Advanced Search
Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili (Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.

This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.

Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man? - JREF Forum

A long but fascinating and disturbing article about the use of pseudo-science and folk wisdom in forensic investigations.

Also touches on the unreliability of eye witness testimony.

A must read. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all In December, 2004, questions about the scientific evidence in the Willingham case began to surface.

Maurice Possley and Steve Mills, of the Chicago Tribune, had published an investigative series on flaws in forensic science;

Upon learning of Hurst’s report, Possley and Mills asked three fire experts, including John Lentini, to examine the original investigation.

The experts concurred with Hurst’s report.

Nearly two years later, the Innocence Project commissioned Lentini and three other top fire investigators to conduct an independent review of the arson evidence in the Willingham case.

The panel concluded that “each and every one” of the indicators of arson had been “scientifically proven to be invalid.” In 2005, Texas established a government commission to investigate allegations of error and misconduct by forensic scientists.

The first cases that are being reviewed by the commission are those of Willingham and Willis.

In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation.

In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire.

He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny “rational reasoning” and was more “characteristic of mystics or psychics.” What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, “not only the standards of today but even of the time period.” The commission is reviewing his findings, and plans to release its own report next year.

Some legal scholars believe that the commission may narrowly assess the reliability of the scientific evidence.

There is a chance, however, that Texas could become the first state to acknowledge officially that, since the advent of the modern judicial system, it had carried out the “execution of a legally and factually innocent person.”

This is one the main reasons I do not like the death penalty.

In some cases the evidence and testimony is not reliable and may even be tampered with or someone in the justice system is incompetant or just going through the motions. In these cases I would rather we support a criminal for life in jail rather than execute because at some time in the futur there may be evidence which shows that the person was wrongly convicted.

If the person is serving a life sentance there is a chance for reprations.

There is no chance if ther person is dead. In case where the physical evidence is irrefutable, zap on.

But I suspect these cases are rare. There are many instance where a convicted person is executed and it was later found the person was wrongly convicted. I'll try to find a link to some statistics.

Most of the sources of statistics are form sites that are opposed to execution.

I do not immediatly see any statistic being provided by the government.

I am trying to find a source that is a impartial as possible. I'll post if I find one. I'm from Texas, by the way.

A state with an express way to the electric chair.

(lethal injection actually)

I'll fully concur with Uruk.

Ok, read through the first two chapters, glanced through the third, and noticed on the fourth that he is on death row.

How did that happen if he plead to life? This is a great story as an example of how opinions shift in light of changes in evidence. The fridge was in front of the door, why?

Must have put it there to keep people from going out the back.

Oh, now that he is dead, by the way, there were two fridges, and the second one wasn't really blocking the door, just kind of there because there is not much space in the kitchen. He never went in, and was calm like nothing happened.

Oh, wait, She wasn't there to see if he went in, and it was previously stated that he was frantic. I copied and pasted, going to take it home to read all of it (wow there is a lot, didn't look that long) before I give more feedback

The prosecutor wrote a "rebuttal": http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/opi...yword=topstory Quote: : 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.

"Even if we didn't try to prove that he burned his family to death, we still would have proved he burned his family to death!" Quote: : 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.” A parent said to their dead child 'It shouldn't have been you'?

String him up! Quote: : Co-counsel Alan Bristol and I offered Willingham the opportunity to enter a plea of guilty in return for a sentence of life imprisonment.

He didn't confess to the crime?

Guilty!

I find the arrogance of Prosecutors and Judges sickening.

It seems to be more of a political game than seeking fair justice.

The more I read about these cases, the more I am confused.

I don't see how a system that bases itself on evidence and hard facts can be so naive at times.

Originally Posted by Taarkin He didn't confess to the crime?

Guilty! How's that for Kafkaesque?

Originally Posted by Careyp74 ok, read through the first two chapters, glanced through the third, and noticed on the fourth that he is on death row.

How did that happen if he plead to life?

He didn't plead to life.

His parents begged him to take a plea, but he refused, saying he wasn't guilty.

It goes without saying that if you're going to be a prosecutor in a case like this, you have to be a believer in the facts you present.

Perhaps the most damning thing about this, though, is the declaration at the end of the New Yorker article that the "investigators" violated even the meager standards of the time, and deeper into the article, the statement that arson investigation is more "art than science." This is even more frightening when you read the guest editorial.

