Dr. Phil full testimony in Robert Roberson hearing

At this time the chair calls Dr Philip McGraw matter which one choice is yours all right now doctor um we don't probably have the same uh audio capabilities that you're accustomed to um no disrespect to the house administration um but uh these microphones are directional and so U want to make sure that we're able to hear you before I do turn it over to you For your testimony I do have to do a little bit of housekeeping I have you registered as a witness as uh Philip McGraw PhD you are here testifying on behalf of

yourself and you're testifying neutrally on the topic being considered today is that correct that is correct all right sir I appreciate you taking the time to be here and uh I don't want to don't want to believe the point so we'll uh go ahead and turn it over to you to offer your testimony the members Up here may have some questions following up after your testimony but uh we look forward to hearing from you thank you sir well thank you and let me tell you it's um it's an honor a privilege and a responsibility to

be here and um address this uh committee and this important topic and I I'm here today to speak about my experience uh with Robert Robon um and learning about his case and I want to talk about what I've done uh to be able to speak about this um I've uh reviewed the transcripts and supporting documents from his trial um I've done an intensive forensic interview with him and I I think I am in a position to do that because a lot of my career decades um have been spent in the legal Arena uh both civil

and criminal um and in in terms of my Training uh so people know uh I I do have extensive training in clinical uh Psych pschology and Behavioral Medicine or medical psychology uh from the great University of North Texas um in their PHD program and then I completed uh a post-doctoral fellowship in forensic psychology um and um spent a lot of time uh working in the litigation arena for a big part of my uh professional Career and not to bury the lead I am 100% convinced that we're facing a miscarriage of Justice here uh I say

that because I do not believe uh that Mr Roberson has had due process in this case I do not believe he has yet uh enjoyed a fair trial uh in this matter and I'll talk about that um in in detail I believe that in the United States of America if we are going to deprive Someone of their Liberty that comes at a very high standard if we are going to deprive someone of their life that comes at a very high standard a very high standard of proof a very high standard of evidence and when you

say Beyond a reasonable doubt that's said so much that I think sometimes it can lose its meaning and we have to really stop and think what that means that means that if you have 12 people on a jury that means that there Should be nothing that 12 people can go in a room and reasonably disagree about that that that and that is a high standard that there's not there should not be anything that they would go in there and say well there's nothing here that we can reasonably disagree about and um I I think that

when we talk about due process and fair trial that means that all the Evidence everything that is relevant and pertinent to that trial gets before the try or a fact whether it be a judge or a jury and that there's Fair representation and I I certainly don't think that standard has been met here that that high standard by which we would deprive someone of their life um has been met and I I think that the death penalty uh actually hangs in the balance Here because if we get this wrong in in a case like this

uh I I think that uh the death penalty could come under real attack and and there are circumstances where I personally believe that it is appropriate um I think back to James Bird Jr on 6798 when uh he he was dragged uh by King and Brewer in Jasper Texas and subsequently uh King was exe Brewer was executed in in 2011 and King Was executed in 2019 uh a third man got life in prison I I look at cases like that and think you know there are times where the death penalty just seems appropriate um and

it it would be a I think it would be unfortunate if that was taken off the table I'm also aware in circumstantial cases how powerful it is for an expert a physician for example to come before a jury and render an Opinion um and I I I've spent so much time uh in cases and debriefing jurors after a case and know how heavily that weighs on those jurors and I believe in this case that there was what I would refer to as this Triad tunnel vision because there was a a shaken baby syndrome that was

defied defined uh by a Triad of symptoms and those symptoms were Subdural hematoma brain swelling and retinal hemorrhaging and that was believed uh to define the syndrome of shaken baby and we now know from an evolution of science that that's just simply not the case that there are a number of other explanations for those syndromes and that that causation has actually been debunked and as a result uh the The Da Bear test the dobert test um junk science it's just been debunked is it's no longer a a standard that you can look to in in

defining that and I think that once that was um looked at as the order of the day everybody got tunnel vision and you know there's something in Psychology known as confirmation bias and it's been around for a long time bacon first talked about it in 1889 and confirmation bias is the tendency For people to make up their mind to something and they close off openness to Alternative explanations they seek and find and hear and process only data that supports their initial belief and they turn a deaf ear a deaf eye a deaf ear and a

blind eye to anything other than what they passionately believed to be the case and I I think we have clear evidence that that's what happened in this Case um the decision was this Triad of symptoms were written down and it started with the doctors that were looking at this first and then it trickled down to investigators and police and went right through the trial process including Mr Roberson's defense Council including his own Council and uh I I've heard and read those that are opposing these efforts say that well this really wasn't the Crux of this

case it wasn't really uh what was going on here and I'm I'm sorry but I've studied this trial transcript and it was the Crux of this case it was the center of this case uh in in in one summary that I've looked at uh as well I've read a summary and I've read the actual transcript uh I stopped counting it 47 times it was mentioned uh in the trial transcript shaking baby syndrome shaking baby case shaking baby syndrome shaking baby case Uh Triad of symptoms and let me tell you something that will seem incredibly obvious

but it is not juries decide these things on what they see and hear not on what they don't see in here and you would think well yeah but my point is I've often seen lawyers try to get something into the record and it's kept out and heard them say well we didn't get that in but the jury knows we had something really powerful and that's Going to stick with them no it's not they decide on what they see and hear not what they don't see and hear and there was a massive amount of outcome determinative

exculpatory evidence that was never reviewed it was never put in front of the jury it was never heard and you always hear and the law is clear that the burden of proof is on the prosecution that Mr Robison does not have to prove that he didn't do this the Prosecution has has to prove that he did and that's great in theory but having spent decades in the litigation Arena I can tell you debriefing juror after juror after juror after juror across decades they have taught me that they sit back and say if we're not down

here for the reason that the prosecution says we are somebody needs to explain to me and alternative explanation because we know these cases Get resolved aund different ways before we ever get to this point so if we're not down here for the reasons that they say we are somebody needs to explain why they're looking for an alternative explanation and in this case oh my gosh was there an alternative explanation this child was an ill Baby from 8 days old the medical record shows this was this child was not well the record shows that this baby

had 46 doctor or hospital visits in her 23 months and few weeks of life in the days leading up to her death the record shows she had 104.5 temperature the record shows that Robert took her to the doctor twice in the week leading up to her collapse the record shows that she was Prescribed fineran on two days leading two separate days leading up to her death a blackbox warning said says you do not prescribe this medication to someone under two years of age on the second Administration it was finegan with Codine a double impact that

suppresses the respiratory system we did not hear that this child had severe pneumonia we did not hear that and there Were scans available to be looked at and the medical examiner admitted that they were not looked at and I will provide to the committee this is a calender of the two years of this child's life and every red notation every red notation is a doctor or hospital visit during her Young Life life uh this was a child that was Acutely and chronically ill and when I say that this child had been diagnosed uh with inter

interstitial uh pneumonia on the left is a scan of her lungs and the the pinkish red is nonfunctional lung tissue isue according to the doctors and I'm telling you just what the report says I'm not playing physician here and on the right is a normal Lung this never got in front of a jury why uh because it was never looked at it it was never looked at the medical examiner medical examiner did not not uh review this and said so um this child had collapsed several times when Robert Roberson was not in this child's life

