New report shows Texas executed innocent man (1 Viewer)

[Drunken Cowboy]

the New Yorker article is definitely worth reading.I found this part particularly interesting/disturbing:

Though only the babysitter had appeared as a witness for the defense during the main trial, several family members, including Stacy, testified during the penalty phase, asking the jury to spare Willingham’s life. When Stacy was on the stand, Jackson grilled her about the “significance” of Willingham’s “very large tattoo of a skull, encircled by some kind of a serpent.”“It’s just a tattoo,” Stacy responded.“He just likes skulls and snakes. Is that what you’re saying?”“No. He just had—he got a tattoo on him.”The prosecution cited such evidence in asserting that Willingham fit the profile of a sociopath, and brought forth two medical experts to confirm the theory. Neither had met Willingham. One of them was Tim Gregory, a psychologist with a master’s degree in marriage and family issues, who had previously gone goose hunting with Jackson, and had not published any research in the field of sociopathic behavior. His practice was devoted to family counselling.At one point, Jackson showed Gregory Exhibit No. 60—a photograph of an Iron Maiden poster that had hung in Willingham’s house—and asked the psychologist to interpret it. “This one is a picture of a skull, with a fist being punched through the skull,” Gregory said; the image displayed “violence” and “death.” Gregory looked at photographs of other music posters owned by Willingham. “There’s a hooded skull, with wings and a hatchet,” Gregory continued. “And all of these are in fire, depicting—it reminds me of something like Hell. And there’s a picture—a Led Zeppelin picture of a falling angel. . . . I see there’s an association many times with cultive-type of activities. A focus on death, dying. Many times individuals that have a lot of this type of art have interest in satanic-type activities.”The other medical expert was James P. Grigson, a forensic psychiatrist. He testified so often for the prosecution in capital-punishment cases that he had become known as Dr. Death. (A Texas appellate judge once wrote that when Grigson appeared on the stand the defendant might as well “commence writing out his last will and testament.”) Grigson suggested that Willingham was an “extremely severe sociopath,” and that “no pill” or treatment could help him. Grigson had previously used nearly the same words in helping to secure a death sentence against Randall Dale Adams, who had been convicted of murdering a police officer, in 1977. After Adams, who had no prior criminal record, spent a dozen years on death row—and once came within seventy-two hours of being executed—new evidence emerged that absolved him, and he was released. In 1995, three years after Willingham’s trial, Grigson was expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for violating ethics. The association stated that Grigson had repeatedly arrived at a “psychiatric diagnosis without first having examined the individuals in question, and for indicating, while testifying in court as an expert witness, that he could predict with 100-per-cent certainty that the individuals would engage in future violent acts.”

Grigson should be in jail.

Grigson and everybody who ever put him on the stand.

 

[CrossEyed]

I'm not sure I understand how they are positive he didn't start the fire. Can someone explain? There seemed to be a lack of information in that article.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

I'm not sure I understand how they are positive he didn't start the fire. Can someone explain? There seemed to be a lack of information in that article.

It wasn't even arson.

 

[perry147]

I'm not sure I understand how they are positive he didn't start the fire. Can someone explain? There seemed to be a lack of information in that article.

Jackson was the prosecuting attorney (he is a judge now).1. Jackson claims Willingham beat his wife when she was pregnant in an attempt to end her pregnancies. In fact, Willingham's wife has denied this and also told investigators he would never hurt his children.2. Jackson claims Willingham's burns were so minor that they must have been self- inflicted to fake evidence of trying to save his family. In fact, scientific experts have conducted experiments with identical fires and Willingham's burns are normal for this type of fire.3. Jackson claims medical tests show Willingham didn't inhale smoke and thus didn't try to rescue his family. In fact, Willingham tried desperately to go back into the house but firefighters physically restrained him.4. Jackson claims Willingham refused to take a polygraph examination. This is true, but it is by no means evidence of guilt. Defense attorneys routinely advise their clients not to take polygraphs because they have proven unreliable (which is why they are not admissible in court).5. Jackson likens Willingham to "violent sociopaths." In fact, a prosecution expert who testified that Willingham was a "sociopath" was expelled from his professional association just three years later for unethical behavior, including making diagnoses without examining people. Willingham's former probation officer and a judge both directly refute any notion that he was a sociopath.6. Jackson claims Willingham meant to kill only his twins, citing the origin of the fire in their room and a witness who supposedly heard him whisper to his older daughter's body that she wasn't supposed to die. In fact, even the experts at Willingham's trial admitted that they could not detect chemicals showing arson in the twins' room. A grieving father telling his dead daughter that she wasn't supposed to die is not evidence of guilt.7. Jackson claims that a refrigerator in the house was pushed against a door, implying that Willingham moved it to trap the children inside. In fact, the refrigerator was covering a back door because there were two refrigerators in the small kitchen. The police detective and the fire chief who handled the case both now say that the refrigerator's location does not support the theory that the fire was arson.

