I used to be pro-death penalty 100 percent, until I read about Todd Willingham

[solange82200]

I hope I don't fudge this up like every other thread Ive started, here's hoping!

This story gave me an extreme change of heart on having the death penalty in our country. If I could be sure the system worked the way it should, I would still be for it, but at this point, I don't trust anyone to do their job correctly. It is a long story to read, but I urge you to read it to the very end. This cannot have happened in America.....

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...?currentPage=1

The fire moved quickly through the house, a one-story wood-frame structure in a working-class neighborhood of Corsicana, in northeast Texas. Flames spread along the walls, bursting through doorways, blistering paint and tiles and furniture. Smoke pressed against the ceiling, then banked downward, seeping into each room and through crevices in the windows, staining the morning sky.

Buffie Barbee, who was eleven years old and lived two houses down, was playing in her back yard when she smelled the smoke. She ran inside and told her mother, Diane, and they hurried up the street; that’s when they saw the smoldering house and Cameron Todd Willingham standing on the front porch, wearing only a pair of jeans, his chest blackened with soot, his hair and eyelids singed. He was screaming, “My babies are burning up!” His children—Karmon and Kameron, who were one-year-old twin girls, and two-year-old Amber—were trapped inside.

Willingham told the Barbees to call the Fire Department, and while Diane raced down the street to get help he found a stick and broke the children’s bedroom window. Fire lashed through the hole. He broke another window; flames burst through it, too, and he retreated into the yard, kneeling in front of the house. A neighbor later told police that Willingham intermittently cried, “My babies!” then fell silent, as if he had “blocked the fire out of his mind.”

Diane Barbee, returning to the scene, could feel intense heat radiating off the house. Moments later, the five windows of the children’s room exploded and flames “blew out,” as Barbee put it. Within minutes, the first firemen had arrived, and Willingham approached them, shouting that his children were in their bedroom, where the flames were thickest. A fireman sent word over his radio for rescue teams to “step on it.”

More men showed up, uncoiling hoses and aiming water at the blaze. One fireman, who had an air tank strapped to his back and a mask covering his face, slipped through a window but was hit by water from a hose and had to retreat. He then charged through the front door, into a swirl of smoke and fire. Heading down the main corridor, he reached the kitchen, where he saw a refrigerator blocking the back door.

Todd Willingham, looking on, appeared to grow more hysterical, and a police chaplain named George Monaghan led him to the back of a fire truck and tried to calm him down. Willingham explained that his wife, Stacy, had gone out earlier that morning, and that he had been jolted from sleep by Amber screaming, “Daddy! Daddy!”

“My little girl was trying to wake me up and tell me about the fire,” he said, adding, “I couldn’t get my babies out.”..........

[Athena]

I'm not a particularly emotional person, but this is one issue I'm quasi-rabid about.

Available evidence tells us a few things - that the death penalty does not deter, that it is more expensive than the alternative (life w/o parole) and, most disturbingly, there is a alarmingly high rate of error in capital cases.

What us emotional humans tend to forget is that, above all, the justice system is about prevention, not revenge. We recognize consciously that two wrongs don't make a right and that no punishment can undo damage done in violent cases. Yet, we often fail to realize that fines, community service, incarceration, even death are not things society imposes to force an individual to make up for past deeds - they are things we impose to prevent individuals from doing it again. This detrimental error in perspective is perhaps best illustrated by sayings like, "He paid his debt to society." It's not about debt. It's about what has yet to happen.

It's this error that we use to justify our bloodlust. We are content imposing some of the most unthinkable punishments, like death, because, no matter what we do to a murderer, we can't possibly refill or reverse the void they've left in their wake. The entire premise is faulty. OF COURSE we can't make up the void. That's why we should cease to look at it that way entirely.

And so we are brought to defend the policy of capital punishment. Within current parameters (i.e. constitutionality - Chud, I'm looking at you, darlin', and your "well, if we made it public and gruesome, it might deter..." argument ), I've yet to find a logical defense. Once you stop looking at the issue through the eyes of a vengeful victim and start looking at it from the angle of prevention and pragmatism, life w/o parole wins. Why? Because of all the reasons I mentioned initially, and of cases like the one above. Mr. Willingham is not the first innocent American our country has executed. He's just the first that we're going to prove was innocent.

The system is HUGELY flawed. Because it is operated by humans, it will always be flawed to some extent. The potential to execute an innocent will always exist, even with controls like DNA evidence (Israeli scientists recently proved that DNA evidence can be fabricated fairly easily). Our Constitution does NOT allow for collateral damage, and, if I may speak candidly - goddamn anyone who suggests that we should be sacrificing innocent civilians for the sake of DEAD ones.

I've argued the death penalty in and out, backward and forward, both advocating and opposing. I, too, used to favor the death penalty, before I educated myself. I can provide all the sources in the world to prove that capital cases are wildly expensive, or that there is no proof it deters. I can link you to the organizations that have examined forensic evidence only to find everything from larger than life mistakes to the intentional falsification of evidence. But those are WAY secondary arguments. In my opinion, it boils down to the wrongful execution, and the risk we cannot afford to take.

