|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
17th February 2011, 09:10 AM | #1 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
|
Thoughts on the Willingham murder case
The derail stems from the attempt to equate Willingham's failed appeals to Knox.
Not my doing, merely questioning the logic. My name is Skwinty, not Squinty. It is apparent that neither do you have any idea of what happened. Please read the link below. It sure does, based on the court testimony. Please read the link and comments below. BS, there was nothing wrong with the scumbag other than singed eyebrows and a burn on his shoulder. If he loved and wanted to save his kids, his flesh would have been hanging from his body due to the heat exposure Please read the link and comments below. What disgusts me beyond description is the attempt by people to excuse murderers on a technicality of the law. Would you prefer to see guilty people free on the streets instead of in prison or executed. Please read the following facts below 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 pregnancy by vicious attacks on his wife in which he beat and kicked his wife with the specific intent to trigger miscarriage; 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. 8. The witness further testified that this igniting of the floors and thresholds is typically employed to impede firemen in their rescue attempts. 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. 9. One of appellant's neighbors testified that the morning following the house *355 fire, Christmas Eve, appellant and his wife were at the burned house going through the debris while playing music and laughing. At the punishment phase of trial, testimony was presented that appellant 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 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. http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/...lingham899.htm |
__________________
What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin |
|
17th February 2011, 09:11 AM | #2 |
Based on a true story!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
|
I'd like some fries with that. And a large Diet Dew.
Thanks! |
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom |
|
17th February 2011, 09:14 AM | #3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
Willingham was murdered? Somebody call the police!
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
17th February 2011, 09:17 AM | #4 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
|
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister |
|
17th February 2011, 09:20 AM | #5 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
As mod:
Starting threads such as this in Community in an effort to evade Rules 11 and 12 is frowned on. This thread will likely be moved. In the meantime, Rule 0 does still apply. Thank you. ETA: Thread moved. Carry on. |
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister |
|
17th February 2011, 10:03 AM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,084
|
Does this mean we have to be on topic?
|
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer |
|
17th February 2011, 10:04 AM | #7 |
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,718
|
|
17th February 2011, 10:10 AM | #8 |
Based on a true story!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
|
|
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom |
|
17th February 2011, 10:41 AM | #9 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
|
|
17th February 2011, 10:55 AM | #10 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
|
I don't assert that no innocent people are wrongly convicted.
In the case of Willingham, according to court testimony, this doesn't seem to be one of them though. All his appeals were unanimously denied even when the arson charges were brought into question. The second opinions on these charges only happened a number of years after he was convicted, so I imagine that the analysis was done from existing records, video and photographs. As far as I can tell, the arguments still continue in the courts about Willinghams conviction and sentence. In any event, there was a lot of other evidence with regard to his guilt. Should this evidence also be thrown out in conjunction with the arson evidence? I can understand and accept DNA evidence over riding a past conviction. Too argue that the arson evidence over rides other evidence must imply a conspiracy amongst the prosecution and judges. |
__________________
What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin |
|
17th February 2011, 11:45 AM | #11 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
As my post seems to be what sparked this off, I'll come in here to clarify, that's all.
Skwinty said, in the original thread, that because (in his view) Willingham had not tried hard enough to rescue the children, he deserved the death penalty no matter how the fire started. That was what I was reacting to, not anything to do with the rest of the discussion. To declare that someone who has not tried hard enough to rescue someone else (in the opinion of somene who was nowhere near the incident and is merely reading about it on the internet) FROM A FIRE THAT STARTED ACCIDENTALLY deserves the death penalty is in my opinion quite disgusting. The above elaboration seems to be saying that if the flesh wasn't hanging from his body, he didn't try hard enough and so should be sentenced to death. I'm not getting into the arguments about whether or not this fire was arson. I am merely pointing out that my response was to a post referring to the death penalty being appropriate even if the fire was an accident and Mr. Willingham was entirely innocent. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
17th February 2011, 12:01 PM | #12 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
|
|
__________________
What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin |
|
17th February 2011, 12:44 PM | #13 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Skwinty (sorry, this is hard for me to remember, because where I come from the word is spelled "squinty"), do you even remember the post of yours I was replying to?