 

[SKribbles]

#### happens. Would I be correct in saying that 99% of people executed are guilty?

Doesn't matter does it? I would rather they all go free, frankly, than to see one innocent man executed.

You'd rather have this list of people free than one innocent man die? I'm pretty sure they'd be killing a lot more than just one innocent person.Executions since 1976.

 

[Hatfield]

Even if he didn't start the fire I'm sure he was guilty of something.

 

[adonis]

Vaccines are a similar situation, in that we know that in a few cases, the vaccines may have adverse reactions in people with very rare genetic conditions, but we still administer them generally and accept that we can't be 100% sure that it'll work.Other drugs are similar, and the allowable mortality rate for a drug correlates to the severity of the condition it's trying to treat.Quite a few surgeries have high mortality rates, but they're acceptable in certain situations.

When you are forced by the state to do those things then that would be an apt comparison.

Yeah, I realize they're not exactly similar, but they are situations in which bad outcomes are expected, for the overall good. The police example was a bit better.

 

[adonis]

Even if he didn't start the fire I'm sure he was guilty of something.

The "Let God sort it out, but we'll arrange the meeting" kinda approach.

 

[California]

Kind of OT, but I just read an article about researchers in Japan being able to "fake" DNA tests, pretty easily. The repercussions of this is that DNA testing may no longer hold the same weight (or any weight) during trials.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Kind of OT, but I just read an article about researchers in Japan being able to "fake" DNA tests, pretty easily. The repercussions of this is that DNA testing may no longer hold the same weight (or any weight) during trials.

I'm sure this was a nice post and all, but for some reason I was completely unable to focus while reading it.

 

[NCCommish]

Kind of OT, but I just read an article about researchers in Japan being able to "fake" DNA tests, pretty easily. The repercussions of this is that DNA testing may no longer hold the same weight (or any weight) during trials.

Yeah we covered that. You are going to have to have some specialized equipment to pull that off and fakes can be tested for. The tests will be forthcoming shortly. The same Japanese lab has one for sale and American labs are working on a version.

 

[CrossEyed]

I'm not sure I understand how they are positive he didn't start the fire. Can someone explain? There seemed to be a lack of information in that article.

Jackson was the prosecuting attorney (he is a judge now).1. Jackson claims Willingham beat his wife when she was pregnant in an attempt to end her pregnancies. In fact, Willingham's wife has denied this and also told investigators he would never hurt his children.2. Jackson claims Willingham's burns were so minor that they must have been self- inflicted to fake evidence of trying to save his family. In fact, scientific experts have conducted experiments with identical fires and Willingham's burns are normal for this type of fire.3. Jackson claims medical tests show Willingham didn't inhale smoke and thus didn't try to rescue his family. In fact, Willingham tried desperately to go back into the house but firefighters physically restrained him.4. Jackson claims Willingham refused to take a polygraph examination. This is true, but it is by no means evidence of guilt. Defense attorneys routinely advise their clients not to take polygraphs because they have proven unreliable (which is why they are not admissible in court).5. Jackson likens Willingham to "violent sociopaths." In fact, a prosecution expert who testified that Willingham was a "sociopath" was expelled from his professional association just three years later for unethical behavior, including making diagnoses without examining people. Willingham's former probation officer and a judge both directly refute any notion that he was a sociopath.6. Jackson claims Willingham meant to kill only his twins, citing the origin of the fire in their room and a witness who supposedly heard him whisper to his older daughter's body that she wasn't supposed to die. In fact, even the experts at Willingham's trial admitted that they could not detect chemicals showing arson in the twins' room. A grieving father telling his dead daughter that she wasn't supposed to die is not evidence of guilt.7. Jackson claims that a refrigerator in the house was pushed against a door, implying that Willingham moved it to trap the children inside. In fact, the refrigerator was covering a back door because there were two refrigerators in the small kitchen. The police detective and the fire chief who handled the case both now say that the refrigerator's location does not support the theory that the fire was arson.

Thanks.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Even if he didn't start the fire I'm sure he was guilty of something.

I'll bet at least one unpaid parking ticket.

 

[StrikeS2k]

As for executing an innocent person simple statistics tell us he isn't the first.

Statisics? What about facts?I don't say that to be arguementitive - but what statisitcs?

Statisitcs based on the number of people released from jail after being proven innocent due to new evidence, primarily DNA based, coming to light.

People being executed have a much longer appeals process than those convicted of lesser crimes. Do you have evidence of DNA proving an executed person was innocent?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

There seemed to be a lack of information in that article.

The New Yorker article is 17 pages long.

 

[StrikeS2k]

There seemed to be a lack of information in that article.

The New Yorker article is 17 pages long.

How does that compare to the length of the trial transcripts?

 

[T Bell]

Was his name Archebald Buttle by any chance?

 

[NCCommish]

As for executing an innocent person simple statistics tell us he isn't the first.

Statisics? What about facts?I don't say that to be arguementitive - but what statisitcs?

Statisitcs based on the number of people released from jail after being proven innocent due to new evidence, primarily DNA based, coming to light.

People being executed have a much longer appeals process than those convicted of lesser crimes. Do you have evidence of DNA proving an executed person was innocent?

Head in the sand to defend your position just makes you look dumb. If we have been forced to release so many people because we got it wrong in the last twenty years there is no way we got it right every time we pulled the switch. This is easy math logic.

 

[denveredge]

Link

He said two year old daughter woke him up crying and he told her to get out of the house and he left to call for help. A two year old? Many reports said he was worried about his car and dart board as his kids burned in the house. Being a father I guess I don't understand this, but everyone is different. The jury probably did not look kindly on this. Not sure he deserved the death penalty for this, even if guilty. The wife supported him early on but after many discussions felt he had something to do with it.

 

[TommyGilmore]

I'm not sure I understand how they are positive he didn't start the fire. Can someone explain? There seemed to be a lack of information in that article.

You mean, a lack of information showing his guilt?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

As for executing an innocent person simple statistics tell us he isn't the first.

Statisics? What about facts?I don't say that to be arguementitive - but what statisitcs?

Statisitcs based on the number of people released from jail after being proven innocent due to new evidence, primarily DNA based, coming to light.

Are they proven innocent, or is it shown that the theory of their guilt presented at trial was fallacious? I suspect much more of the latter than the former.

 

[StrikeS2k]

As for executing an innocent person simple statistics tell us he isn't the first.

Statisics? What about facts?I don't say that to be arguementitive - but what statisitcs?

Statisitcs based on the number of people released from jail after being proven innocent due to new evidence, primarily DNA based, coming to light.

People being executed have a much longer appeals process than those convicted of lesser crimes. Do you have evidence of DNA proving an executed person was innocent?

Head in the sand to defend your position just makes you look dumb. If we have been forced to release so many people because we got it wrong in the last twenty years there is no way we got it right every time we pulled the switch. This is easy math logic.

Uh, no. Using invalid assertions and statistics to defend your position makes you look dumb. Not to mention that I haven't stated a position.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Link

He said two year old daughter woke him up crying and he told her to get out of the house and he left to call for help. A two year old? Many reports said he was worried about his car and dart board as his kids burned in the house. Being a father I guess I don't understand this, but everyone is different. The jury probably did not look kindly on this. Not sure he deserved the death penalty for this, even if guilty. The wife supported him early on but after many discussions felt he had something to do with it.

he said he moved the car so it didn't explode near the house. first I've heard of any concerns about the dart board.you should read the New Yorker article.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

More info on the case here

Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children.

_______________

The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned

__________________________

At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that Willingham has a history of violence. He has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, both as an adult and as a juvenile, and attempts at various forms of rehabilitation have proven unsuccessful.

