Texas Executed An Innocent Father

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Those are your words, STTAB, not mine.

You might have been a cop but you don't know court and its law.

If a prosecutor has the finds of two experts, and if he intends to use one of them, he has to turn both over to the defense.

You are making some very silly statements with nothing to back them up. You are not an authority.

Yes, but we arent talking about the prosecutor had two expert witnesses who disagreed in this case. Read up on the case.

Here again from the OP

Forensic evidence from the arson investigators was later discredited by experts who claimed that the investigators had “misinterpreted” the evidence.

this means that AFTER the trial, but before the execution the Texas Forensic Science Commission said that the arson experts misinterpreted some of the forensic evidence.

Now, we don't know what they misinterpreted or even whether that would have led to a not guilty verdict but what we DO know is that the results were released AFTER the trial, which means the DA of course could NOT have turned it over DURING the trial. Making the claim that the DA hid evidence during the trial completely stupid.

It's called logic Jake, you should try it.

Anything that is possibly exculpatory must be turned over. That is the law, and STTAB's logic is to deny it rather than admit I am right.

Who said otherwise. we're talking about THIS case, where the "evidence" that the arson investigators misinterpreted the evidence came out AFTER the trial, so there is noway the prosecutor could have known about it during the trial. Meaning, there was no exculpatory evidence.

But in general, the prosecution is NOT required to impeach their own witnesses. That does NOT fall under the category of exculpatory evidence.

 

[rdean]

If executions were barred (as they are already in some states) what is to be said for all the people that get killed because that execution did not occur ?

If Timothy McVeigh and John Allen Muhammad had not been executed, can we say everyone would have been safe from being killed by them ? We have a balance scale. On one side, all the people killed by killers who didn't get executed. On the other side, those executed wrongly. Does anyone in this thread have the complete numbers on that ?

Life, without parole....is the solution.....they will not kill again.

So people who serve life without parole don't ever kill in prison.

Some crimes are so heinous that death is deserved.

Hell on Earth is more of a punishment than mere death....and these criminals of heinous crimes should be given hell on Earth as their sentence...hard labor, isolation, captivity, no chance of freedom.

Unfortunately that isn't the way our society works. I mean in federal super max prisons there are guys who are locked up 23 hours a day , but they have a nice comfy bunk a/c , 3 healthy meals etc etc.

But beneath that we have guys who actually PREFER being in prison. Pathetic.

And for the truly horrific I"m fine with skipping hell on Earth and sending the scum straight to actual hell.

Agreed. This may sound slightly weird but for some people prison isn't too bad. Outside they'd never make it, be homeless and hungry. In prison not only are all their basic needs met but they have recreation time too. I've seen where they play basket ball, softball, chess, video games, internet + get all the medical/dental they need. There are people outside and free who don't have all that. But my main support for the death penalty is to protect the living.

I also support the death penalty (gasp). I always have. I suspect being a veteran plays a part in that support. But Republicans and Texans seem to want to do it willy nilly. They don't like laws and regulation. Vigilante seems more their style.

Against our history and heritage, they always seem to want to stack the deck against the accused and protect the accusers. When you see what they try to do against Obama and Clinton, it's understandable why.

 

[Disir]

Appeals are looking for procedural error. That is all. Circumstantial evidence, jail house snitches, faulty eye-witness testimony are all touchy feely. They aren't retrying the case.

When I say Touchy-Feely, I mean exactly what it says.

I was not saying that the Appeals Process reviews the touchy-feely components of the case.

I was saying that how some of us FEEL about capital punishment has no bearing upon The Law nor its relative merits.

I know what you were saying. I am also watching you become touchy feely by denying the evidence that shows this is an unjust system because you feel that this is a just outcome.

You are welcome to try (albeit fail) to spin it that way, or to read far too much into it in support of your own position, but that does not render it as fact.

Kondor, there is nothing to spin. I keep reading you say that in order to maintain it there needs to be all of these extra measures taken. If all of these extra measures need to be taken then it's time for a moratorium.

Judged by a jury of your peers. Take a look around you. We are your peers.

Elizabeth Loftus wrote a book on the reliability of eyewitness testimony in 1979. That's been out for some 36 years but I wonder how many people here, your peers, have read it. The judge does not have to tell any of your peers about the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

What is currently being offered as evidence in the thread is hearsay.

In this case, the prosecutor withheld evidence. Would his peers have thought differently?

Do your peers need to understand the ramifications of jailhouse snitches? When's a good time for your peers to be educated on that?

You sure you want to be judged by your peers? Read through the emotional jumping the gun on other threads.

How stupid are you?

The prosecutor didn't withhold shit. Reread the article in the OP . The Commission said AFTER the trial that the arson investigators misinterpreted some of the data, NOT during the trial. Therefor the prosecutor did NOT have the information until AFTER the trial, and an appeals court decided that the misinterpretation of the data was NOT enough to overturn the conviction.

So, you just come across as stupid, or a liar, when you claim evidence was withheld.

The bar action was filed March 5 without any public announcement. It accuses Jackson of having intervened repeatedly to help a jailhouse informant, Johnny E. Webb, in return for his testimony that Willingham confessed the murders to him while they were both jailed in Corsicana, the Navarro County seat.

Webb has since recanted that testimony. In a series of recent interviews, he told the Marshall Project that Jackson coerced him to lie, threatening a long prison term for a robbery to which Webb ultimately pleaded guilty, but promising to reduce his sentence if he testified against Willingham.

Jackson has repeatedly denied that he made any pretrial agreement with Webb in exchange for his testimony. The former prosecutor acknowledged that he and others made extraordinary efforts to help Webb, but said they were motivated only by concern for a witness who had been threatened by other prisoners because of his testimony.
Prosecutor accused of misconduct in disputed Texas execution case - The Washington Post

Not half as stupid as you.

 

[Disir]

Appeals are looking for procedural error. That is all. Circumstantial evidence, jail house snitches, faulty eye-witness testimony are all touchy feely. They aren't retrying the case.

When I say Touchy-Feely, I mean exactly what it says.

I was not saying that the Appeals Process reviews the touchy-feely components of the case.

I was saying that how some of us FEEL about capital punishment has no bearing upon The Law nor its relative merits.

I know what you were saying. I am also watching you become touchy feely by denying the evidence that shows this is an unjust system because you feel that this is a just outcome.

You are welcome to try (albeit fail) to spin it that way, or to read far too much into it in support of your own position, but that does not render it as fact.

Kondor, there is nothing to spin. I keep reading you say that in order to maintain it there needs to be all of these extra measures taken. If all of these extra measures need to be taken then it's time for a moratorium.

Judged by a jury of your peers. Take a look around you. We are your peers.

Elizabeth Loftus wrote a book on the reliability of eyewitness testimony in 1979. That's been out for some 36 years but I wonder how many people here, your peers, have read it. The judge does not have to tell any of your peers about the reliability of eyewitness testimony.

What is currently being offered as evidence in the thread is hearsay.

In this case, the prosecutor withheld evidence. Would his peers have thought differently?

Do your peers need to understand the ramifications of jailhouse snitches? When's a good time for your peers to be educated on that?

You sure you want to be judged by your peers? Read through the emotional jumping the gun on other threads.

Oh by the way, it is a defense attorney's job to impeach prosecutor witnesses and advise the jury about jailhouse snitches, not the prosecutors (unless we're talking about defense witnesses of course)

Also, there are rules concerning hearsay, it is not permissible as evidence and judges don't allow it. So you are wrong on that point as well.

WTF did I say?

 

[Meathead]

Willingham was a scumbag and guilty as hell. That he has become the poster boy of of the anti-death penalty crowd shows how puny their cause is.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Willingham was a scumbag and guilty as hell. That he has become the poster boy of of the anti-death penalty crowd shows how puny their cause is.