this wasn't the first time this child collapsed and turned blue and had respiratory shutdown it had happened a Number of times when he wasn't around on this occasion he was around and took the child uh to the hospital um so how was this case tried without all of this stuff being put into the record uh it's it's astounding it's astounding uh even the defense counsil who did nothing to challenge the evidence stipulated that this was a shaken baby Case um during V dire I'm quoting defense counil every one of you related to that you had

heard the term shaken baby that it was an act of basically a lack of control of emotion it's a bad thing but it's not something that rises to the level of capital murder his own Council says this was a Shak and baby case in opening statement his defense Council says this is however a shaken baby Case the evidence will show that Nikki did suffer injuries that are totally consistent with those applied by rotational forces more commonly known as shaken baby syndrome now Robert Roberson was offered plea deal after plea deal after plea deal and never

took a plea deal because he said I never did anything to this child I never put my hands on this child in anger I didn't hurt this child I didn't Do anything this child I'm not going to play take a plea deal for something I didn't do but yet his Council stands up and says um more commonly known as Shak and baby syndrome on page 35 of the closing argument defense Council says yes I came here in opening and presented to you that there is responsibility in this case yes this is a shaken baby case

but no this is not a murder Case his council is stipulating this is shaken baby and the science has marched on and now rebutted that shaken baby syndrome is a valid medical syndrome I said you you cannot rely on that that is junk science we've now evolved to a level that says we know that shaken baby as defined then does not create that Triad of symptoms and that that Triad of symptoms can be created by a number of other things such As uh overmedication uh pneumonia you could just go down the checklist here of what

happened in this case it has been reported that there was an expert psychologist that supposedly recommended to Robert just take a plea deal go to prison and you can kill yourself once you're there now I can't verify that I can just tell You it's in the record and has been reported but yet he refused those plea deals um and went to trial where the jury was wrongly told that abuse could explain that only abuse could explain the death and they heard nothing about this child's acute or chronic illness now there's another factor that comes into

play here the jury was told that Mr Robison Was guilty because he didn't respond in an expected way at the hospital when he brought the child in flat AFF effect they were not informed that he was autistic and that did not come to to light until 2018 many years later when he had an active Council that actually got him examined and formerly diagnosed um We see all through this man's life uh which was not a spotless life let me tell you uh he got involved with drugs at one point he uh u burgled a house

at one point uh violated his probation but never uh is there any evidence of him being violent with other people assaulting other people uh having impulse control disorder rage U anything of that nature uh there is Testimony uh that he was bullied uh because he was different and lacked social skills that are typically Associated uh with autism or frequently associated with autism but he never retaliated I sat across from uh Mr Roberson at the palansky unit and I've spent a lot of my professional career uh studying and practicing deception detection and interrogation uh I've worked

with law Enforcement locally federally um in in in developing these skills and and techniques um so I didn't just go have a therapy session with him I didn't just go talk to him um I was very mindful of um deceptive behaviors and um the first to say there are no lie behaviors people talk about that like There are lie behaviors there are not but there are behaviors that correlate with lying there are behaviors that show up when someone is is uh goes into a stress mode that is associated with not telling the truth and uh

creating something um that is misdirection trying to take you away from uh something they don't want you to know about them I ask him hard questions um I ask him Point Blank straight up looking him Square in the Eye did you harm this child did you shake this baby did you put your hands on this this child uh in in Anger did you neglect this child did you fail to get this child to a hospital in a timely fashion um he said he had been criticized for putting the child in the car and racing to

the hospital instead of calling 911 and waiting for the ambulance he said he made the Judgment call he could get her there faster um but he was forthcoming and and Straightforward um you know it took years for specialist to put the pieces together the pieces that the medical examiner never did and I think sometimes with my years in the litigation Arena that sometimes we forget that the goal of prosecution is to seek Justice not conviction I think sometimes In the Heat of battle and with so much time invested In cases that it's easy to forget

that the goal is to seek Justice and if you get in the middle of a case and you determine wait a minute I've got the wrong person here or I can now see that no crime was committed that this was a case explained by medicine this was a case explained by disease I need to walk away from this one and when you have a medical examiner That has admitted they never looked at the child's medical records including the final week where there were multiple doctor visits and even the child's last two days when extraordinary efforts

were made to save the child's life which meant there were efforts made to stop the swelling and relieve the pressure in the brain yes there were things done to the child's uh head uh but if you look at the pathology Reports they contradict uh what was concluded at the time that there were multiple blunt force trauma to the baby's head you you look at the uh pathology reports they say that's not true there was one minor uh trauma to the head that would come if the baby fell out of bed uh all of those things

were available and and these things not being considered that's on the State the state that's seeking to execute this man and that's why I say there was not um due process in this case there were people that in my opinion did not do their job no one including me can say with 100% certainty what happened in that house that morning my professional opinion is that this is not a man with malice this is not someone that hurt this Child what I can tell you that goes beyond opinion after examining the record in this case the

trial transcript in this case the medical records in this case this man has not had due process this man has not had a fair trial and if we start executing people people in Texas absent due process absent Fair trial we are going down a really dangerous road that is not something that I can Support and I know that has not happened as I say it's a very high standard to take someone's life we must have the courage to make choices that matter at times that count and it is always the right time to do the

right thing I welcome this committee's questions doctor thank you very much and I appreciate your testimony I I do have a couple of follow-up questions and then uh if there are other members that have Questions I'll defer to them as well I want to focus on uh Robert's autism can you help explain the disconnect that there is between interior life and external expression how does that present itself with someone with autism and how does that affect a person that's in the criminal justice system well um how much time do we have um you know autism

is is not a Um um a one-dimensional uh disorder and that's why it's referred to as Spectrum correct uh because there is a broad range of how autism expresses itself and it can change across time um what we do know is that there is a difference between internal experience and external expression and interaction and you certainly see that um with with Robert Um I think that uh Robert is very flat of affect um I I think he is not uh cognitive cognitively agile in expressing himself um and he is emotionally um not welldeveloped in terms

of expressing showing emotions or interacting with someone on an emotional plane uh the way you would experience nine out of 10 people that might not be on the Spectrum um so You're not going to get uh a typical response from him in a crisis situation or a normal situation and having spent 21 years on um death row which is very confining and uh absent a lot of the stimulation that people normally get that's going to worsen and deepen the situation um in most cases and as I say uh every situation is different uh I can

speak to Robert's situation in that uh his world has constricted a as you would think anyone that's confined in that Kind of a space uh but to his credit he has distinguished himself um and he is one of very few uh that has elevated himself to have uh some Freedom uh to move about the Pod um he has a a a a pretty much spotless record uh on death row disciplinary wise problem wise um and he has someone that is very uh convicted in his faith and is a strong believer um and he does have

people that come and see him and visit With him in fact the investigator uh that led uh the the prosecution efforts at the time uh comes and sees him on a regular basis and he's gotten comfortable with him and that investigator has completely um changed his position believes he made a mistake um in uh pursuing Robert at the time has asked his forgiveness um which Robert has Graciously extended to him and the two of them have a a uh pretty comfortable relationship where Robert can speak to him openly and uh he was much more comfortable