[absinthe]

thanks for bringing up this topic.

have any of you ever perused the site "dead man eating"? it lists the final meals requested by inmates who were put to death.

the kinds of foods requested are so pedestrian and low-class you wouldn't believe it. CHILI DOGS and SLOPPY JOES were requested more than once. i mean, there wasn't even one instance of someone feasting on sushi before his demise.

reading this website resulted in two realizations for me. the first was a realization of the condemned's humanity (they eat!) which made me melancholy. the second enlightenment was that ONLY THE POOR (and mostly southern) ARE EXECUTED. and that made me angry.

i mean, intellectually i knew that rich people buy their own justice. but seeing the list of final requests for domino's pizza made it all too visceral for me.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Sigh.

Very good, very good post. Excellent story.

That being said, the death penalty remains a good thing. Sometimes, it's just better to kill the person, than pay for them to live out in prison for the rest of their lives.

I've been to prison. Some of these fuckers are having a ball in there.

I know we're not always right- the system is fucked, because it's being run by people. But evil people are killed, and that's a good thing. That's a good thing.

Not everything has to come down to monetary logic. Sometimes, it just boils down to whats right and wrong.


And Athena, I know your stance quite well, and respect it, but because we can't ever kill anyone because it simply risks innocent lives, are you saying we should never lock anyone up for the rest of their lives the same? There are innocent people locked up every day. It's an imperfect system, always will be, run by imperfect people. It's what we have. It will never be fixed to run perfectly. Ever.

[Harley_Tech]

And Athena, I know your stance quite well, and respect it, but because we can't ever kill anyone because it simply risks innocent lives, are you saying we should never lock anyone up for the rest of their lives the same? There are innocent people locked up every day. It's an imperfect system, always will be, run by imperfect people. It's what we have. It will never be fixed to run perfectly. Ever.

Very interesting question, I look forward to Athena's answer.

R

[runecire]

While locking someone up for life does have the advantage of someday being able to release a wrongfully imprisoned person ( the death penalty has no "oops" button), I also do not believe that anyone convicted BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT should be allowed to live out their lives while their victims and the victims' families will suffer pain and loss for the rest of their lives.

Eye for an eye. There are some monsters that must die. It is how we keep sanity and comfort in our society. When we know that the monsters of the world will pay with their lives, it gives us an emotional comfort...a psychological comfort. How many did NOT cry with joy at the death of Hitler? How many did NOT dance in the streets with the death of Stalin? How many of you did NOT give a sigh of relief when Saddam was hung? How many of you would not give a shout of joy at the news that Bin Laden is dead and gone for ever and never to return?

We have a basic need, an intrinsic desire, to know that evil cannot and will not endure. It is how we go on living with hope and optimism. We wish for it every day on this site when the evil served upon children is punished. We want and desire the death of child killers and evil doers. It is natural. It may not be PC, it certainly is not popular, to want the death of another human, but it is in all of us. It is part of what makes us human.

If Monster is allowed to live out it's life, there will always be the innate and unconquerable fear that that Monster could escape and hurt again. There is no comfort for victims in knowing it could possibly happen again. Only when the evil is gone and the monster is slain can a victim (or their family) truely start down the road to healing and regrowth; only then can there be hope for the future.

[malq]

I am completely willing to sacrifice the small innocent percentage that may be accused and actually killed to actually punish those who truly deserve to die.

This arguement that someone innocent may die, has all but killed the death penalty system. Think of all those waiting on death row or have commuted sentences that committed horrific crimes. Thousands of them.. would you kill a few innocents to ensure all those assholes die?
Would you? I hear you all say that every day on here but no one is willing to back it up with a little innocent blood.
That's what it takes folks. Like the men who die building dams and bridges. Thirty men fell to their death building the Golden Gate Bridge. Did we stop building bridges? Its called a sacrifice. if you don't like that free everyone. It will never be perfect.

[runecire]

Malq, since you and I seem to be saying the same thing, I am not here to slam you. I am curious, however, just how willing you would be to be an innocent "sacrifice" to keep the death penalty as a judicial option.

I am not. I would prefer to see no innocents die, but I know at some point the system will break down and someone will be executed who does not deserve it.

The convicted are given lengthy stays on death row for a reason. Ample time for appeals and reviews are given for a reason...the truth will out. If someone is truely innocent, they will be released. I am curious to know if the are ANY documented and PROVEN cases of an innocent person being executed. I really want to know. (No "there was this guy once..." scenarios, please)

[sableskye]

there have been cases where people have been proven innocent of the crime they were convicted of. http://www.innocenceproject.org/ is a website that documents such things. texas actually executed a man who turned out to be innocent of the crime that he was convicted of in 2004, which is the story that was originally posted.

i worry that innocent people will be executed, but most of those bastards deserve to die for the crimes they did commit. you can argue all day long, and into the next day if it makes you feel better, but the reality is that the DP does work. the people who are executed never commit another heinous crime against anyone ever again, and that is a fact.

[malq]

Malq, since you and I seem to be saying the same thing, I am not here to slam you. I am curious, however, just how willing you would be to be an innocent "sacrifice" to keep the death penalty as a judicial option.

Good question. I was pondering that myself. The answer is no. i would be unwilling. It would be fate like being hit by a bus. It would be against my will and I would fight it and bitch loudly.. But I have a better chance of being hit by lightning. That is a great point.

