dec 10, 2019 – Reply of the Petitioner – with comments C.

I have already touched on most of this in -the States Reply Brief, but this is a response from my team, it is very well written and should be easy to follow and understand. : I think they have done an outstanding job on making the argument for me. But I just have zero faith in the courts. But we shall see soon enough.



  1. I like how they touch on things here. how there was no blood on any of my clothing that has been tested and retested. And this was a bloody crime scene. So bloody that a few hours after they suspected she was murdered that the grandson Eric Benge was covered in her blood by just rolling her over. The police drafted “confession”, the blood and DNA found under the victim’s fingernails could not have come from me. But as you can see from the 5th Cir Opinion, they just ignore all this and deny me. It is like none of it matters.
  2. Again, I like how they attack the facts. and how the 5th Cir made fact assumptions in the state “s favor, But I wish they would have written it just a tad differently, by pointing out that they made “false fact assumptions.”

Because there is absolutely no evidence of contamination, and the state has not made that argument, but when the court, in my opinion makes a statement like that, it is dangerous because in the world of DNA testing and evidence there are a few things one never wants to hear;

    1. Contamination.
    2. Broken chain of custody
    3. Inconclusive.
    4. Lost
    5. Destroyed

Every one of these will get you denied every time and if you are faced with death, Killed. Yet once again, the courts just get to make things up, (as well as the State) and just ignore hard facts. it is scary at how they do these things. they never want to admit guilt nor mistakes have been made.

  1. I like how they point out that I did live in the neighborhood, but I do wish they would had taken it a step further and actually shown them by way of Maps. It is one thing to say it, but another to show them. They did what they could in this limited space. The way they pointed out that my little 2” inch Pocket Knife could not had made those 3” and 4” inch stab wounds without leaving hilt marks is very important but just another factual fact the courts just ignore this was an elderly woman, elderly people bruise easy, so if someone is stabbing them with a small knife, then even a two and a half inch stab wound would leave bruises.

The Courts are always misleading the other Higher Courts, but it is no different with the State, they will say something misleading, and that gives the courts a chance to latch onto it and use it as a reason to keep denying me. Like one very important misleading fact is, “witness seen the defendant exiting the back of the house”. That is not only misleading but false, an outright lie. And that is something my trial court judge said in her fact and findings and to this day the courts and the state have relied on it as fact. When there is nothing in the record to support that. When they say “exiting the back of the house” that implies that someone saw me coming out the back door. And that is false. But it happens ALL the time and they get away with it.

  1. Then there is the whole Antigen activity. Once again, they ignore the fact that yes, my blood only has the H-antigen in it, but ALL blood has it. This is cited by the experts for me and by the State. The H-antigen is the building block of ALL blood types so therefore traces of it is found in ALL blood. And still they ignore the key fact. . . No O-Blood type was found which is what my blood type is. Type O.
  2. I really don’t even know how to respond top all this, I mean I like the way my team said “the court gets no credit for excepting that blood and DNA found in the victim’s fingernail clippings did not belong to her or Raby and that Raby did not have no blood on his clothing, –those are undisputed facts.” But even after admitting this. . . they still deny me and contradict themselves by saying I still cannot be excluded.
  3. Here you can see the argument they make where other Cir courts read 2244 (b) (3) (C) differently. I think I have made a good showing of a prima facie to allow me a chance to litigate these issues.
  4. They grant Larry Swearingen authorization, when they ruled many times that he had a mountain of evidence against him, But they will not grant me? When all they have is a Coerced/False Confession that is nothing but one big lie, I told them things I did weeks prior to the murder, all these things can be supported by the record and witnesses. I don’ t know what more I can say on this. But the Confession is the only thing they have on me. In the eyes of the courts, that is good enough. But it amazes me at how they will grant one person a hearing but not another when in my case, I think I make a much better Prima Facie that Larry did. And there isn’t a mountain of evidence against me as there was with Larry.

8 . This whole “bad faith” thing just eats me up, how in the hell does one prove bad faith in many of these kinds of things unless they are caught red handed? Or the bad actor comes forward and admits he or she did wrong? Granted there are some things, very few, that it is just plain to all to see a bad act by the State was committed. But those are so rare. One way to show bad faith is to prove that a DA took a key piece of evidence home with them as a trophy –which is what I think my trial prosecutor did in my case with the bloody nightshirt– or a witness come forward admitting they saw the bad act. It is damn near impossible to prove acts of bad faith against the State, even when -it is clear to everyone reading it, theirs was a bad act. It is an impossible standard to meet is all I am saying.

  1. If the Supreme Court by chance overruled the 5th Cir, and then I am allowed to litigate these claims in the Federal District Court. . .I have little faith in them as well, They will have read the 5th Cir ruling and already know how the 5th will rule. But in the off chance that the Federal District did rule in my favor, the State would appeal it, and we can already tell they will win because of the way the 5th Cir has already made their views on things VERY clear in their opinion denying me. . .it is a no win. Unless the Supreme Court hears it again and that is a 50 / 50 chance. But I already know how the State will appeal and the 5th circuit will rule even IF the Federal District Court ruled in my favor.
  2. Again, more of the whole I have to prove bad faith on the part of Chu. You can see how they say I did not ‘establish bad faith on the part of Chu’, which hopefully is the wrong standard in this regard. But I have zero faith in these courts.
  3. This whole open file policy on the part of the Harris county DA’s office back in the 1990’s is a joke. They just once more totally ignore the fact that my legal team told them, the lab report was NOT in any of the files they received from my former attorneys, or in the trial record. So my point is, what part of that do they not understand? If everything BUT that was in the boxes upon records of records they received was not in there, and they only became aware of it through a PIA request Open Record Request. Then it should stand to reason that is is and was not turned over. But when my former Trial attorney Felix Cantu said he wasn’t sure, he really fucked me over good with that stupid ass remark. He knows damn well it wasn’t turned over or he would had put it with everything else he had on me.

But this whole open file policy is a joke, and we have in former Asst Harris county District attorney stating in one case not but 4 years ago: “I only turned over what I thought was discoverable” or some silly crap like that. Meaning, they only gave the defendants what they wanted to have.

Nowadays? Under Kim Ogg, the Harris County district attorney, I believe she actually honors that policy. I think she is the one that made it. Not real sure about that. But it is clear that back in the 1990’s there was no open file policy as there is now. Not even close. Back then defendants had to rely on the DA’s office to turn over things. But as Siglar said, they got to deem what was discoverable back then, if they thought it would ‘confuse’ things, or whatever they decided was a good enough reason for now turning it over, they just simply didn’t.

They keep harping on the fac that they don’t think anything I have presented would change the outcome of the jury verdict. I strongly disagree with that, and that is a question they should allow my jury to answer.

Well, that is about it, it is in the hands of the Supreme Court now. I am sure there will be a ruling by the time this is posted, but you can still see my thoughts on everything. Am I worried? Yes, yes I am. But I am pleased with the things my attorney have done. I just wish I would have had this team form the start. Or at least the start of my appeals, because much of the things I am barred on, would had resulted in a new trial. Sad huh?