"Regardless of how the fire started." In other words, you were stating the position that a man who doesn't try hard enough to save his children from a fire (in your opinion) deserves the death penalty even if the fire was entirely accidental. I stand by my position that this is a disgusting attitude. If he did start that fire deliberately, to kill the children, I'm not going to bat for him. Knock yourself out. But to say he deserved to be executed because he didn't reach your high standards of heroism, even if the fire was an accident, is something else. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
17th February 2011, 01:17 PM | #14 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
|
Actually I do remember the posts I make.
I may be old but I am not senile. Here are the posts I made regarding Willingham in the original thread up to your post. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=332 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=545 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=548 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=584 I make no apology for my disdain towards the non action of a coward. If you read the links I have posted, it would "seem" that Willingham was indeed a coward. Unless of course you believe that the witnesses, judge, prosecutor and the entire appellate court were involved in a conspiracy to despatch him into oblivion. The man could find his trousers in the room, but not his child. Her body was found in the bedroom. He could stand outside with no significant injury and watch the house starting to burn despite his neighbours begging him to save them, Unless of course they were all perjuring themselves in court. The only time time he showed an inclination to enter the house was after the fire department had arrived, and then he was concerned about his car and dartboard. Unless of course the witnesses were once again perjuring themselves in court. So yes, my opinion is that he deserved to be prosecuted to the full extent of the applicable law. He was executed and I feel no remorse or pity for him. He was an unmitigated coward. At no time did I imply that he was innocent, that was implied by the Knox crowd who used this case as an example of a miscarriage of justice. |
__________________
What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin |
|
17th February 2011, 01:33 PM | #15 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Like I said, I'm going to leave it to others to comment on whether the case was really proved beyond reasonable doubt. I have expressed no opinion on that at all, you will note. As I said, if that was arson, I'm not going to bat for him. Knock yourself out.
I confine my objection precisely to the post of yours that I quoted, the post I was specifically replying to.
Quote:
He deserved to be executed REGARDLESS OF HOW THE FIRE STARTED. I didn't type that, Skwinty, you did. Whether you were seriously considering the possibility that he might be innocent, or whether you were speaking hypothetically, that's what you said. If you didn't mean it, the simple solution is to say so, I would think. Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
17th February 2011, 01:42 PM | #16 |
Trurl's Electronic Bard
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,757
|
That is a bit startling. I don't believe in the efficacy of the death penalty and I'm even conflicted on LWOP as a humane form of punishment.
I've only read the New Yorker essay (essentially an anti-death penalty screed) and a few of the decisions by the appropriate level of legal authority in Texas. It is not at all clear to me that the source of the fire was accidental. I was aware that some of the Knox apologists have seized upon this case as a parallel. The only parallel I know of is that both Knox and Willingham lied to the police and tried to distract and control the investigation. The New Yorker article single-handedly sparked a cottage industry devoted to proving his innocence. I wonder where they were during the twelve years leading up to his execution. The Knox-is-innocent crowd is largely inspired by a vigorous PR campaign financed by Gogerty-Marriott, a Seattle consulting firm, and showcased on their website. There is no death penalty in Italy so more of the comparison falls by the wayside. Knox was defended by expensive lawyers and supported by the best forensic experts in all Italy while Willingham had a public defender and no experts on his side. Knox's boyfriend's lawyer is an influential Italian parliamentarian, in fact. The biggest parallel is, of course, the fact that each of them were found guilty. |
__________________
"Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone will say, 'Plate' or 'Shrimp' or 'Plate of shrimp,' out of the blue... It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness." -- REPO MAN LondonJohn: "I don't need to cite." Rolfe: "I really hate lawyers." |
|
17th February 2011, 01:50 PM | #17 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
|
Well, the problem is:
Even if he did not start the fire, the evidence presented was that his injuries were superficial and he made no effort to save his kids while there was a chance. Unless you believe that every one else was lying and Willingham was a paragon of virtue. In any event, as I tried earlier to explain. I was trying to post at the time the mods moved our posts to AAH and my post vanished. Your feelings of disgust are your prerogative and I have no intention of trying to persuade you otherwise. I have no hard feelings towards you, I would just like you to read the comments and links I posted, and perhaps then your disgust would diminish. |
