No way is this guy innocent.

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
There is no way I'd leave a burning house with my son trapped inside. Honestly, I'd rather fucking die than have to live with the grief that would cause.

Before facing combat, most every soldier says the same, but sometimes things change real quick once the bullets start flying. I'd like to think I'd risk my life to save my children, but until I've actually done it, I won't claim to have that sort of courage.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Willingham started the fire in the kids' bedroom when they were asleep and watched it burn until he was certain they would be killed by it and then he went outside and pretended he had done everything possible to save them. Except he never called for help. Just like Ted Kennedy another "innocent" man who never called for help.

so you are obviously a mouth-breathing troglodyte.

While it's beyond doubt that Ted Kennedy was a greater man than you could ever dream to be (even the hardcore fundies whose wangs you'd probably suckle do no less than admit what an incredible individual he was, even when they battled it out; his tireless efforts to bring about progressive reform--rights to individuals who surprisingly are of even lesser social stature than yourself (I know--hard to imagine that is possible)), who knows...maybe Willingham could have been a great man too if that fuckhole of a state, Texas, hadn't murdered yet another innocent man.

 

[manlymatt83]

I read the entire thing. I actually believe he may have been innocent, if Hurst is as much an expert as he says he is.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: slayer202
perknose, how are you such a beautiful being and be a mod?

manybeers, you are a douche troll





How about I drop kick you to the curb for a couple weeks?


esquared
Anandtech Senior Moderator

can you not admit that Perknose was WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY out of line in this thread?

come the fuck on.

And I tend to respect Perknose, but it's like he's been hijacked by Casiotech, or something.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: akshatp

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: akshatp

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: akshatp

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.

According to Hurst the fire was "probable" accidental fire in his opinion. NOT definitive.

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.

I don't think the jury convicted him based on all this crap. They were probably all loving parents simply didn't believe his bullshit story and hung him.

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"

It's Texas. They're not known to uphold the constitution, let alone general jurisprudence.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: mchammer

Originally posted by: Phokus
The state that gave us George Bush also executed an innocent man? Give Texas back to Mexico.

Are you nuts, there are Intel fabs there.

Intel has others. No loss.

If anythign, it'll bring some decent jobs to Mexico, stimulate their economy, create a slew of other jobs, and suck all of the illegals back home.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
This is what happens when you raise a large portion of the population to have contempt for science. There was scientific evidence that cleared this man, but instead the courts sided with unqualified amateurs who had unverifiable track records in assessing the remains of fires. Many Americans are raised with a disgusting contempt of science, the scientific process and the scientific community (look at any threads around here on evolution, big bang theory or global warming for examples).

but you forget that there are vastly more staunch science proponents in this country than NZ has people.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I read the whole article; I did NOT read the whole thread.

When I was an insurance adjuster I was trained in arson investigation (several courses including fire department controlled burns). From my perspective I can say without reservation that trying to determine the cause of fires is almost futile in every case.

They train you to look for evidence of accelerants, which show up as specific kinds of stains on floors, and which are a clear indicator of arson. Couple problems with that though; most people keep flammable liquids in their homes, under the kitchen sink stuff, nail polish remover, rubbing alcohol, and basements full of thinners and paints. Many items of home furniture contain polyester fabric and polyester foam, which when melted and then burned leave the same traces as splashes of gasoline or kerosene. This goes for almost anything made out of plastic as well. Over half of my class voted a large stain underneath a TV tube was accelerant, when it had in fact been the TV itself, and the fire started in another portion of the room altogether via electrical means.

They also train you to look for the path of the fire. They make it all seem so easy and common sense while you are there, but I happened to be there when the chief arson investigator for the Anderson IN fire department could not correctly identify the origin of two fires, nor the mechanism that started them. Even our class came up with many alternatives to how the fires started and how they spread. The video tapes proved almost everyone wrong, which was part of the point, that fire investigation is NO SCIENCE.

We were then told stories about how some people were sentenced for murders they did not commit based on faulty fire department reports. One I remember was how a man was put to death over an alleged arson that killed his wife and children. It seems the fire report stated that accelerants were used. Years after he was executed it was discovered that the flooring in the home was glued together using a very turn of the century method involving gasoline as solvent for glue, completely invalidating the accelerant theory.

