If that wiki article is accurate, I feel perfectly safe in saying that a father of three committing a useless, meaningless suicide, with his youngest daughter in tow, is not noble.
I also feel he was working on the same mental incompetency level as our OP.
You’ve got us confused with someplace else, probably Kansas City. Either that or you hang out with transplated Yankees trying to fit into the local culture and failing miserably.
Well smoked BBQ is the food of the ghods, and the best is found in Texas, and the best of that is at Otto’s on Memorial Drive in Houston.
Dammit! Now I’m hungry for BBQ, it’s bedtime, and there isn’t any BBQ around here. Grrrrr. I’d start another tread pitting people who talk about BBQ in the BBQ Pit when I can’t get any BBQ, but then the universe would probably implode…
I think well thought out and suicide dont belong in the same sentence. It would have the same effect now as did in during the vietnam war, nothing. People who set themselves on fire are generally writting off as lunatics.
Having read the report prepared by the Innocence Project (if you’re interested, the PDF file is here), I am unconvinced. Much of the report just states that evidence pointed to by the original arson investigators “could have been” something else. Sometimes valuable evidence is ignored, such as the “pour pattern with a trailer” which the original AI said was evidence of a liquid accelerant. The new report says that pour patterns are difficult to impossible to distinguish from ordinary burn patterns of a “full room involvement” (when a room is so hot that everything combustible will ignite if there’s enough oxygen). But, they ignore the “trailer” portion, which the original testimony indicates is evidence that a person poured a trail of flammable liquid going into or coming out of an area. Doesn’t the presence of a trailer help distinguish a pour pattern from an ordinary burn pattern? Since the report completely ignores the trailer, I must confess that I do not know. It’s a curious omission.
The report also scoffs at the original AI who pointed to three points of origin as evidence that the fire was started by human hands. The new report says that that’s not evidence of human involvement, since fire can flash across a three-dimensional space and create the appearance of multiple points of origin. And how can fire flash across the open air, creating multiple points of origin? Well, perhaps there was a liquid accelerant present! (Seriously, the report uses that as an example!) Sure enough, that would explain it!
Anyway, I’ll let folks more talented than I point out the other flaws in the report. I’d rather move on to this page about Mr. Willingham. Apparently, witnesses saw him crouching down outside the house well before actual flames were seen and that he refused to go inside to save the three children (all aged 2 and under). Instead of saving the kids, he ran back and pushed his car out of the way, so it wouldn’t get damaged. The front porch, which was made of concrete, was burned, which is rather compelling evidence of an accelerant. Later, he expressed more sadness over the loss of his dartboard than the loss of his children.
The page states that Willingham told a fellow inmate that he set the fire to cover up evidence that he had been abusing the children. His very last words before his execution were to his ex-wife, mother of the twin daughters he murdered, to whom he said, “I hope you rot in hell, bitch.” In my book, good riddance to bad rubbish.
Well, as long as we genetically engineer the cows for sentience and speech so they can clearly and convincingly let us know they WANT to be eaten.
/hhgttg
We could interpret that in many other ways. Maybe the privy was busted. And so what if he loved his dartboard more than his children? Doesn’t mean there was an accelerant!
The man loved barbecue, and that’s good enough for me.