RIP Cameron Todd Willingham

[franktangredi]

So which is more cruel: being executed for a crime you didn't commit after appeal after appeal has failed; or being sentenced to life without parole for a crime you didn't commit and spending years and years locked in a tiny cell and having no one listen or care to listen to your appeal, watching yourself grow old and wondering what life outside would have been like?

I do hope you aren't implying that, if somebody has been wrongfully convicted of a crime, it's kinder to execute him than to keep him in prison. I really hope you're just asking a theoretical question.

Despite the years he suffered in prison, Cameron Todd Willingham would probably have been freed. I don't think they can bring him back from the dead.

[danielh41]

So which is more cruel: being executed for a crime you didn't commit after appeal after appeal has failed; or being sentenced to life without parole for a crime you didn't commit and spending years and years locked in a tiny cell and having no one listen or care to listen to your appeal, watching yourself grow old and wondering what life outside would have been like?

I do hope you aren't implying that, if somebody has been wrongfully convicted of a crime, it's kinder to execute him than to keep him in prison. I really hope you're just asking a theoretical question.

Despite the years he suffered in prison, Cameron Todd Willingham would probably have been freed. I don't think they can bring him back from the dead.

No, I'm just asking a hypothetical question about the arguments used, and trying to use it to point out that convicting an innocent person is a terrible thing, whatever the punishment.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

So which is more cruel: being executed for a crime you didn't commit after appeal after appeal has failed; or being sentenced to life without parole for a crime you didn't commit and spending years and years locked in a tiny cell and having no one listen or care to listen to your appeal, watching yourself grow old and wondering what life outside would have been like?

I do hope you aren't implying that, if somebody has been wrongfully convicted of a crime, it's kinder to execute him than to keep him in prison. I really hope you're just asking a theoretical question.

Despite the years he suffered in prison, Cameron Todd Willingham would probably have been freed. I don't think they can bring him back from the dead.

I think he's arguing that, had Willingham been suffering life without parole, that he wouldn't have been freed, the woman who befriended him and the arson expert would probably not have looked into his case in the first place, having bigger fish to fry.

I think there's some merit in that, but if there were no death penalty, perhaps there would not have been bigger fish to fry.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

So which is more cruel: being executed for a crime you didn't commit after appeal after appeal has failed; or being sentenced to life without parole for a crime you didn't commit and spending years and years locked in a tiny cell and having no one listen or care to listen to your appeal, watching yourself grow old and wondering what life outside would have been like?

I do hope you aren't implying that, if somebody has been wrongfully convicted of a crime, it's kinder to execute him than to keep him in prison. I really hope you're just asking a theoretical question.

Despite the years he suffered in prison, Cameron Todd Willingham would probably have been freed. I don't think they can bring him back from the dead.

I think he's arguing that, had Willingham been suffering life without parole, that he wouldn't have been freed, the woman who befriended him and the arson expert would probably not have looked into his case in the first place, having bigger fish to fry.

I think there's some merit in that, but if there were no death penalty, perhaps there would not have been bigger fish to fry.

Meant to say "serving" life without parole. Wonder how Freudian that was.

[Appa23]

the expert consensus was that he was guilty...

Was this a typo? I finally got around to reading the article, and it is overwhelmingly clear that the expert opinion was that the evidence did not support arson, and that the fire "investigator"'s opinion was total bunk.

I could pull a Daniel and say "no one on the board is as against the dealth penalty as I am", but I won't (because I do not know it to be true).

However, at the very least, I would think that everyone would have issues with the fact that a capital punishment case only took two days, and the jury deliberated so fast.

In a state like Texas, where there are so many death penalty cases that are pursued, justice demands that they have a well-trained group of attorneys who will defend the accused if they can not so afford counsel. Not every schmuck with a law license can handle the rigor and huge consequences if their client does not prevail.

In this matter, it is clear to me that Willingham's court-appointed cousenl was an ethical disgrace. One of the most important tenets of the legal profession is zealous representation. He never got up to tepid representation.

I I do not know if everything stated in the article was true or not. I imagine that the prosecutors would do a better job explaining their story. i have no idea whether Willingham did not kill his daughters. However, if the State, the prosecutor's office, and thefire investigators were honet with themselves, they also do not have an idea whether he did.

[ToLiveIsToFly]

the expert consensus was that he was guilty...

Was this a typo? I finally got around to reading the article, and it is overwhelmingly clear that the expert opinion was that the evidence did not support arson, and that the fire "investigator"'s opinion was total bunk.

I could pull a Daniel and say "no one on the board is as against the dealth penalty as I am", but I won't (because I do not know it to be true).

However, at the very least, I would think that everyone would have issues with the fact that a capital punishment case only took two days, and the jury deliberated so fast.

In a state like Texas, where there are so many death penalty cases that are pursued, justice demands that they have a well-trained group of attorneys who will defend the accused if they can not so afford counsel. Not every schmuck with a law license can handle the rigor and huge consequences if their client does not prevail.

In this matter, it is clear to me that Willingham's court-appointed cousenl was an ethical disgrace. One of the most important tenets of the legal profession is zealous representation. He never got up to tepid representation.

I I do not know if everything stated in the article was true or not. I imagine that the prosecutors would do a better job explaining their story. i have no idea whether Willingham did not kill his daughters. However, if the State, the prosecutor's office, and thefire investigators were honet with themselves, they also do not have an idea whether he did.

I interpreted it as "the expert consensus WAS that he was guilty"

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

the expert consensus was that he was guilty...

Was this a typo? I finally got around to reading the article, and it is overwhelmingly clear that the expert opinion was that the evidence did not support arson, and that the fire "investigator"'s opinion was total bunk.

