New report shows Texas executed innocent man (3 Viewers)

[Brock Middlebrook]

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

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

HTF can forensics be biased?

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

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

Sometimes, the "scientist" has to make a judgment call. For example, is a burn pattern a sign of "puddling" created by an accelerant? Judgment call that can be informed by a preconceived bias.

 

[SKribbles]

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

And that 1% doesn't bother you?

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

What if the 1 innocent person is you?

That would suck but #### happens.

 

[perry147]

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

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

HTF can forensics be biased?

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

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

Sometimes, the "scientist" has to make a judgment call. For example, is a burn pattern a sign of "puddling" created by an accelerant? Judgment call that can be informed by a preconceived bias.

Is there a burn pattern? Yes/NoIs there any evidence of residue of an accelerate on this pattern? Yes/No

The scientist needs to stick to the facts,

 

[Chairshot]

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

He has to prove he's innocent? I thought the court had to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought everyone was innocent until proven guilty?

 

[Two Deep]

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

He has to prove he's innocent? I thought the court had to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought everyone was innocent until proven guilty?

Quilty until proven innocent makes more sense.If someone has been arrested then they must be perceived quilty and would need to prove their innocence. If they were perceived innocent why would they ever be arrested.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Quilty until proven innocent makes more sense.

That's a blanket assumption.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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

He has to prove he's innocent? I thought the court had to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I thought everyone was innocent until proven guilty?

The article asserts his innocence. The promise is that this would be apparent within. The reason the promise was made is that the author and the publisher have an agenda. They over promised but do not care. They are of the school of thought that if one repeats a lie convincingly enough and often enough it will be accepted. Their agenda blinding them they believe this is justifiable or maybe they do not see it at all.You are correct, in a court of law the standard is as you say, but we are not in a court of law and were sold a bill of goods.

The sad thing is that if they had not overpromised, if they had set out the facts and allowed the reader to reach their own conclusion they would have been far more persuasive. The case indicts overzealous prosecution, the disgraceful practice that is experts for hire, questionable to shameful experts, and forensics. The point it wished to make on capital punishment would have made itself, or not, but on its own merits.

 

[rascal]

Life is/was a #####.

While it is unfortunate that somebody was put to death for no reason, the same thing happens every day to children through abortions.

Fix that first and then worry about the possible 1-2 people in a decade, or whatever small number it may be, who are unjustly put to death.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

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

He has to prove he's innocent?

No, but the author does when he asserts that the guy is "proven innocent."

 

[perry147]

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

He has to prove he's innocent?

No, but the author does when he asserts that the guy is "proven innocent."

Can you point to me were in the report the phrase "proven innocent" is used?

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

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

He has to prove he's innocent?

No, but the author does when he asserts that the guy is "proven innocent."

Can you point to me were in the report the phrase "proven innocent" is used?

"New report shows Texas executed innocent man "

 

[perry147]

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

He has to prove he's innocent?

No, but the author does when he asserts that the guy is "proven innocent."

Can you point to me were in the report the phrase "proven innocent" is used?

"New report shows Texas executed innocent man "

So that was the reporter who made the headline - I just wanted to make sure that was clear because the way inwhich you used the term proven in thread was in relation to "prove that this guy was innocent". When in any court of law in the US you are innocent until proven guilty as anyone knows, and without the bad evidence and worse testimony against this man he would be not have been convicted in all likelihood.

 

[Zasada]

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

And that 1% doesn't bother you?

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

What if the 1 innocent person is you?

That would suck but #### happens.

Agreed.Society has deemed that the benefit gained from having cars far outweighs the cost of said cars in human lives and injury.Same goes here. My opinion is that the benefit of having the death penalty far outweighs the cost of executing the odd innocent person now and again. We put innocent people in jail all the time and accept that. We go to war knowing that good people will die -- because the benefit outweighs the cost.It's all a cost/benefit analysis. Dropping the death penalty because of a 1% innocent-executed rate is like those nutjobs who won't vaccinate their kids based on a phantom/invalid finding that vaccines might cause autism.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Society has deemed that the benefit gained from having cars far outweighs the cost of said cars in human lives and injury.Same goes here. My opinion is that the benefit of having the death penalty far outweighs the cost of executing the odd innocent person now and again. We put innocent people in jail all the time and accept that. We go to war knowing that good people will die -- because the benefit outweighs the cost.It's all a cost/benefit analysis. Dropping the death penalty because of a 1% innocent-executed rate is like those nutjobs who won't vaccinate their kids based on a phantom/invalid finding that vaccines might cause autism.

in your opinion, what are the benefits of the death penalty that "far outweigh" the costs that come with executing innocent people?

 

[Zasada]

Society has deemed that the benefit gained from having cars far outweighs the cost of said cars in human lives and injury.Same goes here. My opinion is that the benefit of having the death penalty far outweighs the cost of executing the odd innocent person now and again. We put innocent people in jail all the time and accept that. We go to war knowing that good people will die -- because the benefit outweighs the cost.It's all a cost/benefit analysis. Dropping the death penalty because of a 1% innocent-executed rate is like those nutjobs who won't vaccinate their kids based on a phantom/invalid finding that vaccines might cause autism.

in your opinion, what are the benefits of the death penalty that "far outweigh" the costs that come with executing innocent people?