by the time I got through talking to him than he he was at the beginning but still um he had very pushed verbalizations he had a difficult time with eye contact he had a difficult time uh um relating and and responding in what I Would call a predictable way um that you would expect with someone that was functioning um absent um the autistic diagnosis how long did how long did you sit with him on that occasion uh they give you exactly 60 minutes and I made sure I got every second from start to finish on

to stopwatch how far apart were you what was the physical there's glass between us uh he's on the phone and I'm on the phone uh but we're maybe Three feet between us okay you've conducted interviews over video conference uh I have and I've conducted a number of interviews on death row between with the glass between myself and the U interviewee many times before is that something that would have been effective in your in your meeting meeting with Robert given his condition um you know it's kind of a they they bring him into a [Music] small

room it's probably three feet wide maybe 5et deep and he sits at a desk much like I'm sitting here um and the glass is kind of at the front edge of this table and he kind of leans in on the phone um and it's kind of a comfort zone for him I mean he's he does like a whole lot of stimulation um but you know he he leans in and participates and um I I asked him a a variety of Questions about history and uh what he could remember and and not remember uh and you

know some things he he didn't have clear memory of uh and he owned that I I asked him questions to test his abstract thinking um he he did not do well on those things um I challenged him when they said they wanted to go see his home where he found her and brought her in and he said sure I'll take you right Over there I said does it strike you odd U and there's of course a video record of this so you you can see exactly how that exchange went but I said did you feel

bad your daughter's fighting for her life there and they say I want you to get in the car and take me home did it occur to you that I I don't want to leave I want to stay here with my daughter and he was like well that's what they told me I needed to do so I took them home I mean I that's what they told me to do um um is very compliant at the time I said did you want to leave and he well you know that's what they told me to do was

that's what I mean he's a very compliant individual and he he didn't have the ability to express the emotion I'm not going to leave my daughter I'm he just complied and did what he was told so I and that's s was trying to drive out and you mentioned that he had A comfort zone so someone like Robert's out of his comfort zone he's got limited affect and emotional range limited mental agility like you said um all of those things I would think would be exacerbated if he's appearing on a screen and seeing others on a

screen as you and I learned how to do during the pandemic well yes I I think he needs every Cue that he can have to grab on on to and relate you put him two-dimensional and he doesn't you know he needs cues he needs physical feedback and it makes it difficult if if he he can't have that and his ability we have to do everything we can to help him assist in his defense and we can see from The Trial record uh 21 years ago 22 years ago he didn't Very he didn't have a very

good facility to assist in his defense at the time if he had um even when he was there every day with his lawyer sitting next to him if he had the ability to say wait a minute I I've told you I've turned down plea deals I don't want to do this why are you standing up saying this is Shak and B baby case if he had insisted that um look this medical examiner is not talking About the evidence here I mean the the cause of death was the child had a bacterial infection was uh septicemic

and and had a necrotizing infection that was eating lung tissue if if anybody here had been in that situation we'd be saying hey we need to be talking about this you don't need to be telling them something I've told you I didn't do we need to be talking about an alternative Explanation about why we're here and he had a difficult time doing that when he was present at trial if he had been on a screen the ability to initiate contact when he's not in the room would be Neil okay I I have one more question

for you then I want to pass it off to my colleagues that have questions if someone was sitting in that other chair next to you and their testimony was to this committee that this was not a shaken baby case how would you reply to That say that again if someone was sitting there next to you and their testimony to us was this was not a shaken baby case how would you respond to that well I I I agree it was not a shaken baby case sorry sorry I apologize that it was a shaking baby case

yeah I was trying to figure out where you're going with this I apologize um um that if they well well first thing I would say Is there's no such thing as shaken baby syndrome now listen if I'm not asking people to believe that a full grown adult cannot pick up a 20 pound child and do serious or fatal harm to that child of course they can of course they can they can pick that child up and and Bash its head into a wall or throw it on the ground or whatever but there are going to

be very clear signs of that having happened that were not present in This case what what is known as shaken baby syndrome depends on this Triad of symptoms subdural hematoma and brain swelling and retinal hemorrhaging that you see in the eyes that Triad of symptoms has been debunked that that's not what happens if if a baby is is shaken and that there are a myriad of other causes such as over medication uh or Uh absence of oxygen to the brain or uh sepia other things that can cause those symptoms you if there if there are

alternative explanations then that's no longer a a valid syndrome and there are there have been a number of exonerations because of this that that was the science at the time science evolves just like DNA technology evolved and so there have been exonerations with DNA the same thing here there have been A number of shaken baby convictions that have been exonerated because they have come back with new science that says there's an alternative explanation for this you can't convict someone on something that has now been debunked by the medical community even the individual who initially identified

Shak and baby syndrome said that was not the intent I did not intend for that to be used as a prosecution for injury to a baby and it it has been debunked and Disproven by the medical uh profession and is not used so fortunately science has progressed Medical Science has progressed and there's Now new evidence available that should be used well I appreciate it I do want to apologize for misspeaking I was up at 3:00 a.m. to make a flight here today um so apologies for that I know you've been very busy but thank you

for I appreciate your testimony I may have some questions Following up a little bit later but um what I'm hearing from you very clearly is you've read the transcripts you've reviewed the you reviewed the record um and there is there is not any way that someone could maintain uh maintain that this the that the state uh the state came here and said that they didn't try a a shake and baby case that's what they told us last week no we didn't try a Shak and baby case Sounds like you reviewed the record and it sounds

like your opinion is those facts speak loudly that that is what they tried to do in that case well as I said I stopped counting it 47 times in the record and I I read you quotes from the defense certainly what the defense attorney tried uh that was in vire opening statement and closing argument quotes from the defense attorney stipulating this was a Shak and baby case despite Robert's um assertions that that was not the case and he uh rejected plea offers um and said I'm not I'm not going to take a plea on something

I didn't do but yet then they got up and said well he did do it his own lawyer said he did do it thank you Vice chair cook thank you Mr chairman so Dr Phil before you became Dr Phil can you tell us a little bit more about CSI um thank you youve been a little modest so far when you said you've been involved in uh litigation I want you to be a little more a little more specific about your background um as I say I um I had kind of three areas of focus clinical

U the medical psychology and my focus in medical Psychology was brain and central nervous system and then I did a Year's post-doctoral Fellowship in uh forensic psychology or psychology in The law and um I uh was a founder of a company called courtroom Sciences uh Inc it was the original CSI uh probably should have enforced that I think so um but uh we had a full service trial science firm and we were retained um by clients to evaluate uh cases and um we did um strategy for cases we we assisted in uh jury selection uh

witness preparation um we often had um uh miror juries Shadow juries in the courtroom That matched the jury that was in the jury box and we were able to debrief our jury so what I'm saying is if we had 12 jurors in the box and there's seven women and five men then we had seven women and five men in the gallery uh that matched them so if we had a 42y old woman with two children a barking dog that was a Baptist with a year of college then we had a woman out here that was

