This question came via email today from a loyal reader:
Wow, I found these new developments in the Robinson case interesting [see yesterday's blog]. I was wondering what you thought of these new key points and people. Especially what the witness David Cone said about the other priest. I look forward to hearing your reply. -- D.W.
My Response: While I don't feel it would be appropriate to comment on the merits of Robinson's appeals, something only the courts can decide, I can make two observations:
1. The Franciscan nun whose affidavit said Father Swiatecki was immoral, kept pornography, had a large knife collection and a bad temper said she had called Robinson's defense attorney John Thebes twice before the murder trial.
I remember how chaotic things were at the time, and I can only imagine that Thebes was inundated with callers, many offering leads and tips that would only lead to dead ends.
While he should have returned the woman's calls, it's understandable that he did not do so. And Thebes provided his legal services to Robinson pro bono, so there were limits to how much time he could give to the case while trying to earn a living handling other cases.
There have been other efforts to blame Fr. Swiatecki for Sister Margaret Ann's murder, but this is the first time anybody attacked Swiatecki's character to that degree.
Robinson's new "petition for post-conviction relief" raises a zillion questions, and my layman's impression is that the appeals attorneys are throwing out everything they can possibly find, hoping that one point or another will catch a judge's eye.
2. Another witness quoted in the new petition is David Cone, who did meet with John Thebes and the rest of Robinson's defense team, and told them that he had confronted Fr. Swiatecki, and told them of the priest's oddly worded response (not exactly a confession, but not a denial either.)
Why then didn't the defense team call Cone to the stand as a witness if he had such a bombshell to drop? His statements would likely have bolstered the defense's efforts to raise reasonable doubt.
It seems to me -- just my own supposition here -- that they didn't call Cone to testify because they had doubts about his credibility.
Just think about the scenario he described: Here's this hospital security guard, on the job two days, who sees this big priest walk out of an elevator so he boldly confronts the father and accuses him of murder.
Somehow, "it just don't sound right."
Toledo, Ohio
Jan. 17, 2008
Comments (1)
I agree with your surmisal, Dave. I believe that the Robinson's attorney's are grasping at every straw they can to get him freed. No one's going to ever be able to say they did NOT defend their client with zeal.
I remain convinced Fr. Robinson is guilty, but my experiences over the last several months with my fellow Catholics in Toledo convinces me that they are willing to hold their leadership (bishops and priests) to a different standard than anyone else. Further, they engage in willful self-delusion to reconcile the contradiction the image a murderous Catholic priest offers them.
For example, I spoke with member of my parish (the twinned parishes of St. Adalbert's/St. Hedwig's) who read your book. At first I was thrilled hoping that at last somebody in the parish finally go it. But I was too quick to judge. As he commented on it became clear that he thought it was inconsistent in many areas and deliberately skewed some facts to make its point. He even let it drop, during his commentary, that he attended the Chicken-dinner fund-raiser for the priest in September of 2006. I am glad he read it, but it was obvious it wasn't going to have any impact on how he saw Fr. Robinson. He only saw what he wanted to see - he deluded himself.
So, I have come to believe that a majority of the area Catholics believe the man is innocent and, absent photographic or video-taped evidence showing him red-handed in the act of murdering Sister Margaret, they are going to believe that and will press for his release.
It's no different that those who still will not believe that a priest can be so kind, generous and good and yet still have an evil, dark side - one that sexually preys on innocent children, teenagers or vulnerable adults.
I hope the conviction of Fr. Robinson holds, but my intuition tells me he will be freed in the end because most of the people around here want it that way.
Posted by Mike Drabik | January 17, 2008 6:17 PM
Posted on January 17, 2008 18:17