The prejudicial attitude of the judge scares me;

This man is convinced a person is guilty simply on the basis of entering his courtroom.

How the hell did he ever make it to the bench, much less one hearing what emerges as a death penalty case? By refusing to adhere to genuine evidence, by introducing a lot of nonsensical silliness regarding Willingham's tattoos, his choice in posters, by refusing to consider the possibility that the refrigerator's placement might simply have been pure negligence rather than malice, the prosecution undercut themselves.

Add to this the actual evidence revealed by the defense consultant, and, yes, Texas, generally, and Rick Perry, specifically, killed an innocent man. Tragic?

Yup. Uncommon? Nope.

I think if we were to actually examine a lot of the "evidence" used to convict, we might find most of it is little more than drivel. And if you think other states are any better, you're a schmuck.

Originally Posted by Roadtoad Tragic?

Yup. Uncommon? Nope.

I think if we were to actually examine a lot of the "evidence" used to convict, we might find most of it is little more than drivel. And if you think other states are any better, you're a schmuck.

It was no better in Camp Zeist, The Netherlands, in the Lockerbie case.

See the main CT forum here (beware - it's quite a long ol' thread by now)

Just what I was thinking.

Sounds horribly familiar.

Political pressure to "get a conviction", and it turns into "is there any possible way this guy might have done it?" "Well, only if you really torture the evidence." "OK, that'll do.

20 years." Here's what the UN observer thought of that lot . At least we don't have the death penalty any more. Rolfe.

Please don't misunderstand my view.

I believe there should be a death penalty.

As one example, and only one, I am convinced that's a just sentence for Richard Allen Davis, who murdered Polly Klaas. The problem, however, is that we are seeing tortured evidence or even outright woo used to send people to prison.

And in the end, what we are now seeing is innocent individuals are sitting on Death Row, or at least in this case, a likely innocent man executed for a crime that was never committed.

How is this justifiable in any way? As was cited in the article regarding this abomination: John Stuart Mill made it clear you have a death penalty because some crimes are simply so horrible, you have to make the punishment equally so just to establish something resembling equilibrium.

But reread the article regarding this case, follow the trail of actual science in this, and it becomes clear this man was guilty before he even set foot in court.

Then, add in the statements of his own defense attorney for the first trial, the editorial by the judge in the case, and you have to ask how the hell Texas can even call this "justice." What is tragic is not merely that an innocent man was executed, but it brings into sharp focus a terrifying possibility, that there are others sitting on Death Row who don't belong there, people who committed no crime, and worse, that the "evidence" brought against them was nothing more than the misuse of fallible memories of witnesses, many of whom are coached to provide damning impressions, rather than to state objective fact. The problem is not that this is about "reasonable doubt." I had reasonable doubt when the police chaplain entered into this and started introducing suspicion into the case.

Scary business, that.

If you're going to put someone to death, you'd better be damned sure that there's no doubt at all. In the end, the facts are going to be brought to bear on this case.

Sadly, Rick Perry and this perverse judge in this case will never face justice for what they did, but hopefully, enough of a stink can be made that they will lose all public standing, and never again hold public office.

It's not fair, but at this juncture, it might be the best we can hope for. One thing that should be made clear: One of the few crimes the Constitution mandates a death penalty for is High Treason.

But, the standard required for conviction is exceptionally high, as it should be. From Article III, Section 3: Quote: : Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You would think a similar standard would apply at the very least to someone tried for murder.

In Texas, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Originally Posted by uruk This is one the main reasons I do not like the death penalty.

In some cases the evidence and testimony is not reliable and may even be tampered with or someone in the justice system is incompetant or just going through the motions.

That has always been my complaint as well with the death penalty.

If we had a magic wand that could determine with 100% accuracy someone's guilt I might be in favor of the death penalty.

Of course then the question becomes, "who do you trust to use the wand"?

Originally Posted by Roadtoad Please don't misunderstand my view.

I believe there should be a death penalty.

As one example, and only one, I am convinced that's a just sentence for Richard Allen Davis, who murdered Polly Klaas. The problem, however, is that we are seeing tortured evidence or even outright woo used to send people to prison.

And in the end, what we are now seeing is innocent individuals are sitting on Death Row, or at least in this case, a likely innocent man executed for a crime that was never committed.

How is this justifiable in any way?

Small towns with big crimes need them solved.