42 years old with two children Barking Dog your college that was a Baptist because you can't talk to the jury every night but you can talk to your Shadow jury every night and it gives you insight to that we mock tried cases uh many times before they went to actual trial uh to find out uh you know how a jury in a particular venue uh was likely to view a case and what was important to them and what was not important to them the difference was it mock trial instead of having one jury we seated

four or five Or six and they went to Independent deliberation rooms uh deliberated over the actual jury charge uh as best uh we could predict what it was going to be and all of that was videotaped and then analyzed very carefully to see what their problem solving strategy was going to be what was important what was not important so we knew what to emphasize and not emphasize um whether this particular expert was effective or the other expert Was more effective what they wanted to hear and not wanted to hear um and we focused on telling

the truth effectively and getting the best result we could could and sometimes the answer was you need to settle sure thank you and um we did criminal cases and civil cases both as a former client from a couple Decades ago I've seen you in action and I can attest to um to your skill set and um just want to say thank you for being involved in this case thank you for being willing to be here today and take time out of your busy day now that you're Dr Phil in a in a different role um

than what I knew you as a couple decades ago but I think I just wanted everyone to know that background it's not like you just it's not the typical person talking to a few jurors you've Done this for decades correct I have and you said you read the record um did you see uh discussions about a sexual assault of a child involved in the record I I saw discussions of the sexual assault early on um it was brought up concerning uh three anal tears um in the child I believe it was this was early on

um and it seemed to me that it was brought up to Prejudice the jury frankly Um but then it was dropped out later and was was not part of the jury charge it was not something they were asked to render a finding on um and it was not something that they uh prosecuted on at all I I felt like it was it was there because it's um if you want to inflame um a jury panel then you can uh put that into the mix uh but then it was completely dropped out it was not paid

off there was no evidence offered about It no no testimony was given about it there was nothing in the Medicals that were offered about it it was just put in early um but then it was never paid off later fair to say if we were to grab a 100 people off the street that probably all hundred of those people would agree that that would Prejudice the jury that they heard that type of testimony prior to going to deliberation well it it it certainly would and um but as I say you know in in opening statement

you're not Allowed to argue you're just um um you're just going to say we believe the evidence will show and then the jury um is expected to see well they made that promise let's see whether they bring it or they don't uh and then in closing argument the opposing attorney uh would be expected to say they stood up and brought this up did they ever show you anything to do that and with something that inflammatory there's a real Question about whether you even want to bring up that they didn't pay it off because you're reminding

them and it puts it back into the juror's mind so do you bring it up again or do you just uh leave it there it's a it's a difficult call but if you examine the record you will see that there was never one word of testimony from an expert or otherwise um U to show that there was any even insinuation and um there um a Dr Francis green um filled out an affidavit on July 9th of this year um and uh she basically said in in her affidavit that if if she was going to uh

render an opinion on what the cause of death was and what she saw there was certainly no mention of that um she disagreed with the cause of death and she had a firm opinion that the death was caused by severe undiagnosed viral pneumonia onset of which occurred at least a week to Several weeks before her collapse that there was a viral interstitial pneumonia Complicated by SEC secondary necrotizing bacterial Bronco pneumonia uh several days to a week before the death uh necrotizing meaning it was actually eating tissue in the lungs um and so as a result

of bacterial infection she became SE septicemic resulting in um all of this coagulation uh reflected in lab results and that it was a combination of drugs Suppressing respiration and this was the figrin uh or promazine in two forms suppository and and cough syrup and none of this other was mentioned at all anywhere in that and I know you're not a medical doctor and don't expect that you've memorized everything about this case but do you recall the cause of death um as testified to by the medical examiner um she she refuted so little about it she

just uh referenced the Triad of Symptoms and shaking baby and uh I can pull up what she said here um my my understanding and I've not reviewed the record to the level that you have but um my understanding is is that there's a certain designation when it is a shaken baber syndrome um case and it's you know it's not it doesn't say shaking baby syndrome on the you know cause of death and so I didn't know if you had had that available no I can probably find it for you and I'll get it for you

before I Leave okay if yeah and if not we can come back to it um what about as far as the defense attorney will ago you said that um you know you would debate whether or not it was proper to bring up you know bring the sexual assault back up would it also be proper to ask for a mistrial I mean based upon inflammatory um I assertions AB absolutely I I I would think that um absent any Evidence um any witness no no evidence whatsoever I would think you could uh move for a mistrial uh

but that's certainly not in the record and then as far as if you were if in your opinion is the the relief that the best relief that could be granted would be by the Court of Criminal Appeals in the form of a new trial is that you believe that that's the best Case scenario well I certainly think at a minimum um there should be either an evidentiary hearing uh to show what has how this man's rights have have been violated um and and or a new trial which um I I think would be pretty clear

and with the two best pieces of evidence that that you know of would it be the CAT scan of the of the brain and also the photo that you showed earlier with regard to the child's lungs I I think That along with the history of her going into respiratory distress absent him being in her orbit I mean he wasn't in her life when this started happening and um listen if if I need to say I I work with the Innocence Project some and U for a number of years and um I I've I've had cases

brought to me um that I look at and I've been to death row and interviewed inmates and walked away and said Uh I I'm not not feeling it not feeling it at all I I I can't in in good conscience say that I I can get behind this um if I don't if I can't study the record and look the individual in the eye and passionately believe that there's been a miscarriage of Justice I just don't step up to them um and um so I don't get involved with everyone that's presented to me by a

long shot sure uh but when I see something like this you you can't walk Away well thank you for being here today and thank you for your testimony thank you thank you chairman um doctor thank you for being here today just a few a few quick questions that I I really want to um I really want to focus and drive home with you and I want us to um to try to take a step back together because I don't know if you were able to hear some of our opening remarks but I Thought representative Darby

put it very well in in his opening in that we are not here it is not our role as the legislature to retry this case we have to be very cognizant and careful not to act as some sort of super Appellate Court um and I uh I hear those concerns I share those concerns and we have to be members laser focused on staying in our lane does that make make sense to you Doctor of course certainly okay so I Want to be this has been a very very uh helpful a very um thorough and helpful

overview not only for the members of this committee other legislators tuned in the people here but for all of those tuned in watching online who are focused on this case and I I think the question that as I seek to wrap my arms around this and think about the very purpose we're here and I I think about representing my constituents doctor is I want to ask you This question I think this is maybe what people are who are tuned in right now are wondering the most how does this happen if if everything you've said is

accurate and I believe that it is in my own uh uh independent review of the record everything you've said is is 100% accurate and there's a lot more that you haven't gotten to um how does this happen in our system and if we're here to to to recognize holes in the system Weaknesses in the system problems problems in the system to strengthen our Criminal Justice System doctor I would ask you to answer that question how does this happen because to me this is not a Shak and baby case this is an ineffective assistance of counsel

case and U my hypothesis is that had Mr Robertson had effective assistance of counsel as he's constitutionally able to have then we wouldn't be here today do you agree with That and can you kind of uh can can you go into more in depth on why this has happened and what we can do to fix it well you know I I talked about um what we did um at CSI for example and um some people might say that um in America you're entitled to the best defense money can buy um and we did a lot

