- Aug 30, 2004
- 2,519
- 1
- 81
Under the circumstances of that fire he should have got them out. He didn't want to because he wanted them to die. Good thing the jurors were on their toe's and nailed him.
Oh I almost forgot. If you will notice in the dialog you quoted I did not give you an unsavory title, but if you're not careful you may earn one.
Did you even read the entire article? Judging by your last three questions, you did not.
I have to admit I am not much of a reader, but this article is exteemely well written. I actually did read the whole thing, maybe you should do the same and then form a more valid opinion.
And before asking such questions, try putting one of your fingers into an open flame for even 5 seconds without moving it.
Texas obviously executed an innocent man.
Coward? Maybe. Arsonist? Surely not.
Without ever being involved in a house fire, how can you say that with any degree of certainty? That is an utterly ridiculous statement without ever having any experience of being in a burning house. Or having to choose between your life and the life of a family member.
i have learned from this thread, having already read the article, that the op, citrix, and datalink are idiots
You were there and know all of the circumstances of the fire, right? Oh wait, you are going by the testimony of the high school graduate "arson sleuth"
Once again, you read the ENTIRE article right? Oh, thats right.. you didnt.
The way I see it. This guy was innocent. He tried as best he could to save his children. Sure he should have grabbed them before he ran out, but don't you think he has lived with that knowledge? That he could have saved his kids but was unable to? He tried his best to protect his children and he couldn't. How do you think in the end that made him feel?
I didnt believe his "cock n bull" story either. I am hardly that naive to beleive a defense of "I didnt do it."
I am basing my opinion on the fact that no VALID proof that arson was committed exists. He was executed for Arson. And there is no scientific proof that he committed arson. Read the whole article.
Again I find it improbable that a 23 year old man in excellent shape was able to have enough time to get himself out but not 3 small infants who were only a few feet away.
[/quote]
You do remember that there was a fire ensuing right? Presumably in the room with the infants.
Ever been in a fire? Not so easy to see through all that smoke. And your first instincts as a human is to get the f away from the heat.
And improbable != proof that he set arson.
Try to rememebr what he was executed for. And that the law of this country presumes he is innocent until PROVEN guilty. If the jury thought it was "improbable" thats just not good enough.
Exactly. It wasnt definitive EITHER WAY. Vazquez/Fogg nor Hurst had a definitive answer based on scientific proof.
You just let the water out of your entire argument.
Im not sure why I got into this back and forth with an obvious troll, but I am going to bow out now. Ive got better things to do than to argue with you.
I cant stay away.
If what you say is true (and it probably is) then you are basically saying they ignored all of their duties as a jury, and convicted him based on their own passion rather than the facts of the case?
This is the problem with the legal system. This guy was not proved to be guilty. He was found guilty because of a jury that "didnt beleive his story"
A large part of the case was that it was arson. Later experts claimed that it wasn't. Who are we to believe? I really doubt anyone on this AT forum is a good arson expert and can tell from the evidence whether or not it was arson.
It goes both ways. Just because some detective was on the scene doesn't mean he's knowledgeable enough to make the call of arson or not. He could be using outdated methods or he could be right on the money. After all, we did free a lot of people on death row with DNA fingerprinting once the science was discovered and all that DNA evidence was presented by people not on the scene. Maybe those new techniques that the "new arson expert" presented in 2004 are relevant. Maybe they're not. None of us know since we're not arson experts.
My opinion is that it would have been a superior political move and helpful to future arson cases to reopen the case with the new evidence. Have the 2 sets of experts (the new expert(s) who thought it was accidental and the old expert on the scene who thought it was arson). I imagine it would go something like
New guy: "So in your report based on evidence A, you started thinking about arson but in the last couple of years, we've done these peer-reviewed experiments to show that evidence A actually means this."
Old guy: Either "Well, your experiments don't apply because of this, that, or other." Or "Hm, maybe you're right. I was using this technique and it has since been outdated."
And so on with each piece of evidence. Let the real arson experts have a dialogue to figure out with more certainty what happened. Based on past history, the guy may have been, say, 80 or 90% chance he's guilty. But after clearing up the arson evidence, it would have been closer to .1% or 99.9%, which is how I think the justice system is supposed to work. After those 1-2 weeks of arguing between arson experts, maybe they conclude it's murder after all but the trial was never allowed to go to that point, which is sad.
It goes both ways. Just because some detective was on the scene doesn't mean he's knowledgeable enough to make the call of arson or not. He could be using outdated methods or he could be right on the money. After all, we did free a lot of people on death row with DNA fingerprinting once the science was discovered and all that DNA evidence was presented by people not on the scene. Maybe those new techniques that the "new arson expert" presented in 2004 are relevant. Maybe they're not. None of us know since we're not arson experts.
My opinion is that it would have been a superior political move and helpful to future arson cases to reopen the case with the new evidence. Have the 2 sets of experts (the new expert(s) who thought it was accidental and the old expert on the scene who thought it was arson). I imagine it would go something like
New guy: "So in your report based on evidence A, you started thinking about arson but in the last couple of years, we've done these peer-reviewed experiments to show that evidence A actually means this."
Old guy: Either "Well, your experiments don't apply because of this, that, or other." Or "Hm, maybe you're right. I was using this technique and it has since been outdated."
And so on with each piece of evidence. Let the real arson experts have a dialogue to figure out with more certainty what happened. Based on past history, the guy may have been, say, 80 or 90% chance he's guilty. But after clearing up the arson evidence, it would have been closer to .1% or 99.9%, which is how I think the justice system is supposed to work. After those 1-2 weeks of arguing between arson experts, maybe they conclude it's murder after all but the trial was never allowed to go to that point, which is sad.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter