[Coop]

Strong, silent type, huh?

:-) You ain't foolin' me.

[pabianice]

In their report, the experts, assembled by the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization responsible for scores of exonerations,

Gee. No bias here. /s

[claudiustg]

He's dead, Jim.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Why do you let this posting bot stay?

[Daus]

by the Innocence Project

Ahh yes, these folks..

[JamesP81]

I put on my asbestos this morning, so feel free to flame away.

I've said it before: this is why I'm against the death penalty. Not that I'm against the principle as such, it's that government is incapable of doing it right like so many other things.

If you chuck a man into a cell and later find out that you were wrong, you can at least clear his record, issue public apologies, make resitution, etc. Which is all well and good. But if you strap him to a table and kill him, well, if you were wrong you can't really take that back.

Therefore, the death penalty is something that can only be justly administered if the entitity administering it can get it right every single time. The government can't. The government is too incompetent and too venal, petty, political, and cruel to be trusted with the power of life and death over the citizens of these United States.

[JamesP81]

It's this simple: no matter how good the science, there will always be situations in which an innocent man was executed. If you want to be consistent, and support the death penalty, then you have to be at peace with the idea that it's OK to kill a few innocents if it allows us to kill the ones that truly deserve it.

Personally, I'm not OK with that. Your mileage may vary.

[uncitizen]

I see an "American Justice" episode on this story in our future.

[MissEdie]

This reminds me of the case several years ago, in I believe Pennsylvania. Does anyone else remember it- a man was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of his sister-in law. He kept proclaiming his innocence, even on the day they executed him. The case predated DNA data, a group like this one kept saying the state had excuted an innocent man, blah blah blah. Anyway the state kept DNA/blood and fluid samples from the crime and had them tested a couple of years ago and lo and behold it linked the man to the crime, proving that he did in deed commit the crimes. Does anyone else remember this? I have a feeling this Texas case is going to end up a lot like that one, reconfirming the excuted person was guilty.

[M203M4]

If you have 30 pieces of evidence, and 5 of them are weak, you are better off presenting only the 25 solid ones. Providing an easy target for your opponents can allow them to give, to many jury members, the impression that they have invalidated your arguments in toto.

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??

[LucyJo]

truthinjustice.org

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."

[last american]

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 innocence project consists of a bunch of really looney lefties who I am convinced get "proof" manipulated. One of the most recent and henous doings of the "innocence project" was to get Steven Avery of Wisconsin out of jail for rape. It was CLAIMED that DNA evidence exonerated him, but the evidence was NEVER EVER challenged. He got out, sued the state and proceeded to kidnap Theresa Halbach, strip her, tie her to his bed, rape her for hours, had his nephew rape and torture her, plunged a knife in her stomach, dismember her and burn her remains and her car. I am a firm believer that the "innocence project" is really politically motivated.

[Larry Lucido]

the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization responsible for scores of exonerations

Hey, guys, there's an extremely questionable case in Durham, North Carolina you'd be interested in. What, too busy?

[Rockitz]

As I've been told by my friends who are prosecutors, if there was a trial he was guilty of something.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

...the state of Texas executed a man in 2004 based on scientifically invalid evidence

What great writing.

A person is not executed based on scientifically invalid evidence.
A person is wrongly convicted based on scientifically invalid evidence.

They are executed based on that conviction.

[eleni121]

Do you have ... any opinions on this yourself Crackerjack? Any at all about anything...

[cbkaty]

"The whole system has broken down," Barry Scheck

I stopped reading at "Barry Scheck"....

[Supernatural]

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.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The Innocence Project has been around since 1992 and this guy wasn't sentenced until 1993.

They couldn't figure out he was innocent in the 11 years prior to his execution.

And what about this guy bragging to other inmates about setting the fire? Was this disproved by these experts as well?