And Sable thanks for that link

[evervigilant]

John Christie murdered Timothy Evans' wife and daughter , then blamed it on Timothy . He testified against him and Timothy was hanged for it . Christie carried on killing until he was caught and hanged himself . There used to be no age limit on capital punishment in Britain . It was abolished on the mainland in the sixties , seventies here in NI .
There are loads of cases on here that I think deserve the death penalty , in fact , that's too good for a lot of them . Innocents shouldn't even be convicted if everyone's doing their job properly , I think corruption plays a big part there .

[Athena]

And Athena, I know your stance quite well, and respect it, but because we can't ever kill anyone because it simply risks innocent lives, are you saying we should never lock anyone up for the rest of their lives the same?

For as long as that person lives, we have the chance to take back the mistake. I realize the system is imperfect and will always be. This fact simply underlines the importance for us to limit irrevocable mistakes to the best of our ability. There have been 241 exonerations based on DNA alone. 17 of these people were sentenced to death. An untold number remain on death row or have been executed because they cannot gain access to test their evidence post-conviction, which most states require the convict to pay for.

Once you're in the system, the cards are stacked against you. And with all due respect to the families of victims, not a single one of their anguish even holds a candle next to that of a man who lost his babies in a fire and knew he was going to die for it no matter how loudly he screamed his innocence.

Not everything has to come down to monetary logic. Sometimes, it just boils down to whats right and wrong.

Exactly, which is why the monetary argument is secondary. It's just further evidence to support an already well established argument. Killing innocent people for no tangible benefit will never be right, no matter how you frame it. No matter how.

That said, it looks like majority of individuals here have choosen to defiantly resist clear logic in favor of some bullshit nancy argument that centers around "feelings". Fuck that. I can't successfully argue that anymore than I can create a genius out of a retard.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

For as long as that person lives, we have the chance to take back the mistake. I realize the system is imperfect and will always be. This fact simply underlines the importance for us to limit irrevocable mistakes to the best of our ability. There have been 241 exonerations based on DNA alone. 17 of these people were sentenced to death.

Then it is up to the lawyers and the courts to do everything they can to support their claims, that already were not good enough in a court of law to begin with, as they were clearly found guilty, that said person is innocent.

I understand they have to pay for DNA testing, and a great majority can't. But instead of dreaming away like a high school idealist about abolishing the death penalty altogether, I would like to see the laws change to make it easier to get DNA testing. Why can't that be an option to help repair a broken system?

Once you're in the system, the cards are stacked against you. And with all due respect to the families of victims, not a single one of their anguish even holds a candle next to that of a man who lost his babies in a fire and knew he was going to die for it no matter how loudly he screamed his innocence.

Lol. Who is being the emotional nancy now? Pleeeeeeeeease. Let me wipe a tear from my eye.

Exactly, which is why the monetary argument is secondary. It's just further evidence to support an already well established argument. Killing innocent people for no tangible benefit will never be right, no matter how you frame it. No matter how.

Tangible benefit? Ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. It's not how something is framed, either, Athena, it's how it IS. Stopping someone from being on this earth anymore and preventing them from being a piece of society and causing any further harm is perfectly tangible. Killing someone, and preventing the further suffering of others, is tangible. You're hellbent that this is a revenge thing, to make people feel better.

That said, it looks like majority of individuals here have choosen to defiantly resist clear logic in favor of some bullshit nancy argument that centers around "feelings". Fuck that. I can't successfully argue that anymore than I can create a genius out of a retard.

You have no right to say fuck feelings, after you hypocritically used that man in the fire as an emotional plea for your argument. Fuck THAT.

And don't ever make a passive swipe that I am a retard again, or that any of us are, because we disagree with your bullshit idealistic radical views.

[Athena]

But instead of dreaming away like a high school idealist about abolishing the death penalty altogether, I would like to see the laws change to make it easier to get DNA testing. Why can't that be an option to help repair a broken system?

Because it can't be repaired enough when you don't believe in collateral damage. There are flaws even with DNA evidence. Did you read the link I posted in my first post? DNA evidence can be fabricated. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this,” said the lead author of the report.

Lol. Who is being the emotional nancy now? Pleeeeeeeeease. Let me wipe a tear from my eye.

In a single statement, I dismantled some peoples' entire argument. If I have to step out of my preferred framework for a moment to do so, I'm alright with that.

Tangible benefit? Ludicrous. Absolutely ludicrous. It's not how something is framed, either, Athena, it's how it IS. Stopping someone from being on this earth anymore and preventing them from being a piece of society and causing any further harm is perfectly tangible. Killing someone, and preventing the further suffering of others, is tangible. You're hellbent that this is a revenge thing, to make people feel better.

Um... except... you can do all that without killing people. Life w/o parole has been serving that purpose for centuries. As we speak, life w/o parole is the preferred option for murderers in America. You think I'm dreaming about abolishing the death penalty? We are one of a small handful of countries that continue to utilize the practice and, one by one, states are discontinuing their capital punishment programs. Just this year alone, another dozen or so states are contemplating moratoriums on the death penalty. It might not happen within my lifetime, but the fact of the matter is the U.S. is steadily moving toward being a society without capital punishment.

And don't ever make a passive swipe that I am a retard again, or that any of us are, because we disagree with your bullshit idealistic radical views.

