David Fugitt

PLEASE SHARE: So much for journalistic integrity. The Austin American-Statesman published an article about me without ever contacting me. Instead, the paper interviewed DA @JosePGarza, and gave him carte blanche, while leaving critical facts and judicial findings out of the story. Does that sound like journalism to you? I spoke with reporter @EvaRuth. She made one minor correction but left the other factual issues unaddressed. Here are just some of the facts the article failed to adequately address: Four witnesses testified at trial that Sgt. Polanco did not interrogate Allen Causey or take his confession. Polanco wasn’t even involved in the confession, according to the trial testimony. The reporter herself appeared surprised by this basic fact, which is documented in the trial transcript and which I’ve known for more than 35 years. Yet this article implies that the confession occurred due to Polanco. Misleading, to say the least, and utterly dishonest. Causey’s own lawyers eventually dropped the Polanco issue, making its prominence in this article even more baffling. Causey also confessed to multiple witnesses. And Judge Chantal Eldridge identified 17 pieces of inculpatory evidence against him, explicitly stating that innocence had not been established. Not a word about that in this article. The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered a new trial, but a new trial is not an exoneration. The ruling did not establish Causey’s actual innocence. The courts’ findings are critical context that readers deserve to know. In their findings, the court explicitly stated that innocence was not established. Not a word about that in this article. Yet Garza’s innocence fairy tale remains in the story, leaving readers with the impression that Causey’s innocence has been established simply because Garza says so. The problem? The courts said quite the opposite. A new trial is not an exoneration, and the article’s failure to convey that distinction leaves readers with a profoundly misleading account of what actually happened. I responded with the facts. The Statesman issued a correction, but it addressed only a small portion of the problems with the article. I asked Eva for the names and numbers of her editor and the managing editor, and she was less than forthcoming. I guess that’s how it goes with the @statesman these days. What a shameful disservice to Anita Byington, to what she endured, and to her memory, which is all we have left of her.

Thank you for giving me a voice, Gov Abbott and team 🙏🏼