Say you are the police in Ada, Oklahoma pop 16K.

You really want to have an unsolved murder floating around? So you enhance the evidence. Quote: : What is tragic is not merely that an innocent man was executed, but it brings into sharp focus a terrifying possibility, that there are others sitting on Death Row who don't belong there, people who committed no crime, and worse, that the "evidence" brought against them was nothing more than the misuse of fallible memories of witnesses, many of whom are coached to provide damning impressions, rather than to state objective fact.

A fair number of people have been freed from death row over the years. Quote: : The problem is not that this is about "reasonable doubt." I had reasonable doubt when the police chaplain entered into this and started introducing suspicion into the case.

Scary business, that.

If you're going to put someone to death, you'd better be damned sure that there's no doubt at all.

Zero doubt never happens. Quote: : In the end, the facts are going to be brought to bear on this case.

Sadly, Rick Perry and this perverse judge in this case will never face justice for what they did, but hopefully, enough of a stink can be made that they will lose all public standing, and never again hold public office.

It's not fair, but at this juncture, it might be the best we can hope for.

Since Bill Peterson appears to still be in his job that seems to be a somewhat unlikely outcome.

Trial by Fire: Did Texas execute an innocent man? Almost certainly - but Chicago Tribune got to this earlier as did another thread here.

I put the Trib's research on fire forensics in the other one.

Originally Posted by geni Small towns with big crimes need them solved.

Say you are the police in Ada, Oklahoma pop 16K.

You really want to have an unsolved murder floating around? So you enhance the evidence.

And potentially put an innocent person in prison.

I'd rather take the chance of the murder remaining unsolved rather than commit that offense. Then again, that's me.

That's not the average American, and there are those who seem to believe it's better to err on the side of "caution." Originally Posted by geni A fair number of people have been freed from death row over the years.

Very true. All the more reason to be damned careful about what you allow as evidence, and how you prosecute a case.

Once you lose those years of your life, they're gone. Originally Posted by geni Zero doubt never happens.

Which, to my mind, means you keep working on the case until you get as close to zero as you can, if for no other reason than because the stakes are far too high.

I can live with a 95% possibility someone's guilty, as long as there continues to be examination of genuine evidence to close that remaining five percent gap. 90%?

No way in hell I'd vote for death if I were on a jury. Originally Posted by geni Since Bill Peterson appears to still be in his job that seems to be a somewhat unlikely outcome.

Unfortunately, you're right.

If anything, these guys are like a bad disease;

They don't learn from their mistakes, and they remain with us until the bitter end.

There have been so many wrongful convictions in Britain. The Guildford Four The Maguire Seven Barry George Several people later cleared by DNA evidence Sally Clark Angela Cannings These last two are particularly bad in that there was no crime in the first place. I'm sure others will list more.

I don't remember who it was, but one legal big-wig went on record after the Guildford four were released saying that it was a pity there was no death penalty any more because if they'd been dead and buried all this embarrassing re-examination of the evidence wouldn't have happened. Given that all these people were supposedly convicted "beyond reasonable doubt", can the death penalty ever be justified? Rolfe.

Originally Posted by Roadtoad And potentially put an innocent person in prison.

I'd rather take the chance of the murder remaining unsolved rather than commit that offense. Then again, that's me.

That's not the average American, and there are those who seem to believe it's better to err on the side of "caution." Innocent?

Generaly the person you target should have at least some petty crime in the history.

Makes it less problematical to destory their character and thus any claims of inocence in court.

This doesn't always work with more serious criminals (it noticable that in the Denice Haraway murder case the police didn't get the person with the more serious criminal history to say anything incriminateing under interigation because they had a better idea what they were doing). Caution is problematical since of course one of the major problems with convicting the wrong person is that their a a fair chance that whoever really did it will still be around. Quote: : Which, to my mind, means you keep working on the case until you get as close to zero as you can, if for no other reason than because the stakes are far too high.

I can live with a 95% possibility someone's guilty, as long as there continues to be examination of genuine evidence to close that remaining five percent gap. 90%?

No way in hell I'd vote for death if I were on a jury.

95% means that one in twenty will be inocent.

Or about 166 people currently on death row would be inocent. Quote: : Unfortunately, you're right.

If anything, these guys are like a bad disease;

They don't learn from their mistakes, and they remain with us until the bitter end.

Getting a conviction of the wrong guy isn't strictly speaking a mistake for a prosecutor.

