Texas Executed An Innocent Father

[protectionist]

That would depend on the circumstances, motive, and mental state of the shooter. It would be much better to give the person life without the possibility of parole.

I gave you circumstances, motive hardly matters, mental state is sane. So you'd not give him the death penalty. And afterwards, he kills 100 people. You feel no reponsibility ?

 

[protectionist]

FYI -- Just a little info to think about here. It takes years to go through the appeals process before an inmate is executed. So, even if we do exercise the death penalty, what's keeping the death row inmate from killing during their long wait? Your answer?

LOL. Same answer I've been answering for 30 years now. There shouldn't BE years of appeals. There is no reason for that in the proof-positive cases. I'd give one appeal, one year, that's it.

You do realize that many on death row are there due to circumstantial evidence?

I already stated, from forensic evidenceSSSSSSS, Guilt can be positive. If it is, death penalty. if it's not, no death penalty, and maybe even aquittal based on insufficient evidence.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Whatever floats your boat.

I'd re-read the rules beforehand, though. If I was you.

 

[protectionist]

Well, read the many LINKS that I have given you. It happens all the time, in many cases. I posted the links for you. And, if necessary, I can post more if you're too lazy to do your own research.

The links only refer to one side of the balance scale, and to where POSITIVE guilt was not proven. That's not the scenario I'm talking about. I'm talking about the cases of positive conviction.

 

[protectionist]

You have already lost.

NO, fool. I don't lose by you running away like a scared rabbit. Answer the question, or you continue to lose, as you are already.

 

[Kondor3]

...What's wrong with life without the possibility of parole?

1. Cost.

2. Lack of revenge.

Cost? ... And the cost of executing the wrong person is?...

That's why we have to be more careful.

But the cost of maintaining a guilty killer is far too high.

...Revenge? ...... How is it revenge dismissed when you know that the guilty person will never ever be free again?

The underlying purpose behind State-sponsored execution is to take Revenge out of the hands of the individual and to put it into the hands of the government.

The concept is trace-able to tribal days in most societies, including The West.

Revenge.

The victim no longer breathes nor sees nor hears not smells nor feels nor loves nor hopes nor dreams nor exists.

Killing the criminal deprives him or her of all those things as well.

Preventing the aggrieved friends and family of the victim from seeing to that themselves.

Underneath all the fancy verbiage and statute and precedent and processes, the core of the matter is Revenge, by the State, rather than the chaos of the individual doing it.

In this wussified, pussified, politically correct touchy-feely society that we're devolving into, we tend to forget that Basic Truth.

It helps, every so often, for somebody to speak the words, to remind folks that, above all else, capital punishment is about Revenge, no matter how you dress it up.

And, in the case of heinous crimes, Revenge is entirely appropriate.

For those who don't have weak stomachs, anyway.

 

[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.

So, your reasoning is that it's fine to execute innocent citizens as collateral damage as long as we execute the guilty along with them?

No, I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Keyword in the quote is "better". That's all.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Any surprise in that backward inbred white trash run state


It’s official, the State of Texas executed an innocent man – an innocent father – after prosecutors deliberately concealed evidence in his children’s arson deaths. Now the state bar of Texas has filed a formal misconduct accusation against the prosecutor in this case.

The bar had already filed a petition in Navarro County, near Dallas, earlier this month that alleged that prosecutor John Jackson deliberately withheld evidence which indicated that Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent. Because of this, Willingham was executed in 2004 for supposedly murdering his three young daughters. His daughters died in a house fire back in 1991, but the evidence Jackson suppressed showed that Willingham had nothing to do with the fire that took his daughters from him.

Texas Executed An Innocent Father After Prosecutor Hid Evidence In Kids Arson Deaths

I'm curious as to whether or not any of you actually READ this article?

From the article

according to the petition and complaint filed. Forensic evidence from the arson investigators was later discredited by experts who claimed that the investigators had “misinterpreted” the evidence.

prosecutors aren't required to hire experts to examine the work done by their own investigators, nor are they required to tell the defense if someone else has.

Also, there is no actual proof that this guy didn't commit the murders.

Morons

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Any surprise in that backward inbred white trash run state


It’s official, the State of Texas executed an innocent man – an innocent father – after prosecutors deliberately concealed evidence in his children’s arson deaths. Now the state bar of Texas has filed a formal misconduct accusation against the prosecutor in this case.

