Expert says fire for which man was executed was not arson

[Kandahar]

Cameron Todd Willingham case: Expert says fire for which father was executed was not arson -- chicagotribune.com

Indeed, the report concludes there was no evidence to determine that the December 1991 fire was even set, and it leaves open the possibility the blaze that killed three children was an accident and there was no crime at all -- the same findings found in a Chicago Tribune investigation of the case published in December 2004.

Willingham, the father of those children, was executed in February 2004. He protested his innocence to the end.

When in doubt, execute first and ask questions later! Oops. :doh

 

[Middleground]

Cameron Todd Willingham case: Expert says fire for which father was executed was not arson -- chicagotribune.com



When in doubt, execute first and ask questions later! Oops. :doh

This is why the death sentence should be abolished. Period.

I don't care if they're wrong only once in a million. To me, that is one too many.

 

[apdst]

Yeah, and I'm sure there's plenty of physical evidence left from a 20 year old fire scene.

 

[cmckinney]

Cameron Todd Willingham case: Expert says fire for which father was executed was not arson -- chicagotribune.com



When in doubt, execute first and ask questions later! Oops. :doh

Is 13 years not a long enough period of time for questions to be asked to you?

I myself disagree with the death penalty, not because it is inhumane, it's far more humane than what the scumbags who commit capital murder deserve, but simply because it is impossible to create a fair system when there is as much variation as there is currently.

But as far as what you said there, as if they were somehow trigger happy with the potassium chloride, i would disagree. whether or not he was fairly executed is up for plenty of debate, but there was plenty of time given to find possible evidence proving his innocence.

 

[Kandahar]

Yeah, and I'm sure there's plenty of physical evidence left from a 20 year old fire scene.

Uhh read the article:

Among Beyler's key findings: that investigators failed to examine all of the electrical outlets and appliances in the Willinghams' house in the small Texas town of Corsicana, did not consider other potential causes for the fire, came to conclusions that contradicted witnesses at the scene, and wrongly concluded Willingham's injuries could not have been caused as he said they were.

The state fire marshal on the case, Beyler concluded in his report, had "limited understanding" of fire science. The fire marshal "seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires and how fire injuries are created," he wrote.

None of those claims require evidence from the 20 year old fire scene; all of those conclusions can be drawn from the court records and police reports. These claims do, however, provide reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

 

[Ikari]

Cameron Todd Willingham case: Expert says fire for which father was executed was not arson -- chicagotribune.com



When in doubt, execute first and ask questions later! Oops. :doh

What no way...DNA evidence, that guy was guilty of something, um...errr.....he still posed a threat to someone...somewhere....somehow......


The death penalty should be abandoned. We don't need it anymore, and this is the failure mode of it...innocents are killed by the State.

 

[Kandahar]

Is 13 years not a long enough period of time for questions to be asked to you?

I myself disagree with the death penalty, not because it is inhumane, it's far more humane than what the scumbags who commit capital murder deserve, but simply because it is impossible to create a fair system when there is as much variation as there is currently.

But as far as what you said there, as if they were somehow trigger happy with the potassium chloride, i would disagree. whether or not he was fairly executed is up for plenty of debate, but there was plenty of time given to find possible evidence proving his innocence.

He shouldn't have to find evidence proving his innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and these claims cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's claims.

 

[apdst]

Uhh read the article:



None of those claims require evidence from the 20 year old fire scene; all of those conclusions can be drawn from the court records and police reports. These claims do, however, provide reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

But, at the same time, there's a big difference between reading a report and looking at the actual fire scene.

 

[Agnapostate]

I don't care if they're wrong only once in a million. To me, that is one too many.

While there are compelling reasons for at least minimizing application of the death penalty, this simply doesn't incorporate any facet of cost/benefit analysis, and doesn't appreciate the fact that anecdotal incidents cannot invalidate a general policy.

 

[apdst]

He shouldn't have to find evidence proving his innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and these claims cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's claims.

It doesn't work that way with appeals, does it? Isn't the burden of proof, at that point, actually on the defendent, even if it's technically not supposed to be?

 

[hiswoman]

I remember this case. Tragic doesn't even begin to cover what happened. I've always believed this man was innocent and therefore wrongly executed. I am against the death penalty when there is ANY doubt of guilt, and although nothing can bring back Mr. Willingham, I hope his family can be compensated such that it will force changes that ensure such a miscarriage of justice never, ever occurs again.

 

[cmckinney]

He shouldn't have to find evidence proving his innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and these claims cast reasonable doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's claims.

It would seem as if the prosecution obviously did present an amount of said evidence to convince the minds of 12 jurors and the appeal court judges that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To seriously question their opinion, with them knowing the full details of the case, with our only information being a newspaper, seems foolish.

 

[Kandahar]

But, at the same time, there's a big difference between reading a report and looking at the actual fire scene.