It's called a "simile", Lieman. "A figure of speech in which two unlike things are explicitly compared.” If I thought that you, or any of you, were retards, I'd come right out and say it. Even brilliant people can disregard simple logic. But it doesn't make it any less frustrating, which is what the simile was constructed to illustrate.

And if arguing against collateral damage when we've got a safer, cheaper and just as effective solution is radical, I'll gladly accept that label. I prefer "noble", myself, though.

[ImmortalOne]

It's the last part of that story that gets to me. The part about Daddy Daddy and not being able to get the babies out... I am petrified of Fire and will not sleep on a different level of my house from my little ones....

The fact that 5 years after his execution someone was still doubting his guilt and hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission to review the case tells me someone in the office knew and didn't want to stay the execution. 5 years longer wouldn't have made a difference except to the wife who lost her 3 babies and her husband. It wouldn't have mattered much except an innocent man would be alive.

That being said, I am still pro-death penalty. That is if without a shadow of a doubt someone is guilty (this case apparently had a lot of issues from the start). Yet at the same time, death is sometimes too fast and easy...

[solange82200]

And Athena, I know your stance quite well, and respect it, but because we can't ever kill anyone because it simply risks innocent lives, are you saying we should never lock anyone up for the rest of their lives the same? There are innocent people locked up every day. It's an imperfect system, always will be, run by imperfect people. It's what we have. It will never be fixed to run perfectly. Ever.

I was going to say this, basically what Athena said: You can at least let the person out of prison once their innocence is determined, what do you do if you find out they are innocent once their dead? Bring them back to life?

I am completely willing to sacrifice the small innocent percentage that may be accused and actually killed to actually punish those who truly deserve to die.

Are you willing to make that "sacrifice" if it's you on death row, or your child? I cant answer for you, but my hunch is you might have a change of heart.

By the way, thanks everyone who posted on here, this story frustrated me and it really helps to have friends to discuss it with.

Killing someone, and preventing the further suffering of others, is tangible.

Life without parole can achieve this though, if that is the argument.

Although I had already had a change of heart just by hearing of this story, reading the arguments Athena made in this thread solidified it for me. We cannot continue to have the death penalty in this country. I understand where those of you who disagree are coming from, I was where you are once, but I cannot support a system as long as the possibility exists that an innocent man can die. And I am 100 percent convinced that he isn't the first one, it is too probable that many others have slipped through the cracks before.

[solange82200]

Video:


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...flashover.html

Damn, I cant figure out how to embed a video, so I just put the direct link. Someone let me know if we are able to embed videos or not?

Anyway, this video shows the test they did in a case that was very similar to Willingham's, and it shows how a they set a couch on fire and it ignited the room within 4 minutes. It proved that arson investigators were wrong when they conclude that a fire can only burn that fast if an accelerant is used. What happened is called "flashover".

[runecire]

... the people who are executed never commit another heinous crime against anyone ever again, and that is a fact.

...and that is the essence of what I was driving at. Thank you for being so straight forward about it. =)

[solange82200]

Here is an interview session with the author of this article, it was yesterday, I wish I had known about it I would have loved to ask him some questions. Check out the part I bolded, scary as hell. Although most of us on this forum may not be "poor" and are well-educated, this can happen to any of us guys, please remember that:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...for-grann.html

This week in the magazine, David Grann writes about a possible case of wrongful execution. Today, Grann answered readers’s questions in a live chat; a transcript of the discussion follows.

THE NEW YORKER: Hello, and welcome to Ask the Author Live. David Grann is here with us to discuss his piece “Trial By Fire.” We’ll do our best to address as many questions as possible.

We’re going to start with a question from Chris Mattsson, from Austin, Texas:

In the course of your reporting, did you encounter evidence of erroneous forensics methodology still being used in arson investigations today?

DAVID GRANN: Yes, without question. Though the problems are not as prevalent as they once were, many of the leading fire investigators told me that they still see cases similar to that of Willingham. And the problems go beyond arson science; often “experts” are allowed to testify in court about methods, such as the interpretation of bite marks or blood patterns, that have not been scientifically validated. A congressionally mandated study by the National Academy of Sciences, which was recently published, noted that there is “a dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing the scientific bases and reliability of many forensic methods.”

QUESTION FROM SARAH: How has your work on this article affected your view of the criminal-justice system?

DAVID GRANN: It has had a profound effect on me. This is not an issue that I had previously investigated, and the Willingham case revealed not only flaws in that particular case but also systemic failures—from the appeals process to the system of clemency.

QUESTION FROM LUKE: What is your stance on capital punishment?

DAVID GRANN: As I mentioned, this was not an issue that I had ever focussed on, at least not in any sort of intensive way. I did not have a strong opinion about the death penalty, and the prospect that someone like Timothy McVeigh might be executed was not something that kept me awake at night. But researching this story and coming to terms with the prospect that an innocent person might be executed has had profound impact on me.

THE NEW YORKER: Paul O’Donohue writes in to ask:

Do you believe law-enforcement officials that are complicit in soliciting testimony that they know is false should be open to charges of homicide, manslaughter or simply misconduct if the wrong person is executed by the state?

