No way is this guy innocent.

[SearchMaster]

No more rhymes, and I mean it!

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

highly unlikely

his post --------------------------------------->








your head --------------------------------------->

What?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo

watch this to get it

I don't watch kid children's movies. Thanks anyways.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

Are you a parent?

Are you retarded?


I'd say the clear evidence of arson was that swayed the jury...

the point of the article is that the "clear evidence" heard by the jury was anything but. The investigators used outdated, non-scientific, and completely erroneous methods of arson investigation to stack against the accused.

Apparently, their methods were the phrenology, or chiropractic disciplines of the world of arson investigation.

The case was re-examined shortly before the execution was to be commuted, and found undeniably to be an accident. Texas still killed him, though. They're funny that way.

Yep. For those with short attention spans, inability to read an article that long, the first half of the article builds up all the evidence that they had against the guy. The second half of the article explains how all that "evidence" was absolutely wrong & how there was no evidence at all of an arson. i.e. Texas fucked up and executed an innocent man.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Pheran
That article is extremely long and I haven't finished it, but I've into into Part IV and now there is absolutely reasonable doubt in my mind that this guy is innocent - the arson info in that part is damning to the prosecution.

And for those that say no father would leave a burning house without his kids, that is just stupid. While I would do absolutely everything in my power to rescue my daughter from a fire, I am not Superman and I cannot withstand superhot flames or suffocation. I can imagine situations in which I would be forced to give up.

Unfortunately for you and Willingham this wasn't one of those situations.... was it?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Obviously we can't know what actually happened, and IMO the revelations since the execution are not necessarily enough to convince me that he couldn't have been guilty. That said, I don't believe he could fairly have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based only on junk science and bogus jailhouse informant testimony, and the idea that he COULDN'T be innocent is just stupid.

I certainly HOPE he was guilty, since he has already paid the ultimate price.

 

[Udgnim]

thought I already read this, but turns out, it was on a different forum

anyways, here's another article related to this news story: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09...rbert.html?ref=opinion

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

Are you a parent?

Are you retarded?


I'd say the clear evidence of arson was that swayed the jury...

the point of the article is that the "clear evidence" heard by the jury was anything but. The investigators used outdated, non-scientific, and completely erroneous methods of arson investigation to stack against the accused.

Apparently, their methods were the phrenology, or chiropractic disciplines of the world of arson investigation.

The case was re-examined shortly before the execution was to be commuted, and found undeniably to be an accident. Texas still killed him, though. They're funny that way.

Yep. For those with short attention spans, inability to read an article that long, the first half of the article builds up all the evidence that they had against the guy. The second half of the article explains how all that "evidence" was absolutely wrong & how there was no evidence at all of an arson. i.e. Texas fucked up and executed an innocent man.

Come on dude. You're a father. Are you telling me you believe he couldn't have at least gotten them babies out whether dead or alive? He had enough time.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
So you believe as a father you would have got out without your babies? You would have left them to burn. Even if you thought they were dead you wouldn't have gotten then out ...no
matter what?

You are talking completely out of your ass. A house can reach 1100 degrees in just a few minutes, which is the same temperature as an iron smelter. You would really crawl into a roaring blast furnace in an attempt to rescue your kids? See how long you can hold your arm over a grill, which is maybe 500 degrees tops. The guy had burns on his arms and his hair was burned off, and his neighbors said he was screaming and inconsolable.

http://www.fairviewok.org/id71.html

In only 3 /12 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100°F. People die when the temperature is over 212°F.

Of course, after the fire marshal pulled that bogus evidence out of his ass they changed their story. Not surprising since it's extremely simple to change the way someone remembers something. And don't even get me started on the jailhouse snitch, is there a reason anyone still believes people like that?

 

[Caecus Veritas]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

Are you a parent?

Are you retarded?


I'd say the clear evidence of arson was that swayed the jury...

the point of the article is that the "clear evidence" heard by the jury was anything but. The investigators used outdated, non-scientific, and completely erroneous methods of arson investigation to stack against the accused.

Apparently, their methods were the phrenology, or chiropractic disciplines of the world of arson investigation.

The case was re-examined shortly before the execution was to be commuted, and found undeniably to be an accident. Texas still killed him, though. They're funny that way.

