Amnestyaction and Onlinepetition ( Against the execution of Kenneth Fults in Georgia USA on 12 April

Here i want to show you the Amnestyaction and Onlinepetition ( for Kenneth Fults against his execution on 12 April in Georgia.

Here some text from Amnesty International:

Kenneth Fults, a 47-year-old African American man sentenced to death in 1997, is due to be executed on 12 April in Georgia. In 2005, one of the jurors signed a sworn statement that he had voted for the death penalty because “that’s what the nigger deserved”.


The courts have also dismissed the claim that Kenneth Fults was provided less than adequate legal representation at the sentencing. Although the jury heard some mitigating evidence – that the defendant’s IQ had been assessed at 74, that he suffered depression, and could not always understand the consequences of his actions – some other former jurors have signed affidavits that the trial lawyer made little effort to save his client from the death penalty and was seen to be sleeping during proceedings. They said that they should have been presented with information such as the evidence uncovered by appeal lawyers about Kenneth Fults’s childhood of neglect and abandonment – he was born to a 16-year-old mother who later became addicted to crack cocaine – and evidence of intellectual disability. In 2006, a clinical psychologist assessed Kenneth Fults as “a mildly mentally retarded individual” (now known as intellectual disability), with an IQ of 72.

Onlinepetition for him from


Here the Amnesty International Appealaction:


Please support it.

P. Steinhuber





Gegen die Hinrichtung von Kenneth Fults, der am 12 April in Georgia USA

Hier möchte ich die Onlinepetition und Amnestyaktion zeigen, die gegen die Hinrichtung von Kenneth Fults ist, der am 12 April in Georgia USA hingerichtet werden soll.


Hier ein Ausschnitt von Amnesty:


Der 47-jährige Afroamerikaner Kenneth Fults wurde 1997 zum Tode verurteilt. Nun soll er am 12. April im US-Bundesstaat Georgia hingerichtet werden. 2005 unterzeichnete einer der Geschworenen eine eidesstattliche Erklärung, dass er sich für die Todesstrafe ausgesprochen habe, weil es “das ist, was der Neger verdient”.

Die Gerichte wiesen zudem zurück, dass Kenneth Fults keine angemessene rechtliche Vertretung bei der Strafmaßanhörung erhalten habe. Den Geschworenen wurden strafmildernde Beweise dargelegt: Laut einem Test verfügt Kenneth Fults nur über einen Intelligenzquotienten von 74, leidet an Depressionen und war nicht immer in der Lage, die Konsequenzen seines Handelns zu begreifen. Einige ehemalige Geschworene haben dennoch eidesstattliche Erklärungen unterzeichnet, in denen sie angaben, dass der Verteidiger sich nicht wirklich bemüht habe, seinen Mandanten vor der Todesstrafe zu bewahren und unter anderem während des Verfahrens geschlafen habe. Sie gaben zudem an, dass man ihnen Beweise vorlegen hätte müssen, die von den Rechtsbeiständen während des Berufungsverfahrens gesammelt worden waren. Dabei ging es darum, dass Kenneth Fults während seiner Kindheit vernachlässigt und verlassen wurde. Seine Mutter war 16 Jahre alt, als sie ihn zur Welt brachte und wurde später Crack-abhängig. Zudem gab es Beweise dafür, dass er an einer Lernbehinderung leidet. 2006 bewertete ein klinischer Psychologe Kenneth Fults als “geringfügig geistig behinderte Person” mit einem IQ von 72.


Hier der Link zur Onlinepetition:


Hier der Amnesty Aktion mit zusätzliche Appellmöglichkeiten:


Bitte untersützt die Aktionen.

P. Steinhuber

Aktionen gehen weiter für Richard Glossip gegen seine Hinrichtung am 30 September/ Actions go further for Richard Glossip against his execution on 30 September


Mit Appelladressen und Onlinepetitionen/With Appealadresses and Online Petitions:

Unterstützerseite für Richard Glossip/Supporter Website for Richard Glossip:

Seite von Schwester Helen: Website from Sister Helen Prejean:
 NCADP (National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty) Website:
Online Petitions
Petition von/on by Helen Prejean and and actress/Schauspielerin Susan Sarandon:
Andere/Other Petition von/of
Text bei der Seite von Schwester Helen/Text by the website of Sister Helen Prejean::

“The Case for Richard’s Innocence

No history of violence: Richard had no history of violence and had never before been arrested. In prison, Richard has been a model prisoner, and shows no sign of “future dangerousness”.

He didn’t kill Barry Van Treese: Justin Sneed did. And Sneed got life in medium security while Richard got death.