The armchair sociologist in me believes there is an element of deterrent to it. Realistically it's just about societal retribution. Some crimes are bad enough that you no longer get to be part of the game any more.

 

[Chairshot]

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

He has to prove he's innocent?

No, but the author does when he asserts that the guy is "proven innocent."

I guess that's fair to say in relation to the article, but isn't the basic point of the article that, if the case went to trial with all the proper evidence on the table, that he would never have been found guilty in the first place?Don't the standards of what is considered guilty in a court of law still hold?

I don't understand why he should now have to "prove" his innocence simply because he was found guilty based on questionable evidence. That seems like a backwards way to look at it to me.

If the evidence shows that he never should have been found guilty in the first place, under the laws and principles of the legal system that convicted him, I really fail to see why he should have to prove anything at all. Shouldn't the state have to prove their case in a proper way first?

Furthermore, I really don't see why we should have to simply accept that innocent people die in this way. It seems totally preventable. It seems especially ironic to me that people accept these innocent deaths since we are using the death penalty as punishment for people who hurt innocents themselves. So, we want to execute those who hurt innocents, but we are willing to accept innocent deaths in the process. That doesn't seem like true justice to me.

The U.S. legal system is based, in large part, on the idea that innocent people (or put another way: victims) have a right to be protected. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental civil liberty. How people can over look those things really surprises me. And considering the large and growing number of false convictions we are finding, I'm also surprised that people aren't becoming more understanding of the fact that innocent people get convicted, and no doubt executed, at an alarming rate.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Update.

 

[PIK95]

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

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

Some of you people on this board are freaking morons.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Quilty until proven innocent makes more sense.

That's a blanket assumption.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

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

The fact that this guy has become the cause celebre and the subject of years of politicking and and pushing, tells me it must be much closer to 100%.THis is how they work. They get some of their guys in and try to marginize anybody who's not on board with their agenda.

 

[Tigran Petrosian]

Time to purge Perry. He's an embarrassment in every possible way.

 

[TexanFan02]

Time to purge Perry. He's an embarrassment in every possible way.

Nobody likes him. He's Governor by default.

 

[FlapJacks]

bump

 

[Rayderr]

bump

Why?

 

[Norman Paperman]

bump

Why?

link

 

[Todd Andrews]

Perry is vile.

 

[whoknew]

Perry is vile.

Funny how this is used against Perry as a political issue.EVERY state that executes people will eventually execute an innocent person. That's one of the reasons its so ####### absurd that we allow capital punishment.Perry is a dope, but the story here is about how awful the death penalty is.

 

[bueno]

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

No. But prison is not final. If an innocent person is sent to prison, hopefully we can correct it later on and set that person free. With an execution, it's too late.

God will sort it out.While any innocent person executed or even imprisoned is tragic, we cannot expect perfection from ourselves or the judicial system Innocent people are going to be convicted and suffer the consequences. Better one innocent death or imprisonment than 9,999 psychopaths on the streets killing others. It is the price we pay for defending society from wrongdoers. It sucks, but then so do the wrongdoers.

 

[bueno]

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

No. But prison is not final. If an innocent person is sent to prison, hopefully we can correct it later on and set that person free. With an execution, it's too late.

Set them free after wasting years of their life. Oh, and hope they don't get sodomized, murdered or commit suicide in jail.

Or find a decent job afterward.

 

[bueno]

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

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

Battered women often deny that they have been battered, especially when they are economically dependent of the batterer. Burns normal for a certain kind of fire can still be self-inflicted. Anyway, how did he get the burns of firefighters restrained him from entering the house?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Perry is vile.

Funny how this is used against Perry as a political issue.EVERY state that executes people will eventually execute an innocent person. That's one of the reasons its so ####### absurd that we allow capital punishment.Perry is a dope, but the story here is about how awful the death penalty is.

I don't think that's the story at all. Wrongful convictions happen, even in death-penalty cases. In itself, that's not news.The story is the behind-the-scenes cover-up of exculpatory evidence, perhaps at the behest of the governor's office.

 

[D_House]

Wrong man was executed in Texas, probe says

Atlantic opinion piece: Yes, America, We Have Executed an Innocent Man

Columbia University Human Rights Review article

 

[NCCommish]

Wrong man was executed in Texas, probe says

Atlantic opinion piece: Yes, America, We Have Executed an Innocent Man

Columbia University Human Rights Review article

We never learn. I am still amazed people cheer for executions.

 

[culdeus]

Wrong man was executed in Texas, probe says

Atlantic opinion piece: Yes, America, We Have Executed an Innocent Man

Columbia University Human Rights Review article

Damn. How did it take so long to figure this out? No real new data has surfaced in 13 years.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Another article on the same subject, from the Guardian.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Wrong man was executed in Texas, probe says

Atlantic opinion piece: Yes, America, We Have Executed an Innocent Man

Columbia University Human Rights Review article

We never learn. I am still amazed people cheer for executions.

