Texas Executed An Innocent Father

[Sonny Clark]

Innocent people being executed should be an insurmountable bar to execution.

In the prosecutor's case, the DA's office is probably building a second degree murder or willful homicide case against Jackson. If it is built right, Jackson will ieave prison someday in a pine box.

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.

You are WRONG. They have ALREADY killed again, many times over. See Post # 17. Helps if you read the thread before entering.

Here's 2 examples >> Jeffrey Dahmer s killer explains why he did it - CNN.com

Does that excuse or justify sending innocent citizens to prison, and in some cases, to death row? Do you approve of circumstantial evidence cases?

1. Of course it doesn't excuse or justify sending innocent citizens to prison,and why are you asking me that, when I never even came close to saying such a thing. In fact in mor ethan 1 post I said convictions soul dbe only when the proof is positive.

2. I absolutely do approve of circumstantial evidence cases, and depending on the forensics, they are some of the most positive cases of all.

If they prove guilt, then why do we have so many innocent citizens in our prisons and jails? And, forensics is not absolute science, and labs are known to make mistakes. I have posted many links in this thread that show many lab results are flawed and identify the wrong person.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

Charge the DA with murder then.

 

[protectionist]

How can they kill someone if they're in solitary confinement? How often do inmates kill other inmates? How common is it? And, it takes years of appeals before the death sentence is carried out. Are you saying that once the death sentence is announced, the execution should immediately be carried out?

Dude, I already answered that. I ought to charge you for making me do extra unecessary typing. I already answered the years of appeals line too. Are you getting enough sleep ? I mean really.

 

[Sonny Clark]

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.

That doesn't take away the RISK of others being killed as long as these killers remain alive (ANYWHERE) Even in solitary confinement, they can kill again.

How can they kill someone if they're in solitary confinement? How often do inmates kill other inmates? How common is it? And, it takes years of appeals before the death sentence is carried out. Are you saying that once the death sentence is announced, the execution should immediately be carried out?

Dude, I already answered that. I ought to charge you for making me do extra unecessary typing. I already answered the years of appeals line too. Are you getting enough sleep ? I mean really.

Sure, I get plenty of sleep. I stay well rested. I'm retired, so I take it easy.

 

[protectionist]

If they prove guilt, then why do we have so many innocent citizens in our prisons and jails? And, forensics is not absolute science, and labs are known to make mistakes. I have posted many links in this thread that show many lab results are flawed and identify the wrong person.

Sounds like you still didn't watch Forensic Files. I dont believe you did.

 

[protectionist]

[
Sure, I get plenty of sleep. I stay well rested. I'm retired, so I take it easy.

Then maybe you can look up where I already answered your questions.

 

[Care4all]

Innocent people being executed should be an insurmountable bar to execution.

In the prosecutor's case, the DA's office is probably building a second degree murder or willful homicide case against Jackson. If it is built right, Jackson will ieave prison someday in a pine box.

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.

You are WRONG. They have ALREADY killed again, many times over. See Post # 17. Helps if you read the thread before entering.

Here's 2 examples >> Jeffrey Dahmer s killer explains why he did it - CNN.com

I can understand the Death Penalty, for serial killers like Bundy.... though young, I was in Florida at the time and I do remember a sense of sadness that I felt, at the moment he was killed....I felt no joy, in him being killed, but I knew it was necessary.

When you have a serial killer, there is no chance, what so ever, that this citizen is innocent of the crimes.

This man in this op was NOT a serial killer, yet every single Texan alive at the time, KILLED/MURDERED HIM....
it's their hands filled with BLOOD....because their system that they voted for and keep in place with its faults and heavy hand, killed him....

I see both those on the right and left on another thread, actually in agreement on how awful it is to confiscate large sums of cash from innocent citizens....both sides are outraged....over the gvt doing this....

Yet, the gvt KILLS innocent people, and you all still think it is all A-OK to do that but not A-ok to take someone's money that is innocent....? Killing the innocent, OK. Taking money from the innocent, NOT OK.

WHAT gives with that....?

 

[Sonny Clark]

If they prove guilt, then why do we have so many innocent citizens in our prisons and jails? And, forensics is not absolute science, and labs are known to make mistakes. I have posted many links in this thread that show many lab results are flawed and identify the wrong person.

Sounds like you still didn't watch Forensic Files. I dont believe you did.

Really, I couldn't care less what you believe that I did or didn't do. I have watched the program, and others like it. What does that have to do with the conversation? Watching a TV program doesn't change anything. I watch news, weather, sports, documentaries, mini-series, and sometimes, movies. You are entitled to believe anything you wish to believe, it's none of my business.

 

[Disir]

Shit happens until it's one of yours or you yourself.

Yep... ya pays yer money and takes yer chances.

That's why it's so important to do everything that we can to minimize the risk of that happening.

As things stand now, such Quality Control is oftentimes insufficient to prevent such mistakes OR such intentional and malignant mischief on the part of officials.

They say that the Devil is in the details, and there are a thousand-and-one ways to construct a series of Reforms and Safeguards for such matters.

All one needs is a little imagination and an understanding of the need for secondary or tertiary review by outside-the-jurisdiction non-stakeholders - a peer review process - in order to devise vastly better standards and quality control measures, which can also double as a means to accelerate the entire review and appeals process.

If we kill 99 Bad Guys and accidentally kill 1 Good Guy, that's an Acceptable Loss Ratio.

The Law is meant to be impersonal and cold and logical in such matters.

Touchy-feely - even in connection with ourselves or our own people - doesn't really enter into it.