DAVID GRANN: Certainly, if a prosecutor or detective intentionally solicits testimony that is false and uses it to convict someone, they should be held accountable in some form. The problem, in many cases, is much grayer: authorities, believing that a suspect is guilty, may subtly and unwittingly corrupt eyewitness testimony by revealing their suspicions openly or by coloring their questions. There have been countless studies done demonstrating that once witnesses suspect that a person is guilty, the brain may reconstruct the information to conform to the new data.

In one of the most famous cognitive studies, several people were shown clips of two cars colliding. The witnesses were then asked at what speed they thought the cars were travelling when the cars “contacted” each other. The average answer was about thirty-one miles per hour. When the interviewer asked the same question with the verb “smashed” instead of “contacted,” the witnesses’ average estimate for the cars’ speed rose to more than forty miles per hour. The questioner could even plant false memories depending on the verb he or she chose. For instance, when the questioner used the leading term “smashed,” more witnesses said that they had seen, in the video, the car windows shattering; in fact, the windows had not broken. So it is important that police procedures for taking witness testimony follow the best and most sound methodologies.

THE NEW YORKER: Here’s another question: What was it like writing about Cameron Todd Willingham, someone you had never met?

DAVID GRANN: As a reporter I am used to following people who are alive and documenting their experience, or calling them up on the telephone. In this case, I obviously could not do that. But during the course of my research I was able to track down Willingham’s correspondence, his diaries, and his messages—or “kites”—between prisoners. I also relied on interviews with those he knew as well as court transcripts. In many ways, by the end I felt like I had a better understanding of Willingham than most subjects I cover; his private writings, in particular, provided a frank and uncensored view of his innermost thoughts.

QUESTION FROM MELISSA: Hi—I’m curious. How is Elizabeth Gilbert doing today?

DAVID GRANN: Elizabeth Gilbert is one of the most indomitable individuals I’ve ever met. Most doctors believed she would never have any movement from the neck down, but she has undergone endless rehabilitation and has gained motion in her arms and upper body. She recently learned how to drive in a special vehicle. I spoke to her last night and she is doing well, and is grateful that more people are getting to know Willingham and his case.

THE NEW YORKER: David, how long did it take you to do this story?

DAVID GRANN: As you can tell from these postings, I am very, very, very slow. This story in particular took a long time to do. I began the story back in December and worked on it since, with a brief hiatus in March when I was on book tour for “The Lost City of Z.” It was hard to track down some of the people in the Willingham story, and I didn’t locate the jailhouse informant, Johnny Webb, until several weeks ago.

QUESTION FROM READER: What can be done to fix the lack of scientific validation of the forensic methods per the report you mentioned?

DAVID GRANN: There are people who are better qualified to answer this than I. But many of the experts I spoke to mentioned several potential ways to improve the system. They include stricter certification and standardized training for fire investigators; more resources for court-appointed lawyers to investigate their clients’ cases; greater oversight of forensic labs and forensic methodologies; and clemency boards that are required to carefully and openly review and deliberate on each case. Congress is holding important hearings in a few days to discuss the recent report from the National Academy of Sciences revealing the problems in forensic techniques used in criminal cases; the hearings should highlight potential reforms.

QUESTION FROM JARCIN : What are your thoughts on Judge Jackson’s rebuttal in the Corsicana Daily Sun, where he lists seven ‘“facts” that maintain Willingham’s guilt? Do you find them at all credible?

DAVID GRANN: I saw Jackson’s op-ed, which came out the day before my article appeared in print. I had investigated the points he cites, and found, for a host of reasons, that they were not credible. I plan to respond to his points later, in detail, on the New Yorker News Desk blog.

QUESTION FROM GUEST: How does Willingham’s ex-wife feel about his guilt or innocence now? In your story, the last I think we learned is that she denied his burial request, so I’m curious how she feels and what she thinks now.

DAVID GRANN: I am equally curious, but I have not heard from her yet and do not know the answer.

QUESTION FROM KATHLEEN: Has Dr. Hurst continued to work on other cases of suspected arson?

DAVID GRANN: Yes, he is working on several now.

QUESTION FROM BEN: Why do you think the prosecution still tries to profile a suspect for tattoos and liking bands like Iron Maiden and Led Zeppelin?

DAVID GRANN: I don’t know why, but to me this was one of more shocking parts of the case. How many kids have Led Zeppelin posters?

THE NEW YORKER: Many readers are wondering, what was the hardest part for you to write in the piece?

DAVID GRANN: It was hard for me to learn about the fire science and then try to describe it as clearly as possible. But it was probably hardest to write the ending.

THE NEW YORKER: That’s all for today. Thank you, David. And thank you, everyone, for participating and reading. We hope you’ll return for more. Visit newyorker.com next week for a live chat with Sasha Frere-Jones.

DAVID GRANN: Thanks so much for all your thoughtful questions. I’m sorry not to get to more of them and I appreciate your patience with my slow typing. I was not cut out to be a blogger!

[solange82200]

As you can see in the interview aboce, a judge (Im assuming the one who presided over the case) wrote a rebuttal of why he still thinks Willingham is guilty. Here it is below:

http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/opi...241210447.html

The Corsicana Daily Sun missed a golden journalistic opportunity on Thursday by merely reprinting the AP article with respect to the Cameron Todd Willingham murder case. The Daily Sun is in possession of its compete reportage of the early '90's trial and is in a much better position to examine the actual trial evidence elicited.

