Post-Mortems on Thompson Case

* According to Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, the execution of Thomas Thompson represents a “moral judgment” and he called the long delay of this judgment a “legal tragedy” (“Killer Put to Death by Injection at San Quentin,” July 14).

The only tragedy apparent here is that Lungren and his ilk are still making political hay of pain and suffering. Instead of providing counseling and allowing people to grieve and heal, these people continue to curry to the basest in human response, anger and hate as they openly counsel revenge to win elections.

The overarching argument against the death penalty is our imperfection as declared in any theology that I’ve encountered and the imperfection of the so-called systems of justice formed by societies based on such beliefs.

How dare we as self-professed imperfect beings take on the mantel of perfection that is God’s alone and the power of life or death over another? Dan Lungren’s “legal tragedy” is the only protection we have against ourselves while we persist in this course.

This so-called cumbersome, costly legal system that death penalty proponents say is so callous of the victims is the only protection those caught in the vortex of our hate and anger have from us and the zeal of those who apprehend and prosecute. How many innocent people have been saved and not for reasons of due process, but from the corrupt and overzealous?

If their number was only one it would be worth the price.

CHARLES POPER

Huntington Beach

* In your July 13 article (“Prosecutor Still Drawing Flak as Execution Nears”), you quoted a few criminal defense attorneys and law professors who were critical of Deputy Dist. Atty. Mike Jacobs’ ethics in the Thomas Thompson case.

They made it seem that Jacobs had told separate and conflicting versions of what happened when presenting evidence to the separate juries that heard the Thompson and [co-defendant David] Leitch trials.

Let me set the record straight. At Thompson’s trial, evidence was produced in detail by the prosecution that both Thompson and Leitch had been involved in the murder of Ginger Fleischli, i.e., that two men moved the body and carried it to Leitch’s car, that both men were present when the body was buried, both men were present together the next morning, and both men fled to Mexico together. Statements made by each defendant, detailing his own reasons or motives for killing the victim, were admitted into evidence at each defendant’s separate trial.

Jacobs argued at both trials that Leitch played a role in the killing, either as a co-conspirator or as an aider and abettor, but it was Thompson who was the killer. From this theory, Jacobs never strayed. The statement “Do you think David [Leitch] would have Tom [Thompson] kill me?” made prophetically by the victim on the night of her demise, was presented in the people’s case in chief in both trials and argued as evidence of each defendant’s guilt, along with all the other legally admissible evidence presented at each defendant’s separate trial.

In view of these facts, and many others too numerous to discuss here, Jacobs’ tactics or “theories” of prosecution in both cases were upheld by 1) a seasoned Orange County Superior Court trial judge, 2) the California Supreme Court, 3) a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and 4) the United States Supreme Court.

The criticism contained in your article was leveled against this fine prosecutor immediately prior to Thompson’s execution by attorneys and professors ignorant of the true facts of both cases. These comments were simply unprofessional and irresponsible second-guessing by those with no real knowledge of the Thompson case.

MICHAEL R. CAPIZZI

District attorney