But, of course, it has to be administered by men and women of backbone.

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.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why did JakeStarkey run away , rather than just admitting I was right?

oh and Sonny Clark you are an idiot. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" 12 people decided they had no reasonable doubt that this guy was guilty. His appeals agreed there was no procedural errors. You can't have a better system than that.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yep... ya pays yer money and takes yer chances.

That's why it's so important to do everything that we can to minimize the risk of that happening.

As things stand now, such Quality Control is oftentimes insufficient to prevent such mistakes OR such intentional and malignant mischief on the part of officials.

They say that the Devil is in the details, and there are a thousand-and-one ways to construct a series of Reforms and Safeguards for such matters.

All one needs is a little imagination and an understanding of the need for secondary or tertiary review by outside-the-jurisdiction non-stakeholders - a peer review process - in order to devise vastly better standards and quality control measures, which can also double as a means to accelerate the entire review and appeals process.

If we kill 99 Bad Guys and accidentally kill 1 Good Guy, that's an Acceptable Loss Ratio.

The Law is meant to be impersonal and cold and logical in such matters.

Touchy-feely - even in connection with ourselves or our own people - doesn't really enter into it.

But, of course, it has to be administered by men and women of backbone.

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.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yep... ya pays yer money and takes yer chances.

That's why it's so important to do everything that we can to minimize the risk of that happening.

As things stand now, such Quality Control is oftentimes insufficient to prevent such mistakes OR such intentional and malignant mischief on the part of officials.

They say that the Devil is in the details, and there are a thousand-and-one ways to construct a series of Reforms and Safeguards for such matters.

All one needs is a little imagination and an understanding of the need for secondary or tertiary review by outside-the-jurisdiction non-stakeholders - a peer review process - in order to devise vastly better standards and quality control measures, which can also double as a means to accelerate the entire review and appeals process.

If we kill 99 Bad Guys and accidentally kill 1 Good Guy, that's an Acceptable Loss Ratio.

The Law is meant to be impersonal and cold and logical in such matters.

Touchy-feely - even in connection with ourselves or our own people - doesn't really enter into it.

But, of course, it has to be administered by men and women of backbone.

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.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Why did JakeStarkey run away , rather than just admitting I was right?

oh and Sonny Clark you are an idiot. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" 12 people decided they had no reasonable doubt that this guy was guilty. His appeals agreed there was no procedural errors. You can't have a better system than that.

BS ... simply BS ......... then please explain why we have so many innocent citizens in our jails and prisons.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why did JakeStarkey run away , rather than just admitting I was right?

oh and Sonny Clark you are an idiot. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" 12 people decided they had no reasonable doubt that this guy was guilty. His appeals agreed there was no procedural errors. You can't have a better system than that.

BS ... simply BS ......... then please explain why we have so many innocent citizens in our jails and prisons.

Same reason we have so many guilty people walk away Sonny. No system that involves humans in perfect. But seriously, instead of bitching, why don't you make some suggestions?

I for one would favor professional juries. People who are given some level of legal training and are paid to travel around to various trials when needed.

 

[Sonny Clark]

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.

So, jail house snitches aren't allowed to testify? Since when? And, all witnesses are checked for reliability before they take the stand? And, bias and prejudice never enter the picture with witness testimony?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

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.

So, jail house snitches aren't allowed to testify? Since when? And, all witnesses are checked for reliability before they take the stand? And, bias and prejudice never enter the picture with witness testimony?

Jailhouse snitches ARE allowed to testify, they aren't allowed to testify to hearsay.

Of course witnesses are checked for reliability before they are put on a stand.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Why did JakeStarkey run away , rather than just admitting I was right?

oh and Sonny Clark you are an idiot. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" 12 people decided they had no reasonable doubt that this guy was guilty. His appeals agreed there was no procedural errors. You can't have a better system than that.

BS ... simply BS ......... then please explain why we have so many innocent citizens in our jails and prisons.

Same reason we have so many guilty people walk away Sonny. No system that involves humans in perfect. But seriously, instead of bitching, why don't you make some suggestions?

I for one would favor professional juries. People who are given some level of legal training and are paid to travel around to various trials when needed.

My suggestion would be to ONLY allow cases to enter a court room where there's hard rock solid undeniable undisputable concrete evidence available to convict a person. I am totally against circumstantial evidence cases. I'm totally against allowing jail house snitches to testify. I'm totally against having a single lab test and examine evidence. I'm all for severely penalizing prosecutors if a person they convict is later found innocent. They should be placed in prison for the exact same amount of time that the innocent person was in prison. I'm totally against presenting any evidence that can not be proven to be absolute true and correct. I'm totally against members of law enforcement giving testimony in court. In summary, I'm 110% for true justice, and not the BS allowed in our courts today. We have way too many innocent citizens behind bars due to the system of injustice we have in this country.

 

[Sonny Clark]

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.

So, jail house snitches aren't allowed to testify? Since when? And, all witnesses are checked for reliability before they take the stand? And, bias and prejudice never enter the picture with witness testimony?

Jailhouse snitches ARE allowed to testify, they aren't allowed to testify to hearsay.

Of course witnesses are checked for reliability before they are put on a stand.

That's the problem. Jail house snitches are coerced, bias, and most of the time, have a dog in the fight. And, no, witnesses are not checked for reliability before taking the stand. There are many documented cases where witnesses give false testimony.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some of the European models, where the judge and defense and prosecution are in it together to find the truth are impressive, instead of our "gun for hire" model.