And the rock solid hard concrete undeniable undisputable evidence of guilt is? Or, are you just assuming guilt in this case? Have you examined all evidence and testimony? Do you have personal knowledge concerning the events that lead to his conviction? What exactly are you basing your opinion on?

 

[Meathead]

Willingham was a scumbag and guilty as hell. That he has become the poster boy of of the anti-death penalty crowd shows how puny their cause is.

And the rock solid hard concrete undeniable undisputable evidence of guilt is? Or, are you just assuming guilt in this case? Have you examined all evidence and testimony? Do you have personal knowledge concerning the events that lead to his conviction? What exactly are you basing your opinion on?

Knock yourself out:

Cameron Todd Willingham 899

When he wasn't giving paint to 12 year-old kids to sniff, he found time to incinerate his 3 little girls. He was human sewage that needed to be flushed.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Willingham was a scumbag and guilty as hell. That he has become the poster boy of of the anti-death penalty crowd shows how puny their cause is.

And the rock solid hard concrete undeniable undisputable evidence of guilt is? Or, are you just assuming guilt in this case? Have you examined all evidence and testimony? Do you have personal knowledge concerning the events that lead to his conviction? What exactly are you basing your opinion on?

Knock yourself out:

Cameron Todd Willingham 899

When he wasn't giving paint to 12 year-old kids to sniff, he found time to incinerate his 3 little girls. He was human sewage that needed to be flushed.

I see. And what about the crime that he was convicted of? Do you have evidence of guilt? So, are you convicting him on his past record?

 

[Meathead]

Willingham was a scumbag and guilty as hell. That he has become the poster boy of of the anti-death penalty crowd shows how puny their cause is.

And the rock solid hard concrete undeniable undisputable evidence of guilt is? Or, are you just assuming guilt in this case? Have you examined all evidence and testimony? Do you have personal knowledge concerning the events that lead to his conviction? What exactly are you basing your opinion on?

Knock yourself out:

Cameron Todd Willingham 899

When he wasn't giving paint to 12 year-old kids to sniff, he found time to incinerate his 3 little girls. He was human sewage that needed to be flushed.

I see. And what about the crime that he was convicted of? Do you have evidence of guilt? So, are you convicting him on his past record?

No, I am not convicting him. He was convicted by a jury of his peers and that conviction was upheld by various appeals court and all the way up to the US Supreme Court.

 

[rdean]

Willingham was a scumbag and guilty as hell. That he has become the poster boy of of the anti-death penalty crowd shows how puny their cause is.

And the rock solid hard concrete undeniable undisputable evidence of guilt is? Or, are you just assuming guilt in this case? Have you examined all evidence and testimony? Do you have personal knowledge concerning the events that lead to his conviction? What exactly are you basing your opinion on?

Knock yourself out:

Cameron Todd Willingham 899

When he wasn't giving paint to 12 year-old kids to sniff, he found time to incinerate his 3 little girls. He was human sewage that needed to be flushed.

I see. And what about the crime that he was convicted of? Do you have evidence of guilt? So, are you convicting him on his past record?

No, I am not convicting him. He was convicted by a jury of his peers and that conviction was upheld by various appeals court and all the way up to the US Supreme Court.

But what if the evidence wasn't complete?

 

[JoeB131]

Still, there was NO hard rock solid concrete evidence that pointed to his guilt. It was a circumstantial evidence case. Circumstantial evidence cases are based on "gut feelings", "could've been", "might have been", and the ability of a smooth talking silvered tongued prosecutor to convince a jury. Check "The Innocence Project" for the many cases which are great examples of what I'm talking about here.

which if fine and all, but no evidence that's what happened here.

so essentially, you have to believe that the Prosecutor, police, judge, jury and even his own wife and his own lawyer thought he did it,

Which either makes him the unluckiest SOB in the world.

Or the Guiltiest.

Occam's razor points to the latter.

