Report: Inmate wrongly executed

Chicago Tribune ^ | 5/3/6 | Maurice Possley

[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."

[Stone Mountain]

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

While this is true, it is irrelevent to the justice system. We could have all police shoot suspected perps on site and there's no doubt the crime rate and murder rate would go down. That doesn't make it a good idea. Similarly, because we have a system that requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty people will go free sometimes. That doesn't make it right to execute innocent people just because guilty people who have gone free have killed others. People don't count those costs to innocent life because it is irrelevent to our justice system - there's nothing meaningful about comparing the number of guilty people who have committed crimes vis-a-vis innocent people that have been executed by our government. Our government is supposed to be better than those guilty people, so we would expect fewer people to have been executed by the government than killed by criminals.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Laura Marx said she would have found Willingham guilty even without the arson finding solely because he did not try to save his children.

Finding him guilty because she didn't like him, not because she believed that he set the fire. Whether the jury likes the accused seems to have become of paramount importance during the last 50 years or so. Vide OJ.

[Stone Mountain]

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.

So you don't believe it's ever happened?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Every time you convict someone who is innocent, you let a guilty person go to do more crime.

[Stone Mountain]

Tour de Frog - LOL - I'm going to use that! : )

[jpl]

So you don't believe it's ever happened?

No I don't, and frankly I'm not sure why I should based on speculation with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Maybe someday you guys will actually come up with the goods, but as of right now, you've got bupkus.

[Rakkasan1]

feel free.

the groups responsible for the exhorbitant expenses involved are often the same ones arguing to abolish capitol punishment. IE: they want it both ways via the reality they've created.

I never understood why we can't execute someone who's not in good health AND they have to use a clean needle.

What would be wrong with 2 appeals or 5 years, whichever comes 1st?

And why not put non-citizens in the 'no waiting' line?

[sinkspur]

So you don't believe it's ever happened?

Using present-day forensic methods and applying them to 20 and 30 year old cases is disingenuous.

Who knows if any innocent person has been executed? Nobody seems to be able to name one, and, until they do, one can think however one likes.

I favor the death penalty, and have to laugh at the current efforts to discredit lethal injection because it might be a bit painful for the convicted.

[bwteim]

I looked up *its* posting history and agree with you, Syncro and BBC. Crackingham must be an [illegal] alien posting bot, neither male or female, but merely posting threads.

For courtesy sake I am copying *it*.

Reminds me of that movie where that serial killer calls itself *it*

[RetiredSWO]

Do you know the definition of "scores"?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

I also checked Crack's posting history. I posted the facts of Crack's posting history to the mods , but no action has been taken.

[JamesP81]

But in plenty of cases the accused has publicly confessed

I wouldn't have a problem with it in that case. If he admits that he did it the perp has to know that bad things are going to result.

There is just no reason for taxpayers to foot the bill for imprisoning perps in those sorts of cases.

Money is irrelevant when it comes to right and wrong, especially on something so heavy as this. These kinds of societal decisions cannot be influenced by money. Nothing good is going to come of that.

Again, I wouldn't have much problem if the perp publicly admitted to his crime, clearly not under duress to do so. He makes a choice, he lives with the consequences thereof.

[Stone Mountain]

What would be wrong with 2 appeals or 5 years, whichever comes 1st?

Sometimes, there are more than two issues in a trial to appeal. If those issues aren't cleared up in 5 years, you're saying we should execute them anyway? Besides, even with this rule you are proposing, I still doubt that it would be cheaper to execute someone than to house them for their lives. Just a few years of lawyer costs (hell just one year with enough lawyers and judges) would far offset the costs of housing someone for life. Don't get me wrong - there are arguments for and against capital punishment that are valid, but I don't think the cost issue is one of them. If the government is going to execute people, it is imperative that they get it right and that will necessitate a lot of review and a lot of expensive work-hours for a lot of people - there's no way to do it on the cheap. We the people have decided that the cost is worth it, so we do it, but I don't think that anyone considering the cost issue alone would conclude that it's cheaper to execute someone.

[Stone Mountain]

Using present-day forensic methods and applying them to 20 and 30 year old cases is disingenuous

Why? It's not a question of whether or not the people made the right decision at the time with the information provided to them. It's a question of whether or not the person was actually guilty. How is this disingenuous?

I favor the death penalty, and have to laugh at the current efforts to discredit lethal injection because it might be a bit painful for the convicted.

Yeah, I think we can all agree that that is ludicrous...

[Stone Mountain]

Do you know the definition of "scores"?

Not in this context, no...

[Stone Mountain]

Do you know the definition of "scores"?

A score is 20, I believe. Scores would be 40 or more?

[Malsua]

Posting bot. By the nature of the posts, it appears he's open borders, pro gay, pro pot, anti-death penalty.

Sounds like a lib pillow biter to me.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=197280

[Stone Mountain]

Sorry - was thinking of something different - yeah, a score is 20...

[Rakkasan1]

you're right. gubmint only adds to anything's cost.(fuel,housing,etc)
privatize prisons and kill 2 turds with one stone. (so to speak)
of course the left would oppose that ,too.

[Stone Mountain]

Here's the Innocence Project's list of exonerations - 8 score plus 15 so far...

http://www.innocenceproject.org/case/display_cases.php?sort=year_exoneration