So, it appears this man Texas executed was innocent

[zinfamous]

Headline from article...



Elusive. Not definitive.


.....'nuff said.

Definitive. absolutely.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

 

[Blackjack200]

Definitive. absolutely.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

That's a fantastic piece.

 

[M0RPH]

Except it was proven quite thoroughly that he was wrongfully convicted.

This is a very popular story. His innocence is not in doubt.

Please cite the conclusive evidence that proves his innocence. Thanks.

 

[soulcougher73]

Uh, says who? I have a vote and I DON'T have to accept either capital punishment or the innocent dying.

Yeah you not liking it has stopped it thus far. Keep trying.

 

[zinfamous]

Please cite the conclusive evidence that proves his innocence. Thanks.

I linked a rather long, rather definitive article on the subject.

the evidence used against him was rather soundly rejected after examination. That, alone, leads to a faulty conviction, and has generally lead to dismissal.

Why it was not done so for Willlingham, is the only mystery.

 

[OutHouse]

Definitive. absolutely.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

yes i read that the week i came out and its pretty clear the investigators totally fucked up the case and sent a man to death row for it.

 

[xBiffx]

Except it was proven quite thoroughly that he was wrongfully convicted.

This is a very popular story. His innocence is not in doubt.

In your little world, any instance of DNA evidence proving the innocence of hundreds of death row inmates should be thrown out as "the infallible and amazing US court of law" has already shown them to be guilty and is always correct.

idiot.

DNA evidence is not 100% definitive. DNA evidence only gives you a probability that a DNA sample matches a suspect. Granted you can have a very very high probability but its never 100% guaranteed. So just like our justice system, DNA evidence relies on conclusions that are not perfect.

 

[sm625]

We're all guilty until proven innocent. At least this man wont have to watch his children be poisoned to death by his government, actively conspiring with big corporations and globalist foundations.

And he wont have to listen to those pathetic dumbed down morons all around him, who are too blind to see what should be so obvious, and too cowardly to change what they know is broken.

Anyone who is paying attention to what is going on in the world feels every bit as betrayed as this man as he lived on death row.

 

[xBiffx]

We're all guilty until proven innocent. At least this man wont have to watch his children be poisoned to death by his government, actively conspiring with big corporations and globalist foundations.

And he wont have to listen to those pathetic dumbed down morons all around him, who are too blind to see what should be so obvious, and too cowardly to change what they know is broken.

Anyone who is paying attention to what is going on in the world feels every bit as betrayed as this man as he lived on death row.

Must...resist...urge...to feed..the..TROLOLOLOL.

 

[davmat787]

I mean face to face

Would that make you go away??

The question to ask is why would one of us want to meet you, given your tendency to pigeon hole and stereotype anyone to the right of you as a "Repug", "Faux Newser", or whatever else suits you that day? Also, I don't think I want to meet anyone that continuously mistakes the use of a period with a winky emoticon. D:

Just sayin...

edit: And to get back on topic, I am not pro-death penalty anymore, haven't been for over a decade probably. Too many cases of someone who is innocent either on death row and then exalted, or it was later discovered the executed was innocent. I have no doubt their are some who are worthy of the death penalty, but I can't reconcile that with an innocent being executed.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I have read a fair bit about this case, and watched that Frontline (which is remarkably even-handed IMO). It seems to me more likely than not that Willingham was innocent, and that there was in fact no crime.

The state of forensic science relating to fires was quite different in 1991, and this remains an area in which people with no scientific training or expertise (mainly fire marshals, who have a lot of experience with fires but no formalized training in forensic matters) are permitted to offer expert testimony. The scientifically-trained forensic experts who have reviewed this fire, including those on the committee appointed by Gov. Perry to evaluate the case, agree this was not arson and thus that Willingham committed no crime.

This case absolutely should be a reminder to any decent person that having a death penalty necessarily creates the risk that someone will be wrongfully convicted and put to death. Even if you believe Willingham was guilty (a proposition I can't imagine anyone feeling all that confident about given what we now know), you'd have to agree that it's a real possibility he was wrongfully executed. Combine the risk of wrongful executions with the death penalty's proven ineffectiveness as a deterrent and I find it hard to justify capital punishment. (This analysis, of course, leaves aside the tandem question of whether this system is consistent with our traditional ideas of fairness and justice, particularly given the stark racial and socioeconomic disparate impact of the death penalty.)