__________________
What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin |
|
17th February 2011, 02:14 PM | #18 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
And in that case, he deserves the death penalty for that? That's what you said, remember. I have NO FREAKING IDEA. I am not familiar with the case. I read a post of yours which declared that a man deserved to be executed because his efforts to save these children were in your opinion insufficient. You said he deserved this, regardless of how the fire started. If you didn't mean that, then the easiest thing to do is to say you didn't mean it. Look, you are now proceeding from the premise that the man was an arsonist and child-killer. As I said, if that's the case, I'm not going to bat for him. Carry on. My disgust was quite clearly and specifically directed at your statement that he deserved to be executed EVEN IF HE WAS NOT AN ARSONIST AND CHILD KILLER, because he wasn't heroic enough. Do you really mean that? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
17th February 2011, 02:37 PM | #19 |
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,209
|
|
17th February 2011, 03:41 PM | #20 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
Was Skwinty's o/p infracted before being moved here, where it then happened to become the o/p? Because I can't see an offensive word or sentiment in it (although I might disagree with the analysis).
|
17th February 2011, 03:46 PM | #21 |
beer-swilling semiliterate
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,791
|
|
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister |
|
17th February 2011, 03:49 PM | #22 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
17th February 2011, 06:30 PM | #23 |
Mafia Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
|
And in that second link you clearly wrote "regardless of how the fire started", and that he deserved to be executed. I'm firmly with Rolfe here, that comment is IMHO appalling. I hope you retract that. Quite apart from the fact that I'm against death penalty in general - you've been explained how a fire situation can be, with a first-hand account by Skeptic Ginger. Demanding that someone deserves the harshest penalty for not being able to save his kids in such a situation is inhumane.
It's quite a different situation you've set up now. You've presented contrary evidence. I'm certainly open to revising my opinion - which was based on the New Yorker article, that is, from an AFAIK very reputable magazine when it comes to investigative journalism - but I'm not sure if I'm willing to invest the time needed to evaluate for myself the needed evidence. I'll give some comments from what I remember from the New Yorker article. Mind, these are the "buts" that I remember from reading the New Yorker article and it doesn't mean I stand by them, but it does illustrate that reaching a conclusion for myself in this case would mean a considerable investment in time. No, but once the fire forensics had concluded it was arson, police sought all kinds of corroborating evidence. He had a pro bono lawyer who firmly believed he was guilty, pressed him to take a plea bargain and obviously didn't have his heart at the case. The thick smoke prevented him from seeing her, and he yelled at her to get the hell out of the house. Wasn't mentioned by the New Yorker, except for the car. They did, however mention that the testimonies of the neighbours directly after the fire differed substantially from the testimonies that were taken after the forensics guys had determined it was arson. That is not necessarily perjury. Recalling the same memories, but now with the fact added that it was an arson, those facts that jive with the arson premise will be remembered more prominently than those facts that don't. If you will, that works both ways. A pro bono lawyer is not likely to sift through those testimonies to seek out the differences and grill those neighbours on the stand for inconsistencies or incompleteness. Willingham wasn't the brightest bulb in the box, nor did he have an online fanclub who could do that for him. The New Yorker mentioned a couple of other testimonies: a psychologist who mused about violent tendencies based on Iron Maiden and Led Zeppelin posters; and a psychiatrist who gave a diagnosis without having examined him. Really, Skwinty, no conspiracy needed. A prosecution who had a prime indication - that the fire was arson - and then pursued that avenue and sought out every available indication to present in court. And on his side a pro bono lawyer - really, how many people on death row paid for their lawyers themselves? No you said you thought he was guilty, but you clearly said that even if he was not guilty of arson he should be executed nevertheless. But as you see, before reaching a conclusion, that means going through a considerable heap of evidence, trial transcripts, testimony transcripts to see which arguments from which side have merit. |
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen |
|
18th February 2011, 01:54 AM | #24 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
|
I will not retract my opinion that Willingham deserved the death penalty.