The jury also heard evidence of Willingham’s character. Witnesses testified that Willingham was verbally and physically abusive toward his family, and that at one time he beat his pregnant wife in an effort to cause a miscarriage. A friend of Willingham’s testified that Willingham once bragged about brutally killing a dog. In fact, Willingham openly admitted to a fellow inmate that he purposely started this fire to conceal evidence that the children had been abused.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

More info on the case here

Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children.

_______________

The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned

__________________________

At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that Willingham has a history of violence. He has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, both as an adult and as a juvenile, and attempts at various forms of rehabilitation have proven unsuccessful.

The jury also heard evidence of Willingham’s character. Witnesses testified that Willingham was verbally and physically abusive toward his family, and that at one time he beat his pregnant wife in an effort to cause a miscarriage. A friend of Willingham’s testified that Willingham once bragged about brutally killing a dog. In fact, Willingham openly admitted to a fellow inmate that he purposely started this fire to conceal evidence that the children had been abused.

much of this doesn't hold up.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

After Hurst had reviewed Fogg and Vasquez’s list of more than twenty arson indicators, he believed that only one had any potential validity: the positive test for mineral spirits by the threshold of the front door. But why had the fire investigators obtained a positive reading only in that location? According to Fogg and Vasquez’s theory of the crime, Willingham had poured accelerant throughout the children’s bedroom and down the hallway. Officials had tested extensively in these areas—including where all the pour patterns and puddle configurations were—and turned up nothing. Jackson told me that he “never did understand why they weren’t able to recover” positive tests in these parts.Hurst found it hard to imagine Willingham pouring accelerant on the front porch, where neighbors could have seen him. Scanning the files for clues, Hurst noticed a photograph of the porch taken before the fire, which had been entered into evidence. Sitting on the tiny porch was a charcoal grill. The porch was where the family barbecued. Court testimony from witnesses confirmed that there had been a grill, along with a container of lighter fluid, and that both had burned when the fire roared onto the porch during post-flashover. By the time Vasquez inspected the house, the grill had been removed from the porch, during cleanup. Though he cited the container of lighter fluid in his report, he made no mention of the grill. At the trial, he insisted that he had never been told of the grill’s earlier placement. Other authorities were aware of the grill but did not see its relevance. Hurst, however, was convinced that he had solved the mystery: when firefighters had blasted the porch with water, they had likely spread charcoal-lighter fluid from the melted container.

In December, 2004, questions about the scientific evidence in the Willingham case began to surface. Maurice Possley and Steve Mills, of the Chicago Tribune, had published an investigative series on flaws in forensic science; upon learning of Hurst’s report, Possley and Mills asked three fire experts, including John Lentini, to examine the original investigation. The experts concurred with Hurst’s report. Nearly two years later, the Innocence Project commissioned Lentini and three other top fire investigators to conduct an independent review of the arson evidence in the Willingham case. The panel concluded that “each and every one” of the indicators of arson had been “scientifically proven to be invalid.”In 2005, Texas established a government commission to investigate allegations of error and misconduct by forensic scientists. The first cases that are being reviewed by the commission are those of Willingham and Willis. In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny “rational reasoning” and was more “characteristic of mystics or psychics.” What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, “not only the standards of today but even of the time period.” The commission is reviewing his findings, and plans to release its own report next year. Some legal scholars believe that the commission may narrowly assess the reliability of the scientific evidence. There is a chance, however, that Texas could become the first state to acknowledge officially that, since the advent of the modern judicial system, it had carried out the “execution of a legally and factually innocent person.”

 

[perry147]

As for executing an innocent person simple statistics tell us he isn't the first.

Statisics? What about facts?I don't say that to be arguementitive - but what statisitcs?

Statisitcs based on the number of people released from jail after being proven innocent due to new evidence, primarily DNA based, coming to light.

People being executed have a much longer appeals process than those convicted of lesser crimes. Do you have evidence of DNA proving an executed person was innocent?

Head in the sand to defend your position just makes you look dumb. If we have been forced to release so many people because we got it wrong in the last twenty years there is no way we got it right every time we pulled the switch. This is easy math logic.