His crime didn’t satisfy Oklahoma’s own requirements for the death penalty: Under Oklahoma law although someone convicted of murder for hire can be given the death penalty, the testimony of an alleged accomplice must be corroborated by something that would connect the defendant to the crime itself. For example, finding Richard’s DNA or fingerprints on Van Treese’s wallet or finding the wallet in Richard’s possession would satisfy this requirement. But there was no such evidence against Richard at all, and yet he was given a death sentence.

No physical evidence: There was no physical evidence whatsoever tying Richard to the murder, despite the fact that Sneed testified in the 2004 retrial (but not in the original trial) that they both went to the room after Van Treese was murdered and that Richard had pulled a $100 bill from Van Treese’s wallet and put it in his pocket. Sneed’s fingerprints, on the other hand, were discovered all over Room 102 and his DNA was discovered on a $100 bill collected from the stolen motel receipts.

Illogical motives: Why would Richard hand over $4000 to Barry Van Treese and then arrange to rob him of that money? He could have simply walked away with the receipts. Sneed also said that Richard wanted to kill Barry, keep working at the motel, and maybe take over management of the Tulsa motel, too, which just doesn’t make sense.

Motives belied by the evidence: Although according to witnesses Richard was supposed to be worried about his job performance and shortfalls in the accounts, Barry Van Treese’s brother testified at Richard’s 2004 retrial that any financial shortfalls were “really insignificant amounts of money” that would not have concerned Barry and that the motel was “very profitable indeed”. Barry had given Richard a performance bonus for 11 of the 12 months preceding the murder.

Short, poorly done investigation: The investigation into Van Treese’s death was very short, turned up very uncertain evidence against Richard, and yet the decision was made to pursue the death penalty. Justice Bryer, in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross, noted that: “In comparing those who were exonerated from death row to other capital defendants who were not so exonerated, the initial police investigations tended to be shorter for those exonerated.”

One example of the inadequacy of the investigation was the way police failed to follow up on other potential suspects in the killing. The Best Budget Inn was known as a place visited by drug dealers, prostitutes and people with troubled criminal pasts and on the night of Barry Van Treese’s murder there were several people present who certainly merited investigation but who were essentially ignored. Most notable was Richard Page, who had a long criminal history and was known to be a white supremacist. Paige had been convicted of beating a man to death with a blunt object in Arkansas for money. Page was convicted of the murder – which had a striking similarity to the murder of Van Treese – and spent 10 years in prison. Page testified at Richard’s trial that he frequently went into room 102 where he bought drugs from Richard’s brother, Bobby Glossip. Bobby Glossip manufactured and sold methamphetamine and also had a violent past. The police failed to thoroughly investigate these men (as well as others), their relationship to Justin Sneed and their possible involvement in the crime.

Inadequate, under-funded defense: Richard had two trials, the first in 1998 and the second in 2004. In his first trial, he had woefully inadequate defense, and in 2001 the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had no hesitation throwing out the verdict due to ineffective assistance of counsel. In his retrial, Richard was represented by the under-resourced Oklahoma Public Defender’s Office.

Neither jury saw critical evidence: In the original trial the Appeals court found particular fault with the defense counsel’s failure to use the videotape of Justin Sneed’s confession to impeach both Sneed and the detectives who interviewed him:

“[t]rial counsel’s failure to utilize important impeachment evidence against Justin Sneed stands out as the most glaring deficiency in counsel’s performance.”

In the retrial, the defense once again failed to use the videotape, nor did they show the jury the transcripts. At this time, the videotape not only would have provided strong evidence of the police manipulation of Sneed but it also would have shown the many ways Justin Sneed’s story changed from his 1997 interview to the 1998 trial to the 2004 retrial. Despite the defense’s failure to use the videotape, this time the Appeals court had nothing to say on this egregious omission.

Justin Sneed had a good reason to implicate Richard in the murder: The transcript of Justin Sneed’s confession makes it clear that the police intimated to him that if he told them that Richard was behind the crime that information would be taken into account by the district attorney; and that otherwise Sneed would be handed over straight away and that he would “be facing this thing” on his own. Sneed specifically asked the detectives how his confession would help him:

SNEED:  So is this going to help me out any at all by telling you all this?

OFFICER:  Well, we’ll just have to wait and see.  This is definitely going to be better for you this way than it would be if you didn’t say anything.

In fact, by implicating Richard, Sneed avoided a death sentence and was able to make a plea bargain that got him a life sentence, a sentence he is now serving in a medium security prison.

Justin Sneed’s daughter believes her father wants to recant: Sneed’s daughter believes that Richard is innocent and that her father would like to recant his testimony, but that he is scared he will lose his plea deal if he does so. In 2015 she sent a letter to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board stating this.