of pro bono work uh you know we either we either charge Our fee or we charge nothing um because if if you look at the population on death row uh or you look at the population in prison uh there's an over representation of minorities there's an over representation of low socioeconomic rich white guys don't get the death penalty do they no they don't um and they don't get a lot of prison time uh either one and so the fact of the matter is uh when you get a public defender and I I know a Lot

of public defenders that are passionate dedicated and hardworking and they got a stack of files on the corner of their desks that you can't even see over that's right and then I know some that are just you know kind of checking the boxes it's is like everything else there's a broad range but I know a lot of dedicated hardworking public defenders um but they're just so overworked and spread so thin that it it's it's just impossible Uh to give a a fair representation uh to every client and but if if if you look at um

the number of exonerations it's scary um you know you're either for the death penalty or not and if you are for the death penalty you have to be for doing everything in your power to ensure that those who face that ultimate sentence have had a fair trial and guilty in so far as we can determine I mean you have to do everything you you can't you you can't kind of say sort of Maybe we've got this right and if I if if you know 11:07 says you can't do uh junk science you you can't have

something that has evolved and we're going to ignore that it's evolved and just use what was there at the time and keep them in jail even though we now know better that you that if you if you execute people when you now know better uh you need to abolish the death penalty if if that's the standard by which you're going to Execute people then you got a bad system so so am I am I correct in in assuming that Mr Robertson uh could not afford at the time could probably not afford CSI correct um yeah

probably okay he couldn't I mean then there's other it's not casting aspersion on CSI I worked CSI before and they're the best in the business but the um the point is that Mr Mr Robertson simply could not afford the resources to provide himself not only effective assistance of counsel but the Full assistance of councel for a capital murder case in which the prosecutor decided I I believe u grossly negligently so to seek the death penalty on um Mr Mr Robertson was afforded the the the minimal and that's probably even being generous and putting it nicely

the minimal assistance of council and in many cases his Council actually worked against his interests and so my opinion is that he had virtually no council and there I Like you and I think many many members of this committee and other legislators we get asked Dr you might you might know this but we get asked all the time we get letters from inmates on death row we get asked very frequently to review cases to get involved to speak out I've bet since I've been in office 12 years I've received maybe over a hundred of them

and I've only gotten involved in three death penalty cases the case of Jeff Wood the case of Melissa Lucio and the case now of Robert Robertson and in without fail in all three cases it all comes back to ineffective assistance of councel because all of the facts that you've talked about here all of these questions all of the evidence that was not introduced at trial the jury had no knowledge of it members none of that got in got none of that is part of the appellant record and so the system cannot work when it's Built

upon a foundational um basis that has that all this evidence is not part of so our courts of appeals can't review the evidence the the record is so um defective the case in and of itself is so defective and so let me ask you this in closing do you believe that if Mr Roberson has simply afforded a new trial which is all I'm asking for I believe that's all the the I don't want to speak for the members of the committee but that's what I want is just a new trial Where maybe we could get

him effective a sance of counsel and have someone like CSI prepare him his defense and present all this evidence do you believe there's any way that he would be convicted of capital murder I I I do not I I do not think he would be convicted um I think this is a case where there was no crime committed I don't think we have the wrong person I don't think a crime was committed I I think um this was a a case Where tragically um a child was um chronically and acutely ill I I think I

think there was some problems with medication um and I think that contributed uh but I certainly don't think that this child was aggressed against but what I've said is I when you have a circumstantial case we don't know what happened behind those closed doors I can't say that with 100% Accuracy I would be going Beyond my skill set to say what happened behind that closed door I don't know that um uh he woke up at 5:00 a.m. and says he found this child on the floor and with labored breathing CU she'd been sick for quite

a while he says he was able to um get her feeling okay and put her back to bed should he have taken her at 5: I wasn't there didn't see her don't know but he testifies that she got the feeling better and this wasn't a new Thing he had only had her for a couple of months but you saw the record you know 46 times across two years um put her back to bed um then he finds her again and now he races her to the hospital uh I don't I don't know that any crime

took place and I I think if this full record um and the testimony from Dr Green and other pathologist I think they would say no crime was committed here at all doctor thanks for being Here chairman Derby excuse me Darfield thank you for coming today your testimon is invaluable to us um first of all the name shaking baby syndrome to me that canotes guilt on the face of the charge if you've been charged with shaking B baby syndrome it would indicate to me at least that uh somebody shook that baby to death and since you

were the last person to be near that child that you were therefore Guilty by simply being charged with the name what are your thoughts on that whether psychologically to a jury just being charged with shaking baby syndrome would indicate in the jury's mind that there was a crime committed that you've now said perhaps was no crime what are your thoughts on that well I think you're um I think you're exactly right um representative Derby in in Psychology we Refer to something called iatrogenic label uh where the label it itself creates more problems than what it

describes um and that is a very toxic label obviously and that's why I say I I think sometimes burden of proof is is a myth when a jury hears something like that they go wow uh if that's not what we're down here for we have a dead child And they're pointing fingers over here at this at this guy who doesn't seem to be terribly sensitive or upset um and if if we're not down here for that somebody needs to give me a really good alternative explanation because they're looking over here it's just like this setup

right here you got that big state seal up there and those flags beside it and you got armed guards over here and all and it just there's an Awful lot of uh of entrapments to this situation trappings to this situation that make it seem awfully official and then you got this guy over here and the prosecutor knows the judge and the judge knows the prosecutor and they're calling each other by name and you know the the court clerk um and all just like hi Betty how are you today and it's like everything seems against the

guy that's there for the first time ever and and So there's a lot of momentum here somebody better have a really good alternative explanation and there was a really good alternative explanation the only flaw was it never got mentioned it never got told which is why I made the point that jurors make decisions on what they see and hear not on what they don't see and hear all of this that I talked about today never got into the court record it never got reported uh it nobody ever put all those pieces Together until 18 years

later when the Innocence Project with pro bono lawyers and all come along and start piecing it together and then they come to me and I have my whole team at Merit TV and everybody starts coming together and uh now all of a sudden you have a a valid defense team and now it's you get an alternative explanation well you know uh I made a statement before you came into the to the chamber here but the purpose of this Body and Committee in my opinion today is to examine our current law that's on record that we

created there was a problem when convicted people could not get their matter heard on appeal because there was not an Avenue created by the legislature we created it and so in 2013 we addressed that deficiency I'm going to it be kind of a wrong long question but if you'll bear with me we said that specific facts must be available that indicate relevant scientific evidence Was currently available and was not available at the time of the conviction because the evidence was not discernable through reasonable diligence at the time of the trial and the scientific evidence would

be admissible under the Texas Rules of Evidence at a trial held on the date of the application and finally the court would have to find that if the scientific scientific evidence had been presented To trial on a preponderance of the evidence the person would not have been convicted okay now that did not go far enough so two years later in 2015 we passed another law and said the courts would now consider whether the field of scientific knowledge not junk science as we conveniently refer to it we now refer to it as the field of scientific

knowledge had changed the court would also have to consider a new item whether a testifying experts scientific Knowledge had changed and so we we create created those standards and what I'm what I'm trying to get to did we go far enough or did we go too far for example it bothers me that the court of appeals seems to be taking a higher standard they they say that the evidence must reflect that the accused would be innocent I don't think that's the standard by which we anticipate or Created in 2013 and 2015 this almost and several

