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 ...
Dunno for sure, but I suspect the number of innocent people killed by people who were subsequently executed (I*C) for their crime vastly outnumbers the number of innocent people unjustly executed for crimes they didn't commit (I*E)(something, as yet, unproven). Let's say we find one and, hypothetically, that the ratio is 1,000,000(I*C):(I*E). Does that necessarily invalidate the death penalty? Using the same logic, one could go on to say that any person convicted of a crime should not be punished to the full extent of the law because one person may have been unjustly convicted of the same crime. All rapists should be let off lightly because one person was unjustly convicted of rape; all embezzlers should get a tap on the wrist because some people were framed for the same; all presidents should be able to get away with perjury, rape, suborning witnesses, interference with federal investigations, or sexual harrassment because others have. . .oh, wait, that's already true. Never mind. . .
I'm an engineer, so my motto is "In God we trust, all others bring data."
If the prosecutor can't prove the case, the defendant is innocent.
So, what do you think of your prosecutor friends who told you that if there was a trial he was guilty of something?
I kinda have the opposite problem. :D
22,753 replies, and a mere 30 threads.
Maybe. Emotion often overrides sound logic. You'd have a different opinion if you had a loved one murdered by some thug who walked on a previous conviction, overturned on a technicality. That's a far more likely scenario than yours.
That's why we have an appeal process.
Most people who get off on technicalities are set free because the cops and the prosecutor didn't do their jobs or abused the rights of the accused so as to render the evidence inadmissable. In those cases, the fault lies with the prosecutor and cops.
I stopped reading at "Barry Scheck"....
Ever read about the Edwin Wilson case. Prosecutors knew he was innocent and hid the proof of his innocense from the court in order to get a conviction.
I remember a few years ago that the State of Texas executed a man that they knew was innocent, but since he had been convicted and sentenced they executed him anyway.
I wonder if this is the same guy.
An attorney's job is to get an acquittal for his client.
Otherwise why even have an attorney?
No, I'm not saying O.J. was innocent. Blame the verdict on the jury.
Name him.
This article is one of the most blatantly one-sided, misleading articles I have ever seen. I read the opinions of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition to the testimony of the arson investigator, the State presented evidence that this man was more interested in saving his car than his infant daughters, tried to get the investigators to help him find his precious dart board, and was at the scene with his wife laughing and listening to music the day after the fire. Furthermore, an inmate testified that he confessed to having set the fire to cover up evidence of child abuse. All of this may be already posted in the thread, but I haven't had time to wade through all of the posts. My point is that the article doesn't even make a pretense of being objective and fair.
I don't remember his name. I saw them interview him on TV a few days before they executed him. Texas officials admitted he was innocent before they killed him.
And they killed him anyway.
That's an impossible standard to meet, and if you believe in it, you should support abolition.
It SHOULD be. The additional expense is entirely due to endless appeals, with lawyers paid for by the taxpayers, and mostly on technicalities rather than on the question of whether or not the convicted person did the deed.
However, I do respect the guy who is currently appealing the methods. He's not asking not to be executed, he's asking for a reliably painless method such as is used to euthanize pets. Not a frivolous request by any means, especially given that once in a great while a person gets executed who really didn't earn that punishment. And also something that I think most of us assumed was already the case for lethal injection executions. Who knew that government bureaucracy was capable of screwing up so badly as to approve only one complicated and unreliable procedure, while every vet (and most vet techs) in the country know how to do a reliably painless and very simple lethal injection procedure? More than a little odd, though, that this matter has never been brought to public/media attention by any of our nation's large, large-mouthed crop of self-absorbed anti-death penalty activists. I guess their "great cause" was more important to them than preventing the needless suffering of some actual people who are facing imminent execution.
Didn't say I was a fan of Scheck. The prosecution lost the O.J. trial because of their stupid decisions prior to trial. Having an idiot for a judge didn't help. He should have forced O.J. to take the stand after O.J. testified from his seat.
Thankfully these guys don't waste the taxpayers' money if they don't have someone on multiple counts with strong evidence on a couple of them. They're far more likely to chill the defense and get a plea deal, which is a big savings. A lot of trials are 3rd strikers and they can't plead guilty without going down for a long time, so they gamble and hope they can get off.
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.