The Willingham trial has become a sort of cause celebre by anti-death penalty proponents because it seems to be an example of outmoded scientific techniques which led to a miscarriage of justice. In fact, the trial testimony you reported in 1991 contains overwhelming evidence of guilt completely independent of the undeniably flawed forensic report.

Always omitted from any examination of the actual trial are the following facts:

1. The event which caused the three childrens' deaths was the third attempt by Todd Willingham to kill his children established by the evidence. He had attempted to abort both pregnancies by vicious attacks on his wife in which he beat and kicked his wife with the specific intent to trigger miscarriages;

2. The “well-established burns” suffered by Willingham were so superficial as to suggest that the same were self-inflicted in an attempt to divert suspicion from himself;

3. Blood-gas analysis at Navarro Regional Hospital shortly after the homicide revealed that Willingham had not inhaled any smoke, contrary to his statement which detailed “rescue attempts;”

4. Consistent with typical Navarro County death penalty practice, Willingham was offered the opportunity to eliminate himself as a suspect by polygraph examination. Such opportunity was rejected in the most vulgar and insulting manner;

5. Willingham was a serial wife abuser, both physically and emotionally. His violent nature was further established by evidence of his vicious attacks on animals which is common to violent sociopaths;

6. Witness statements established that Willingham was overheard whispering to his deceased older daughter at the funeral home, “You're not the one who was supposed to die.” (The origin of the fire occured in the infant twins bedroom) and;

7. Any escape or rescue route from the burning house was blocked by a refrigerator which had been pushed against the back door, requring any person attempting escape to run through the conflagration at the front of the house.

Co-counsel Alan Bristol and I offered Willingham the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty in return for a sentence of life imprisonment. Such offer was rejected in an obscene and potentially violent confrontation with his defense counsel.

The Willingham case was charged as a multiple child murder, and not an arson-murder to achieve capital status. I am convinced that in the absence of any arson testimony, the outcome of the trial would have been unchanged, a fact that did not escape the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. While anti-death penalty advocates can muster some remarkably good arguments, Todd Willingham should not be anyone's poster child.

If you look at number 3, that has been answered. Willingham admitted to his parents afterward that he lied about trying to go into the room to rescue the children, because he didnt want to seem like a coward.

As far as number 6, why would he want to kill the twins and not the older child???

And number 7, there were two refrigerators in the kitchen, and in the video I linked you could see the kitchen was small, that was probably the only place to put it.

[solange82200]

And last but not least, a rebuttal to Judge Jackson's pathetic (in my humble opinion) rebuttal:

http://deathpenaltyblog.dallasnews.c...th-in-the.html

Time to face the truth in the Willingham case


Note: The following is a rebuttal to a column by the chief prosecutor of the Willingham case in the Corsicana Daily Sun. It is written by Nina Morrison, a Staff Attorney at the Innocence Project. She has handled post-conviction cases in Texas for seven years and helped exonerate several people across the state through DNA testing.


Judge John Jackson, who prosecuted Cameron Todd Willingham in the 1990s, recently wrote in the Corsicana Daily News that "facts" showing "overwhelming evidence" of Willingham's guilt are being ignored. The truth is that all of the evidence that Jackson and his colleagues used to convict Willingham has been disproven. In the five years since Willingham was executed, several investigations - including an exhaustive report in the New Yorker this week - deconstruct all of the evidence and show that he was innocent.

Jackson himself now admits that the forensic case supporting the arson theory is "undeniably flawed" but he clings to the idea that Willingham was guilty, focusing on seven other points and shading each of them to conceal the truth:

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.

Readers can judge for themselves whether Jackson is deliberately coloring the truth or simply unable to see the facts of the case clearly, perhaps because he cannot face his own role in a great tragedy. But facts are facts - and they have already been obscured for far too long in this case.

[runecire]

For as long as that person lives, we have the chance to take back the mistake. I realize the system is imperfect and will always be. This fact simply underlines the importance for us to limit irrevocable mistakes to the best of our ability. There have been 241 exonerations based on DNA alone. 17 of these people were sentenced to death.

Awsome! The system worked in seventeen cases. That is wonderful news.

An untold number remain on death row or have been executed because they cannot gain access to test their evidence post-conviction, which most states require the convict to pay for.

Hard to discuss or argue against imaginary numbers.

Once you're in the system, the cards are stacked against you. And with all due respect to the families of victims, not a single one of their anguish even holds a candle next to that of a man who lost his babies in a fire and knew he was going to die for it no matter how loudly he screamed his innocence.

With all due respect to Mr. Willingham, he is dead and gone and doesn't give a rat's ass about the rest of us left on this planet. Yet the families of victims must continue on, day after day, knowing they will never see or hold or hug the loved lost. I would put their anguish far above his. But that's just me.

Exactly, which is why the monetary argument is secondary. It's just further evidence to support an already well established argument. Killing innocent people for no tangible benefit will never be right, no matter how you frame it. No matter how.

You speak as though we are executing as many innocents as we are the guilty. Not everything in this world must have a tangible benefit. I love my children dearly and they bring happiness and joy to my life. What they give to me cannot be touched, smelled, heard, or bought and sold and therefore is not tangible. Is it any less important to me than my shoes or my truck? The worth of my children is far greater than ANY TANGIBLE BENEFIT you could ever name, and I am thankful killers are being killed. It may not deter hardcores, but it gives ammunition to those of us who use the executions to teach cause and consequence to our children. To reduce your argument to only what is tangible speaks to your inability to appreciate more than what can be seen or touched or heard. I feel sorry for you.

