jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
The thread title was edited. The original thread title quoted the moderated content in the OP. I will note the edit to clear up this bit of confusion.
Ed Thoughts on the Willingham murder case
- Thread starter Skwinty
- Start date
The thread title was edited. The original thread title quoted the moderated content in the OP. I will note the edit to clear up this bit of confusion.
Ah, thanks.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
And in that second link you clearly wrote "regardless of how the fire started", and that he deserved to be executed. I'm firmly with Rolfe here, that comment is IMHO appalling. I hope you retract that. Quite apart from the fact that I'm against death penalty in general - you've been explained how a fire situation can be, with a first-hand account by Skeptic Ginger. Demanding that someone deserves the harshest penalty for not being able to save his kids in such a situation is inhumane.
It's quite a different situation you've set up now. You've presented contrary evidence. I'm certainly open to revising my opinion - which was based on the New Yorker article, that is, from an AFAIK very reputable magazine when it comes to investigative journalism - but I'm not sure if I'm willing to invest the time needed to evaluate for myself the needed evidence. I'll give some comments from what I remember from the New Yorker article. Mind, these are the "buts" that I remember from reading the New Yorker article and it doesn't mean I stand by them, but it does illustrate that reaching a conclusion for myself in this case would mean a considerable investment in time.
No, but once the fire forensics had concluded it was arson, police sought all kinds of corroborating evidence. He had a pro bono lawyer who firmly believed he was guilty, pressed him to take a plea bargain and obviously didn't have his heart at the case.
The thick smoke prevented him from seeing her, and he yelled at her to get the hell out of the house.
Wasn't mentioned by the New Yorker, except for the car. They did, however mention that the testimonies of the neighbours directly after the fire differed substantially from the testimonies that were taken after the forensics guys had determined it was arson. That is not necessarily perjury. Recalling the same memories, but now with the fact added that it was an arson, those facts that jive with the arson premise will be remembered more prominently than those facts that don't. If you will, that works both ways.
A pro bono lawyer is not likely to sift through those testimonies to seek out the differences and grill those neighbours on the stand for inconsistencies or incompleteness. Willingham wasn't the brightest bulb in the box, nor did he have an online fanclub who could do that for him.
The New Yorker mentioned a couple of other testimonies: a psychologist who mused about violent tendencies based on Iron Maiden and Led Zeppelin posters; and a psychiatrist who gave a diagnosis without having examined him.
Really, Skwinty, no conspiracy needed. A prosecution who had a prime indication - that the fire was arson - and then pursued that avenue and sought out every available indication to present in court. And on his side a pro bono lawyer - really, how many people on death row paid for their lawyers themselves?
No you said you thought he was guilty, but you clearly said that even if he was not guilty of arson he should be executed nevertheless.
But as you see, before reaching a conclusion, that means going through a considerable heap of evidence, trial transcripts, testimony transcripts to see which arguments from which side have merit.
Skwinty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5,593
I will not retract my opinion that Willingham deserved the death penalty.
That is my opinion regardless of how disgusting anyone may find it.
Last night 2 children were killed by a train. This occurred at night and the ages of the 2 children were 2 and 3 years old.
I hope that the parents who allowed their children of this age to play on an active railway line at night get punished to the full extent of the law.
Luckily for them South Africa does not have the death penalty. Their (the parents) actions or lack thereof are inexcusable and criminal.
If these types of people have no respect for the lives of their own children, why should I have respect for their life.
Incidentally, does the US military tribunal still implement the death penalty for cowardice?
Are you also disgusted by that?
That is my opinion regardless of how disgusting anyone may find it.
Last night 2 children were killed by a train. This occurred at night and the ages of the 2 children were 2 and 3 years old.
I hope that the parents who allowed their children of this age to play on an active railway line at night get punished to the full extent of the law.
Luckily for them South Africa does not have the death penalty. Their (the parents) actions or lack thereof are inexcusable and criminal.
If these types of people have no respect for the lives of their own children, why should I have respect for their life.
Incidentally, does the US military tribunal still implement the death penalty for cowardice?
Are you also disgusted by that?
Skwinty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5,593
Yes, I know. I can remember what I wrote 2 days ago.
Deserved =/= Demanding. The prosecution demanded that and that is what they got.
Standing around doing nothing while your children burn to death is inhumane, not some person 15,000 km away expressing an opinion.
The facts in evidence have not changed. I made a judgement call based on the Times article,
Turns out I was correct.
If I was incorrect, then I would be the first to apologise and withdraw my statement.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Yes, based on the finding that Willingham had deliberately started the fire with the intention of killing the children. Not as a punishment for insufficient bravery in relation to an accidental fire!
It's all sorts of epithets, I agree. But if the fire was accidental in origin (or even if it was deliberate but Willingham had no hand in starting it), NOT, not not not not and I can't say this enough, a capital offence.
I was never referring to the facts you present. They are and always were irrelevant to the point I was making. You made a "what-if" statement - what if the fire hadn't been arson? In that case, you declared that Willingham deserved to be executed anyway. I believe this to be wrong in the most fundamental way.
I don't support the death penalty, in principle. But there are some people who are, shall we say, not the poster children for the abolition movement. Someone who has deliberately started a house fire in order to kill his own children is not someone I would go to bat for in that respect.
However, the judicial taking of a life is a very very serious business. Perhaps the most serious business there is. If it's justifiable at all, it should be done only in response to the most heinous crimes, and after a great deal of deliberation. I believe that is the actual position in the USA.