 

[a777pilot]

This person was investigated, charged, tried, and was found guilty. He then went through an exhaustive appeals procedure. The case slowly went through the justice system. He was executed. It's all very legal and is now over.

This is only getting news play because Mr. Perry is involved. If that was not the case this would all be moot. This is political. This has nothing to do with what is legal.

 

[Blackjack200]

This person was investigated, charged, tried, and was found guilty. He then went through an exhaustive appeals procedure. The case slowly went through the justice system. He was executed. It's all very legal and is now over.

This is only getting news play because Mr. Perry is involved. If that was not the case this would all be moot. This is political. This has nothing to do with what is legal.

The New Yorker piece was published in 2009, and the Frontline aired a year ago, long before Mr. Perry had any kind of national spotlight.

Try again you fucking hack.

 

[Mursilis]

This person was investigated, charged, tried, and was found guilty. He then went through an exhaustive appeals procedure. The case slowly went through the justice system. He was executed. It's all very legal and is now over.

A legal travesty, maybe. Well, almost certainly, when you look at it. And are you really going to argue that a system which allows the "legal" execution of a seemingly innocent man isn't in need of serious, serious repair?

 

[Mursilis]

Definitive. absolutely.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

That's one of the pieces I read before. Great, great article.

 

[Blackjack200]

A legal travesty, maybe. Well, almost certainly, when you look at it. And are you really going to argue that a system which allows the "legal" execution of a seemingly innocent man isn't in need of serious, serious repair?

There is no reforming the system until you reform people's attitudes. The problem is not rules or procedure, the problem is that prosecutors, which are supposed to represent the people and prosecute only individuals whose guilt is suggested by substantial evidence, use their position as a platform to run for political office or do something else, and lots of convictions look good, even if they are wrong. You see it time and again. Happened in Italy, happened here, and it happened in that other case Frontline profiled in "The Confessions".

 

[Drako]

The New Yorker piece was published in 2009, and the Frontline aired a year ago, long before Mr. Perry had any kind of national spotlight.

Try again you fucking hack.

Quoted for Lulz.

The article in the OP is all about Perry and this incident.

"But the question has reverberated over the past year, as Texas Gov. Rick Perry seeks the GOP nomination for president. Perry has defended the execution, describing Willingham as a “monster,” and saying in a GOP debate that he’s never struggled with the thought that an innocent person has been executed during his time in office."

 

[Blackjack200]

Quoted for Lulz.

The article in the OP is all about Perry and this incident.

"But the question has reverberated over the past year, as Texas Gov. Rick Perry seeks the GOP nomination for president. Perry has defended the execution, describing Willingham as a “monster,” and saying in a GOP debate that he’s never struggled with the thought that an innocent person has been executed during his time in office."

Yes, it's re-surfaced now because of Perry (who probably isn't even a viable candidate anyway).

But clearly this specific case received national attention from multiple respected sources long before there was any kind of political angle. For me, the Perry angle is a non-issue. No Governor of Texas is going to commute a Death Row inmate, that's just political reality.

 

[Drako]

Yes, it's re-surfaced now because of Perry (who probably isn't even a viable candidate anyway).

But clearly this specific case received national attention from multiple respected sources long before there was any kind of political angle. For me, the Perry angle is a non-issue. No Governor of Texas is going to commute a Death Row inmate, that's just political reality.

So a777pilot is not a hack then?

His statement remains true - "This is only getting news play because Mr. Perry is involved. If that was not the case this would all be moot. This is political. This has nothing to do with what is legal."

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This person was investigated, charged, tried, and was found guilty. He then went through an exhaustive appeals procedure. The case slowly went through the justice system. He was executed. It's all very legal and is now over.

This is only getting news play because Mr. Perry is involved. If that was not the case this would all be moot. This is political. This has nothing to do with what is legal.

I disagree, in no small part because the bubble which was Perry's relevance as a candidate is all but burst.

Have you read the New Yorker article? I urge you to do so.