Yep. For those with short attention spans, inability to read an article that long, the first half of the article builds up all the evidence that they had against the guy. The second half of the article explains how all that "evidence" was absolutely wrong & how there was no evidence at all of an arson. i.e. Texas fucked up and executed an innocent man.

Come on dude. You're a father. Are you telling me you believe he couldn't have at least gotten them babies out whether dead or alive? He had enough time.

Did you even bother to read the article before you posted? or do you have some special power that we don't have?

if you read the article, he tried reaching the babies but couldn't and was near passing out. his next move was to call for help. again, if you read the article, he tried going back in but couldn't.

 

[Baked]

What a sad story.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Come on dude. You're a father. Are you telling me you believe he couldn't have at least gotten them babies out whether dead or alive? He had enough time.

Hurst[*] told me, ?People who have never been in a fire don?t understand why those who survive often can?t rescue the victims. They have no concept of what a fire is like.?

*John Lentini, a fire expert and the author of a leading scientific textbook on arson, describes Hurst as ?brilliant.? A Texas prosecutor once told the Chicago Tribune, of Hurst, ?If he says it was an arson fire, then it was. If he says it wasn?t, then it wasn?t.?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: DesiPower
can someone post a gist of the article? its too long to read at work...

Gist: innocent man likely executed in texas.

Short snippet showing how ridiculous this case was:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...8/an-innocent-man.html

No one who does actually read the article will come away with OPs impression.

Here's a great part:

In March, 2000...[prison informant Johnney] Webb [who said that Willingham confessed to him] unexpectedly sent [the case's prosecutor John] Jackson a Motion to Recant Testimony, declaring, ?Mr. Willingham is innocent of all charges.? But Willingham?s lawyer was not informed of this development, and soon afterward Webb, without explanation, recanted his recantation. When I recently asked Webb, who was released from prison two years ago, about the turnabout and why Willingham would have confessed to a virtual stranger, he said that he knew only what ?the dude told me.? After I pressed him, he said, ?It?s very possible I misunderstood what he said.? Since the trial, Webb has been given an additional diagnosis, bipolar disorder. ?Being locked up in that little cell makes you kind of crazy,? he said. ?My memory is in bits and pieces. I was on a lot of medication at the time. Everyone knew that.? He paused, then said, ?The statute of limitations has run out on perjury, hasn?t it??

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
So you believe as a father you would have got out without your babies? You would have left them to burn. Even if you thought they were dead you wouldn't have gotten then out ...no
matter what?

You are talking completely out of your ass. A house can reach 1100 degrees in just a few minutes, which is the same temperature as an iron smelter. You would really crawl into a roaring blast furnace in an attempt to rescue your kids? See how long you can hold your arm over a grill, which is maybe 500 degrees tops. The guy had burns on his arms and his hair was burned off, and his neighbors said he was screaming and inconsolable.

http://www.fairviewok.org/id71.html

In only 3 /12 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100°F. People die when the temperature is over 212°F.

Of course, after the fire marshal pulled that bogus evidence out of his ass they changed their story. Not surprising since it's extremely simple to change the way someone remembers something. And don't even get me started on the jailhouse snitch, is there a reason anyone still believes people like that?

So you accept his explanation that somehow he was able to get out virtually unscathed but
he was unable to save his kids. OK. i don't.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
So you believe as a father you would have got out without your babies? You would have left them to burn. Even if you thought they were dead you wouldn't have gotten then out ...no
matter what?

You are talking completely out of your ass. A house can reach 1100 degrees in just a few minutes, which is the same temperature as an iron smelter. You would really crawl into a roaring blast furnace in an attempt to rescue your kids? See how long you can hold your arm over a grill, which is maybe 500 degrees tops. The guy had burns on his arms and his hair was burned off, and his neighbors said he was screaming and inconsolable.

http://www.fairviewok.org/id71.html

In only 3 /12 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100°F. People die when the temperature is over 212°F.

Of course, after the fire marshal pulled that bogus evidence out of his ass they changed their story. Not surprising since it's extremely simple to change the way someone remembers something. And don't even get me started on the jailhouse snitch, is there a reason anyone still believes people like that?