Well, let's look at the key findings of this report, one at a time:

that investigators failed to examine all of the electrical outlets and appliances in the Willinghams' house in the small Texas town of Corsicana,

Whether or not they investigated it will be mentioned in the police report. You don't need to recreate the fire scene to find out if they investigated it.

did not consider other potential causes for the fire,

The nature of the fire will be mentioned in the police report. It should be determinable from this report if there is any plausible way that the fire could have started other than arson.

came to conclusions that contradicted witnesses at the scene,

Whether or not they came to conclusions that contradicted witnesses is possible by comparing the police report to the court log. You don't need to recreate the fire scene to find out if their conclusions contradicted witnesses.

and wrongly concluded Willingham's injuries could not have been caused as he said they were.

Whether or not his injuries could have been caused as he said they were should be possible to determine from reading the suspect's testimony and comparing it with photographs. You don't need to recreate the fire scene to find out if their conclusions were invalid.

The state fire marshal on the case, Beyler concluded in his report, had "limited understanding" of fire science. The fire marshal "seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires and how fire injuries are created," he wrote.

Whether or not the state fire marshal had any understanding of fire science should be possible to determine from his statements on the case. You don't need to recreate the fire scene to determine if the state fire marshal had any understanding of the case.

 

[Middleground]

While there are compelling reasons for at least minimizing application of the death penalty, this simply doesn't incorporate any facet of cost/benefit analysis, and doesn't appreciate the fact that anecdotal incidents cannot invalidate a general policy.

FACT: it cost taxpayers more to kill than to keep in jail for life. Look it up.

 

[apdst]

Well, let's look at the key findings of this report, one at a time:



Whether or not they investigated it will be mentioned in the police report. You don't need to recreate the fire scene to find out if they investigated it.



The nature of the fire will be mentioned in the police report. It should be determinable from this report if there is any plausible way that the fire could have started other than arson.



Whether or not they came to conclusions that contradicted witnesses is possible by comparing the police report to the court log. You don't need to recreate the fire scene to find out if their conclusions contradicted witnesses.



Whether or not his injuries could have been caused as he said they were should be possible to determine from reading the suspect's testimony and comparing it with photographs. You don't need to recreate the fire scene to find out if their conclusions were invalid.



Whether or not the state fire marshal had any understanding of fire science should be possible to determine from his statements on the case. You don't need to recreate the fire scene to determine if the state fire marshal had any understanding of the case.

This is just another report, from another person. I'm just not seeing more validity than the original report.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

While there are compelling reasons for at least minimizing application of the death penalty, this simply doesn't incorporate any facet of cost/benefit analysis, and doesn't appreciate the fact that anecdotal incidents cannot invalidate a general policy.

How many innocent people do you believe have to be executed before the general policy should be called into question?

 

[apdst]

FACT: it cost taxpayers more to kill than to keep in jail for life. Look it up.

That's why they should have executed him 12 years earlier.

 

[apdst]

How many innocent people do you believe have to be executed before the general policy should be called into question?

By that logic, let's just stop putting people in prison, because a few of them might be innocent.

 

[Coronado]

It doesn't work that way with appeals, does it? Isn't the burden of proof, at that point, actually on the defendent, even if it's technically not supposed to be?

The appeals process is when the defendant gets a chance to argue that the law was misapplied at trial. There's no argument of facts unless a new trial is ordered at the appellate level. I guess in a sense you are correct insofar as the burden being shifted, but the defendant can't argue about the evidence unless they are arguing about it having been wrongfully excluded at trial.

 

[Kandahar]

That's why they should have executed him 12 years earlier.

So you don't believe in the concept of due process? Straight from the jury to the execution chamber?

 

[Kandahar]

By that logic, let's just stop putting people in prison, because a few of them might be innocent.

People who are unjustly put in prison can be released and compensated. How do you propose to compensate an innocent victim of the death penalty?

 

[Agnapostate]

FACT: it cost taxpayers more to kill than to keep in jail for life. Look it up.

Actually, utilization of life imprisonment as a murder punishment is ineffective for the same reason that the death penalty is; both provide a perverse incentive to commit additional murders since no greater penalty can be imposed after the first murder is committed.

How many innocent people do you believe have to be executed before the general policy should be called into question?

Enough so that the costs incurred by their wrongful execution outweigh the benefits provided by the execution of guilty people, but there are far sounder reasons for opposing the death penalty.

 

[apdst]

The appeals process is when the defendant gets a chance to argue that the law was misapplied at trial. There's no argument of facts unless a new trial is ordered at the appellate level. I guess in a sense you are correct insofar as the burden being shifted, but the defendant can't argue about the evidence unless they are arguing about it having been wrongfully excluded at trial.

Or, unless he has new evidence that my warrant a new trial?

 

[apdst]

So you don't believe in the concept of due process? Straight from the jury to the execution chamber?

No, I think there should be an appeal, or two, but this crap of waiting decades, while appeals sift through the system is BS.

People who are unjustly put in prison can be released and compensated. How do you propose to compensate an innocent victim of the death penalty?

Unless, of course, they die in prison. Then what?

 

[Agnapostate]

Unless, of course, they die in prison. Then what?

That's not a very sound criticism, considering that the death penalty is consciously and deliberately designed to induce...death, while prison deaths will be unintentional for criminal justice purposes.