The people of Texas need to rise up and protest until the death penalty is halted. But who am I kidding, this is not going to happen; a far more interesting query would be - why does the state of Texas allow the death penalty to continue even though there is evidence that innocent people are being killed? There have been multiple cases in Texas like this.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Evidence at his trial showed he was abusive to his family and once beat his pregnant wife with a telephone to try to force a miscarriage.

stellar individualRIP

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

More info on the case here

Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children.

_______________

The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned

__________________________

At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that Willingham has a history of violence. He has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, both as an adult and as a juvenile, and attempts at various forms of rehabilitation have proven unsuccessful.

The jury also heard evidence of Willingham’s character. Witnesses testified that Willingham was verbally and physically abusive toward his family, and that at one time he beat his pregnant wife in an effort to cause a miscarriage. A friend of Willingham’s testified that Willingham once bragged about brutally killing a dog. In fact, Willingham openly admitted to a fellow inmate that he purposely started this fire to conceal evidence that the children had been abused.

much of this doesn't hold up.

Which of it specifically?

 

[TommyGilmore]

Evidence at his trial showed he was abusive to his family and once beat his pregnant wife with a telephone to try to force a miscarriage.

stellar individual

Classic Brock Middlebrook response.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Link

from the same link:

The Tribune obtained a copy of the review by Craig Beyler, of Hughes Associates Inc., which was conducted for the Texas Forensic Science Commission, created to investigate allegations of forensic error and misconduct. The re-examination of the Willingham case comes as many forensic disciplines face scrutiny for playing a role in wrongful convictions that have been exposed by DNA and other scientific advances.

Among Beyler's key findings: that investigators failed to examine all of the electrical outlets and appliances in the Willinghams' house in the small Texas town of Corsicana, did not consider other potential causes for the fire, came to conclusions that contradicted witnesses at the scene, and wrongly concluded Willingham's injuries could not have been caused as he said they were.

The state fire marshal on the case, Beyler concluded in his report, had "limited understanding" of fire science. The fire marshal "seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires and how fire injuries are created," he wrote.

The marshal's findings, he added, "are nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation."

Over the past five years, the Willingham case has been reviewed by nine of the nation's top fire scientists -- first for the Tribune, then for the Innocence Project, and now for the commission. All concluded that the original investigators relied on outdated theories and folklore to justify the determination of arson.

The only other evidence of significance against Willingham was another inmate who testified that Willingham had confessed to him. Jailhouse snitches are viewed with skepticism in the justice system, so much so that some jurisdictions have restrictions against their use.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

More info on the case here

Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children.

_______________

The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned

__________________________

At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that Willingham has a history of violence. He has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, both as an adult and as a juvenile, and attempts at various forms of rehabilitation have proven unsuccessful.

The jury also heard evidence of Willingham’s character. Witnesses testified that Willingham was verbally and physically abusive toward his family, and that at one time he beat his pregnant wife in an effort to cause a miscarriage. A friend of Willingham’s testified that Willingham once bragged about brutally killing a dog. In fact, Willingham openly admitted to a fellow inmate that he purposely started this fire to conceal evidence that the children had been abused.

much of this doesn't hold up.

Which of it specifically?

Regarding point 1, his neighbor left to call the fire department for awhile, but she testified that he wasn't doing anything. Firefighters apparently had to physically restrain him from entering the burning house. Also, according to the story, these fires can get up to 1200 degrees in a matter of minutes.Regarding point 2, he didn't provide any testimony in the trial. the only defense witness called by his court-appointed attorney was the babysitter. he said he moved the car to try and prevent it from exploding near the house to protect the kids. doubt most people would act rationally in these situations anyway.

Regarding point 3, his wife said she didn't think he would ever hurt the kids even though he had hurt her. she said nothing unusual had happened in the days leading up to the fire. he also had a probation officer and judge who supported him and said his prior crimes were for dumb kid stuff. not exactly the sociopath he was made out to be b/c he had an Iron Maiden poster hanging up.

Regarding point 4, that witness seems to have very little credibility and recanted his story several times. Why would this guy refuse a plea deal for life in prison and then confess to an inmate that he didn't know in an area where all the guards could hear him?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Link

from the same link:

The Tribune obtained a copy of the review by Craig Beyler, of Hughes Associates Inc., which was conducted for the Texas Forensic Science Commission, created to investigate allegations of forensic error and misconduct. The re-examination of the Willingham case comes as many forensic disciplines face scrutiny for playing a role in wrongful convictions that have been exposed by DNA and other scientific advances.