Mistakes are required to be broader than that.

Originally Posted by geni Zero doubt never happens.

I wouldn't put it that crass.

There's zero doubt about the killer of Pim Fortuyn.

There's zero doubt about the killer of Theo van Gogh (and there's a CT linking the both victims, link ).

But they were caught in flagrante and didn't pay much attention in their planning to get away from the crime scene.

Those are rare cases. That's not to say there's no miscarriages of justice in the Netherlands.

We've got plenty of those too.

This has especially come to the fore since the miscarriage in the so-called Schiedammer park murder ( link ).

However, the justice system has been very reluctant to change.

Neither in this case, nor in other overturned cases, a single police officer or prosecutor has been reprimanded let along fired.

Neither the AG nor the Justice Minister have resigned over their lies on national TV (they both initially claimed that nothing had gone wrong).

Another interesting case in Holland was that of Lucia de Berk .

She was a nurse and was convicted of murders which weren't, based on "evidence" by an amateur statistician. So, I'm glad we don't have the death penalty.

There's too much going wrong in the justice system to take the chance to kill an innocent. The thing that strikes me about the case in the OP is that the Board of Pardons didn't take notice whatsoever of the arguments put forth, though they could easily see that the report was compiled by Hurst, who was a nationally recognized arson specialist.

That strikes me as negligence. The thing that strikes me in general when I read about American death penalty cases, is that nearly invariably the defendant is represented by a cheap state-assigned lawyer, and that this severely diminishes their chances.

Whereas in the Netherlands, we see the same circle of half a dozen or so top lawyers representing such contentious cases.

Originally Posted by ddt I wouldn't put it that crass.

There's zero doubt about the killer of Pim Fortuyn.

There's zero doubt about the killer of Theo van Gogh (and there's a CT linking the both victims, link ).

But they were caught in flagrante and didn't pay much attention in their planning to get away from the crime scene.

Those are rare cases. That's not to say there's no miscarriages of justice in the Netherlands.

We've got plenty of those too.

This has especially come to the fore since the miscarriage in the so-called Schiedammer park murder ( link ).

However, the justice system has been very reluctant to change.

Neither in this case, nor in other overturned cases, a single police officer or prosecutor has been reprimanded let along fired.

Neither the AG nor the Justice Minister have resigned over their lies on national TV (they both initially claimed that nothing had gone wrong).

Another interesting case in Holland was that of Lucia de Berk .

She was a nurse and was convicted of murders which weren't, based on "evidence" by an amateur statistician. So, I'm glad we don't have the death penalty.

There's too much going wrong in the justice system to take the chance to kill an innocent. The thing that strikes me about the case in the OP is that the Board of Pardons didn't take notice whatsoever of the arguments put forth, though they could easily see that the report was compiled by Hurst, who was a nationally recognized arson specialist.

That strikes me as negligence. .

Strikes me more as conspiratorial judicial murder - and should be prosecutable.

Originally Posted by fuelair Strikes me more as conspiratorial judicial murder - and should be prosecutable.

Which, to my way of thinking, is true. I'm sorry, but there's been far too much evidence even in the mere news reports of this case that these people killed an innocent man.

I got a question.

Do you think if a DA prosecutes a person they know to be innocent, seek the death penalty, prosecutes the person to conviction that they should be subject to trial for premeditated murder and be subject to the death penalty themselves?

You'd be on a hiding to nothing proving that. And I don't think anyone should be subject to the death penalty. Rolfe.

Originally Posted by Roadtoad the statement that arson investigation is more "art than science." Which usually means, "we have no idea what we're doing."

Originally Posted by INRM I got a question.

Do you think if a DA prosecutes a person they know to be innocent, seek the death penalty, prosecutes the person to conviction that they should be subject to trial for premeditated murder and be subject to the death penalty themselves?

I'd agree with Rolfe on this one: a death penalty in this instance would be worthless.

While I think there's an extraordinarily rare use for the death penalty, this ain't one of them. To the contrary, a DA who knowingly prosecutes an innocent person and gains a death sentence for them would escaping the full due of his crime by being executed.

I'd rather see such a person sitting in a prison cell for the rest of their lives, at least a good 20-50 years, slowly eroded into the very criminal they claimed they were trying to save us from.

It would seem, in the long run, to be a far more appropriate fate for someone so cowardly and barbaric. Note that my limited defense of the DP is based on one and only one case.

