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 ...
It sure would, and we wouldn't even be having this debate right now.
I'm not sure if it's still there now, but when I was attending Syracuse University 15 years ago, one of the buildings on campus had a big mural of Sacco and Vanzetti painted on the side of it, and on the mural was written a short version of Upton Sinclair's story about how these poor men were innocent victims of a brutal country.
Later on, Sinclair found out from the mouth of their defense lawyer that they were guilty and he had made up their alibis, and the son of a bitch never had the decency to tell anyone the real truth other than his own lawyer.
The state will ignore this story; nor will they allow their expert to speak if he ever wants to work for a prosecutor again. They will simply say the case is over and the jury made its decision; and the defendant was unsuccessful in his appeals.
So murderers such as Saddam and Moussaoui and others of their ilk should be cajoled in a camp for the next 50 years or so?
I agree, unless an investigation is forced on the state.
As I've been told by my friends who are prosecutors, if there was a trial he was guilty of something.
S&V's innocence and the depravity of the prosecutor, judge and governor of MA were articles of liberal faith in the Northeast for ages (they still are among the older folks.)
A writer named Francis Russell started out to write an article proclaiming their innocence, eventually wrote a a book and a couple of articles as he went through the research, and turned them into a final book. S&V's lawyer (a cokehead IIRC) was long since dead, but he did speak to the families in the anarchist community who had funded their defense, who confirmed his conclusion that Sacco was guilty and Vanzetti innocent. The book is a good read: Sacco and Vanzetti- The Case Resolved
I don't share your belief in the purity of the folks over at the Innocence Project. They are "true believers", and fanatics are far more likely to shade evidence than a salaried prosecutor going for another notch on his gun. Other than a few prosecutors who got too emotionally involved in child molestation cases, I have rarely seen that sort of fanaticism in an ADA. They don't get paid enough or promoted rapidly enough to get that fanatical, and only the DA himself is elected.
The one thing that makes me highly suspicious of TIP's motives is that they always proclaim their lucky beneficiaries "innocent" . . . when usually all they have managed to do is obtain a habeas writ on a legal error, often that Poulan Weed-Eater of appellate jurisprudence, "ineffective assistance of counsel."
Aren't all defense attorneys liberals? 'Nuff said.
Note that conviction of the innocent allows the real prep to commit more crimes. (And with the added advantage that the perp isn't even being sought anyomre for said case.)
I have enjoyed reading your posts on this topic. And, there was a time that I was a true believer in the justice system. Then I was terribly disillusioned by defense attorneys, then judges, and now have become disillusioned with prosecuting attorneys as well. To me, this seems related to a greater societal problem in that people in the employ (in one way or the other) of the public have forgotten that they are in that position to SERVE the public, not their own personal agendas. And, given that, I cannot automatically assume that a prosecutor who stamps his little feet about a guilty person is stamping his feet for true justice and not just stamping to get his own way. Maybe that makes me a cynic of the highest order. I don't know and frankly am not too concerned about that. :)
I used to have a very low regard for criminal defense attorneys. Not any more. It's the dishonest prosecutor that is a bigger threat to society. A good prosecutor can overcome a slimey defense attorney. A defendant overcoming a slimey prosecutor is much more difficult.
Imagine. This cretin was willing to assist in the murders of 3000 Americans, and announced that he was, yet he was spared the death penalty.
Some believe that the desolation of life in prison is a greater punishment than death. Perhaps it is. But my principal reason for supporting the death penalty is to prevent a heinous criminal from killing or committing heinous acts again, whether against prison personnel or in the event he were to escape.
Guys like Dahmer, and Geoghan (a serial killer and a clerical sexual abuser) were dealt prison justice. Unless Moussaoui is put in solitary confinement at Super-Max in Colorado, he will likely experience the same.
And who tells the jury what to do? If a juror today knows about jury nullification he or she will not be allowed to sit on the jury. Attorneys cost huge amounts and the rich are able to buy a better deal.
To pass the time in a boring presentation, I wanted to to answer Coop's question back to Crackingham in post #2: Coop to Crackingham: "Oh yeah? What do you think about the article you just posted?"
and also to confirm a remark by Synchro,"Har, good luck. This [Crackingham] isn't a person, it is an internet posting bot. "
Crackingham has posted 2,163 times.
Of these 2,163 times, 227 were posts made by Crackingham to other FReepers
The remainder - - 1,936 - - were unique threads posted by Crackingham for FReeper discussion
Crackingham signed up February 22, 2005. From February 22, 2005 to May 3, 2006 is approximately 435 days.
Crackingham has posted these 1,936 unique threads on 248 different days.
Crackingham' s ROTPS (Rate Of Thread Posting Statistic ;) so far has ranged from one thread per day to as many as 57 threads in one day!
There wer 20 different days in which Crackingham posted twenty (20) or more separate threads on each of those 20 days.
Note: I define a thread as a unique item for our comments as distinctly different from posting a comment to someone else's thread.
Some highs in the history of Crackingham's threads:
On July 11, 2005 Crackingham posted 57 unique threads
on October 20, 2005 Crackingham posted 44 uniquethreads, and
on March 22, 2005 Crackingham posted 40 unique threads.
On that particular July 11, 2005 day, when Crackingham posted his personal best high 57 unique threads it was in a 12 hour period from 12:03 AM EDT to 11:53 PM EDT at an average of one thread every 13 minutes. Whew!!
Because Crackingham posts approximately 9 times as many unique threads as he posts, to put it another way, the chance of getting a response from Crackingham is 10% on any given day.
In other words, if FreeRepublic were made up only of Crackinghams we would look like the MSM 90% of the time, just tossing stuff out there to see if it sticks.
Our collective hat should be off to Crackingham.... /s
Yes, all the players are interested in something, aren't they? :) My point is that one cannot assume that the only interest of the state is justice.
Your proscutor friends who say this are scum.,P> Rockitz is apparently unfamiliar with the case of Edwin Wilson:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/wilson102703.pdf
There is also the case where the FBI office in Boston framed a few guys for murder and the wrongfully convicted spent about 30 years in prison.
There are many, many others, including many you never hear about.
if i was on a jury, I would be highly sceptical of testimony from an inmate. Any person with half a brain isn't going to discuss his case with another inmate, especially if he is guilty. An innocent inmate would also be wise to not discuss his case, either.
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.