Among Beyler's key findings: that investigators failed to examine all of the electrical outlets and appliances in the Willinghams' house in the small Texas town of Corsicana, did not consider other potential causes for the fire, came to conclusions that contradicted witnesses at the scene, and wrongly concluded Willingham's injuries could not have been caused as he said they were.

The state fire marshal on the case, Beyler concluded in his report, had "limited understanding" of fire science. The fire marshal "seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires and how fire injuries are created," he wrote.

The marshal's findings, he added, "are nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation."

Over the past five years, the Willingham case has been reviewed by nine of the nation's top fire scientists -- first for the Tribune, then for the Innocence Project, and now for the commission. All concluded that the original investigators relied on outdated theories and folklore to justify the determination of arson.

The only other evidence of significance against Willingham was another inmate who testified that Willingham had confessed to him. Jailhouse snitches are viewed with skepticism in the justice system, so much so that some jurisdictions have restrictions against their use.

Nine experts found the investigative techniques, if they could even be given the dignity of being labeled investigative techniques, to be lacking as outdated or based upon folklore. They did not state they were wrong or that they conclusively concluded there was no arson, just that the procedures were less than should be relied upon by the courts. Seems again to be perhaps legally not guilty but falling short of factually innocent.I not that of the pages i have know read i find the evidence admitted at trial to be troubling. The character evidence introduced to show that he acted in conformity therewith was not similar transaction evidence but was little more than highly speculative character assassination by locals trying to establish their credibility and their professional credentials by testifying in the local trial of the century. The speculation by those without real expertise is beyond troubling.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Nine experts found the investigative techniques, if they could even be given the dignity of being labeled investigative techniques, to be lacking as outdated or based upon folklore. They did not state they were wrong or that they conclusively concluded there was no arson, just that the procedures were less than should be relied upon by the courts. Seems again to be perhaps legally not guilty but falling short of factually innocent.

I'd agree with this.

The speculation by those without real expertise is beyond troubling.

definitely.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

More info on the case here

Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children.

_______________

The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned

__________________________

At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that Willingham has a history of violence. He has been convicted of numerous felonies and misdemeanors, both as an adult and as a juvenile, and attempts at various forms of rehabilitation have proven unsuccessful.

The jury also heard evidence of Willingham’s character. Witnesses testified that Willingham was verbally and physically abusive toward his family, and that at one time he beat his pregnant wife in an effort to cause a miscarriage. A friend of Willingham’s testified that Willingham once bragged about brutally killing a dog. In fact, Willingham openly admitted to a fellow inmate that he purposely started this fire to conceal evidence that the children had been abused.

much of this doesn't hold up.

Which of it specifically?

Regarding point 1, his neighbor left to call the fire department for awhile, but she testified that he wasn't doing anything. Firefighters apparently had to physically restrain him from entering the burning house. Also, according to the story, these fires can get up to 1200 degrees in a matter of minutes.Regarding point 2, he didn't provide any testimony in the trial. the only defense witness called by his court-appointed attorney was the babysitter. he said he moved the car to try and prevent it from exploding near the house to protect the kids. doubt most people would act rationally in these situations anyway.

Regarding point 3, his wife said she didn't think he would ever hurt the kids even though he had hurt her. she said nothing unusual had happened in the days leading up to the fire. he also had a probation officer and judge who supported him and said his prior crimes were for dumb kid stuff. not exactly the sociopath he was made out to be b/c he had an Iron Maiden poster hanging up.

Regarding point 4, that witness seems to have very little credibility and recanted his story several times. Why would this guy refuse a plea deal for life in prison and then confess to an inmate that he didn't know in an area where all the guards could hear him?

that's we have trials, so the evidence can be debated at length and detail and evaluated by 12 individuals who will be hopefully impartial.Forensics methods may be flawed and infested with their own biases, and juries are wholly unqualified to evaluate them. This does not, however, prove that this guy was innocent.

 

[perry147]

that's we have trials, so the evidence can be debated at length and detail and evaluated by 12 individuals who will be hopefully impartial.