I could pull a Daniel and say "no one on the board is as against the dealth penalty as I am", but I won't (because I do not know it to be true).

However, at the very least, I would think that everyone would have issues with the fact that a capital punishment case only took two days, and the jury deliberated so fast.

In a state like Texas, where there are so many death penalty cases that are pursued, justice demands that they have a well-trained group of attorneys who will defend the accused if they can not so afford counsel. Not every schmuck with a law license can handle the rigor and huge consequences if their client does not prevail.

In this matter, it is clear to me that Willingham's court-appointed cousenl was an ethical disgrace. One of the most important tenets of the legal profession is zealous representation. He never got up to tepid representation.

I I do not know if everything stated in the article was true or not. I imagine that the prosecutors would do a better job explaining their story. i have no idea whether Willingham did not kill his daughters. However, if the State, the prosecutor's office, and thefire investigators were honet with themselves, they also do not have an idea whether he did.

23, that was what we call a teaser. At the time of the trial, that was the "consensus" of the scientific experts, Now it consensus is that the physical evidence is consistent with an accidental fire. I am quite skeptical about courtroom experts. That skepticism has lead me to be over the top sensitive to claims of scientific consensus and inclined to say "show me the data" and "I'd like to see the source material". I dealt with arson experts during the 80's and they did believe that stuff. Cases I handled always had accelerratants.

[Appa23]

the expert consensus was that he was guilty...

Was this a typo? I finally got around to reading the article, and it is overwhelmingly clear that the expert opinion was that the evidence did not support arson, and that the fire "investigator"'s opinion was total bunk.

I could pull a Daniel and say "no one on the board is as against the dealth penalty as I am", but I won't (because I do not know it to be true).

However, at the very least, I would think that everyone would have issues with the fact that a capital punishment case only took two days, and the jury deliberated so fast.

In a state like Texas, where there are so many death penalty cases that are pursued, justice demands that they have a well-trained group of attorneys who will defend the accused if they can not so afford counsel. Not every schmuck with a law license can handle the rigor and huge consequences if their client does not prevail.

In this matter, it is clear to me that Willingham's court-appointed cousenl was an ethical disgrace. One of the most important tenets of the legal profession is zealous representation. He never got up to tepid representation.

I I do not know if everything stated in the article was true or not. I imagine that the prosecutors would do a better job explaining their story. i have no idea whether Willingham did not kill his daughters. However, if the State, the prosecutor's office, and thefire investigators were honet with themselves, they also do not have an idea whether he did.

23, that was what we call a teaser. At the time of the trial, that was the "consensus" of the scientific experts, Now it consensus is that the physical evidence is consistent with an accidental fire. I am quite skeptical about courtroom experts. That skepticism has lead me to be over the top sensitive to claims of scientific consensus and inclined to say "show me the data" and "I'd like to see the source material". I dealt with arson experts during the 80's and they did believe that stuff. Cases I handled always had accelerratants.

OK. Thanks for the explanation. I was confused because there were no experts involved in this matter until well after the trial. It was interesting in the article where there was a mention of the debate whether these arson investogators should need to comply with Daubert rules.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... c797e.html

Willingham still generating heat

Gov. Rick Perry's Saturday night massacre of the Texas Forensic Science Commission has extended into Sunday and beyond.
When the governor abruptly unseated three commission members, including the chairman, he derailed a hearing about a flawed arson investigation that led to an execution. Little more than a week later, the governor has replaced a fourth member of the forensic science panel.

[danielh41]

This story was on the front page of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: http://www.star-telegram.com/448/story/1690181.html

CORSICANA, Texas — A newly released affidavit has a relative of the then-wife of Cameron Todd Willingham saying the condemned inmate confessed to her that he set the fire that killed their three daughters.

The statements from Ronnie Kuykendall are part of two affidavits released by the city of Corsicana in response to media requests.

Willingham on Feb. 17, 2004, was executed over the 1991 deadly fire in Corsicana.

Forensic scientists have called into question arson evidence used to convict Willingham, who maintained his innocence.

The Corsicana Daily Sun reports Ronnie Kuykendall said that his sister, Stacy, on Feb. 8, 2004, called her family together to tell them about her last meeting with Willingham. Ronnie Kuykendall's affidavit says his sibling cried as she said Willingham told her he had set the fire because he knew that she was going to leave him.

[Bob78164]

This story was on the front page of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: http://www.star-telegram.com/448/story/1690181.html

CORSICANA, Texas — A newly released affidavit has a relative of the then-wife of Cameron Todd Willingham saying the condemned inmate confessed to her that he set the fire that killed their three daughters.

The statements from Ronnie Kuykendall are part of two affidavits released by the city of Corsicana in response to media requests.

Willingham on Feb. 17, 2004, was executed over the 1991 deadly fire in Corsicana.

Forensic scientists have called into question arson evidence used to convict Willingham, who maintained his innocence.

The Corsicana Daily Sun reports Ronnie Kuykendall said that his sister, Stacy, on Feb. 8, 2004, called her family together to tell them about her last meeting with Willingham. Ronnie Kuykendall's affidavit says his sibling cried as she said Willingham told her he had set the fire because he knew that she was going to leave him.

The brother-in-law claims that his sister once claimed that Willingham confessed to her? What didn't the wife sign an affidavit? Why would Willingham confess after steadfastly maintaining his innocence? This doesn't pass my smell test, and it is hearsay that would never be admissible in court. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/ ... illingham/

Newly uncovered letters and court files show that Jackson worked diligently to intercede for Webb after his testimony and to coordinate with the rancher, Charles S. Pearce Jr., to keep the mercurial informer in line.