The bar had already filed a petition in Navarro County, near Dallas, earlier this month that alleged that prosecutor John Jackson deliberately withheld evidence which indicated that Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent. Because of this, Willingham was executed in 2004 for supposedly murdering his three young daughters. His daughters died in a house fire back in 1991, but the evidence Jackson suppressed showed that Willingham had nothing to do with the fire that took his daughters from him.

Texas Executed An Innocent Father After Prosecutor Hid Evidence In Kids Arson Deaths

I'm curious as to whether or not any of you actually READ this article?

From the article

according to the petition and complaint filed. Forensic evidence from the arson investigators was later discredited by experts who claimed that the investigators had “misinterpreted” the evidence.

prosecutors aren't required to hire experts to examine the work done by their own investigators, nor are they required to tell the defense if someone else has.

Also, there is no actual proof that this guy didn't commit the murders.

Morons

So your standard for the death penalty is now "there's no proof he didn't do it"?

I understand that you worship at the alter of Law and Order, and instinctually believe that the system is always right, but seriously I would recommend reading more about this case. The conclusions are a lot farther reaching than this one case - there's significant evidence a previously-held basic rule of arson investigation is completely false.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have already lost.

NO, fool. I don't lose by you running away like a scared rabbit. Answer the question, or you continue to lose, as you are already.

You lose, as you always do, by talking stupidly, not giving evidence, and making stuff up. You have lost.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Any surprise in that backward inbred white trash run state


It’s official, the State of Texas executed an innocent man – an innocent father – after prosecutors deliberately concealed evidence in his children’s arson deaths. Now the state bar of Texas has filed a formal misconduct accusation against the prosecutor in this case.

The bar had already filed a petition in Navarro County, near Dallas, earlier this month that alleged that prosecutor John Jackson deliberately withheld evidence which indicated that Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent. Because of this, Willingham was executed in 2004 for supposedly murdering his three young daughters. His daughters died in a house fire back in 1991, but the evidence Jackson suppressed showed that Willingham had nothing to do with the fire that took his daughters from him.

Texas Executed An Innocent Father After Prosecutor Hid Evidence In Kids Arson Deaths

I'm curious as to whether or not any of you actually READ this article?

From the article

according to the petition and complaint filed. Forensic evidence from the arson investigators was later discredited by experts who claimed that the investigators had “misinterpreted” the evidence.

prosecutors aren't required to hire experts to examine the work done by their own investigators, nor are they required to tell the defense if someone else has.

Also, there is no actual proof that this guy didn't commit the murders.

Morons

So your standard for the death penalty is now "there's no proof he didn't do it"?

I understand that you worship at the alter of Law and Order, and instinctually believe that the system is always right, but seriously I would recommend reading more about this case. The conclusions are a lot farther reaching than this one case - there's significant evidence a previously-held basic rule of arson investigation is completely false.

THat isn't what I said at all.

For the record I am against the death penalty for all but the most heinous acts where guilt is obvious.

In THIS case, all I said was that the prosecutor did NOT actively hide evidence of a guy's innocence. and they didn't. You people are just stupid.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Any surprise in that backward inbred white trash run state


It’s official, the State of Texas executed an innocent man – an innocent father – after prosecutors deliberately concealed evidence in his children’s arson deaths. Now the state bar of Texas has filed a formal misconduct accusation against the prosecutor in this case.

The bar had already filed a petition in Navarro County, near Dallas, earlier this month that alleged that prosecutor John Jackson deliberately withheld evidence which indicated that Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent. Because of this, Willingham was executed in 2004 for supposedly murdering his three young daughters. His daughters died in a house fire back in 1991, but the evidence Jackson suppressed showed that Willingham had nothing to do with the fire that took his daughters from him.

Texas Executed An Innocent Father After Prosecutor Hid Evidence In Kids Arson Deaths

I'm curious as to whether or not any of you actually READ this article?

From the article

according to the petition and complaint filed. Forensic evidence from the arson investigators was later discredited by experts who claimed that the investigators had “misinterpreted” the evidence.

prosecutors aren't required to hire experts to examine the work done by their own investigators, nor are they required to tell the defense if someone else has.

Also, there is no actual proof that this guy didn't commit the murders.

Morons

So your standard for the death penalty is now "there's no proof he didn't do it"?

I understand that you worship at the alter of Law and Order, and instinctually believe that the system is always right, but seriously I would recommend reading more about this case. The conclusions are a lot farther reaching than this one case - there's significant evidence a previously-held basic rule of arson investigation is completely false.

THat isn't what I said at all.

For the record I am against the death penalty for all but the most heinous acts where guilt is obvious.

