You were responding to the veracity and legality of his confession. The fact that he told it to random people and not through due process seemed good enough to you.
What “due process” is one required to confess through in order for it to count?
Especially 63 years after the fact.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, first of all, it should really occur and not in the drug addled mind of a jailhouse snitch, who made up a story in return for favors from the DA. He also recnated his testimony twice.
A complaint was made vs the DA :“Jackson’s conduct “violated his professional, ethical and constitutional obligations.” The group called for a full investigation of Jackson’s handling of the case and argued that he could be sanctioned or even criminally prosecuted for falsifying official records, withholding evidence from the defense, suborning perjury and obstructing justice. Jackson’s conduct, according to the complaint, “violated core principles of the legal profession, and did so with terrible consequences … the execution of an innocent man.””
As far as the 'confession" to his Ex-wife? AFAIK, it was never even admitted as evidence, due to how many times she changed her story.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Myths_and_Facts_about_the_Willingham_Case.php
*Myth: There is credible and reliable new information that Willingham confessed to his ex-wife.
Facts:
• About Willingham’s ex-wife, Stacy Kuykendall, even John Jackson (who prosecuted Willingham and steadfastly believes he was guilty) says: “She’s given very different stories about what happened on this particular day right up to the date of his execution…It’s hard for me to make heads or tails of anything she said or didn’t say.”
• In 2004, Stacy Kuykendall told the Chicago Tribune that he never confessed, and she said the same to The New Yorker in 2009.
*
Seriously? You can’t envision a scenario in which a “confession” might not be admissible or be even true to make the idea of due process silly?
From the accused it should be witnessed by a officer of the court (DA, police etc), signed by defendant, not occur under duress, and with the defendant given all his rights. If it’s reported from a second party it should not fall under hearsay and validated to be credible (is the person reporting the so-called confession credible and believable).
Normal due process. Otherwise anybody could say anyone confessed to anything and the police are just obligated to believe them?
Must be admitted in court. That’s 'due process".
Huh?
If I say to you, “Last night I killed Anna Ada,” and you repeat that statement at my trial for the murder of Ms. Ada, is that some denial of due process for me?
So it’s not good enough that he admitted to murdering his children, because he didn’t repeat it often enough and in the company of the right people. So noted.
Isn’t the question of whether the second party is believable and credible a question of fact for the jury?
I get that the issue is getting all cloudy and stuff, and people are focusing on tangents rather than the issue, but it’s pretty clear that Willingham never admitted to murdering his children. A snitch claimed he did, but he was lying. I don’t know why you would trust his testimony over Willingham’s, since Willingham could have also benefited from confessing. His wife was just bonkers in her testimony.
Further, confessions aren’t great pieces of evidence. Lots of people exonerated by DNA had confessed to crimes they hadn’t committed.
But- he never made that admission. Both people who made that claim have recanted several time and were of dubious veracity. His ex was so dubious even the DA wouldnt let her testify- and he actually had 'experts" testify that Willingham was guilty to to his rock posters and tattoo.
So- he never confessed. Anyone who said he did lied and recanted.
No. I assume if you’re being used as a witness someone has decided you’re credible. That’s the sure process I specifically was referring to relating to second hand admissions.
Sure, it certainly can be.
OK. And in Willingham’s trial, did he suffer a denial of due process?
I made no claim either way regarding this specific trial since I’m not familiar with all the info. I was responding to a specific post about a general concept about how confessions in general can require due process.
You can take your Socratic method attempt to make a point somewhere else. If you have something to say just say it. I’m not in your class and don’t need you to teach me.
Even if there was no denial of due process, would you say justice was served?
A man who murdered his children paid for his crime. Justice was served.
Justice is the process that protects all of us from the tyranny of the government. If due process is swept under the rug because we just need this guy to pay, none of us are safe.
You’ve got that backwards. Justice is the process by which the government protects us from the mob - you know, those guys in the streets chanting for dead cops.
That’s got absolutely nothing to do with what’s being talked about in this thread.