In that one case, there was no question as to the guilt or innocence of the individual, in spite of what others are trying to claim today, and his actions are little more than the continued downward trajectory of a life that no one seemed particularly interested in saving, not even the individual himself.

Consider it's a situation that's incredibly rare, so rare that I don't even think there's a statistic to cover it. Consider this in light of another case, that of Manny Babbitt, whose own family turned him in to keep him from killing again.

Babbitt shouldn't have been executed, partly because of how he was apprehended, but also because there is a great deal of evidence that he was of a diminished capacity when his crimes occurred.

Life imprisonment might have been a better option in his case.

(Though I'd suspect that in light of the details of the case, there are others who might disagree.) In the other instance, you are simply dealing with someone who is simply evil. This idea that the Death Penalty is a deterrent is being proven time and again to be a lie.

I don't accept it.

Even if you were to remove all barriers to it, legal and otherwise, and begin with a systematic pattern or mechanistic destruction of anyone found guilty of murder, assuming that every one of them were truly guilty of the crime they were accused of, the idea that you'd slow the murder rate in America is stupid. We have reduced a human life to the level of a commodity.

It's another consumer good, sold on the shelves of our local Wal Mart, discounted to a lower price with each passing day.

We are looking for more and more ways to halve it's value, as demonstrated by our entertainment, (always the favorite boogey man), by the actions of corporations, (noting that at least one took a retiree to court and got his pension cut to the bare bones), and by the actions of our own government, (as we've seen from Vietnam onward).

We don't place blame on those who perform such acts, but instead, we reward them with greater salaries, greater responsibilities, and even naming highways and public buildings after them when they die, instead of placing a urinal with a waste pipe running right down to the center of their foreheads directly over their graves. And then we wonder why no one places value on human life anymore.

Originally Posted by INRM I got a question.

Do you think if a DA prosecutes a person they know to be innocent, seek the death penalty, prosecutes the person to conviction that they should be subject to trial for premeditated murder and be subject to the death penalty themselves?

I'd agree with Rolfe on this one: a death penalty in this instance would be worthless.

While I think there's an extraordinarily rare use for the death penalty, this ain't one of them. To the contrary, a DA who knowingly prosecutes an innocent person and gains a death sentence for them would escaping the full due of his crime by being executed.

I'd rather see such a person sitting in a prison cell for the rest of their lives, at least a good 20-50 years, slowly eroded into the very criminal they claimed they were trying to save us from.

It would seem, in the long run, to be a far more appropriate fate for someone so cowardly and barbaric. Note that my limited defense of the DP is based on one and only one case.

In that one case, there was no question as to the guilt or innocence of the individual, in spite of what others are trying to claim today, and his actions are little more than the continued downward trajectory of a life that no one seemed particularly interested in saving, not even the individual himself.

Consider it's a situation that's incredibly rare, so rare that I don't even think there's a statistic to cover it. Consider this in light of another case, that of Manny Babbitt, whose own family turned him in to keep him from killing again.

Babbitt shouldn't have been executed, partly because of how he was apprehended, but also because there is a great deal of evidence that he was of a diminished capacity when his crimes occurred.

Life imprisonment might have been a better option in his case.

(Though I'd suspect that in light of the details of the case, there are others who might disagree.) In the other instance, you are simply dealing with someone who is simply evil. This idea that the Death Penalty is a deterrent is being proven time and again to be a lie.

I don't accept it.

Even if you were to remove all barriers to it, legal and otherwise, and begin with a systematic pattern or mechanistic destruction of anyone found guilty of murder, assuming that every one of them were truly guilty of the crime they were accused of, the idea that you'd slow the murder rate in America is stupid. We have reduced a human life to the level of a commodity.

It's another consumer good, sold on the shelves of our local Wal Mart, discounted to a lower price with each passing day.

We are looking for more and more ways to halve it's value, as demonstrated by our entertainment, (always the favorite boogey man), by the actions of corporations, (noting that at least one took a retiree to court and got his pension cut to the bare bones), and by the actions of our own government, (as we've seen from Vietnam onward).

We don't place blame on those who perform such acts, but instead, we reward them with greater salaries, greater responsibilities, and even naming highways and public buildings after them when they die, instead of placing a urinal with a waste pipe running right down to the center of their foreheads directly over their graves. And then we wonder why no one places value on human life anymore.