That said, it looks like majority of individuals here have choosen to defiantly resist clear logic....

What may appear as logical to you may not be to me. To me, it is logical to kill that which kills. We do it all the time with dogs, bears, snakes, and anything else that threatens or takes a human life. Why should we, as the human animal, be any different or expect any greater concern for our personal well being if we make the decision to take the life of another. Are we somehow above the rest in importance simply because we can read and write and build bombs or create artwork?

...in favor of some bullshit nancy argument that centers around "feelings". Fuck that. I can't successfully argue that anymore than I can create a genius out of a retard.

Really, Athena, resorting to emotional outbursts simply to give credance and solidity to your own arguments. You can't discuss without becoming emotional and aggressive? I expected better.

[solange82200]

Jesus christ Runcire, you use executions to teach cause and consequence to your children???? Are you serious?

[Pete Bondurant]

I think that those putrid shits at The Innocence Project should be executed.


Listen....if you chop wood, chips fly....it is better that twenty innocent suffer rather than one guilty person escape justice.

[runecire]

Jesus christ Runcire, you use executions to teach cause and consequence to your children???? Are you serious?

LOL. No, certainly not on a day-to-day basis, and definitely not as a rule. I do not threaten my kids with the death penalty if they are 15 min. late on their curfew. I do not threaten my kids for any reason (ok, maybe I threaten to take away dessert, but that's it).

My kids get interested in what I do on here and we discuss some of the articles. Keep in mind, my youngest is 14 yrs old, not a toddler. In these discussions, we look at the crimes and the criminals and the punishments (or possible punishments) and the victims. I do not sugar-coat anything, and I let them voice their opinions, and, no, I do NOT ask leading questions. "How do you feel about this?", "What is your opinion?", "What do you think should happen?". Every opportunity to discuss is a chance to both teach and learn.

[Athena]

Awsome! The system worked in seventeen cases. That is wonderful news.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. What worries me is the droves of individuals on death row being denied access to DNA evidence. What worries me even more are the droves of individuals who were convicted based on dubious methods of forensic "science". Here's the report the National Academies released upon completion of the study Solange's source references. "A congressionally mandated report from the National Research Council finds serious deficiencies in the nation's forensic science system and calls for major reforms and new research..."

You speak as though we are executing as many innocents as we are the guilty.

No, actually, I'm not. Please don't try to put words in my mouth. If you can't address me without twisting shit, I recommend you walk away now, because I get indignant about that after not too long.

Not everything in this world must have a tangible benefit. I love my children dearly and they bring happiness and joy to my life. What they give to me cannot be touched, smelled, heard, or bought and sold and therefore is not tangible. Is it any less important to me than my shoes or my truck? The worth of my children is far greater than ANY TANGIBLE BENEFIT you could ever name, and I am thankful killers are being killed. It may not deter hardcores, but it gives ammunition to those of us who use the executions to teach cause and consequence to our children. To reduce your argument to only what is tangible speaks to your inability to appreciate more than what can be seen or touched or heard. I feel sorry for you.

That was really special. But I'll take this opportunity to remind you that we're talking about domestic policy, law, constitutionality... not peoples' goddamn feelings. You don't even realize what you're implying, here, do you? That feelings should be factored into legislation. That law should be built around peoples' sensibilities. You're opening law up to be subject to what people are offended by. There's already too much of that as it is.

What may appear as logical to you may not be to me. To me, it is logical to kill that which kills. We do it all the time with dogs, bears, snakes, and anything else that threatens or takes a human life. Why should we, as the human animal, be any different or expect any greater concern for our personal well being if we make the decision to take the life of another. Are we somehow above the rest in importance simply because we can read and write and build bombs or create artwork?

You do the same thing that the government has been doing forever - framing your argument by conveniently leaving out the FACT that the system has more than likely executed innocent civilians and will continue to do so. Why not be more like Malq who came right out and said, "Hell yeah, a little collateral damage is a-okay with me!" At least then, I could know right off the bat that we're not going to find middle ground, and I can not waste my time.

Really, Athena, resorting to emotional outbursts simply to give credance and solidity to your own arguments. You can't discuss without becoming emotional and aggressive? I expected better.

I never resort to emotional outbursts like its some sort of tactic. The first fucking thing that I stated on this topic is that I'm "quasi-rabid" about this issue. It boils down to two questions, to me: 1.) "Are executions necessary?" I have established that, no, they aren't necessary. 2.) "Can you justify the execution of innocent civilians for the sake of an unnecessary system?"

I have a hard time respecting the opinion of people who are okay with the incarceration and death of innocent civilians all to make some people feel better (and even that's debatable). I get judged based on the positions I take all the time. It's the consequence involved with taking a position. So, yeah, I judge the FUCK outta people who realize their position involves the unnecessary death of innocent civilians and continue to advocate it.

[absinthe]

That was really special.

bwahahaha! thank you, athena...i am going to use that the next time soomeone unecessarily brings their kids into a discussion. which, on this site, should be in about .02 seconds.

