Isn’t the usual standard ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’?
Do these inferences of malfeasance erase all the reasonable doubts raised?
That’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it? Absent expert testimony that this is a pre-planned fire, the rest is just conjecture about how a person should act. Alone, it’s hardly proof that a man killed his kids. But - once the experts advise that this is a “tell-tale” arson - these details can be used to “substantiate” the expert theory.
And that’s what makes this case problematic - the arson evidence is questionable conjecture, too. In a capital case, I think people are right to expect far more certainty than simply piling guesswork upon guesswork.
ETA : I guess I have arrived at a conclusion about this case - while I don’t know if he killed his kids, I certainly don’t think the state met the burden necessary to execute this man.
That’s not just a possibility, it’s an admission he poured a flamable liquid in area that caught fire.
Uh huh. Could have moved the children away from the fire so they wouldn’t, you know… die.
…
I disagree.
For fuck’s sake, man. I just read a book to my daughter before bed. Did I just admit that I left a flammable item right next to her bed where it could burn?
What he did was possibly not wise. However, and I’ll take correction from someone with more chemistry knowledge than me, cologne sprinkled on the floor does not present any significant fire damage whatsoever, as the volatile compounds in the cologne will evaporate within minutes.
I love how this is part of the evidence, and also when he busted out a window trying to get back in to get the kids, that’s also evidence of his murderous intent.
Wait, I don’t love that. That’s a nasty catch-22.
A google search tells me that cologne can be flammable, depending on the type of cologne and its alcohol content. I couldn’t find the brand used. But I note that the fire inspectors didn’t find evidence of an accelerant anywhere except the front entrance (which is plausibly explained by the charcoal grill on the front porch).
The evidence is that he tried to enter the home but flames shot out when he broke the windows. The car was parked just feet from the house, so if flames are shooting out, I can imagine him worried that the fire would spread to the car.
In that long article linked upthreaed which advocates for his exoneration, one of the fire experts talks about the intense power of a fire. I can accept that a person can stumble out of a home where flames are rapidly spreading and not be able to physically re-enter, their love for their kids notwithstanding.
Also, apparently, he did have some burns on his body. It’s not like he was completely unscathed by the fire, even if he escaped safely.
Ultimately, I think the point, simply, is that it is not an airtight case once you discount the certainty of the fire inspectors. It’s not that I don’t think your view of this evidence isn’t perfectly reasonable, it’s that I don’t think it’s enough to sustain a death sentence.
Yes, people act weird and not normal when a disaster like this is occurring. Judging him based upon his reactions is a total fallacy.
The point is- there is grave doubts there was arson in the first place. The science was bad, the 'expert" was anything but -and a hired gun.
No, it was a “well, maybe?”. People come up with weird answers under stress.
Nope, he was stopped from going back in.
and people pro-offer explanations when not needed.
By who? AAA? the man tried to save his car.
We’re just not going to agree on his guilt. As for the death penalty I would have voted for life in prison.
I.e., he created a backdraft so as to make sure the kids would be dead before the firefighters got there.
That’s certainly one possible explanation.
But, how is it inconsistent with a person exiting a home that is being engulfed in flames and trying to find an alternative entrance to rescue his kids, since the front door is impassible?
If the goal had been to create ventilation to ensure that the flames would spread, wouldn’t it have been easier to just open the windows as part of the arson preparations?
Personally, I don’t think the reasoning that he was creating a backdraft is the best one. He wasn’t particularly well educated. Did he have experience with fires? Could anybody testify to his interest in the mechanics of fire before the event? Was he searching for information, perhaps online, to inform himself of how to spread fire? Absent some additional evidence, I think the backdraft theory, while plausible, isn’t the best one.
The fire happened in 1991. I seriously doubt he looked up anything online then.
I agree with all of this. I don’t think one can say definitively that Texas executed an innocent man, but I believe that the testimony given at his trial was horrific and it is doubtful that he could have been convicted based upon the conjecture about his actions.
Speaking as someone that knows these arson investigators and thinks that they are otherwise great guys, they are stuck in their ways and will not yield to new science that tells them that their old gut instincts are wrong. So they practice largely junk science and find “charring patterns” and the like where they say the fire originated but like the newest expert said, is complete horseshit.
Also, with the cologne. If he was covering up for pouring gasoline in that hallway, then why didn’t the testing show any accelerant in the hallway?