Welcome to ToTG!

February 6, 2013

Hank Skinner Interview

The latest Skinner interview, in two parts



Labels: , ,

4 comments:

Mike said...

I saw an article in my reader I have for Pampa news, but it led to the Pampa newspaper and a subscription is required to read it. I seldom read the free papers they throw once/week and I sure don't buy it. Anyway....

I did some searching to see if the article had been published elsewhere, but didn't see it. It will probably be picked up sometime today and I'll look again later. The gist of it is it's the 2nd go-around in Skinner's request to test the DNA and it looks as though it will be denied, but that's just my opinion, nothing set in stone.

As I've mentioned in here before when posting about Skinner, I've gone back and forth on his guilt or innocence. While searching for the article, I read some fairly recent discussion posts about the case and in one, they were convinced of Skinner's innocence.

I now don't think he's innocent. If he was so incapacitated by the drugs and alcohol, how did he manage to get to his ex-gf's house? If the uncle did it, as Skinner claims is the most likely murderer, why didn't he go ahead and kill Skinner who was "comatose" on the couch when the murders took place? I also don't buy Skinner's story of how he "thinks" he got the severe cut on his hand. Why was he hiding from the police to begin with? None of that makes sense.

Skinner's ex-gf first told the police that he had threatened her if she didn't hide him, then recanted and said the cops threatened HER with taking away her child if she didn't go along. First of all, she's not a reliable or trustworthy person. (this from personal experience and observation) If the cops had threatened her then and she went back on her story, why didn't they take away her child after she recanted?

The witnesses who testified on Skinner's behalf are also not...well, let's say the most "reputable". I don't know the man who said he came in before the murders and tried to rouse Skinner, but I did know the one who claimed he had called the house (from jail) was crazy. Literally. Also, there was no record of him calling from jail and those things are logged, plus I doubt the cops would have let him call so late in the evening.

There are also other holes in Skinner's claims, but the missing windbreaker that he claims belonged to the "real killer" has been lost from evidence. Twila's (Skinner's g/f who was murdered)mother claimed the jacket was Twila. Skinner says it was "eight times too large for him" which is nothing short of hyperbole. I'm much larger than Skinner and I always buy jackets and winter gear bigger than my actual size. Women tend to buy things like that larger than their actual size. (my ex and I had matching car coats and I would often mistake her coat for mine, not realizing it was hers until I tried to button it - buttons were on the "wrong side")

Skinner also claims that Twila's uncle raped her. Twila's pants were still on; I don't think rapists put their victim's pants back on after the crime.

That's just a few of the things that gave me doubt about Skinner's innocence. I do want all the DNA tested, however and I still think there was enough conflict of interest in the trial to warrant another. (a moot point, since an appellate court has already ruled it didn't)

February 6, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Carolea said...

I first heard of this case from You. I don't know what to think Myself. Valerie loves true crime stuff so I've told Her to keep a eye out for this on TV.

February 7, 2013 at 10:00 AM
Mike said...

I wish these videos had closed captioning, Carol.

Thanks for posting!

February 7, 2013 at 11:00 AM
Mike said...

I never thought to look, but I just noticed it DOES have the CC option. Took a minute for it to come on, but it finally did.

February 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)