In THIS case, all I said was that the prosecutor did NOT actively hide evidence of a guy's innocence. and they didn't. You people are just stupid.

If the prosecutor had evidence that other evidence important to the case was discredited and refused to share that information with the defense, he most certainly broke the law.

That's what the recently-filed petition is claiming.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Any surprise in that backward inbred white trash run state


It’s official, the State of Texas executed an innocent man – an innocent father – after prosecutors deliberately concealed evidence in his children’s arson deaths. Now the state bar of Texas has filed a formal misconduct accusation against the prosecutor in this case.

The bar had already filed a petition in Navarro County, near Dallas, earlier this month that alleged that prosecutor John Jackson deliberately withheld evidence which indicated that Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent. Because of this, Willingham was executed in 2004 for supposedly murdering his three young daughters. His daughters died in a house fire back in 1991, but the evidence Jackson suppressed showed that Willingham had nothing to do with the fire that took his daughters from him.

Texas Executed An Innocent Father After Prosecutor Hid Evidence In Kids Arson Deaths

I'm curious as to whether or not any of you actually READ this article?

From the article

according to the petition and complaint filed. Forensic evidence from the arson investigators was later discredited by experts who claimed that the investigators had “misinterpreted” the evidence.

prosecutors aren't required to hire experts to examine the work done by their own investigators, nor are they required to tell the defense if someone else has.

Also, there is no actual proof that this guy didn't commit the murders.

Morons

So your standard for the death penalty is now "there's no proof he didn't do it"?

I understand that you worship at the alter of Law and Order, and instinctually believe that the system is always right, but seriously I would recommend reading more about this case. The conclusions are a lot farther reaching than this one case - there's significant evidence a previously-held basic rule of arson investigation is completely false.

THat isn't what I said at all.

For the record I am against the death penalty for all but the most heinous acts where guilt is obvious.

In THIS case, all I said was that the prosecutor did NOT actively hide evidence of a guy's innocence. and they didn't. You people are just stupid.

If the prosecutor had evidence that other evidence important to the case was discredited and refused to share that information with the defense, he most certainly broke the law.

That's what the recently-filed petition is claiming.

No wrong.

The prosecutors are only ONLY obligated to turn over evidence that they plan on using in court.

Learn the law.

Obviously this prosecutor wasn't going to use some evidence that his experts were wrong in court.

This case will go nowhere. You act like the mere fact that a suit was filed means the prosecutor acted wrongly. It doesn't.

 

[BULLDOG]

The officials responsible for willfully suppressing evidence in this capital case should now stand trial for their own lives.

First degree murder... conspiracy... etc, etc., etc.

And, along with the death sentence for themselves, when found guilty, they can toss-in forfeiture of pay and pension and benefits, back-dated to the date of the commission of the crime, and the seizure of sufficient assets to satisfy the financial elements of the sentence.

Crushing their souls prior to execution with the despairing knowledge that they've ruined their families, as well.

That should send a very clear message to those types of Godless, soulless bastards who might otherwise consider such mischief.

It's what they deserve, but it will never happen. The Texas criminal justice system is the best money can buy. You can have all the justice you can afford to pay for.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Any surprise in that backward inbred white trash run state


It’s official, the State of Texas executed an innocent man – an innocent father – after prosecutors deliberately concealed evidence in his children’s arson deaths. Now the state bar of Texas has filed a formal misconduct accusation against the prosecutor in this case.

The bar had already filed a petition in Navarro County, near Dallas, earlier this month that alleged that prosecutor John Jackson deliberately withheld evidence which indicated that Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent. Because of this, Willingham was executed in 2004 for supposedly murdering his three young daughters. His daughters died in a house fire back in 1991, but the evidence Jackson suppressed showed that Willingham had nothing to do with the fire that took his daughters from him.

Texas Executed An Innocent Father After Prosecutor Hid Evidence In Kids Arson Deaths

I'm curious as to whether or not any of you actually READ this article?

From the article

according to the petition and complaint filed. Forensic evidence from the arson investigators was later discredited by experts who claimed that the investigators had “misinterpreted” the evidence.

prosecutors aren't required to hire experts to examine the work done by their own investigators, nor are they required to tell the defense if someone else has.

Also, there is no actual proof that this guy didn't commit the murders.

Morons

So your standard for the death penalty is now "there's no proof he didn't do it"?

I understand that you worship at the alter of Law and Order, and instinctually believe that the system is always right, but seriously I would recommend reading more about this case. The conclusions are a lot farther reaching than this one case - there's significant evidence a previously-held basic rule of arson investigation is completely false.

