is my fault.

  1. They keep harping on the false allegation that I argued with Franklin and got so mad that I “threw a bottle on her porch”. .I have written about this a great deal and it is false. never happened.

But they now go as far as to say that I showed up drunk and was told to leave. You know something, I was with Lee Rose for about 6 hours after She’ told HIM that she didn’t want me there. So then we left together and saw several people, Melody’s mom and dad, Shawn wright, Dusty Wright, Cynthia Wright, an old Friend Larry, And there isn’t not one of them who will say I was drunk while talking to them.

I now have in my possession a Police Note Pad, and in these Hand Written Notes  it is clear they are confusing me with other people! These are things Lee, Eric and Linda all stated to HPD and/or Homicide. It is in black and white, they talk about someone coming over and having an argument with Franklin. . . Guess what? It ain’ t me! They talk about someone coming over who was drunk, but guess what, it wasn’ t me. All this stuff will be seen in the Light of day once this appeal with the S. Ct is done. And they will have to explain themselves. it is like they tell the police who these two different guys are, and two different incidents, but here is where things get murky for me. . .either the cops twisted their words to make it be me whom Franklin had the argument with and (ran off) and then the other guy who came over drunk and told to leave, and somehow they got Lee, Eric and Linda to go along with it. Or Lee, Eric and Linda just started blaming me. But I will be funding out. they will have to answer to the things they told the police. Lucky for me the police wrote this stuff down. And it debunks this whole Lie about Mrs. Franklin arguing with me and running me off, and me coming over drunk. Two different guys, on different days. And neither one of them is me.

  1. Here the Court claims, that since Gunn is saying that ‘I asked if her son crawdad was over at Franklin’s’. I MUST had been on my way over to her house. You know something, I don’t recall asking Gunn that, but I could have. But that doesn’t prove I went over there or that I had intention of going over there. I was going to that Hood to #1. Go home. #2. before I went home I stopped by my Daughters’ grandmothers house to speak with Patches, which is exactly what I did. I know without a doubt that I told Gunn that I hadn’t yet seen my child and was going to go to her grandmother’s house. not Franklins’.
  2. You can see how the AG has me in two different places at the same time here. I was At Gunns’ house from 5 to 6 Pm. not at my Daughters’ grandmother’s house. But if we were to go by this, this is a good one. At 8pm on the dot, I am at Gunn’s house, both Gunn and I agree on that. But now according to the AG I am 3 Miles away at Wright’s house at 6: pm. But it gets more interesting than that, I am also supposed to be the white male that the across the street neighbor Donna Espada saw taking off the screen at Franklin’s house at . . .ready? At6:pm on the dot. So there you have it folks . . .I’m a magic man. It rather simple to do really. you just be in three different places at the same time, easy.

I know this is a mistake on the AGs part, of course, about saying that I was at Wright’s house at 5 and 6 PM. But it is not a mistake that Mrs. Espada saw someone taking off that screen at 6 PM while I am 3.4 Miles away.

  1. I have spoken all about this too, but I have new information about Mr Honest Something he told my attorneys 10 years After the murder. And it shows he is nothing but a liar. Either he lied or the police lied. I will take either one because it was those lies that got me arrested for Trespassing. That was used as the stepping stone to drag me in to jail on a False Charge of Trespassing that was then used as a stepping stone to take My Blood. I will be sharing more on that later. We are going in to be litigating that as well.
  2. One moment they say that I cannot be excluded from the blood that was detected under the nails ( even though ALL the experts say I am) But then the next they say “further, there is no reason to believe that Mrs. Franklin was able to scratch her attacker. Much less that she would have been able to draw blood from her attacker. (Raby was wearing a jacket on the night of the murder)

Okay here they are trying to have it both ways. One they say that I cannot be excluded from the blood. Next, they say that there is no evidence that she was able to scratch her attacker. Yet there Was Blood Under Her Nails! Then they say (Raby was wearing a jacket) this. Which is it?? She either scratched me which is why they are saying I cannot be excluded from the blood found underneath her fingernails. Or she didn’t and couldn’t scratch me due to I was wearing a jacket. So I am bothered by the fact that once again they get to play pin the tail on the off the wall theory and let the courts pick which one they want to go with. They say,” well it could be from one of the male friends who may had bled in the house at one time”. Even though they have absolutely no proof of that. And in the same breath once again, “he can’t be ruled out even though we know, the experts know, everyone knows. . . he is not any of the blood types found under her long blood caked fingernails”.

So here as well. . . it is either one of the friends or mine. which is it? We know it is Not Mine. I don’t know what to make of any of this, I am worried, I am very worried. I have no hope in these courts.

Well y’all, that’s it. This is the argument before the court now, today. Because today is the deadline for my Attorneys to file my Response. I know they will do an outstanding job, but know I have nothing coming from the high courts .