If we’re discussing whether someone should be found guilty in a court of law, then “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard and not “he’s acting guilty”. But if the context is the claim, by some in this thread, that an innocent man was executed, then “he acted guilty” has a bearing on that claim.
Similar to the case cited in the OP, the evidence against Willingham was far shakier than was presented at the trial, and based on what we know now he would/should not have been found guilty. But as to whether he was actually innocent - that’s a much more uncertain matter.
Well I guess as long as most people are terrified of mortality and prefer lifelong imprisonment, the death penalty does its job of punishing. Even if I don’t understand this.
But, personally I do prefer a justice system which focuses on protecting the innocent more than punishing the guilty. You can’t do both simultaneously as efficient as you would if you focused on a single goal. Further mentally scarring criminals and then releasing them into a society which they can’t handle any longer, for example, doesn’t seem to add much to public safety.
Yet many would prefer a system which merely tortures prisoners, even if it means greater risk to themselves and whomever they wish to protect. That’s what you get when people think emotionally instead of logically.
Frankly whether the worst criminals are executed or held in prison for life seems redundant to me, since society is safe in either case and a life in prison is life in name only. But I guess I just have a rare viewpoint.
Since the real experts have now shown (with more modern and accepted science) that there was* no arson - then there was no crime, so yes, he was actually innocent*.
This is way different than the more common "exonerated’ where the accused is a known violent criminal, there was a very real murder- but it turns out the evidence to convict was shaky or overstated.
From what/whom did you reach your understanding? There have already been links posted that have experts saying that the fires weren’t caused by arson. Do you have good reason to disbelieve them?
*Nine nationally renowned, independent experts have reviewed the case in the last five years and found that the forensic analysis was wrong.
• Craig Beyler, hired by the Forensic Science Commission, said of one of the analysts: “None of these determinations have any basis in modern fire science,” and of the second analyst’s findings: “There is no basis for this notion in modern fire science.” He found that the investigators did not comport with the “standard of care” for fire investigation at the time, and that “a finding of arson could not be sustained.”
• In a report filed with the Forensic Science Commission in 2006, five leading experts said “each and every one of the indicators relied on [to determine that the fire was arson] have since been scientifically proven to be invalid.”
• Gerald Hurst, whose report was sent to the governor before Willingham’s execution, has said, “There’s nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire…It was just a fire.”
*
http://camerontoddwillingham.com/
*On August 25, 2009, Dr Craig Beyler, the investigator hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the Willingham case, released his report in which he found that “a finding of arson could not be sustained” by a scientific analysis (Read the report here). He concluded that the fire in the Willingham case was accidental and not arson. In fact, there was no arson, so there was no crime. Texas executed an innocent person. *
Oh, and as far as the crazy idea that CTW just stood there:
Myth: Willingham didn’t try to save his children (his wounds were superficial, he stood outside while the house burned, he moved his car, etc).
*Facts:
• Authorities had to restrain Willingham from going back into the house.
• Scientific experts have conducted experiments with identical fires and Willingham’s burns are normal for this type of fire.
• When Willingham exited his bedroom, the hallway was not yet on fire; the fire was contained in the children’s bedroom. In recreations with rooms involved in intense fires, experts can safely stand by a door seconds before flashover, and Willingham could have stood close to the children’s room without being harmed.
• Willingham explained that he moved his car because he was afraid fuel in the car would cause the fire to get much worse. *
Note at one time CTW was actually handcuffed to stop him from going back in.
Most of this is about the lack of scientific evidence of arson, rather than the evidence of accident that is being claimed. But the sentence saying “He concluded that the fire in the Willingham case was accidental and not arson” seems to be what you’re looking for. Problem is it’s a quote from an advocacy group, and contradicts more neutral descriptions of the Beyler report. For some reason the link to the full report won’t open on my computer. Can you quote from the actual report where Beyler makes this assertion?
Thanks. That’s a good cite. But the fuller quote from that article is:
So ISTM that Hurst was not saying there was any sort of scientific evidence with which he determined that it was not arson. Just that the evidence that it was arson was junk, and based on this and the fact that “there had never been a motive for the crime”, he concluded that it was an accidental fire.
Reading the whole article, it seemed to be saying that Hurst feels that (at least in this case) absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There should have been traces of accelerant in all the flooring they tested, if arson was the cause. They only found it on the porch (where the fire certainly did not start, would be a stupid place to spread accelerant, and where their charcoal grill was).