So you accept his explanation that somehow he was able to get out virtually unscathed but
he was unable to save his kids. OK. i don't.

k, you don't buy his explanation, so you'd execute him? and this despite the rest of the article showing how f'd up the goings on were with the witnesses and the prosecution?

thus, the problem with capital punishment.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

highly unlikely

his post --------------------------------------->








your head --------------------------------------->

What?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo

watch this to get it

I don't watch kid children's movies. Thanks anyways.

Now you've gone too far, fucker.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

highly unlikely

his post --------------------------------------->








your head --------------------------------------->

What?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo

watch this to get it

I don't watch kid children's movies. Thanks anyways.

Now you've gone too far, fucker.

PB isn't a kid children's movie. It's an adult children's movie, get it straight.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

Are you a parent?

Are you retarded?


I'd say the clear evidence of arson was that swayed the jury...

the point of the article is that the "clear evidence" heard by the jury was anything but. The investigators used outdated, non-scientific, and completely erroneous methods of arson investigation to stack against the accused.

Apparently, their methods were the phrenology, or chiropractic disciplines of the world of arson investigation.

The case was re-examined shortly before the execution was to be commuted, and found undeniably to be an accident. Texas still killed him, though. They're funny that way.

So you believe as a father you would have got out without your babies? You would have left them to burn. Even if you thought they were dead you wouldn't have gotten then out ...no
matter what?

He was tried on an arson conviction, was he not?

at what point did your passion intrude on the reality of the situation?

It seems to have become perfectly clear that this was a tragic accident. Whether or not the guy was a coward is a different issue. Seems he was executed unjustly--whatever you believe.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
So you believe as a father you would have got out without your babies? You would have left them to burn. Even if you thought they were dead you wouldn't have gotten then out ...no
matter what?

You are talking completely out of your ass. A house can reach 1100 degrees in just a few minutes, which is the same temperature as an iron smelter. You would really crawl into a roaring blast furnace in an attempt to rescue your kids? See how long you can hold your arm over a grill, which is maybe 500 degrees tops. The guy had burns on his arms and his hair was burned off, and his neighbors said he was screaming and inconsolable.

http://www.fairviewok.org/id71.html

In only 3 /12 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100°F. People die when the temperature is over 212°F.

Of course, after the fire marshal pulled that bogus evidence out of his ass they changed their story. Not surprising since it's extremely simple to change the way someone remembers something. And don't even get me started on the jailhouse snitch, is there a reason anyone still believes people like that?

So you accept his explanation that somehow he was able to get out virtually unscathed but
he was unable to save his kids. OK. i don't.

You're a terrible person. Is Texas filled with people like you, so willing to murder a man on the basis of their own intuition and counter to scientific evidence? That would explain a lot.

This is why I oppose the death penalty. Too many guys walking around with huge murder-boners in this country.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: xSauronx

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

highly unlikely

his post --------------------------------------->








your head --------------------------------------->

What?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo

watch this to get it

I don't watch kid children's movies. Thanks anyways.

if anything, this thread has proved that you are beyond hope.


or one too many beers?

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Come on dude. You're a father. Are you telling me you believe he couldn't have at least gotten them babies out whether dead or alive? He had enough time.

Hurst[*] told me, ?People who have never been in a fire don?t understand why those who survive often can?t rescue the victims. They have no concept of what a fire is like.?

*John Lentini, a fire expert and the author of a leading scientific textbook on arson, describes Hurst as ?brilliant.? A Texas prosecutor once told the Chicago Tribune, of Hurst, ?If he says it was an arson fire, then it was. If he says it wasn?t, then it wasn?t.?

I guess it depends on your level of attachment to both your own life and the life of the person you are trying to rescue.

I've seen someone try to rescue a buddy who was being burned alive in a vehicle (with no real chance of rescue) who had complete disregard for himself. Had his hands and arms burnt to a crisp before someone else pulled him back.

Edit: Note, my comment has nothing to do with the actual case at hand. I was just making a general comment that it is possible to suppress the will to live on occasion to do extraordinary acts. I'm not saying this father should have done so.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
So you believe as a father you would have got out without your babies? You would have left them to burn. Even if you thought they were dead you wouldn't have gotten then out ...no
matter what?

