Robert Roberson
| Article Index |
|---|
| ALIVE Kampagne Robert Roberson |
| Contact / Donation |
| All Pages |
DoB: 10.11.1966
Date of crime: 31.01.2002
On death row since: 21.02.2003
.
- Whatever happened in this night, there was no intent to kill the child. Without intent - no murder!
- The prosecution lied to the jury with intent to get a death sentence. This is unethically!
- There is an indication that Robert was not alone with the child in the night of question.
These indication we investigate at the moment.
Nikki Curtis was born to Michelle Bowman and Robert Roberson. Michelle was a prostitute and drug addict, who lived on the streets and was unable to take care for a baby. Like another child she had given birth to, she gave Nikki into the care of her stepmother Verna Bowman. At the time of Nikki’s birth Robert and Michelle were already separated.
Verna Bowman loved her grandchild and took dearly care for her.
However, after a while Robert’s mother tried to get custody for Nikki. It was her and also Robert’s girlfriend, Teddie, who urged Robert to file for custody. Because he loved his daughter he finally did so. Verna Bowman agreed to that because he was Nikki’s father and so he got custody for her. This was just a few months before the tragedy happened.
A Trial of Injustice
In trial the medical examiner testified that NO sexual assault occurred upon Nikki. There was no scientific evidence of sexual assault. Still during trial the prosecution repeatedly vilified Robert – accusing him of sexually abusing Nikki. Even though the prosecution knew that there was no evidence of sexual abuse, they still used this claim to inflame the jury and secure a death sentence.
At the end of the trial - as the case was about to be sent to the jury for decision - the prosecutor dismissed and dropped the sexual abuse claims.
However, an accusation of sexual assault is an injustice of such bias that nobody could overcome it. This made it impossible for Robert to get a fair trial. Thus prosecutors violated Robert’s constituational rights to a fair trial and an impartial jury by intentional lying to the jurors.
No Capital Murder
The death of the little girl was without any question tragically, but it was – independent from the question of guilt – not capital murder. Murder requires intent. In this case there was surely no intent to kill. The injuries of the child were caused by shaking. Experts say that even relatively mild shaking can cause fatal injuries. That means that we cannot speak about intentional murder and therefore the death sentence is unjust and this is not according to our opinion, but according to the law.
This is no excuse for what happened. A little girl died under tragic circumstances and there cannot be any excuse for that. However, a death sentence is not justified in this case, because there was no intent to kill and furthermore there is doubt that it was even Robert who caused the injuries of the little girl.
Also the past has showed that in „shaking baby cases“ juries rarely recommend a death sentence. This may be one of the reasons why the prosecution used drastic unfairness in Robert’s case to secure a verdict.
Even though there was no sufficient evidence for that, Robert was accused of sexually assaulting his daughter. The state created with that a hostile atmosphere against Robert. This strategy made the whole trial against Robert grossly unfair.
Summary Trial (pdf)