Originally Posted by INRM I got a question.

Do you think if a DA prosecutes a person they know to be innocent, seek the death penalty, prosecutes the person to conviction that they should be subject to trial for premeditated murder and be subject to the death penalty themselves?

I doubt it's ever happened.

Cases where the DA had a few doubts perhaps but even that is likely to be fairly uncommon.

Statistically speaking, given the false convictions the Innocence Project has proved by DNA evidence, there is little doubt, Texas almost certainly has executed innocent men.

Originally Posted by INRM I got a question.

Do you think if a DA prosecutes a person they know to be innocent, seek the death penalty, prosecutes the person to conviction that they should be subject to trial for premeditated murder and be subject to the death penalty themselves?

In a recent SCOTUS ruling, Scalia and Thomas said procedure mattered, innocence didn't.

Quote: : Justice Scalia, in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the hearing would be “a fool’s errand,” because Mr.

Davis’s factual claims were “a sure loser.” He went on to say that the federal courts would be powerless to assist Mr.

Davis even if he could categorically establish his innocence. “This court has never held,” Justice Scalia wrote, “that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

Originally Posted by skeptigirl In a recent SCOTUS ruling, Scalia and Thomas said procedure mattered, innocence didn't.

Think that attitude might have something to do with why the lost the White House?

Originally Posted by Roadtoad Think that attitude might have something to do with why the lost the White House?

It's just a rather brutal restateing that appeals are meant to be based on points of law or the lower cort not doing it's job.

In the case of fresh evidence the orginal court can reconsider it.

Originally Posted by INRM I got a question.

Do you think if a DA prosecutes a person they know to be innocent, seek the death penalty, prosecutes the person to conviction that they should be subject to trial for premeditated murder and be subject to the death penalty themselves?

I would prefer immediate death by an inordinately painful procedure, slowly administered on proodf of same - any case where real testable expert data is ignored but known of, that evidence would be considered prima facie proof of guilt.

Originally Posted by INRM I got a question.

Do you think if a DA prosecutes a person they know to be innocent, seek the death penalty, prosecutes the person to conviction that they should be subject to trial for premeditated murder and be subject to the death penalty themselves?

YES. "Call it Murder by False Trial". --- Lawyers take an oath NOT to offer testimony that they 'know' to be false. --- MODERATOR: Can you merge this thread with this one?- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152637

Originally Posted by geni It's just a rather brutal restateing that appeals are meant to be based on points of law or the lower cort not doing it's job.

In the case of fresh evidence the orginal court can reconsider it.

And yet the majority court opinion in the case I cited thankfully used a bit of common human sense rather than simply blindly following a rule.

Quote: : “The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death,” Justice Stevens wrote in a concurrence joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G.

Breyer, “clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.” The risk of executing an innocent man is adequate justification.

I find it appalling Scalia and Thomas don't see the risk of accidental state murder as a higher priority than procedure.

According to Scalia's and Thomas' opinion, even if you had DNA evidence of innocence, they'd only rule on whether or not procedure was followed.

Where does an incompetent defense (IE a crappy attorney), or a biased jury get weeded out in the justice system Scalia and Thomas imagine?

I have read accounts of people on death row who were supposedly innocent that didn't pan out under scrutiny, but this doesn't appear to be one of them. The account in the NewYorker is damning, and its even more damning when you consider there was no apparent motive and almost no actual indicators of arson other than the one instance of accelerant at the door which was almost certainly lighter fluid used for the family grill.

The fact that accelerant was not found in any other location is in itself almost conclusive proof that it was NOT arson. I'm reading the report by Dr.

Beyler now (referenced in the NewYorker piece), and its an interesting and saddening account of the state of fire science prior to the current era.

To say it was "junk science" is almost too kind, it sounds more like plain out and out voodoo and black magic. Here's the link to the report if anyone is interested: http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/...er-report.html

Originally Posted by Rolfe There have been so many wrongful convictions in Britain. The Guildford Four The Maguire Seven Barry George Several people later cleared by DNA evidence Sally Clark Angela Cannings These last two are particularly bad in that there was no crime in the first place. I'm sure others will list more.

I don't remember who it was, but one legal big-wig went on record after the Guildford four were released saying that it was a pity there was no death penalty any more because if they'd been dead and buried all this embarrassing re-examination of the evidence wouldn't have happened. Given that all these people were supposedly convicted "beyond reasonable doubt", can the death penalty ever be justified? Rolfe.