[malq]

You do the same thing that the government has been doing forever - framing your argument by conveniently leaving out the FACT that the system has more than likely executed innocent civilians and will continue to do so. Why not be more like Malq who came right out and said, "Hell yeah, a little collateral damage is a-okay with me!" At least then, I could know right off the bat that we're not going to find middle ground, and I can not waste my time.

yeah its hard to argue with solid logic. AND I was able to say it in a few sentences.



I never resort to emotional outbursts like its some sort of tactic. The first fucking thing that I stated on this topic is that I'm "quasi-rabid" about this issue. It boils down to two questions, to me: 1.) "Are executions necessary?" I have established that, no, they aren't necessary. 2.) "Can you justify the execution of innocent civilians for the sake of an unnecessary system?"

I have a hard time respecting the opinion of people who are okay with the incarceration and death of innocent civilians all to make some people feel better (and even that's debatable). I get judged based on the positions I take all the time. It's the consequence involved with taking a position. So, yeah, I judge the FUCK outta people who realize their position involves the unnecessary death of innocent civilians and continue to advocate it.

The percentage of people who are wrongly convicted and executed is so small it is not really a factor. So call it what you want, you are either for the death penalty or against it. If you are for the ultimate result accept a few mistakes. Surgeons do it every day.
In the scope of things this is not a huge loss. People that willy wash on the fence confuse the issue and screw up and progress in any direction. You are not thinking big enough you are mired in the emotional aspect of it.
It is a mechanical issue and a numbers game.

[solange82200]

LOL. No, certainly not on a day-to-day basis, and definitely not as a rule. I do not threaten my kids with the death penalty if they are 15 min. late on their curfew. I do not threaten my kids for any reason (ok, maybe I threaten to take away dessert, but that's it).

My kids get interested in what I do on here and we discuss some of the articles. Keep in mind, my youngest is 14 yrs old, not a toddler. In these discussions, we look at the crimes and the criminals and the punishments (or possible punishments) and the victims. I do not sugar-coat anything, and I let them voice their opinions, and, no, I do NOT ask leading questions. "How do you feel about this?", "What is your opinion?", "What do you think should happen?". Every opportunity to discuss is a chance to both teach and learn.

My bad, 14 is certainly old enough to discuss those type of things. Mine is 9, so I try to shelter him from certain things, maybe I go TOO far.

You are not thinking big enough you are mired in the emotional aspect of it.

With all due respect, YOU are. Athena has pointed out the many reasons why the DP isn't necessary or productive (it doesn't deter, it's more expensive, you can't correct mistakes once the person is dead, etc.) You must be basing the need for death penalty on emotion, because you can't counter any of those arguments. The best Ive heard is that "at least they wont be able to kill again if they are dead", which to me doesn't quite make the case, because the same result is achieved if we give them life without parole.

I remember a couple of months ago watching a jailhouse interview with Paul Bernardo (the Canadian serial killer who killed all those teenage girls with his wife), and I remember thinking how strange it was that this asshole was still alive complaining and giving interviews, had he been in the US he would have been dead as he should be. You can see my comments over in the Casey Anthony thread where I repeat over and over I hope that bitch gets the death penalty. But I realize that those statements and thoughts are based on emotion and anger and desire for payback. You cannot legislate based on feelings. The death penalty just doesn't make sense in a civilized society, especially not when we have a legal system that doesn't always work the way it should. At the very least I wish you guys would say, I support the death penalty, but we should suspend it until we can fix the problems in the system that allow innocent people to fall through the cracks. I know you can never make anything perfect, but the system as it stands is TOO damn far from perfect according to what I've read....

Surgeons do it every day.

Malq, you can't compare an accidental death to someone being executed by the system. It isn't the same

[Coyote]

You can state all the statistics you want, but neither this story, nor anything a person can say will change the fact that I am 100% in favor of the death penalty. I don’t feel sorry for Mr. Willingham. Nothing written here convinces me that he was innocent.

As far as the death penalty costing more, I feel this is nothing but radical bullshit. I can buy a nice sturdy 20ft piece of rope for less than $20 at my local hardware store, and there are plenty of tall trees growing out of the ground nature’s provided free of charge. What cost is the special housing they give these scum along with all the legal cost of providing them with representation, the cost of the trial and the cost of all the appeals these pansy asses cry out they deserve. That’s where our system is flawed. What happened to the good ole days when a criminal was brought in and presented to the justice of the peace immediately, or at least the following day, and their fate decided on there and then. To hell with all that appeal bullshit.

David Spears is a great example of this pansy ass complete waste of my tax dollars. His attorney recently filed objections to one of the aggravating circumstances that the prosecutor cited in his intent to seek the death penalty. Spears' lawyer argued that the circumstance of "wantonly vile, horrible, or inhuman" is unconstitutionally vague. Prosecutors argue the motion is a standard filing in every death penalty case. He killed little Rowan Ford in November 2007 and his trial isn’t scheduled until March of next year. This sorry ass piece of lard should be dead by now. He raped and killed this innocent young girl and threw her corpse down in a hole in the woods to let the wild animals eat what was left of her. Revenge would be torturing him the same. Justice would be hanging his fat ass in a tree so he’ll no longer be a burden on society.

Using my tax dollars to support this asshole is where the justice system is flawed. The death penalty without all the radical bullshit is what would repair this system.