THat isn't what I said at all.

For the record I am against the death penalty for all but the most heinous acts where guilt is obvious.

In THIS case, all I said was that the prosecutor did NOT actively hide evidence of a guy's innocence. and they didn't. You people are just stupid.

If the prosecutor had evidence that other evidence important to the case was discredited and refused to share that information with the defense, he most certainly broke the law.

That's what the recently-filed petition is claiming.

No wrong.

The prosecutors are only ONLY obligated to turn over evidence that they plan on using in court.

Learn the law.

Obviously this prosecutor wasn't going to use some evidence that his experts were wrong in court.

This case will go nowhere. You act like the mere fact that a suit was filed means the prosecutor acted wrongly. It doesn't.

I don't believe that I'm "acting" in any such way - I have no idea how the case against the prosecutor will go.

The suit against the prosecutor is entirely irrelevant to anything I've posted. I believe your interpretation of the rules of discovery are a little confused, though.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I'm curious as to whether or not any of you actually READ this article?

From the article

according to the petition and complaint filed. Forensic evidence from the arson investigators was later discredited by experts who claimed that the investigators had “misinterpreted” the evidence.

prosecutors aren't required to hire experts to examine the work done by their own investigators, nor are they required to tell the defense if someone else has.

Also, there is no actual proof that this guy didn't commit the murders.

Morons

So your standard for the death penalty is now "there's no proof he didn't do it"?

I understand that you worship at the alter of Law and Order, and instinctually believe that the system is always right, but seriously I would recommend reading more about this case. The conclusions are a lot farther reaching than this one case - there's significant evidence a previously-held basic rule of arson investigation is completely false.

THat isn't what I said at all.

For the record I am against the death penalty for all but the most heinous acts where guilt is obvious.

In THIS case, all I said was that the prosecutor did NOT actively hide evidence of a guy's innocence. and they didn't. You people are just stupid.

If the prosecutor had evidence that other evidence important to the case was discredited and refused to share that information with the defense, he most certainly broke the law.

That's what the recently-filed petition is claiming.

No wrong.

The prosecutors are only ONLY obligated to turn over evidence that they plan on using in court.

Learn the law.

Obviously this prosecutor wasn't going to use some evidence that his experts were wrong in court.

This case will go nowhere. You act like the mere fact that a suit was filed means the prosecutor acted wrongly. It doesn't.

I don't believe that I'm "acting" in any such way - I have no idea how the case against the prosecutor will go.

The suit against the prosecutor is entirely irrelevant to anything I've posted. I believe your interpretation of the rules of discovery are a little confused, though.

No, my interpretation is spot on. I'm not even saying it's right. but prosecutors keep stuff hidden all the time until they decide "yes we must use this is court" then they turn it over in discovery.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So your standard for the death penalty is now "there's no proof he didn't do it"?

I understand that you worship at the alter of Law and Order, and instinctually believe that the system is always right, but seriously I would recommend reading more about this case. The conclusions are a lot farther reaching than this one case - there's significant evidence a previously-held basic rule of arson investigation is completely false.

THat isn't what I said at all.

For the record I am against the death penalty for all but the most heinous acts where guilt is obvious.

In THIS case, all I said was that the prosecutor did NOT actively hide evidence of a guy's innocence. and they didn't. You people are just stupid.

If the prosecutor had evidence that other evidence important to the case was discredited and refused to share that information with the defense, he most certainly broke the law.

That's what the recently-filed petition is claiming.

No wrong.

The prosecutors are only ONLY obligated to turn over evidence that they plan on using in court.

Learn the law.

Obviously this prosecutor wasn't going to use some evidence that his experts were wrong in court.

This case will go nowhere. You act like the mere fact that a suit was filed means the prosecutor acted wrongly. It doesn't.

I don't believe that I'm "acting" in any such way - I have no idea how the case against the prosecutor will go.

The suit against the prosecutor is entirely irrelevant to anything I've posted. I believe your interpretation of the rules of discovery are a little confused, though.

No, my interpretation is spot on. I'm not even saying it's right. but prosecutors keep stuff hidden all the time until they decide "yes we must use this is court" then they turn it over in discovery.

Let me try a hypothetical situation out.

A man is on trial for first degree murder based on eyewitness testimony. During the trial, the DA finds out that their eyewitness was in police custody a county away at the time the murder was committed.

Under your understanding of the rules of discovery, are you saying that the DA could simply ignore that evidence, not share it with the defense, and continue on with the trial?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

THat isn't what I said at all.