I just looked up the last two names.

There's even more women who had multiple cot deaths of infants convicted on spurious testimony by a pediatrician. Donna Anthony Trupti Patel How many more were convicted of having tragic genetics? WTF.

Originally Posted by NYCEMT86 I find the arrogance of Prosecutors and Judges sickening.

It seems to be more of a political game than seeking fair justice.

The more I read about these cases, the more I am confused.

I don't see how a system that bases itself on evidence and hard facts can be so naive at times.

I think too there's likely an unconscious desire to rationalize your decisions when life and death are at stake. So we see a "rebuttal" - fairly weak by the excerpted parts above - from the prosecutor and what I really read in there was a rationalization for the series of decisions that lead to the death of an innocent man. it can't be easy to face yourself in the mirror and say "Yes, you sent an innocent man to the electric chair..."

Fuel Air Quote: : I would prefer immediate death by an inordinately painful procedure, slowly administered on proodf of same - any case where real testable expert data is ignored but known of, that evidence would be considered prima facie proof of guilt.

Not acceptable. In America we have rules against cruel and unusual punishment which this undoubtedly would qualify. King of the Americas Quote: : YES.

The question is how would you prevent, reasonably speaking, the DA's office from doing everything they could to destroy any evidence in such cases where they could be implicated in knowingly prosecuting an innocent person to conviction, and getting them sentenced to death. I remember hearing some time ago, the state of Texas due to a number of wrongful convictions, had all old forensic evidence junked to spare themselves of any "embarrassment". INRM

Originally Posted by Ducky I just looked up the last two names.

There's even more women who had multiple cot deaths of infants convicted on spurious testimony by a pediatrician. Donna Anthony Trupti Patel How many more were convicted of having tragic genetics? WTF. Donna Anthony.

That's the third one whose name I couldn't remember.

Trupti Patel wasn't convicted.

The jury acquitted her - possibly because she really was so shiningly innocent.

That was the card that set the rest of the house of cards falling.

Suddenly, peole just didn't believe Meadow any more. Sally Clark was a real tragedy.

It was perfectly obvious Meadow was talking rot from the start, to me anyway.

But she served several years in jail, came out looking 30 years older and about 5 stone lighter, and was dead within a year or two of acute alcohol poisoning - she just couldn't come to terms with what happened to her. I heard some other ghastly cases Meadow was responsible for in the civil courts - babies taken away from their mothers at birth because he thought there was something suspicious about the death of a previous child. I hope there's a special place in hell for that guy. And that he'll be joined by those who support the death penalty, who would have killed these innocent people rather than leave the chance of restoring the wrong open for them. Rolfe.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl And yet the majority court opinion in the case I cited thankfully used a bit of common human sense rather than simply blindly following a rule.The risk of executing an innocent man is adequate justification.

I find it appalling Scalia and Thomas don't see the risk of accidental state murder as a higher priority than procedure.

According to Scalia's and Thomas' opinion, even if you had DNA evidence of innocence, they'd only rule on whether or not procedure was followed.

Where does an incompetent defense (IE a crappy attorney), or a biased jury get weeded out in the justice system Scalia and Thomas imagine?

That is part of the procedure.

Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are standard in these cases.

Challenges to the makeup of a jury are likewise often raised. The mode of review isn't the problem as much as the jury trial itself is based on assumptions that aren't so, like the assumption that a juror can look at a witness for the first time and tell whether or not that witness is lying based on mannerisms and such.

Jurors being told to take into account how sure an eyewitness is about an identification when studies show same has nothing to do with accuracy.

On and on. Bad "expert" testimony, such as the arson in this case, is a common problem.

I've seen people qualified as experts in crime scene reconstruction who have no formal training except to say it is a hobby.

People in child sex cases claiming they can tell with 100% certainty whether a child is lying or telling the truth.

"Tool Mark" examiners claiming fantastic accuracy.

Same with handwriting experts. Recently, in a high profile case in Texas where the issue was sanity, a death sentence was reversed when it was found out a state's expert made up her opinion mostly from an episode of "Law and Order." The death penalty is a nice attention grabber, but that we are sending people to prison for long sentences based on this sort of stuff is appalling enough.




Omgili Home About FAQ Plugins Usenet