Forensics methods may be flawed and infested with their own biases, and juries are wholly unqualified to evaluate them. This does not, however, prove that this guy was innocent.

HTF can forensics be biased?

 

[fsword]

life in a box womb is better than no life at all

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

that's we have trials, so the evidence can be debated at length and detail and evaluated by 12 individuals who will be hopefully impartial.

Forensics methods may be flawed and infested with their own biases, and juries are wholly unqualified to evaluate them. This does not, however, prove that this guy was innocent.

HTF can forensics be biased?

What I meant was that the practiontioners who present the forensics to the jury -- who may start with their preconceived conclusion and then work backwards to find evidence that backs that up, even if they have the stretch the envelope a bit to get a good fit -- infect the forensic evidence with their biases.

 

[perry147]

that's we have trials, so the evidence can be debated at length and detail and evaluated by 12 individuals who will be hopefully impartial.

Forensics methods may be flawed and infested with their own biases, and juries are wholly unqualified to evaluate them. This does not, however, prove that this guy was innocent.

HTF can forensics be biased?

What I meant was that the practiontioners who present the forensics to the jury -- who may start with their preconceived conclusion and then work backwards to find evidence that backs that up, even if they have the stretch the envelope a bit to get a good fit -- infect the forensic evidence with their biases.

So the science itself is not biased, just the practitioners. But if the evidence is examined correctly and by correctly, I mean following a scientific method then the results are reliable. Just stick to the provable facts.

 

[The Ref]

I think giving government the legal authority to kill a citizen is a bad idea no matter the constitution of that citizen.

I have no issues with life, at least you can let them out if new evidance apears. Kind of hard to raise the dead.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Evidence at his trial showed he was abusive to his family and once beat his pregnant wife with a telephone to try to force a miscarriage.

stellar individual

Classic Brock Middlebrook response.

The ignore button is your friend.

 

[skazooz]

Do you oppose prison in general, because innocent people may be wrong convicted?

No.

I find this position to be immoral.

So ergo, it is not immoral to execute an innocent person, however it is immoral to wrongfully imprison someone. Solution? Execute all prisoners! Logic wins again! Let's all join hands and sing brothers!

 

[Knobs]

Grigson should be in jail. This man's family should be compensated...while no amount of money can replace their loss and what they had to suffer through, Texas should pay a whole lot of coin...

 

[Aggie 86]

Grigson should be in jail. This man's family should be compensated...while no amount of money can replace their loss and what they had to suffer through, Texas should pay a whole lot of coin...

Grigson is dead. Died of lung cancer.

 

[Balance]

This is why I'm against capital punishment. It is a human process and by definition it will be ####ed up, resulting in the death of innocents.

I can live with the imprisonment of innocents. It sucks but if resolved can be rectified to some degree. No such option when the guy is dead.

 

[Da Guru]

I knew a prosecutor who worked in Chicago. I went to college with the guy. At a golf outing he said and I quote. "It takes a good prosecutor to convict a guilty man...it takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent man" I have hated lawyers ever since.

 

[Aggie 86]

I knew a prosecutor who worked in Chicago. I went to college with the guy. At a golf outing he said and I quote. "It takes a good prosecutor to convict a guilty man...it takes a great prosecutor to convict an innocent man" I have hated lawyers ever since.

I heard an attorney say that any decent lawyer could get an indictment against a ham sandwich. I've hated ham sandwiches ever since.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Gregory looked at photographs of other music posters owned by Willingham. “There’s a hooded skull, with wings and a hatchet,” Gregory continued. “And all of these are in fire, depicting—it reminds me of something like Hell. And there’s a picture—a Led Zeppelin picture of a falling angel. . . . I see there’s an association many times with cultive-type of activities. A focus on death, dying. Many times individuals that have a lot of this type of art have interest in satanic-type activities.”

Good god. The Texas judicial system sucks.

Are you a denier of science?are you a psychology expert?

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

I'm not sure I understand how they are positive he didn't start the fire. Can someone explain? There seemed to be a lack of information in that article.

They aren't positive. He may very well have started it.

 

[Insomniac]

#### happens. Would I be correct in saying that 99% of people executed are guilty?

And that 1% doesn't bother you?

1 innocent person for every 99 murders, rapists and kidnappers is fine by me.

What if the 1 innocent person is you?