If the glove don't fit, don't have a snit.
Posted on 05/03/2006 8:33:25 AM PDT by Crackingham
Four of the nation's top arson experts have concluded that the state of Texas executed a man in 2004 based on scientifically invalid evidence, and on Tuesday they called for an official reinvestigation of the case. In their report, the experts, assembled by the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization responsible for scores of exonerations, concluded that the conviction and 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for the arson-murders of his three daughters were based on interpretations by fire investigators that have been scientifically disproved.
"The whole system has broken down," Barry Scheck, co-founder and director of the Innocence Project, said at a news conference at the state Capitol in Austin. "It's time to find out whether Texas has executed an innocent man."
The experts were asked to perform an independent review of the evidence after an investigation by the Tribune that showed Willingham had been found guilty on arson theories that have been repudiated by scientific advances. In fact, many of the theories were simply lore that had been handed down by generations of arson investigators who relied on what they were told.
The report's conclusions match the findings of the Tribune, published in December 2004. The newspaper began investigating the Willingham case following an October 2004 series, "Forensics Under the Microscope," which examined the use of forensics in the courtroom, including the continued use of disproved arson theories to obtain convictions.
In strong language harshly critical of the investigation of the 1991 fire in Corsicana, southeast of Dallas, the report said evidence examined in the Willingham case and "relied upon by fire investigators" was the type of evidence "routinely created by accidental fires."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
They are a non-profit group dedicated to proving people innocent of crimes. They get donations based on that, from people who want to make sure innocent people are not charged with crimes.
If they went through a year, and found no cases of people actually being innocent, their supporters would stop sending them money because they wouldn't be doing their "job".
I doubt there are many supporters who give them money because they want them to prove people were guilty -- They would be giving money to the "guilty project".
Except there isn't a "guilty project", because nobody is that motivated to prove the people found guilty actually are guilty.
In fact, your observation that when TIP can't prove a person innocent some say they aren't working proves that point. If TIP does 10 cases, and in one case they find a guilty person, and that causes people to say "it doesn't work", imagine what people would say if they found the person guilty in 10 out of 10 cases.
It's not always easy to find bias. I'm certain the group starts with cases where the evidence already suggests the possibility of innocence (more than simply the criminal saying they are innocent, many criminals do that). If they chose cases to evaluate randomly, we could compare their results to our expectations -- but they don't chose randomly.
I'm not sure what number of cases I'd expect to be wrongly decided, so I don't know what number would indicate a bias.
I'm not really an opponent of the group -- I like the idea of a watchdog checking up on our system. I simply don't accept their statements as unbiased.
In this case, because the person was executed, there won't be a judicial review of the evidence TIP has of a wrong conviction. It is that judicial review that I hope filters out the built-in bias of this group toward finding innocence -- if an impartial court finds their presentation compelling, that is a good sign they are probably correct.
And I don't even mind a few guilty people going free in the process.
Frankly, I have trouble with the idea that a person sentenced to death are entitled to DNA tests, but if you put the same person in prison for the rest of their life they can't automatically get a DNA test that would prove their innocence.
This holds in other arenas of life as well - writing scientific papers, writing essays, debating, and so on. Don't make claims that can easily be thrown into doubt.
Another off-topic point: what is with the process of jury selection? Why do both sides get to cherry-pick who gets to be on the jury? I have never been able to see the wisdom in this, but maybe someone can point it out. Why not just random? I don't even know why the defense or the prosecution get to even see or know anything about the jury - at least before they read their verdict. Stick them behind a one-sided mirror.
Is it just a relic of tradition??
Yes, and I agree with it. I remember arguing with people who said that in child abuse cases, the crime is so bad that it's better to jail innocent people then take the chance of letting a guilty person go free.
I remember that one as well, though I can't remember the guy's name.
Chances are, almost every American student at some point or another has heard the story of Sacco and Vanzetti. For decades, left wing big mouths all around the world held them up as the prototypical wrongful execution victims, with even Mike Dukakis making a proclamation to such effect.
And last year it finally came out that people such as writer Upton Sinclair knew all along that even these guys were guilty as sin.
Of course, there's no such thing as a "guilty project." Well there is, but we call it our justice system... : )
I'm not really an opponent of the group -- I like the idea of a watchdog checking up on our system. I simply don't accept their statements as unbiased. In this case, because the person was executed, there won't be a judicial review of the evidence TIP has of a wrong conviction. It is that judicial review that I hope filters out the built-in bias of this group toward finding innocence -- if an impartial court finds their presentation compelling, that is a good sign they are probably correct. And I don't even mind a few guilty people going free in the process. Frankly, I have trouble with the idea that a person sentenced to death are entitled to DNA tests, but if you put the same person in prison for the rest of their life they can't automatically get a DNA test that would prove their innocence.
Yup, I certainly agree with all of that - well said.
"That's the problem with executions, if there is little doubt than we may have killed an innocent man. Sorry, but I don't trust our government when it comes to these decisions. the only time execution is warranted, in my opinion, is if other lives are at risk (i.e. the guy is capable of carrying out death orders to the outside...i.e. mob)."
"That's the problem with executions, if there is little doubt than we may have killed an innocent man. Sorry, but I don't trust our government when it comes to these decisions. the only time execution is warranted, in my opinion, is if other lives are at risk (i.e. the guy is capable of carrying out death orders to the outside...i.e. mob)."
All I can say to you is you are foolish if you believe that. I policed for over thirty years and I do not believe that. Before retiring I received a good dose of the system and it is nowhere near foolproof as you seem to think.
This site offers a bit more info. His ex-wife had thought he was innocent when he went to trial, but she supposedly came to believe over the years that he was guilty.
"Willingham did not testify in his defense. His lawyers feared that he would not handle aggressive cross-examination very well and would not present a good image for jurors.
"To me, he was not repentant," said Robert C. Dunn, one of Willingham's trial lawyers. "He had this attitude and air about him that he was wrongfully charged."
The jurors deliberated a little over an hour before finding Willingham guilty. In interviews, they said there was never a question.
Laura Marx said she would have found Willingham guilty even without the arson finding solely because he did not try to save his children.
Jurors deliberated only slightly longer in handing out the death penalty.
David Martin, the other trial attorney for Willingham, believed he was guilty. "That crime scene was so replete with evidence of arson," he said. "There was no other cause for the house catching on fire."
that's only because we spend $30K+ a year to house the morons and only because we house them for 10,20,30 years and pay for far too many appeals.
a canard based on a false premise.similar to saying 'it costs more ride a bicycle across the country than to drive a VW TDI Golf.' (but only because the bicycle you're riding happens to be a custom built unit used by Lance Armstrong in his last Tour de Frog).
But, being found guilty of not trying to save his children would be a lesser crime that would not have qualified for the death penalty, which is the crux of this issue.
If the glove don't fit, don't have a snit.
Here's the bottom line though: you can't credibly give me the name of so much as one single person that we know was excecuted in America for a crime that he didn't commit.
Far more people have died as a result of letting guilty people go for lack of, or faulty evidence than innocents have been executed for lack of, or faulty evidence. But people never seem to count those costs to innocent life.
That's very clever, but it wasn't Scheck who asked OJ to put the glove on...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.