The cavalier call that the man "deserved to be executed", even if all he'd been guilty of was cowardice in the face of a raging inferno, was what I was objecting to. And I still do. It's the attitude of someone who holds human life cheap.
I'm not going to say you're wrong to call for the death penalty if Willingham committed murder by arson. It's a perfectly reasonable position, if you support the death penalty at all. Calling for the death penalty for cowardice in the face of a house fire, though - will you just think about what you said, for goodness sake?
Rolfe.
Skwinty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5,593
Rolfe, will you please just think about this, and this is my point.
The Willingham case was charged as a multiple child murder, and not an arson-murder to achieve capital status. 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. While anti-death penalty advocates can muster some remarkably good arguments, Todd Willingham should not be anyone's poster child.
Rolfe
Adult human female
That is a most peculiar statement. How can you possibly justify calling that murder, if he didn't start the fire?
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
I'm aware you're not the prosecutor. So how about "your saying that he deserved..." and then you reacting to the sentence?
The generality of this statement again is appalling. Firefighters are specialized to go into burning buildings, ordinary people not.
The New Yorker article I presume? Could you then point out on basis of what?
Did you read my previous post, in which I listed the various challenges the New Yorker put to the official court story?
You'd still say he deserved the death penalty even if he barely made it out of his house alive himself.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
I'm not conversant with the details of Texas law what has to be charged to achieve capital status - I get as much that a single murder is not enough. But what you wrote above simply cannot be.
"Murder" requires (a) premeditation, and (b) an active act. "Manslaughter" requires an active act.
When the fire was not an arson - and therefore accidental, I cannot see for one moment how this scenario could be either of them.
How can you premeditate a scenario of accidental fire? "If there's a short-circuit in the children's bedroom, I'm gonna flee the house and leave them there". Great kind of premeditation.
He also didn't active kill them. He left them in a fire. Without the arson, at most you could prove negligent homicide.
Finally, Skwinty, for keeping this debate tidy, could you please "take the death penalty off the table" so to say? If you continue to make claims like "in this scenario, he deserves the death penalty", in good conscience I cannot say anything else than "No". If you phrase it like "in this scenario he deserves the severest penalty", I can agree with you if I also think that scenario is a very grave crime. You've thrown around very liberally with the death penalty thus far, and it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
Sir Robin Goodfellow
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,804
The neighbours who didn't run into the fire should be killed too, I guess.
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,796
I would encourage everyone commenting on the case to read the article in The New Yorker. It shows how the case against Willingham is unfounded, and further demonstrates how it is extremely unlikely that arson actually occurred.
It's a good thing that's not how the world actually works. What's your thought process, here? I do not value X, therefore X should be eliminated? It's hard to fathom how a society could function with that prevailing attitude.
Agreed. Might as well throw in everyone who refrains from volunteering for the fire department, as well. Cowards, the lot of of them!
It's a good thing that's not how the world actually works. What's your thought process, here? I do not value X, therefore X should be eliminated? It's hard to fathom how a society could function with that prevailing attitude.
Agreed. Might as well throw in everyone who refrains from volunteering for the fire department, as well. Cowards, the lot of of them!
ddt
Mafia Penguin
Bump.
Skwinty?
Skwinty?
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,572
along with discredited arson evidence, there is now tainted testimony
The NYT reported "As he worked through the stack of papers, he saw a note scrawled on the inside of the district attorney’s file folder stating that Mr. Webb’s charges were to be listed as robbery in the second degree, not the heavier first-degree robbery charge he had originally been convicted on, 'based on coop in Willingham.'" In other words a jail house snitch got a reduction in his sentence for making a statement against Willingham, in spite of the testimony of then DA Jackson to the contrary. Why am I no longer surprised?
The NYT reported "As he worked through the stack of papers, he saw a note scrawled on the inside of the district attorney’s file folder stating that Mr. Webb’s charges were to be listed as robbery in the second degree, not the heavier first-degree robbery charge he had originally been convicted on, 'based on coop in Willingham.'" In other words a jail house snitch got a reduction in his sentence for making a statement against Willingham, in spite of the testimony of then DA Jackson to the contrary. Why am I no longer surprised?
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 14,103
The United States military has not carried out a death sentence since 1961 and apparently only one death sentence was carried out for desertion/cowardice. There are currently 5 people awaiting execution having been sentenced to such by a US military court martial, every one of them convicted of multiple counts of murder.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Indeed. Polygraphy is pseudo-scientific nonsense. Frankly any LEA that still relies on such rubbish has serious problems.
Of course.
I take it the prosecutor hasn't been charged with perjury? Such a failure to provide material facts to the defense would be sufficient to invalidate a conviction in other jurisdictions.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Fascinating. I've just looked over some material on this case (of which I'd never previously heard); a classic mix of junk forensics, dubious and contradictory testimony and now possible prosecutorial misconduct.
And of course he was executed in a election year.
And of course he was executed in a election year.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,572
the note is a recent development
From what I can gather, the incriminating note has just recently come to light. I recall one or more interviews with the now retired Judge Jackson, which probably deserve to be reexamined. Here is a link to a blog entry on the case. The author had several entries.
Last edited:
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Do you have any evidence for this claim? While I've seen it cited (by the prosecutor) there is no available evidence of any arrest for such an offense and Willingham's wife specifically denied any such incident took place. She also continued the relationship after the date of the alleged attack.
Do you have any evidence for this cleams, viz, that "Willingham was a serial wife abuser" and that he was a violent sociopath?