Let’s say I do have an agenda. You have one, too. You see capital punishment as a moral good and it helps your position to pretend that mistakes never happen. This strongly biases your judgement of the evidence.
Some of the evidence says he could have done it; other evidence suggests that prosecutors relied on completely unreliable witnesses in terms of establishing his guilt and his state of mind at the time of his conviction. Moreover, the forensics of the case were suspect at best.
It’s entirely possible he committed the crime, but there’s certainly enough evidence to suggest that it’s possible he didn’t. I would be satisfied with his conviction and a life sentence, which would still be an injustice if he was wrongly convicted, but it would be an injustice from which he could recover at least whatever time left on earth he might have had, had evidence cleared him. But death is forever.
There is no need to kill him anyway. Killing him doesn’t make our country any less violent.
Have you read this article about the case? I would call it essential reading for anyone who wishes to opine on it.
That depends whether you think inmates are people too. Keeping a person away from the public is fine but a dangerous person can still murder other prisoners.
While I’m not against the death penalty I prefer a very high level of evidence. I’m not sure how to quantify that but I could given an example. A person shooting people who is caught on tape committing the crime and is held at the scene.
I have, and I found it unconvincing. The stuff about Iron Maiden posters and bad forensics is a distraction, and Willingham’s claims about what happened before he fled the building are unsubstantiable.
The facts are that Willingham was in dire financial straits and wasn’t cut out for fatherhood. He admitted pouring flammable cologne on the floor in the hallway outside the girls’ room. The back door was blocked with furniture to prevent access or escape. He smashed out windows with a stick, allowing oxygen to enter the building and cause the spread of the fire to accelerate. At the funeral, he whispered over his oldest’s coffin that “you’re not the one who was supposed to die”. He was publicly living large after the fire and declaring that he wouldn’t have to worry about money anymore, and when touring the house after the fire he was visibly angry that his dartboard was ruined.
Even if one is so generous as to assume that the fire was spontaneous and accidental, he was actively responsible for the deaths of his children. Had I been on the jury, I’d have voted to convict, and I’d have voted for death, and I wouldn’t have a single bit of remorse over it.
There are lots of facts of this case. None of them lead to the conclusion that he’s a murderer or arsonist.
Note: “convicted of”, not “committed”. These convictions were made by the same criminal justice system that convicted him of arson for a fire that was probably accidental and had nothing to do with him.
I read that and it is disturbing. We need serious prison reform in this country.
Even if the fire was accidental, his words and deeds still make him a murderer.
Words never make anyone a murderer.
Deeds can, if those deeds include killing people. Did his deeds include that? Do you have any evidence?
Just to be clear, are you claiming that his previous convictions were all wrong too?
Words can make one a murderer when they testify to one’s intent, as Willingham’s did.
My evidence is as I have laid out above and as was presented to the jury. He was guilty of murder and he deserved to die for it.
This statement is indefensible. If the fire was accidental, there was no crime.
Well, there is thoughtcrime in a fascist world.
Could you, perchane, point to his actual admission?
Let’s go through this.
This is totally irrelevant.
He said he poured it on the floor because the girls liked the smell. We have second-hand testimony: a paramedic recalled him saying this.
It’s a bizarre thing to hold up as evidence of arson. Do we think he actually poured cologne, or was he covering for gasoline? Do we think Willlingham was enough of a scientist to know that cologne and gasoline would leave similar marks, but not enough to know that they wouldn’t actually leave unmistakable marks? How much cologne would you have to pour in order to leave marks? Were there leading questions, or did he just volunteer this weird nugget out of nowhere?
This was addressed: there were two fridges in the kitchen, and the back door was blocked incidentally by the second fridge, which had been in this location for awhile.
This presupposes some pretty advanced knowledge of how fires spread, and puts the worst possible spin on an action that could equally be explained as “trying to make a new pathway into the house.”
Oh for Christ’s sake. Who heard this whisper so clearly that they could quote word-for-word? And even stipulating that a reliable witness heard and recalled it that clearly, maybe he meant he should’ve died–a very common sentiment for parents who have lost their children.
This is not evidence of shit.
If you would vote for conviction for first-degree murder despite allowing for the reasonable possibility that the fire was spontaneous and accidental, you’re exactly the sort of juror that makes the death penalty such a travesty.
This article mentions it:
Even if this is true, how do you know he didn’t say this over the coffins of all three of his children? One of my wife’s common expressions is that “children are not supposed to die before their parents”, and that there is nothing worse than a parent having to bury a child. He could have easily been expressing this sentiment, along with survivor’s guilt and a parent’s guilt for being unable to protect his children.
I’m mostly with LHOD on this one. Do you have any cites for the cologne thing and the “living large” thing? I thought I had read somewhere that the only life insurance on the children was a $15k policy all of which went to the funeral home.
Context is important in all of these things. The dartboard could be him just coming to the realization that “everything” in his life has gone to hell. Something minor like a dartboard when you are in a state of grief can set those things off.
People deal with things differently. You ever been to a funeral where someone doesn’t cry and is laughing and joking around during the visitation? That person is likely more sad than anyone up by the casket weeping into a handkerchief, yet people will comment on how that person “doesn’t care.”
I feel that may have been what happened here. Everyone was convinced that he was guilty therefore every.single.thing he did was scrutinized and used as evidence of his guilt
It’s bizarre that he pro-offered it in the first place.
Oh, BTW, if the fire looks like it started in the hallway I dumped cologne there because my girls liked it.
And nobody puts their car ahead of their children.
That’s one possibility. Another possibility is that they asked him if there were any chemicals that had spilled which might have started (or contributed to) the fire and he responded with, “well, I pour cologne in the hallway for the smell.”
From one of the articles linked to above, he moved the car away from the house when the flames got close, because he was afraid the car would explode. Prior to that, he had tried and failed to enter the home. I think it’s a reasonable thing to fear that the car was a bomb waiting to go off.
…
I’m not saying that I’ve arrived at a conclusion on this case, but I don’t think an admission of poured cologne or the moving of the car is proof of malfeasance.