 

[Agit8r]

The prosecutors should be charged with murder then. Anything else would be treasonously un-American:

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved; never, that I know of, controverted."
-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Benjamin Vaughn (March 14th, 1785)

That is a dumb quotation which fails to consider the 2nd side of the balance scale. Those 100 guilty persons, if not executed, could then kill tens or thousands of innocent people. Maybe more than that. The 9-11 highjackers killed 3,000.

I guess you don't love America as much as Ben Franklin did. Time for you to move to Russia, where the government is suited more to your liking

 

[Sonny Clark]

Still, there was NO hard rock solid concrete evidence that pointed to his guilt. It was a circumstantial evidence case. Circumstantial evidence cases are based on "gut feelings", "could've been", "might have been", and the ability of a smooth talking silvered tongued prosecutor to convince a jury. Check "The Innocence Project" for the many cases which are great examples of what I'm talking about here.

which if fine and all, but no evidence that's what happened here.

so essentially, you have to believe that the Prosecutor, police, judge, jury and even his own wife and his own lawyer thought he did it,

Which either makes him the unluckiest SOB in the world.

Or the Guiltiest.

Occam's razor points to the latter.

Well, when they have no one else to pin it on, the one in-hand gets the blame. It happens more than we know, and we know about a lot of them.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, when they have no one else to pin it on, the one in-hand gets the blame. It happens more than we know, and we know about a lot of them.

Or maybe he was a horrible human being who beat his wife and abused his children and murdered them because he was a malignant narcissist.

I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but old Todd did what he was accused of.

 

[J.E.D]

Any surprise in that backward inbred white trash run state

When a thread starts like this, it should immediately be moved to badlands. Reported.

I haven't read anything past that line.

I very much doubt USMB would permit me to make a thread that starts with "savage thug ghetto niggas"

Pussy

 

[J.E.D]

Hack article. Dude was guilty.

The only thing that we should be discussing is the OP's opening statement "inbred white trash." USMB admins should enforce the rules on liberals OP's as they do on conservative OP's. We all know that none of us could start a thread with the phrase "savage thug ghetto niggas"

Report the thread.

Uber pussy

 

[J.E.D]

Hack article. Dude was guilty.

The only thing that we should be discussing is the OP's opening statement "inbred white trash." USMB admins should enforce the rules on liberals OP's as they do on conservative OP's. We all know that none of us could start a thread with the phrase "savage thug ghetto niggas"

Report the thread.

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

For shits and giggles, I'm going to start every thread with "savage thug ghetto niggas" no matter what the topic concerns.

Whiny Uber pussy

 

[Sonny Clark]

Well, when they have no one else to pin it on, the one in-hand gets the blame. It happens more than we know, and we know about a lot of them.

Or maybe he was a horrible human being who beat his wife and abused his children and murdered them because he was a malignant narcissist.

I'm not in favor of the death penalty, but old Todd did what he was accused of.

And the evidence was ??

 

[protectionist]

The prosecutors should be charged with murder then. Anything else would be treasonously un-American:

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved; never, that I know of, controverted."
-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Benjamin Vaughn (March 14th, 1785)

That is a dumb quotation which fails to consider the 2nd side of the balance scale. Those 100 guilty persons, if not executed, could then kill tens or thousands of innocent people. Maybe more than that. The 9-11 highjackers killed 3,000.

I guess you don't love America as much as Ben Franklin did. Time for you to move to Russia, where the government is suited more to your liking

No you don't guess that at all. What you really do here, is just pretend that you think I'm unpatriotic (when actually I am VERY patriotic) to try to gain the higher ground in this discussion. All you've done is jump in a hole. I will repeat everything I said in the post you responded to, and I stand behind it 100% >>

"That is a dumb quotation which fails to consider the 2nd side of the balance scale. Those 100 guilty persons, if not executed, could then kill tens of thousands of innocent people. Maybe more than that. The 9-11 highjackers killed 3,000."

 

[JoeB131]

[
And the evidence was ??

All laid out in front of a jury, ruled on by a judge, collected by police officers, passed several appellete reviews, and the guy was given the hot shot he so richly deserved. Thank you.