Columbus Dispatch interviews Father Robinson…
I recommend reading the story at the Columbus Dispatch since there is quite a bit of material including, video and photos in addition to the story. Having covered the trial, in enough detail that a separate blog was created just to cover it, I know our community is still mixed as to there are those that felt then and still feel now that Father Robinson is the person who killed Sister Margaret Ann Pahl in 1980 and those that felt then and still feel now that he is not the killer.
I was surprised when the jury found Robinson guilty, I watched every moment of the trial I possibly could, but many of those of us who played arm chair jurists felt that Robinson not testifying would hurt him. Even though it is completely legal for a person on trial to not take the stand in their own defense, our society seems much more likely to make an assumption of guilt when they don’t hear from the person on trial. If Robinson is innocent has he has proclaimed, then it means justice was not served, yet the only way we will ever really discover that is if he ends up confessing, admitting that he lied before or if the real killer is found. The reality appears to be that we may never really know for certain who murdered Sister Margaret Ann Pahl…
I also followed the trial and was not at all surprised that he was found guilty. I do wonder, however, what effect a priest testifying would have had on the jury. The fact that he did not testify must mean that there were many issues that would have come out during cross examination that he did not want to face.
October 19th, 2009 at 6:20 amHe seems a shifty guy. If I were accused of something , I would speak up loudly and firmly. Certainly that hurt his case. It appears there is not solid evidence to convict him, but his silence overwhelmed the jury
October 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pmWhat’s interesting is the standard instruction:
If you determined after consultation with your attorney that your best interests were served by not testifying at this trial, then the fact that you did not testify should have no bearing on your guilt or innocence and a prosecutor could not comment on the fact that you did not testify…
Yet it’s clear people don’t actually believe that a person has the right to not testify, that if you don’t, no matter what the Constitution states, or the law states, the public impression is that if you don’t take the stand on your own behalf, you are guilty or trying to hide something. It’s also clear that some on juries when given a similar instruction, violate it.
It’s also clear that some of those who focus on the law and court cases much more than I do, feel that Robinson is innocent, Laura James has a great deal of detailed information as to the innocence belief.
October 19th, 2009 at 2:26 pm