These fire investigators in the article that say shit like "Fires don't destroy evidence, they create it.", "You learn that fire talks to you.", and "The fire tells a story.", are all self-serving nincompoops not paying any attention to their own trade.

Arson investigation evidence, which is unfortunately passed off as infallible (along with DNA, fingerprint, fiber, and pressure mark evidence), should be highly scrutinized and treated the same way as hearsay. It is anything but infallible.

Cliffs
Things I learned about fire investigation
1. Almost impossible to tell how a fire started or whether it was started intentionally.
2. Accelerant sniffing dogs can find a drop of gasoline on someone hours after it was dripped onto the person, and from several blocks away.
3. Swimming pool powdered chlorine and brake fluid are fun.
4. Poor guy got the shaft due to overzealous retards in positions of authority.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
....that a 24 year-old father was able to get out of his 975 sq. foot house alive and unscathed,
and at the same time unable to get his 2 year-old and twin infant daughters out as well
whether they be dead or alive. The 2 year old was found dead in the master bedroom where
Willingham awoke to her cries of "Daddy! Daddy!" . Is that explainable?

He basically stands outside and watches the place burn knowing his daughters are too
young to escape on their own.


I think the jury which convicted him probably asked themselves the same question and
determined it is inconceivable as well.



New Yorker article

I think you didn't even bother to read the first few paragraphs of the article you linked, much less the whole thing. Ughhh...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SphinxnihpS
These fire investigators in the article that say shit like "Fires don't destroy evidence, they create it.", "You learn that fire talks to you.", and "The fire tells a story.", are all self-serving nincompoops not paying any attention to their own trade.

Just goes to show, if you try to make sense from a fire....*sunglasses*...you're going to get burned.

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! :music: :music:

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Last note, NOBODY is going to be able to walk into a fire under any force of will. Your natural instincts will not allow it no matter what's at stake (besides your life).

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
That was one of the best articles I've read recently, fascinating. I haven't read the thread, wonder if anyone else noticed that the article is dated in the future.

nice catch. i think the article is being published in the 9/7/09 issue of the magazine, hence the "future" date. not sure why they posted it to the website early.

New Yorker is released the week before the date on the cover. so the 9/7 issue was available this week--8-31 - 9-7. It's the current issue, as it were.

 

[oogabooga]

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
I think the OP is just trying to piss everyone off.

why would anyone try to do that on the internet? IT makes no sense.

Article is getting me through my afternoon at work. It's a fascinating read so far.

 

[waggy]

when i moved out of my far house wich was 4k sq/ft we had a LOT of extra (very old and ugly) furniture. Since we were moving into a 2k sq/ft house we had to either give it away or have a garage sale. We had the stuff for free and NOBODY wanted it. when i say it was ugly i really mean FUCKING UGLY.

so we had a party. we had a huge fire going in one corner of the property. with all teh furniture around it so people could sit and talk. Well we ran out of wood to burn. So someone threw a old couch onto the fire. i was fucking amazed how fast it went up. within 20 seconds it was a huge ball of fire. all conversation stoped and we watched it. After it burned we all people could talk about was how fast it went.

So no i don't blame the guy for not getting the kids out. i would have tried my damndest but as i said i am not superman. i can' not withstand hundreds to thousands of degrees of heat. it is sad that the kids and father lost there life because of the fire.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
This is what happens when you raise a large portion of the population to have contempt for science. There was scientific evidence that cleared this man, but instead the courts sided with unqualified amateurs who had unverifiable track records in assessing the remains of fires. Many Americans are raised with a disgusting contempt of science, the scientific process and the scientific community (look at any threads around here on evolution, big bang theory or global warming for examples).

but you forget that there are vastly more staunch science proponents in this country than NZ has people.

Why do you think I forget that? It doesn't affect my point that many American children are raised to be suspicious of science.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Citrix

At one point, Jackson showed Gregory Exhibit No. 60?a photograph of an Iron Maiden poster that had hung in Willingham?s house?and asked the psychologist to interpret it. ?This one is a picture of a skull, with a fist being punched through the skull,? Gregory said; the image displayed ?violence? and ?death.? Gregory looked at photographs of other music posters owned by Willingham. ?There?s a hooded skull, with wings and a hatchet,? Gregory continued. ?And all of these are in fire, depicting?it reminds me of something like Hell. And there?s a picture?a Led Zeppelin picture of a falling angel. . . . I see there?s an association many times with cultive-type of activities. A focus on death, dying. Many times individuals that have a lot of this type of art have interest in satanic-type activities.?