You are talking completely out of your ass. A house can reach 1100 degrees in just a few minutes, which is the same temperature as an iron smelter. You would really crawl into a roaring blast furnace in an attempt to rescue your kids? See how long you can hold your arm over a grill, which is maybe 500 degrees tops. The guy had burns on his arms and his hair was burned off, and his neighbors said he was screaming and inconsolable.

http://www.fairviewok.org/id71.html

In only 3 /12 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100°F. People die when the temperature is over 212°F.

Of course, after the fire marshal pulled that bogus evidence out of his ass they changed their story. Not surprising since it's extremely simple to change the way someone remembers something. And don't even get me started on the jailhouse snitch, is there a reason anyone still believes people like that?

So you accept his explanation that somehow he was able to get out virtually unscathed but
he was unable to save his kids. OK. i don't.

I accept one thing:

You are beyond help.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
So you believe as a father you would have got out without your babies? You would have left them to burn. Even if you thought they were dead you wouldn't have gotten then out ...no
matter what?

You are talking completely out of your ass. A house can reach 1100 degrees in just a few minutes, which is the same temperature as an iron smelter. You would really crawl into a roaring blast furnace in an attempt to rescue your kids? See how long you can hold your arm over a grill, which is maybe 500 degrees tops. The guy had burns on his arms and his hair was burned off, and his neighbors said he was screaming and inconsolable.

http://www.fairviewok.org/id71.html

In only 3 /12 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100°F. People die when the temperature is over 212°F.

Of course, after the fire marshal pulled that bogus evidence out of his ass they changed their story. Not surprising since it's extremely simple to change the way someone remembers something. And don't even get me started on the jailhouse snitch, is there a reason anyone still believes people like that?

So you accept his explanation that somehow he was able to get out virtually unscathed but
he was unable to save his kids. OK. i don't.

You're a terrible person. Is Texas filled with people like you, so willing to murder a man on the basis of their own intuition and counter to scientific evidence? That would explain a lot.

Oh snap! he's from Texas, too?

Now I know I don't like him.

 

[LTC8K6]

So you accept his explanation that somehow he was able to get out virtually unscathed but he was unable to save his kids. OK. i don't.

He was supposed to have the presumption of innocence under the law. You have to prove him guilty under the law. If your proof doesn't really exist, and it doesn't in this case, then he's to be considered innocent.

Since there is really no evidence that he started the fire, and some evidence that he tried to get to his kids, the presumption of innocence should stand under the law.

It's fine for you to informally give your opinion here, though. It means nothing, however. I just hope if you get on a jury that you can remember the rules of law in this country.

It's unfortunately too late for some folks.

I used to be for the death penalty. Unwavering. Then I learned what a prosecutor in NC can get away with via the Duke Lacrosse case, and I realized they could put anyone away easily if they decide to. I used to think the police and prosecutors wouldn't deliberately railroad someone. Well, they will.

First time I began to waver on the death penalty.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Come on dude. You're a father. Are you telling me you believe he couldn't have at least gotten them babies out whether dead or alive? He had enough time.

Hurst[*] told me, ?People who have never been in a fire don?t understand why those who survive often can?t rescue the victims. They have no concept of what a fire is like.?

*John Lentini, a fire expert and the author of a leading scientific textbook on arson, describes Hurst as ?brilliant.? A Texas prosecutor once told the Chicago Tribune, of Hurst, ?If he says it was an arson fire, then it was. If he says it wasn?t, then it wasn?t.?

I guess it depends on your level of attachment to both your own life and the life of the person you are trying to rescue.

I've seen someone try to rescue a buddy who was being burned alive in a vehicle (with no real chance of rescue) who had complete disregard for himself. Had his hands and arms burnt to a crisp before someone else pulled him back.

The person you saw was OUTSIDE a smaller fire contained within a vehicle. Hurst was talking about "people who have never been IN a fire" not understanding the holocaust inferno that being inside a house fire can be.

Like he said, "They have no concept of what a [house] fire is like." That would be you and me.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

There was a fire next door at my father's apartment before, in the middle of the night while we were sleeping. The cats died so I guess I am an evil cat murderer. I saved my laptop though.