I have acted as a prosecutor (where I sent one man to prison for life) and as a defense attorney (where my one first-degree murder client was found not guilty by reason of mental illness). I have had the good fortune to practice in jurisdictions (the Air Force and the State of Minnesota) which take justice and fairness seriously. That said, the process is a human enterprise and subject to the sorts of mistakes, laziness, arrogance, and inertia that inform all human behavior. I find it hard to understand how anyone, in light of the manifest imperfection of the justice system, can support the death penalty categorically.

In this case in particular, it appears all but certain (as found by, among others, the forensic experts hired by the state to evaluate Willingham's conviction) that he was convicted of a "crime" which never occurred, and executed for it. If you don't have a problem with that, or don't think it's a big deal, I don't think much of you as a human being.

 

[Matt1970]

The primary evidence leading to Willingham's arrest and conviction was the result of police inspections after the fire, which determined that the fire had been started using some form of liquid accelerant. This evidence included a finding of char patterns in the floor in the shape of "puddles", a finding of multiple starting points of the fire, and a finding that the fire had burned "fast and hot", all considered to indicate a fire that had been ignited with the help of a liquid accelerant. The investigators also found charring under the aluminum front door jamb that they believed was further indication of a liquid accelerant, and tested positive for such an accelerant in the area of the front door. Although no clear motive was found, and Willingham's wife denied that they had fought prior to the night of the fire, later testimony from a fellow inmate claimed that Willingham had confessed to starting the fire.

Sorry, you will have to pick another case for your battle against capital punishment.

 

[Ausm]

The question to ask is why would one of us want to meet you, given your tendency to pigeon hole and stereotype anyone to the right of you as a "Repug", "Faux Newser", or whatever else suits you that day? Also, I don't think I want to meet anyone that continuously mistakes the use of a period with a winky emoticon. D:

.

Well instead of bitch'in about it you could use the ignore feature...

Just say'in...

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Sorry, you will have to pick another case for your battle against capital punishment.

Remember what I just wrote about human laziness? You have made yourself a perfect example.

From the New Yorker article:

In December, 2004, questions about the scientific evidence in the Willingham case began to surface. Maurice Possley and Steve Mills, of the Chicago Tribune, had published an investigative series on flaws in forensic science; upon learning of Hurst’s report [which concluded that there was no evidence of arson and thus that Willingham had been convicted of a non-existent "crime"], Possley and Mills asked three fire experts, including John Lentini, to examine the original investigation. The experts concurred with Hurst’s report. Nearly two years later, the Innocence Project commissioned Lentini and three other top fire investigators to conduct an independent review of the arson evidence in the Willingham case. The panel concluded that “each and every one” of the indicators of arson had been “scientifically proven to be invalid.”

In 2005, Texas established a government commission to investigate allegations of error and misconduct by forensic scientists. The first cases that are being reviewed by the commission are those of Willingham and Willis. In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny “rational reasoning” and was more “characteristic of mystics or psychics.” What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, “not only the standards of today but even of the time period.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann#ixzz1c1bnXPXv

The inmate who claimed Willingham confessed was floridly mentally ill and later recanted his claim regarding the confession.

 

[Theb]

Definitive. absolutely.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann

Holy shit that's fucking horrible.

 

[OutHouse]

Quote:
The primary evidence leading to Willingham's arrest and conviction was the result of police inspections after the fire, which determined that the fire had been started using some form of liquid accelerant. This evidence included a finding of char patterns in the floor in the shape of "puddles", a finding of multiple starting points of the fire, and a finding that the fire had burned "fast and hot", all considered to indicate a fire that had been ignited with the help of a liquid accelerant. The investigators also found charring under the aluminum front door jamb that they believed was further indication of a liquid accelerant, and tested positive for such an accelerant in the area of the front door. Although no clear motive was found, and Willingham's wife denied that they had fought prior to the night of the fire, later testimony from a fellow inmate claimed that Willingham had confessed to starting the fire.
Sorry, you will have to pick another case for your battle against capital punishment.

?? that "evidence" was presented by dipshit poorly trained arson investigators has been proven to be totally bullshit but Perry wouldn't even look at the case to stop the sentence. and that jail house convict testified to get out early of which he later recanted his testimony saying he lied about Willimghams jailhouse confession.

this case is the poster child against capital punishment. an innocent man was murdered by the state of Texas.