When you read the final statements of most executed offenders, at least those who choose to give them, they tend to express remorse, often apologizing to victim families, or else offering comfort to friends and family they're leaving behind. Wright's final statement was noteworthy because he defiantly maintained his innocence until the end, instead insisting that an informant who testified against him really did the deed:
John Adams lied. He went to the police and told them a story. He made deals and sold stuff to keep from going to prison. I left the house, and I left him there. My only act or involvement was not telling on him. John Adams is the one that killed Donna Vick. I took a polygraph and passed. John Adams never volunteered to take one.Wright concluded, "Before you is an innocent man. I love my family. I'll be waiting on ya'll. I'm finished talking."
The Court of Criminal Appeals denied Wright's final habeas claim because "failed to make a prima facie case of actual innocence." I'm not saying he's innocent, mind you; a jury didn't think so and I've no way to know. But his final statement was strikingly different from most, that's for sure, and at that penultimate moment, a killer typically has nothing to lose by admitting their guilt.
One wonders: When an execution takes place under those circumstances, does it still bring "closure" for those involved?