of the witnesses I think they're going to testify again today it's almost as though this habus trial it's kind of like a game of football you're going to win or lose I mean instead of trying to determine in your words the goal is to seek Justice it doesn't appear that the that the functionality that we've created in the court of appeals is designed to seek Justice or is it simply designed to see who wins and loses that's what's bothersome to me have we created language that would suggest the court of appeals is saying no that

evidence has to show the accused is innocent when I don't think we when we voted for this bill in 2015 2013 that was a level of examination that that I don't think we created so I guess ultimately I'll come to a question The question is do you think that our current law for scientific knowledge has changed and whether or not we we had it we had an expert testified I changed his testimony saying that he believes he wasn't innocent I mean he wasn't guilty uh do you think our current and I've given you the factors

that compose what we're trying to address here is that science has changed do you believe that we followed that law or the court of Appeals has followed that law and if not how do we what should we include in statute that will assure that following well I can answer that can I answer that in two parts sure one is I think it needs whatever it is needs to be followed evenly uh I believe it's the rowar case that um last week or the week before Um a a new trial was granted correct but in this

one it's not so I mean it seems to me like it needs to be evenly applied um so I'm I'm I'm wondering how how do you explain that uh to Mr Roberson's family and then secondly I think there's some simple language um that might help and now I'm not a lawyer I don't mean to brag but I'm not um if you added something to It that said in the event the filing is on behalf of a convicted person to be executed the court shall stay the execution and Grant the convicted person a new trial if

the relevant scientific evidence was not available to the convicted person in light of his or her circumstances Andor that relevant scientific evidence contradicts scientific evidence relied upon by the state at trial so if it's evolved and it wasn't Available at the time they ought to get the best science available that bears on their conviction it seems to me when they're executed they're executed for a long time and you see something as clear as the case I cited earlier about Mr bird it took from 97 to 2019 to execute one of those perpetrators uh in a

circumstantial Case how can you not justify saying science has evolved they get the current science which is what this says and I'm happy to share this if anybody wants it um it just says they get the current science well thank you for your testimony representative Bowers oh I will follow up with you Dr and and take you up on that offer to submit that to the committee will representative Bowers thank you Mr chairman and thank you Dr Phil for being here today I am certainly a fan and um you know I know that you your

show was a spin-off from Oprah so I I'm certainly a fan been a fan for a long time and I will say to you that I am glad to have this privilege to ask you some questions cuz we know you asked the hard questions you mentioned that a little bit ago and um before I get to my question my pastor Richie Butler said to tell you hello and that let you know he's my pastor um But I'm so glad I get to ask you the questions and I didn't get called to your show for you

to ask me the question fair enough um but I want you if if you can to take us back and I promise you I will watch it I have not watched the interview with Robert Roberson but um can you take us back to that time when you did have a chance to talk to him since we won't get to hear from him today um in this in this chamber and I just want to know because you mentioned And we heard this before that he was very flat in his responses and we do know that he

was on this he's on the spect so I just wanted to know if you can share a little bit more about that time and moment and what those answers cuz you said you asked him some pretty hard questions and what his responses were like and what you know was there remorse there how how did those responses come out I I would just like to hear a little Bit more about that uh yes I will um when I I sat down with him I you know they they're the peski unit is um one of the best

run units in the United States I have to say um and I've I've been to many prisons and talk to many convicted murderers and um that unit is I I have to say it's really well done um the they they treat their prisoners with dignity and respect and um they they do they do things the right Way there and um um and I and when I'm permitted to come in I respect their rules as well because everything runs order is really important to keep everything running the way it should and when they tell you that

you're going to have an hour I I really try to respect that and so I I sat down with him in the beginning and said um listen we're on a Time clock so I'm going to forego a lot of small talk and yes jump right into This if it's okay with you and he said certainly so we jumped right into it and I said you're days away uh from being executed and I you I want to know how you feel about this and I started asking him about about things and um I asked him some

things like are you bitter are you how do you feel about this are you are you angry are you bitter are you H how do you feel and um and I'm spending as much time Hearing what isn't said as what is said how he's answering what his eye contact is um and um he's very still he's he's very flat and very robotic and uh he says he's he's not bitter at this point he been 21 years and I guess you can stay angry for just so long and um he he says he's he's really not

and he's spends a lot of time in his Bible and and reading the word and I asked him um I said you've you've been in trouble before Tell me about about those sort of things I wanted to see if he tried to deflect or minimize those things he was very forthcoming about it um he said that he had gotten into drugs at one time and that caused him to make a lot of bad choices and he he got in trouble for it and seemed to feel like he should have that he did things he shouldn't

do uh violated his probation got time added to that uh for it and again he he didn't try to minimize or whatever he was Straight up about that um I asked him about his relationship with Nikki and he said that he had only been around her for a couple of months and that she was pretty standoffish with him and seemed to kind of be afraid of him but they had started to break that down some and that there was some warmth and she started to sit in his lap and uh let her uh let him

hold her and that sort of thing um I asked him what he did when he was angry For example um he said he went off by himself and spent time alone ask him if he ever put his fist through the wall or slammed doors or broke things or pushed people or yelled and screamed and whatever and he said I just I just kind of go off by myself I don't you know whatever um I I I gave him some cognitive challenges I asked him some simple things um like I asked him interpret this saying for

me shallow Brooks are Noisy uh he he he had no idea said Still Waters Run Deep how about that no idea I said if I gave you a screwdriver a flat screwdriver you could screw a screw in and screw a screw out with it what else could you do with it couldn't think of one other thing you could do with a screwdriver um not nothing uh I gave him some items to remember and asked him to recall those not after an hour but after about 15 Minutes I think he got one uh out of five

and um so he was having trouble of course he's under a lot of stress too and that doesn't help um and then I I say asked him straight up did you hurt this child and I really watched him and yes his blink rate's about 1213 per minute mhm uh go under stress if you ask a relevant question people are lying that blink rid often go to 70 or 80 uh in a hurry he Didn't change at all um he didn't color up he didn't stutter start you know changing his patterns at all uh just no

no and no and um I I asked him he thought he had had a fair trial and he said no his lawyer kept saying shaking baby shaking baby and I told him why are you doing that I that's not true I don't I don't want you saying that but he said I'm trying to save you from first-degree murder you Know that's what they're charging you with but he said well I I don't want you saying that he said well just you know sit down sit down sit down and uh he was very hopeful that he

was going to get some kind of relief here and not be executed and um he thinks he deserves to be free thank you for that um and thank you for giving us a snapshot of of what that interview was like and um I certainly will be going back to to look at it um And and um view it but um and and thank you for for asking him question questions like you said the hard questions but then certainly some simple questions so and and sharing that with us I really appreciate it and I have to

say I'm so glad to be on asking you the questions thank you sir thank you representative shine thank you chairman uh Dr Phil thank you for being here I said this the last hearing and I'm going to keep saying it as loud as I POS possibly can and that is that um justce that requires unsubstantiated assumption is not Justice at all and I think that's what's so valid about you being here and you doing that interview thank you for using your platform to get truth out and so I I had a few shotgun questions for

