Harold Staten wrongful conviction arson
Posted on 02/18/2024 3:19:03 PM PST by nickcarraway
A man has been freed after spending nearly four decades in prison on a murder conviction in a 1984 Philadelphia fire attributed to arson under standards that prosecutors said would not support a conviction today.
Harold Staten, 71, was convicted in 1986 of setting an early morning fire that killed a man in a north Philadelphia row house in October 1984. Authorities said four men escaped by jumping from second-floor windows and Charles Harris later died of burns at a hospital. Staten was convicted of arson and second-degree murder and sentenced to life.
Assistant District Attorney Carrie Wood of the Philadelphia prosecutor’s office conviction integrity unit cited “substantial changes in fire science” and a report from a former federal agent and fire investigator that led officials to conclude that “there is little credible information that could stand up his murder conviction today.”
(Excerpt) Read more at pennlive.com ...
What office was he running for in an election in 1984?
Translation: He is guilty.
Being in prison for all those years - it may be the reason he lived so long.
I hope he enjoys retirement, and stays out of trouble.
Shapiro said he wants to empty the prisons, just in time for them to vote.
Now you know the rest of the story.
From the article:
“District Attorney Larry Krasner said in a statement that “due to the passage of time, we unfortunately may never know how the fire began that killed Charles Harris nearly four decades ago.”
I don’t like 30 and 40 year old rapes charges, and I don’t like rehashing 30 and 40 year old convictions. You can’t retry a case when half the witnesses are dead, the memory of others is hazy, evidence has been lost or deteriorated, etc.
A lot of these cases appear to me to just sow enough doubt to get the person freed, not really prove their innocence.
“””A man has been freed after spending nearly four decades in prison on a murder conviction in a 1984 Philadelphia fire attributed to arson under standards that prosecutors said would not support a conviction today.”””
Under today’s prosecutor standards he would not have been tried.
New Soros prosecutor?
The Pennsylvania Innocence Project re-opened the case.
The Innocence Project has never freed an innocent man.
The Innocence Project only creates Reasonable Doubt - decades after the original trial.
No Police Officer or State Attorney that was involved in the original prosecution EVER contradicts the The Innocence Project, because of civil lawsuit risk.
Years ago in Texas, man was convicted of Capital Murder (late 80’s?)from a “arson” fire death and if I recall correctly, he was executed.
The fire investigator listed his findings that a accelerant was used to start the fire and further identified the accelerant as gasoline that covered the floor of the entire house.
Years later, another investigator and lab determined what had been found was leaded gasoline that been outlawed during mid 1970’s.
It was also determined that the leaded gasoline had been used as a thinner for the varnish used to finish the floors sometime in the late 1960’s.
One story doesn't tell the complete story.
And Krasner, one of Soreass's top "woke" DA's is involved.
Reminds me of the Central Park Five. None of them were innocent by any stretch of the imagination. All that was done was finding some small example of police misconduct (for example, holding an interview based on the kid's admitted age vs. actual age) and sewing outrage and doubt among woke a##h###s 35 years later.
Was he innocent, or they just don’t have enough to convict?
Ping.
“Years ago in Texas, man was convicted of Capital Murder (late 80’s?)from a “arson” fire death and if I recall correctly, he was executed.”
Two labs had different opinions of what started the fire. Does that prove innocence? You think there might have been other evidence that he did it like motive, witnesses, false alibis, etc.? One fact disputed years later does not prove innocence.
Negative.
First investigator claimed a gasoline accelerant was used.
Second lab found fact that gasoline was not used due lead being found in the residue of the varnish.
Only one died? Mayor Goode’s record is safe.
When did proving innocence become a requirement for the defense?
Pennsylvania Ping!
Please ping me with articles of interest.
FReepmail me to be added to the list.
You may be thinking of the Camiolo case in Pennsylvania in 1996. Lead was found in the hardwood floor, but not in the carpet covering the floor. How could someone pour gasoline, the apparent source of the lead, on the floor and it not be in the carpet?
The prosecution, after its own tests confirmed the defense’s accident theory, dropped the charges.
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.