That is my opinion regardless of how disgusting anyone may find it. Last night 2 children were killed by a train. This occurred at night and the ages of the 2 children were 2 and 3 years old. I hope that the parents who allowed their children of this age to play on an active railway line at night get punished to the full extent of the law. Luckily for them South Africa does not have the death penalty. Their (the parents) actions or lack thereof are inexcusable and criminal. If these types of people have no respect for the lives of their own children, why should I have respect for their life. Incidentally, does the US military tribunal still implement the death penalty for cowardice? Are you also disgusted by that? |
__________________
What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin |
|
18th February 2011, 02:08 AM | #25 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
|
Yes, I know. I can remember what I wrote 2 days ago.
Deserved =/= Demanding. The prosecution demanded that and that is what they got. Standing around doing nothing while your children burn to death is inhumane, not some person 15,000 km away expressing an opinion. The facts in evidence have not changed. I made a judgement call based on the Times article, Turns out I was correct. If I was incorrect, then I would be the first to apologise and withdraw my statement. |
__________________
What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin |
|
18th February 2011, 03:30 AM | #26 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
Yes, based on the finding that Willingham had deliberately started the fire with the intention of killing the children. Not as a punishment for insufficient bravery in relation to an accidental fire! It's all sorts of epithets, I agree. But if the fire was accidental in origin (or even if it was deliberate but Willingham had no hand in starting it), NOT, not not not not and I can't say this enough, a capital offence. I was never referring to the facts you present. They are and always were irrelevant to the point I was making. You made a "what-if" statement - what if the fire hadn't been arson? In that case, you declared that Willingham deserved to be executed anyway. I believe this to be wrong in the most fundamental way. I don't support the death penalty, in principle. But there are some people who are, shall we say, not the poster children for the abolition movement. Someone who has deliberately started a house fire in order to kill his own children is not someone I would go to bat for in that respect. However, the judicial taking of a life is a very very serious business. Perhaps the most serious business there is. If it's justifiable at all, it should be done only in response to the most heinous crimes, and after a great deal of deliberation. I believe that is the actual position in the USA. The cavalier call that the man "deserved to be executed", even if all he'd been guilty of was cowardice in the face of a raging inferno, was what I was objecting to. And I still do. It's the attitude of someone who holds human life cheap. I'm not going to say you're wrong to call for the death penalty if Willingham committed murder by arson. It's a perfectly reasonable position, if you support the death penalty at all. Calling for the death penalty for cowardice in the face of a house fire, though - will you just think about what you said, for goodness sake? Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
18th February 2011, 03:41 AM | #27 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,593
|
Rolfe, will you please just think about this, and this is my point.
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. |
__________________
What is reality? Nothing but a collective hunch. --Lily Tomlin |
|
18th February 2011, 03:48 AM | #28 |
Adult human female
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 50,594
|
That is a most peculiar statement. How can you possibly justify calling that murder, if he didn't start the fire?
Rolfe. |
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012. |
|
18th February 2011, 06:01 AM | #29 |
Mafia Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
|
I'm aware you're not the prosecutor. So how about "your saying that he deserved..." and then you reacting to the sentence?
The generality of this statement again is appalling. Firefighters are specialized to go into burning buildings, ordinary people not. The New Yorker article I presume? Could you then point out on basis of what? Did you read my previous post, in which I listed the various challenges the New Yorker put to the official court story? You'd still say he deserved the death penalty even if he barely made it out of his house alive himself. |
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen |
|
18th February 2011, 06:23 AM | #30 |
Mafia Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
|
I'm not conversant with the details of Texas law what has to be charged to achieve capital status - I get as much that a single murder is not enough. But what you wrote above simply cannot be.