you um just to get a 5,000 foot view of anyone who is watching you said that juries decide this on what they see and hear not what they don't see in here did the jury know that Nikki Had been chronically ill her entire entire life no did the jury know that she had two recent episodes of a sudden halt to her breathing or we would call it breathing apnea no did the jury know that she was brought into the hospital with 104 degree fever I don't believe that was in the record did the jury know

that one of the drugs that was given to Nikki is no longer used on children and has a black label because it makes it difficult to breathe for children no did The jury know that she had been diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia no and you mentioned that Robert was not perfect and in some ways had a troubled past and I think it's important to point out because we're talking about an execution a state sanctioned execution to your knowledge has Robert ever been convicted of a violent offense before or after this trial it's not that we've been

able to find we've seen the burglary and the Drugs but no violence crimes no assault no mugging no assault with deadly weapon nothing like that right we've not been able to find anything like that right I would agree with you so even though a jury that's never gotten to hear any of these details I is it possible that the bacterial pneumonia mixed with a combination of dangerous drugs some of which are no longer available for children because they're deadly mixed with a fall off the bed is it possible That these factors alone could be the

cause of death well according to again I'm not a physician but I I can read and according to the Pathologists that have reviewed this now definitely conclude that that is a viable cause of death for a vulnerable child that had chronic pneumonia and was septicemic so with that being said do you believe that the junk science law has been violated in Robert's case I I think it clearly has and I think there Are a number of exoneration ations in very parallel cases uh to substantiate that and again I I'm not I don't want to get

out of my Lane I'm reporting to you what the research says I am not a physician so I'm telling you what the Physicians that have been brought into this case are reporting and what the medical research that's available to anyone that can read reports and what other um cases that are a list of exonerations that I can share with you Uh exonerations have taken place where they've determined that no crime was committed at all because of exactly the things you're listing out yes I agree with you in fact the number that you're you're talking about

is 32 32 exonerations that we've been able to find of those that have were convicted of shaking baby syndrome and so you said that the death penalty hangs in the balance here and I I agree with you so is it your opinion that a Reconsideration by the criminal court of appeal of appeals and giving Robert a retrial actually strengthens the legitimacy of the death penalty in the state of Texas well I think it does I think there there's been over 5,000 years of time on death row served by innocent people that were ultimately exonerated so

um and Texas is second only to Illinois in the number of exonerations so we need to get this right if we're going to preserve the the Death penalty we need to show a commitment to do everything possible to get it right and if we're not good stewards of that then we shouldn't have the privilege of asserting it so if we want to preserve it we need to be really committed to getting it right I couldn't agree with you more as a member who is uh supportive of the death penalty I also believe that if we

are going to execute people in the state of Texas we have to be sure At the highest level that we can that that person committed this crime um as someone who wants to fight for individual liberties this is this is something that has to be at the Forefront of our mind and I couldn't agree with you more that this actually a retrial would strengthen the position that the death penalty penalty should be a viable option for the courts in the state of Texas thank you for your testimony thank you representative Bo Johni thank you thank

you chairman Vice chairman thank you Dr Phil for being here and for letting the committee know numerous issues uh including the tunnel vision in Trials uh this is that is a focus too narrowly on one explanation which happened to be here shaking shaking baby syndrome what changes would you suggest to prevent this kind of confirmation bias from affecting investigations and trials in the future well I think there has to be um Some focus on uh being sure that we aren't looking over our shoulders and doing what's historically been done but if we get into a

situation somebody has to be willing uh to step up and say where are we now things are changing at a really rapid rate we're learning so much more um about how things are happening and medical science is advancing uh as is we we've seen it with DNA we're seeing it with Shak and baby Syndrome we're we're seeing it across a lot of different fields so we just need to be sure that our prosecutors um are really held to a standard of looking at where science is in a given area in circumstantial cases and I say

circumstantial cases because these are nobody was there that morning so they have to look at all the circumstantial cases and I also want to say that the people at the hospital that morning who Waved a red flag and said hey we need to take a look at this we're not wrong when when somebody shows up with a baby that is in distress like that and you've got somebody standing there and they don't seem terribly concerned about it and all look those are social worker psychological red flags and somebody should pay attention to that because often

times they would be exactly right uh there's a lot of of abuse that happens with children um and and Somebody I would rather be wrong 99 times than miss one for sure so I I do not fault those people for asking that question saying hey time out let's see what's going on here but asking the question and going down a a tunnel vision and and and snowballing somebody to death row are two different things somewhere along there where you ask the question that's valid but then not saying okay but let's wait a minute here Le

let's let's ask all the Questions let's what's this child's medical history uh what's the let's we've got a lung scan they didn't wait for the lung scan before they determined it was shaking baby syndrome let's they called for uh a a brain scan and a lung scan and did not wait for the results before they decided what they were going to do um and and that's my problem my problem is not with them saying hey red flags here we need to start asking some Questions not a problem with that the problem is they didn't follow

up on available science to determine whether or not this was a chronically and acutely Ill child this child was septicemic this child uh had uh chronic pneumonia and there were scans done that they didn't take into account not not even the medical examiner took them into account the medical examiner admitted a list of things that were not looked at that's the problem if you're going to See the red flags and you should then make sure you check all of the different uh area is that you can get data from got it thank you one more

question quick question I know there are a lot of people here that are are listening in that care about you know people that with autism so in future cases how can we ensure that individuals with autism spectrum disorder receive appropriate accommodations during the trial and post-trial proceedings that they are Treated fairly and their needs are fully considered in the justice system well this was not diagnosed until 2018 so no one uh no one gave uh Mr Robison the opportunity to be evaluated um and I think it I I did not see him 21 years ago

but I can tell you in spending time with him and I just spent an hour with him I cannot diagnose this individual in an hour through a glass and all that so but I can tell you this we're talking about Red flags in the hour I spent talking with him um questions were going off in my mind about his ability to assist in his own defense um and if he was anywhere near that level of functioning 22 years ago someone should have stepped up and said this individual needs to be evaluated and the state needs

needs to do that I I I don't know uh what that evaluation would have shown I Can't all I know is that I've seen the report that he uh is on the Spectrum at this point um and all but I I can't diagnose him but I can tell you big red flags were going off when he couldn't um he was not showing the cognitive agility or the reasoning that I would have thought you would want to assist in your defense and so I I would have thought an advocate would have been really nice to have

have him um at his side during that trial and uh the autism Community now is Um so great in assisting those um but I I think that he needed to be evaluated at the time okay thank you representative Harrison did you have any questions yeah just a couple quick ones you've covered this rather extensively thank you so much uh for that I'm just want to go back to a couple things um one from your previous discussion with uh chairman Moody on something that I I found concerning and I'd like you to Maybe clarify some of

your previous remarks with him because I have been surprised to see over the last few days the state now start making assertions that this was that the prosecution was not predicated on a Shakeen baby syndrome hypothesis and that in fact this was not that but this was effectively a battery case and that this child had been beaten um how would you characterize those representations that we are now hearing from the State well um I I think a a careful analysis of the trial record um would suggest otherwise I think all you have to do is

