No, he doesn’t. Facts matter. Play hypothetical games elsewhere. Plenty of death penalty proponents think this case was all kinds of screwed up.
Rick Perry covering his ass by asserting his own personal conviction doesn’t change that.
Again, facts matter.
This isn’t a hypothetical game.
This is a man’s life. And one that was taken by the state without a full and proper investigation. In fact, after a bungled, half-assed investigation that was revealed as such before the execution.
Even assuming people should be executed for certain crimes, we should make damned certain they actually committed them. And that sure as hell didn’t happen here.
What do you think did happen? Did Willingham start the fire? Did someone else start the fire? Or was there no arson involved? The third option means no murder took place.
@Smapti, Great Antibob & Crotalus
That’s why I said whether he did it or not. The issue for me is not whether he committed the crime or not. It’s the system that allows obvious flaws in the prosecution to go unimpeached after the trial.
As I noted, even in the worst case that Willingham did actually kill his children, the systemic failures in the investigation and prosecution made too much of a hash of things to actually prove it happened or to give us confidence that an execution was truly warranted.
Seriously? The prosecutor himself no longer thinks it happened as he “proved” it did.
He’s on the record stating the arson investigation was flawed and that it didn’t occur as hypothesized. He hedges a bit by saying he thinks the rest of the evidence is sufficient to justify the conviction.
So, what exactly are you arguing here? Because not even the justice system agrees with you on this point.
The prosecution disagrees with you here. He now believes events did NOT occur as argued during the trial.
So, again, what are you arguing?
That the ends justify the means, and the little details (like whether arson even occurred or not) don’t matter? That flawed investigations are ok as long as you agree with the verdict? That’s seriously messed up.
In any event, he’s sharing his personal opinion as a private citizen 20 years after the fact, not acting as a representative of the prosecutor’s office.
I’m arguing that if a man is guilty, and he is found guilty, then “flawed investigations” are not an argument for letting him live.
My understanding is that the appeals process is very limited in scope and is not a retrying of the facts. As such the Appeals Court would rule if evidence was properly admitted not that the evidence makes no fucking sense.
That phrase “if a man is guilty” really stands out there. We don’t know that - what we know is that he was found guilty based on a flawed investigation. Is that finding of guilt, in that circumstance, enough to kill him?
Yes, because, as noted above, all the evidence even if the forensic investigation is thrown out entirely indicates that Willingham set the fire in order to kill the twins.
Far-left? If only. Activist judges? That’s what they’re called by people who don’t like their rulings.
As for these cases, apparently the scandal of a wrongful execution in the United Kingdom had much to do with ending the death penalty there. Keep in mind that, for the death-penalty apparatchiks, there’s a lot at stake, and good reasons why they might like to see such a case never truly exposed to the full light of truth, even if they know deep down that a grave injustice was done. They would lose face, but that’s only part of it.
You all are arguing with someone who believes that executing a factually innocent person is impossible in the United States. I’m not sure what you think you’re accomplishing here.
Anti-CP fanatics like to pretend the only evidence was the forensic report and an Iron Maiden poster because it helps them trivialize the strength of the prosecution’s case. As noted above, there were lots of other factors;
Willingham was known to beat his wife and had punched her in the stomach while pregnant with the twins in an attempt to cause a miscarriage
He admitted to investigators that he had poured cologne on the floor outside the twins’ room, where the fire started
The back door had been blocked with a refrigerator box, making escape impossible without going through the blaze
Despite claiming he made multiple rescue attempts, Willingham had no signs of smoke inhalation and only superficial burns that showed signs of being self-inflicted
When he learned the fire department was on the way he broke a window, allowing oxygen into the home and causing the fire to spread
At the funeral, he was heard saying over his older daughter’s casket that “you’re not the one who was supposed to die”
In the days after the fire he was observed to be in good spirits about how “money isn’t going to be a problem now” and only acted bereaved when the police were around
The evidence points to him deliberately starting the fire to kill the twins, and his older daughter being collateral damage.
I think it’s relevant regardless of what a Governor says, when people point to Governors not willing to grand clemency for political reasons as part of the “problem” in Texas. That is only true if the board recommended clemency to the governor.
Something I think often forgotten, and I had a lot of discussions just like this due to the airing of the Serial podcast, is the burden of proof is fundamentally different in the United States once you are convicted. In many cases of persons that the public or individuals have a strong belief is innocent, but who has been convicted, after-the-fact investigations dig up things that if presented at trial would have probably, or at least “possibly” been found to represent reasonable doubt and would have lead to an acquittal.
But that is irrelevant, once someone is convicted and has exhausted their initial appeals. Some substantial evidence found in the early stages of the State appeals process can allow an appellate court to overrule a jury’s finding of facts. But the concept of finality makes this much more difficult once you’re to the point of filing habeas petitions as your last avenue of attack on the original conviction (which is typically the case with all of these cause celebre cases, the investigative journalism and competent lawyers don’t work on destroying the evidence that convicted the person until long after the ordinary State appellate process has ran its course), as “mere innocence” is not enough to necessarily guarantee granting of habeas. That is why there is often the scenario (even in non-death penalty cases like that of Jeffrey MacDonald or Adnan Syed) where years and years later a firm amount of evidence at least making it obvious the person shouldn’t have been convicted is found by investigating journalists and lawyers working pro bono often does little to advance the convicted person’s cause.