Hood bewilders lawyer by saying one thing and doing another

Recall that just before the House final vote on the bill requiring that all forensic pathologists meet licensing requirements, Jim Hood sent an email about the bill which I took to mean he was opposed to the bill in part because he saw it as an attack on disgraced former forensic pathologist Dr. Steve Hayne (for those coming in new to the story, the bill passed anyway). Since I could easily have misunderstood Hood’s email, I will quote it in part.

The Jackson Free Press asked Jim Hood about it, and established that… well… you can read for yourself:

“We weren’t taking a position on whether it’s a bad bill,” Hood told the Jackson Free Press.

“Look, I’m not trying to defend Dr. Hayne,” he added. “It would be politically more convenient for me not to say anything about it, but when I’m asked, I’m going to tell the truth about what I’ve seen, and what the facts are, and I don’t want it to look like I’m defending him. But at the same time, I’m trying to say, ‘Look, we need to open the crime lab.’ That’s been our position; it hasn’t been pro (Hayne) or con him. It doesn’t have anything to do with what our position is.”

Mississippi Innocence Project director Tucker Carrington expressed bewilderment over Hood’s position.

NMC
4/6/10