Which is close enough. No this is a peer reviewed footnoted scientific article, and they are not going to say “it wasn’t arson”. What they said is that there’s no evidence it was arson, and the testimony that it was was biased and as you say “junk”.
FM Vasquez is unique among the investigators of both fires in his attitudes toward arson and
fire scene examination. His statistics of the fraction of fires which are in fact arson are remarkable
and far exceed any rational estimate. It reflects his predisposition to find arson in his cases. This
directly violates NFPA 921 and professional norms in general. His quotations that “The fire tells a 49
story, I am just the interpreter,” and “the fire does not lie, it tells me the truth,” are hardly consistent
with a scientific mindset and is more characteristic of mystics or psychics. The quotes separate the
findings from his own judgment and seek to make him not responsible for his own interpretation. It
seems to deny the role of rational reasoning. It is an expression of fire investigation as a mystical art
rather than an application of science and reason… FM Vasquez’s opinions are nothing
more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire
investigation.
FM Vasquez’s investigation did not comport with the requirements of NFPA 921, the modern
standard of care. Further, his investigation did not satisfy the contemporaneous standard of care. His51
hypothesis was directly contradicted by eyewitness testimony and he admitted that he had not
eliminated other possible causes. FM Vasquez is unique among the investigators of both fires in his
attitudes toward arson and fire scene examination. His approach toward fire scene investigation is
not found in any text of the day.
The conclusion was:
*The investigations of the Willis and Willingham fires did not comport with either the modern
standard of care expressed by NFPA 921, or the standard of care expressed by fire investigation
texts and papers in the period 1980–1992. The investigators had poor understandings of fire science
and failed to acknowledge or apply the contemporaneous understanding of the limitations of fire
indicators. Their methodologies did not comport with the scientific method or the process of
elimination. A finding of arson could not be sustained based upon the standard of care expressed by
NFPA 921, or the standard of care expressed by fire investigation texts and papers in the period
1980–1992.
*
So yeah, they did say “A finding of arson could not be sustained”. Pretty much saying- “it’s not arson”.
How about this- in the American Court system is supposed to work, there was no arson. In other words, there was no evidence of arson. Thus no evidence of a crime.
I suppose that had Willingham been a professional arsonist, he could have hid the evidence. No one thinks he was. Thus given that he wasnt a pro, it wasn’t arson.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here (seems to be several things).
As in my initial statement that began this exchange, if the question is whether Willingham should have been found guilty based on the evidence, the answer is clearly no. If the question is whether in fact he set that fire, the answer is very possibly. So while it is the case that someone who should have been found innocent was executed, it is not necessarily the case that an innocent man was executed.
No, if you read the report, the answer is "almost impossible". There was *no evidence of arson. * True that is not the same as saying “it’s not arson”, but in this case, the end result is the same.
I agree with **Fotheringay **on this point, at least. But I think the point is moot.
If you want to say the state executed an innocent man, you have to say with positive evidence that there was no arson, not that there was no reason to conclude arson.
You stated that there was no arson, and now you’ve back-pedaled that to mean if the state didn’t provide any evidence of arson, that’s the same thing. It’s not.
However, my reading of what Hurst said is that if it was arson, there should have been telltale signs that weren’t there. He was satisfied that it was not arson, and he has done the science on it, not relied on folk wisdom as the ‘experts’ before had done.
ISTM that you’re reading too much into the article’s description of Hurst’s opinion. The article only presented the question of why there was no accelerant in the house in the context of considering the supposed presense of accelerant on the porch, not as independent evidence of innocence.
It seems highly unlikely that you can rule out use of an accelerant simply by virtue of the fact that you haven’t found any. Otherwise investigators wouldn’t be relying on all sorts of obscure signs which point (or supposedly point) to use of an accelerant - either it’s there or it’s not. Apparently even when accelerant is used you can’t always find it (presumably because it gets burned up, but no difference why).
As for the general lack of telltale signs, I can’t find Hurst saying that. FWIW, this appears to be his report. He focused on the supposed signs of arson found by the earlier investigators, some of which he says were not the result of accelerant use and some of which were indeterminate, but does not mention anything about any other signs. Presumably it would be impossible for him to have done so, because if there were other signs of arson they were missed by (and presumably unknown to) the investigators long before and it was too late to go look for them by the time Hurst was doing his analysis.