For the record I am against the death penalty for all but the most heinous acts where guilt is obvious.

In THIS case, all I said was that the prosecutor did NOT actively hide evidence of a guy's innocence. and they didn't. You people are just stupid.

If the prosecutor had evidence that other evidence important to the case was discredited and refused to share that information with the defense, he most certainly broke the law.

That's what the recently-filed petition is claiming.

No wrong.

The prosecutors are only ONLY obligated to turn over evidence that they plan on using in court.

Learn the law.

Obviously this prosecutor wasn't going to use some evidence that his experts were wrong in court.

This case will go nowhere. You act like the mere fact that a suit was filed means the prosecutor acted wrongly. It doesn't.

I don't believe that I'm "acting" in any such way - I have no idea how the case against the prosecutor will go.

The suit against the prosecutor is entirely irrelevant to anything I've posted. I believe your interpretation of the rules of discovery are a little confused, though.

No, my interpretation is spot on. I'm not even saying it's right. but prosecutors keep stuff hidden all the time until they decide "yes we must use this is court" then they turn it over in discovery.

Let me try a hypothetical situation out.

A man is on trial for first degree murder based on eyewitness testimony. During the trial, the DA finds out that their eyewitness was in police custody a county away at the time the murder was committed.

Under your understanding of the rules of discovery, are you saying that the DA could simply ignore that evidence, not share it with the defense, and continue on with the trial?

Um no, See, you don't even bother to read. Under YOUR hypothetical , the DA is using that witness in court, so if they KNOW he is lying they are obligated to not put him on the stand. If they do , they are aiding perjury.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If the prosecutor had evidence that other evidence important to the case was discredited and refused to share that information with the defense, he most certainly broke the law.

That's what the recently-filed petition is claiming.

No wrong.

The prosecutors are only ONLY obligated to turn over evidence that they plan on using in court.

Learn the law.

Obviously this prosecutor wasn't going to use some evidence that his experts were wrong in court.

This case will go nowhere. You act like the mere fact that a suit was filed means the prosecutor acted wrongly. It doesn't.

I don't believe that I'm "acting" in any such way - I have no idea how the case against the prosecutor will go.

The suit against the prosecutor is entirely irrelevant to anything I've posted. I believe your interpretation of the rules of discovery are a little confused, though.

No, my interpretation is spot on. I'm not even saying it's right. but prosecutors keep stuff hidden all the time until they decide "yes we must use this is court" then they turn it over in discovery.

Let me try a hypothetical situation out.

A man is on trial for first degree murder based on eyewitness testimony. During the trial, the DA finds out that their eyewitness was in police custody a county away at the time the murder was committed.

Under your understanding of the rules of discovery, are you saying that the DA could simply ignore that evidence, not share it with the defense, and continue on with the trial?

Um no, See, you don't even bother to read. Under YOUR hypothetical , the DA is using that witness in court, so if they KNOW he is lying they are obligated to not put him on the stand. If they do , they are aiding perjury.

How is that different from the case in the OP - if the DA is using expert testimony in court that they know to be faulty?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No wrong.

The prosecutors are only ONLY obligated to turn over evidence that they plan on using in court.

Learn the law.

Obviously this prosecutor wasn't going to use some evidence that his experts were wrong in court.

This case will go nowhere. You act like the mere fact that a suit was filed means the prosecutor acted wrongly. It doesn't.

I don't believe that I'm "acting" in any such way - I have no idea how the case against the prosecutor will go.

The suit against the prosecutor is entirely irrelevant to anything I've posted. I believe your interpretation of the rules of discovery are a little confused, though.

No, my interpretation is spot on. I'm not even saying it's right. but prosecutors keep stuff hidden all the time until they decide "yes we must use this is court" then they turn it over in discovery.

Let me try a hypothetical situation out.

A man is on trial for first degree murder based on eyewitness testimony. During the trial, the DA finds out that their eyewitness was in police custody a county away at the time the murder was committed.

Under your understanding of the rules of discovery, are you saying that the DA could simply ignore that evidence, not share it with the defense, and continue on with the trial?

Um no, See, you don't even bother to read. Under YOUR hypothetical , the DA is using that witness in court, so if they KNOW he is lying they are obligated to not put him on the stand. If they do , they are aiding perjury.

How is that different from the case in the OP - if the DA is using expert testimony in court that they know to be faulty?

They did NOT know it do be faulty. They believed that there witness knew more than another expert. Both being "experts" , that's why the defense can call their own witness to let the jury decide.