Much like illegal immigration we should have an honest discussion about the death penalty. Clearly, it needs to either be abolished or modified. But, like so many things, it's politicized to the point that an honest discussion is all but impossible. So we have this.

 

[honky kong]

Wrong man was executed in Texas, probe says

Atlantic opinion piece: Yes, America, We Have Executed an Innocent Man

Columbia University Human Rights Review article

We never learn. I am still amazed people cheer for executions.

And I doubt we do any time soon. From the Atlantic piece:

The bottom line? The criminal justice system decided, combustibly, that Carlos DeLuna was bad enough to be executed without a remotely fair process. The community was fine with the result. The media didn't care. And the rule of law "covered" it all.

Even with this news and the Willingham case, I would be surprised if executions in Texas missed a beat. People here just don't care.

 

[jon_mx]

Do any of these reports actually prove him innocent or do the reports just make the evidence he was convicted on questionable? It is a huge injustice that a man was convicted on questionable evidence, but that does not prove he was actually innocent of the crime. Legally he would not have been convicted, but that does not mean he didn't do it. Headlines should read wrongly convicted instead of innocent, but that does not have the desired political impact.

 

[Rayderr]

I think the death penalty is still suitable, but it has started to get applied to cases that should not warrant a death penalty. Dahmer, Gacy, DC Sniper... those are the type of people that should be getting the death penalty.

 

[honky kong]

Do any of these reports actually prove him innocent or do the reports just make the evidence he was convicted on questionable? It is a huge injustice that a man was convicted on questionable evidence, but that does not prove he was actually innocent of the crime. Legally he would not have been convicted, but that does not mean he didn't do it. Headlines should read wrongly convicted instead of innocent, but that does not have the desired political impact.

Did you even bother reading the links above?

 

[FavreCo]

I think the death penalty is still suitable, but it has started to get applied to cases that should not warrant a death penalty. Dahmer, Gacy, DC Sniper... those are the type of people that should be getting the death penalty.

And this POS.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/16/sister-murdered-bride-claims-groom-made-phone-call-telling-bad-fight/

 

[Rayderr]

I think the death penalty is still suitable, but it has started to get applied to cases that should not warrant a death penalty. Dahmer, Gacy, DC Sniper... those are the type of people that should be getting the death penalty.

And this POS.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/16/sister-murdered-bride-claims-groom-made-phone-call-telling-bad-fight/

No, I'd limit it to serial killers.

 

[FavreCo]

I think the death penalty is still suitable, but it has started to get applied to cases that should not warrant a death penalty. Dahmer, Gacy, DC Sniper... those are the type of people that should be getting the death penalty.

And this POS.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/16/sister-murdered-bride-claims-groom-made-phone-call-telling-bad-fight/

No, I'd limit it to serial killers.

Why pay to keep this turd alive. he's never getting out if they catch him alive.

 

[Rayderr]

I think the death penalty is still suitable, but it has started to get applied to cases that should not warrant a death penalty. Dahmer, Gacy, DC Sniper... those are the type of people that should be getting the death penalty.

And this POS.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/16/sister-murdered-bride-claims-groom-made-phone-call-telling-bad-fight/

No, I'd limit it to serial killers.

Why pay to keep this turd alive. he's never getting out if they catch him alive.

Shouldn't he at least get convicted first? Oh, and good to see that out of the 5,000+ women murdered each year, the news media still chooses to take the murders of attractive white women national.

 

[Rich Conway]

I think the death penalty is still suitable, but it has started to get applied to cases that should not warrant a death penalty. Dahmer, Gacy, DC Sniper... those are the type of people that should be getting the death penalty.

I understand the mentality behind the thought process of "death penalty should be reserved for those who are definitely 100% guilty". The problem is that someone has to make the determination between 99% and 100%. Knowing what I know about government, I don't think I'm comfortable with the government being the one who makes that determination.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Cameron Todd Willingham Exoneration Was Written But Never Filed By Texas Judge.

 

[Rayderr]

I think the death penalty is still suitable, but it has started to get applied to cases that should not warrant a death penalty. Dahmer, Gacy, DC Sniper... those are the type of people that should be getting the death penalty.

I understand the mentality behind the thought process of "death penalty should be reserved for those who are definitely 100% guilty". The problem is that someone has to make the determination between 99% and 100%. Knowing what I know about government, I don't think I'm comfortable with the government being the one who makes that determination.

Actually I was going with the serial killer aspect.

 

[Jack White]

It's coming out that the prosecutor withheld evidence that proved Willingham's innocence from the defense, and paid a jailhouse snitch to lie on the stand. Will probably get next-to-no penalty for it.

I've always thought the penalty for perjury should be the sentence in the case at issue... lie in a case where a guy is on trial for 20 years, get 20 years.

I would not be opposed to the same for prosecutorial misconduct. Gas this guy.

This is a great example of why the state should not be executing its citizens.

Alas, the state is a death cult, and sadly, there are plenty of blood-thirsty statists who cheer for this barbarism and are complicit in it.