look at the trial record and go through look at their arguments and they tried to shake and baby case I mean if if nothing other than the defense B iring the jury on Shak baby doing an opening statement on Shak and baby and doing a closing argument on Shak and baby uh that's certainly what they were defending uh if if nothing more than his own representation uh it was a shaking it was a shaking baby case and and that's absolutely consistent with my examination of the record in this case and what was one of the

early things that struck me and tell me if I'm wrong here if I'm oversimplifying this I want to get it right you effectively had a case where the state the prosecution was arguing Shakeing baby syndrome and the defense attorney his counsel said and I believe it's a direct quote yep classic Shak and baby case and given that 20 years ago you could resume abuse what what was left for the jury exactly to decide yeah it it was just I think the argument from the defense was um it wasn't it didn't rise to the level of

first deegree murder that he snapped or It wasn't premeditated or whatever just he lost it in the moment so so was there any arguments or evidence that the jury heard that this was not a shaken baby case I I think there were other things that went along with it uh that there were bruises on the left hand left side of the face to the jaw and to the chin and multiple trauma to the head but I I think that you you have to break it down and say Well when was the trauma to the Head

because in the from admission to the the hospital to the time the pathologist got involved there were other insults to the head in life-saving efforts where you try to do things to relieve pressure off the brain but those those weren't there when the baby came in they were done when they started doing things to try to relieve the pressure right so so how much time to those things that you said that were Related things that kind of were brought up how much time at the trial was spent explaining to the jury any alternative explanations for

either the shaking baby Triad or for the other things that were observed on the baby none that I could find yeah none so was there was was there is it fair to say that there was or I'll ask it was there direct evidence of abuse at trial at all or was it all circumstantial it was all circumstantial Well I it was all circumstantial or reported by Witnesses who later said well later impeached themselves by saying I was coerced into saying this with threats from Child Protective Services or implied threats from Child Protective Services or whatever

that changed their testimony I hear a lot of people out there right now saying we should just ch trust the jury they convicted him in your opinion is it Even a debatable question whether or not the jury had all the evidence necessary to make such a such a decision well I have to answer that uh two ways representative Harrison I think jurors tend to get it right uh day in and day out I think jurors tend to get it right based on what they see and hear correct based on what they see and hear I

think the collective IQ of a jury is 1,00 I think you send them back into a room I think Most people take it seriously I think they put their heart into it and I think they get it right based on what they see and hear and I think they probably got it right in this case based on what they saw and heard but they didn't see and hear everything they needed to see and hear to render a just verdict do you think that's even a debatable question not even close yeah um if I can dig

in real quick and something you just said you mentioned that witnesses that may Have impeached themselves can you give any is there a particular example or particular particular witness that you're thinking of well yeah yeah if if there's not it's okay I no it's okay um there are witnesses that testified um at trial and um they were Witnesses from um his uh past and um and and the reason I actually asked Because representative shadin a minute ago had made a question about you know whether there were substantiated or un unsubstantiated um discussion of of violent

behavior in the past that came out of trial yeah page 12 of the main document okay got it let me turn to it here uh um uh Teddy Cox who was Robert's girlfriend at the Time um she was going to be uh the subject of a CPS investigation so she was urged to provide information to implicate Robert um and was confined to a psych ward and admitted on the stand that she changed what she said about Robert based on how she felt at the time uh but rebuttal witness Patricia conin Teddy's sister said Robert had

a loving relationship with Nikki never saw Robert spank Nicki and Teddy had a poor Reputation for truthfulness and this this was one of the individuals that testified that provided the witness testimony that I keep hearing about all over the place on social media that there was evidence that he was a violent person yes Dela gray his ex-wife and mother of his two older children uh said that he was phys physically abusive but interestingly enough said she was scared of Robert but during their divorce proceedings never Reported any of this suspected abuse to authorities and had

a history of alcohol and drug abuse and she lost custody of the children and never brought any of this out um she claimed in a 2003 trial during their divorce proceedings in the 1990s so you kind of have to look at what they said at the time versus what they said when they had an agenda um and um so I I think these Witnesses when they were looked at as to their motives Andor were ask hard questions tended to change their so to the best of your knowledge no jury has ever found him guilty of

any violent acts in the past that no he's been accused of it by people that had an acts to grind but no evidence to substantiate it real quick um to as brief as you can what would how would you characterize the effect on our criminal justice system if Robert is Executed in the near future uh I think it would um I think if people really drill down on the facts of this case face and thought given these facts you can be executed uh against the standard of reasonable doubt I I think it would be horrifying

horrifying the impact on our criminal justice system if he's executed without further due process being afforded him is that what you're saying yes I don't think he's had due process I Don't think he's had a fair trial and I think he should and if at the end of all of this being presented the decision is that he's guilty and should be um executed then um that's a completely different story but I think I think it should all be heard and I'll just in closing if you could maybe just even one or two words if you

can and just tell us whether you think these are more fact or more Opinions I know you've made a point to distinguish what you believe is fact in the case from opinion do you believe our our junk science law as intended by the legislature has been appropriately applied in Mr Robertson's case I do not how firmly do you feel about that I feel very strongly about that because the science has evolved and we have Cutting Edge experts in this case that have taken very strong positions that the cause of death in this Case um that

the cause of death in this case is more probable um from medical complications than abuse and if I wrote down my notes but just a quick confirmation you firmly believe his due process rights have not been adhered to here and how confident are you of that I'm very confident that due process um can only be Uh can only be claimed if he is given an evidentiary hearing which will lead to a new trial and if I wrote down correctly a minute ago did I hear you correct that in this case your personal opinion is that

no crime has been committed whatsoever based on the New Evidence um from the experts um I think no crime has been committed here thank you doctor thank you chair thanks for being here doctor I appreciate your time And um you know what I want to say this also I appreciate get your extensive research into the record in your preparation for your testimony here today I appreciate you taking this uh with a great deal of seriousness that that we are evaluating what happened here and for us to be able to evaluate that we do need to

rely on people that have done a deep dive into things uh and I I am grateful that you have taken the time energy and effort you and your team To do that deep dive because you wouldn't be able to answer any of these questions if you hadn't done that research well I have this knack for getting gigs where somebody does all the work and I get all the credit and uh Stephanie Grenadier and her team at Merit TV and the Innocence Project and all of their people we we've all worked very hard to figure this

out um and most of it was done before I agreed To take on the case because I had to I had to figure out whether this was someone that um I could passionately get behind well uh I certainly appreciate the time you put into it and I think that uh that is certainly shown through in your testimony today well I appreciate the committee and if I've um if if I've kind of been doing this off the top of my head here as we've gone through this and uh if if I've misspoken or misstated any Fact

it's all in the record here and I'll correct it is if I if I check anything if I got a date wrong or something like that I'll I'll uh certainly correct it the record is what it is the trial record is what it is if I said four and meant five or whatever I'll let the record speak for itself sure certainly what I've said is directionally correct well we certainly appreciate your time and and taking uh taking so much of of your your day to be With us here today well thank all of you for

taking this so seriously and speaking up for this is not just about this man it's about the process and u i I hope it comes to a a good outcome thank you for allowing me to speak here it's an honor thank you