Though only the babysitter had appeared as a witness for the defense during the main trial, several family members, including Stacy, testified during the penalty phase, asking the jury to spare Willingham?s life. When Stacy was on the stand, Jackson grilled her about the ?significance? of Willingham?s ?very large tattoo of a skull, encircled by some kind of a serpent.? ?It?s just a tattoo,? Stacy responded. ?He just likes skulls and snakes. Is that what you?re saying?? ?No. He just had?he got a tattoo on him.? The prosecution cited such evidence in asserting that Willingham fit the profile of a sociopath, and brought forth two medical experts to confirm the theory. Neither had met Willingham. One of them was Tim Gregory, a psychologist with a master?s degree in marriage and family issues, who had previously gone goose hunting with Jackson, and had not published any research in the field of sociopathic behavior. His practice was devoted to family counselling.

this alone was just un-fucking believable. and should have been grounds alone to throw this case out. this trial turned into a salem witch hunt and this innocent man was murdered for it.

Yeah... heaven forbid anybody would actually like Iron Maiden...

 

[Bankamule]

Originally posted by: stag3
wow what a fucked up story, feel bad for the guy
but he was put to death for something he did not do.

i hope the original arson investigator thinks twice about
his conclusions now.

and the op is an idiot

Well Said.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
This is what happens when you raise a large portion of the population to have contempt for science. There was scientific evidence that cleared this man, but instead the courts sided with unqualified amateurs who had unverifiable track records in assessing the remains of fires. Many Americans are raised with a disgusting contempt of science, the scientific process and the scientific community (look at any threads around here on evolution, big bang theory or global warming for examples).

but you forget that there are vastly more staunch science proponents in this country than NZ has people.

Why do you think I forget that? It doesn't affect my point that many American children are raised to be suspicious of science.

as opposed to.....? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Australia, New Zealand?

You're attempting to place a value judgment on a country based on a vocal minority--a minority that will be found in every part of the world.

Are you trying to claim that you don't have hillbillies and rednecks in New Zealand? :laugh:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
This is what happens when you raise a large portion of the population to have contempt for science. There was scientific evidence that cleared this man, but instead the courts sided with unqualified amateurs who had unverifiable track records in assessing the remains of fires. Many Americans are raised with a disgusting contempt of science, the scientific process and the scientific community (look at any threads around here on evolution, big bang theory or global warming for examples).

but you forget that there are vastly more staunch science proponents in this country than NZ has people.

If I'm not mistaken, there are more sheep in New Zealand than New Zealand has people.

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
This is what happens when you raise a large portion of the population to have contempt for science. There was scientific evidence that cleared this man, but instead the courts sided with unqualified amateurs who had unverifiable track records in assessing the remains of fires. Many Americans are raised with a disgusting contempt of science, the scientific process and the scientific community (look at any threads around here on evolution, big bang theory or global warming for examples).

Funny, because I have the opinion that all New Zealanders are raised to look like sheep.
I wonder why that is?

edit: damn, beat to the punch.

 

[TecHNooB]

Great thread, would read again!

I would probably risk death to save my kids. Although, I think the problem may be that the house is MUCH hotter than people think. I'm sure if you entered the room where the fire started, your eyeballs would literally melt without wearing some type of goggles.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

my god you got me reading this now

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: TecHNooB
Great thread, would read again!

I would probably risk death to save my kids. Although, I think the problem may be that the house is MUCH hotter than people think. I'm sure if you entered the room where the fire started, your eyeballs would literally melt without wearing some type of goggles.

The goggles do nothing.

 

[Circlenaut]

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.?

Maybe you naysayers should ponder over this quote.

 

[fpaf]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
Wow! turned out to be a lively thread.

It's only lively because we're incapable of understanding the extent of your stupidity.

I bet if I asked you what the main cause of death is in structure fires, you would have to wiki the answer. That's how fvcking stupid you are.

I think I'll believe the brilliant PhD chemist over the average chump nobody with "beer" in his handle on a gay internet forum.

---

You have been banned for being a rude ass, before. I bet if I asked you to find your way to the door, you would have to wiki the answer so I'll help you. Good bye again.

Harvey
Senior AnandTech Moderator