Justin Sneed’s testimony changed over time: There are marked changes in Sneed’s confession and testimony in the two trials. The amount of money he said Richard offered him for the murder changed repeatedly and in the 2004 retrial, he gave many more details and described events which he had never before mentioned.

Not the “worst of the worst”: The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty should be reserved for those cases that are the “worst of the worst” and “limited to those offenders who commit a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them the most deserving of execution.” How does this crime fit that category? How does this Oklahoma City crime merit a death sentence when Terry Nichols, convicted of 161 counts of murder in the Oklahoma City bombing, received consecutive life sentences?

Oklahoma has condemned other innocent men to death: Ten people have been exonerated from Oklahoma’s death row. Bad lawyering played a part in two of those decisions and snitch testimony played a part in four of them. Richard’s case contains both bad lawyering and snitch testimony. Add to that the short police investigation, and his case contains most of the key ingredients found in convictions of innocent people.”

 Bitte unterstützt die Aktionen gegen die Hinrichtung! Please support the actions against execution!
Patrick Steinhuber

Dringend/Urgent mit neuer Petition/with new Petition: Gegen die Hinrichtung von Bernardo Aban Tercero am 26 August in Texas / Against execution of Bernardo Aban Tercero in Texas on 26 August


Englisch text below:


Amnesty Textausschnitt:


Am 26. August soll der Nicaraguaner Bernardo Aban Tercero im US-Bundesstaat Texas hingerichtet werden. Er war wegen eines Mordes zum Tode verurteilt worden, den er 1997 begangen haben soll. Es besteht die Sorge, dass er bei seinem Gerichtsverfahren und in den Berufungsverfahren unangemessen verteidigt wurde. Er hat ein Gnadengesuch eingereicht.


Hier die Amnesty Aktion:


Unterstützerseite auch mit Appelladressen (von Save Innocent) für Bernardo Aban Tercero:

Neue aktuelle Onlinepetition:



In Englisch


Amnesty Text:

Bernardo Aban Tercero, a Nicaraguan national, is scheduled to be executed in Texas on 26 August for a murder committed in 1997. The poor quality of the legal representation he received at trial and during state-level appeals is at the centre of his clemency bid.


Amnesty Actionsite


Supporter Website with Appealadresses (from Save Innocent) for Bernardo Aban Tercero:

Newest Onlinepetition:




Neue Amnesty-Aktion gegen die mögliche Hinrichtung am 4 August in Pakistan!


Bitte unterstützt die Amnestyaktion gegen die schon am 4 August drohene Hinrichtung von Shafqat Hussain in Pakistan. Hier ein Ausschnitt von Amnesty Text:


“Shafqat Hussain soll am 4. August hingerichtet werden. Dies ist bereits der fünfte Hinrichtungsbefehl, der gegen ihn erlassen wurde. Zur Zeit der ihm vorgeworfenen Tat war er laut seiner Rechtsbeistände unter 18 Jahre alt. Zudem soll Shafqat Hussain unter Folter “gestanden” haben.”


Hier ein Link von Amnestywebsite, wo man die E-mailaktion teilnehmen kann oder man sieht Appelladressen wo man ein Appell schreiben kann:


Bitte unterstützt die Aktion gegen diese Hinrichtung!

Patrick Steinhuber


Neue/New Onlinepetition gegen die Todesstrafe in USA/ Against death penalty in USA



Hier die Onlinepetition gegen die Todesstrafe in der USA:

Here the Onlinepetition against death penalty in the USA:


Danach muss man die Onlineunterschrift durch eine geschickte E-mail von der Petitionsseite bei Ihren E-mailaccount bestätigen.

Then you have to confirm the online signature by a e-mail of the petition page with your e-mail account.

Patrick Steinhuber

Onlinepetition für Hannah/Onlinepetition for Hannah #SaveHannah



Hannah leidet an Hirnabbaukrankheit NCL2, das man auch in sehr jungen Alter bekommen kann.

Aber es gibt ein Medikament, das an einer Studie getestet wurde – mit einem positiven Ergebnis gegen diese Krankheit – diese Studie wurde geschlossen. Daher will die Onlinepetition dazu bewegen, das Hannah dieses Medikament bekommt, da die Zulassung 2 bis 3 Jahre dauern könnte.


Hier die Onlinepetition mit mehr Informationen bei


Bitte unterstützt die Petition

In Englisch

Hannah suffers from brain reduction disease  NCL2 that you can get even at a very young age.

But there is a medication that has been tested in a study with a positive result against the disease the study been closed. Therefore, the online petition will persuade the Hannah gets this medication, because the authorization could last 2 to 3 years.


Here the online petition with more information at

Please support the Petition

Patrick Steinhuber