"Murder" requires (a) premeditation, and (b) an active act. "Manslaughter" requires an active act. When the fire was not an arson - and therefore accidental, I cannot see for one moment how this scenario could be either of them. How can you premeditate a scenario of accidental fire? "If there's a short-circuit in the children's bedroom, I'm gonna flee the house and leave them there". Great kind of premeditation. He also didn't active kill them. He left them in a fire. Without the arson, at most you could prove negligent homicide. Finally, Skwinty, for keeping this debate tidy, could you please "take the death penalty off the table" so to say? If you continue to make claims like "in this scenario, he deserves the death penalty", in good conscience I cannot say anything else than "No". If you phrase it like "in this scenario he deserves the severest penalty", I can agree with you if I also think that scenario is a very grave crime. You've thrown around very liberally with the death penalty thus far, and it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. |
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen |
|
18th February 2011, 06:24 AM | #31 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,804
|
The neighbours who didn't run into the fire should be killed too, I guess.
|
18th February 2011, 08:16 AM | #32 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,108
|
I would encourage everyone commenting on the case to read the article in The New Yorker. It shows how the case against Willingham is unfounded, and further demonstrates how it is extremely unlikely that arson actually occurred.
It's a good thing that's not how the world actually works. What's your thought process, here? I do not value X, therefore X should be eliminated? It's hard to fathom how a society could function with that prevailing attitude. Agreed. Might as well throw in everyone who refrains from volunteering for the fire department, as well. Cowards, the lot of of them! |
25th February 2011, 11:39 AM | #33 |
Mafia Penguin
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,579
|
Bump.
Skwinty? |
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf "I think accuracy is important" - Vixen |
|
28th February 2014, 07:04 PM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
along with discredited arson evidence, there is now tainted testimony
The NYT reported "As he worked through the stack of papers, he saw a note scrawled on the inside of the district attorney’s file folder stating that Mr. Webb’s charges were to be listed as robbery in the second degree, not the heavier first-degree robbery charge he had originally been convicted on, 'based on coop in Willingham.'" In other words a jail house snitch got a reduction in his sentence for making a statement against Willingham, in spite of the testimony of then DA Jackson to the contrary. Why am I no longer surprised?
|
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
28th February 2014, 07:31 PM | #35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 14,076
|
The United States military has not carried out a death sentence since 1961 and apparently only one death sentence was carried out for desertion/cowardice. There are currently 5 people awaiting execution having been sentenced to such by a US military court martial, every one of them convicted of multiple counts of murder.
|
1st March 2014, 05:32 AM | #36 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Indeed. Polygraphy is pseudo-scientific nonsense. Frankly any LEA that still relies on such rubbish has serious problems.
Of course. I take it the prosecutor hasn't been charged with perjury? Such a failure to provide material facts to the defense would be sufficient to invalidate a conviction in other jurisdictions. |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
1st March 2014, 05:45 AM | #37 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Fascinating. I've just looked over some material on this case (of which I'd never previously heard); a classic mix of junk forensics, dubious and contradictory testimony and now possible prosecutorial misconduct.
And of course he was executed in a election year. |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
1st March 2014, 09:58 AM | #38 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 11,311
|
the note is a recent development
From what I can gather, the incriminating note has just recently come to light. I recall one or more interviews with the now retired Judge Jackson, which probably deserve to be reexamined. Here is a link to a blog entry on the case. The author had several entries.
|
__________________
It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) |
|
1st March 2014, 10:21 AM | #39 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Thanks, yes the link seems to be new. I hope there's some action from it.
ETA: I see that the infamous "Dr. Death" Grigsonwas involved too. Now there's some who who makes my opposition to execution difficult. |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
1st March 2014, 11:11 AM | #40 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
Do you have any evidence for this claim? While I've seen it cited (by the prosecutor) there is no available evidence of any arrest for such an offense and Willingham's wife specifically denied any such incident took place. She also continued the relationship after the date of the alleged attack.
Do you have any evidence for this cleams, viz, that "Willingham was a serial wife abuser" and that he was a violent sociopath? |
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|