How do you prove - or disprove - the intent behind split second events? To prove or disprove that something was an accident is very difficult, almost impossible seeming. But the need to do so is what Ken’s case hinged on.

Most people at some point in their lives have done something accidentally which afterwards they have bitterly regretted, and have felt that somehow they need to show that what happened was an accident. For most people thankfully it is not a matter of life and death and sometimes eventually sanity demands they just let go and forget it. But where a life has been lost and another life is on the line you cannot just leave off and forget it. It is vital to persevere and uncover the motivation of those involved - and also what circumstances prevailed that were simply outwith human control at the time. Yes sometimes bad things happen . Sometimes circumstances come together in a way nobody understands and tragedy results. It is not always someone’s fault. There is not always somebody to blame. Sometimes facts remain unproven and circumstances remain unexplained.

But conclusions in a court of law should be made on the basis of hard facts and people must be convicted on the basis only of facts. No just society would condemn a person on what can be "read into" the facts, on what is in effect someone’s interpretation of events. Sadly in Kenneth’s case this is what happened. Kenneth Mosley appears to have been convicted on the prosecution’s uncorroborated version of events which went virtually unchallenged by his original trial attorneys.

The conduct and motivation of these attorneys is puzzling. They were court appointed as is usual when a defendant is indigent, as Kenneth was. Perhaps they lacked resources. Perhaps they lacked expertise. They processed the case through the courts but they certainly did not appear to provide the legal representation which was Kenneth’s inalienable right.

What kind of defense team sums up with the words "You saw what a pitiful, hollow, insignificant, sniveling human being he has become. Is this the kind of person that you want to put out of his worthless misery?" These were unbelievably the words spoken by Kenneth’s defense attorney in the closing stages of his trial.

What kind of defense attorney tells the jury that he believes his client should be put to death but that a prison sentence would be a worse punishment? The answer is the one that apparently failed utterly to defend Kenneth Mosley in October 1997.

The inadequacy of Kenneth's representation at his original trial is mentioned in the Amnesty International Report "The State of Texas: Lethal Injustice."  

Another very disturbing aspect of Kenneth’s case is the question how can a thirty- nine year old man with no previous convictions be seen as a future danger to society? Did his life and character so suddenly change direction? His lawyer should have led exculpatory evidence about Ken’s drug addiction and balanced the state’s view of his character with evidence of his good character, which was there in abundance had they taken the trouble to call it forward. Why in the sentencing phase was no medical evidence led by the defence as to the devastatingly addictive effects of crack cocaine? Why was the court not told of Ken’s repeated efforts to get help with his addiction before tragedy struck? 

Quite apart from the fact that many psychiatrists would hesitate to predict future behaviour there was nothing to justify the conclusion that Kenneth, if given a long prison term, would be anything other than a rational and well behaved prisoner, one who at some future point might even return to being the productive and safe member of society he had previously been.