• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Thoughts on the Willingham murder case

It's been a while since I looked at this thread or thought about It. All the statements and quotations I made came from the court records at the time. If you go back in the thread you should see the links. At the moment I am busy with astrophotography so please excuse me from any further discussion on this matter.
 
Not to mention: http://www.nature.com/news/boston-scandal-exposes-backlog-1.11561


I want the bad guys got and for certain crimes removed from my world with prejudice. BUT, I also want CSIs/DA and related who do not make sure the science/evidence is full and complete before even making an arrest (outside of flight risks) to be in the same danger if they use materials that are fraudulent
to share that fate.. And I would like to take personal charge of that for any lawyer who let's an innocent person be punished to protect his client.
 
Skwinty said:
It's been a while since I looked at this thread or thought about It. All the statements and quotations I made came from the court records at the time. If you go back in the thread you should see the links. At the moment I am busy with astrophotography so please excuse me from any further discussion on this matter.
Click to expand...
No. The link in the first post in this thread is not to a court record but to the website of the Office of the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, a rather different matter.

Secondly you have failed to address either of my points.

#1 The accusation repeated by you that Cameron Willingham assaulted his wife in an attempt to procure a miscarriage. While this claim was made in court it was made during the sentencing phase not during the trial. It is denied by both Willingham and his wife. Further there was no evidence of arrest or medical treatment pertaining to this alleged assault.

#2 Your description of Willingham as a violent sociopath is (apparantly, and please correct me if I'm wrong) based on the testimony of James Grigson, to wit;
Dr. James Grigson testified for the state at punishment. According to his testimony, Willingham fits the profile of a sociopath whose conduct becomes more violent over time, and who lacks a conscience. Grigson explained that a person with this degree of sociopathy commonly has no regard for other people’s property or for other human beings. He expressed his opinion that an individual demonstrating this type of behavior can not be rehabilitated in any manner, and that such a person certainly poses a continuing threat to society.
Click to expand...
Before relying on the opinion of "Dr. Death" I strongly suggest you examine his record of incompetence and malfeasance, particularly the events that caused the APA to expel him in 1995 for uneithical conduct (unfortunately too late for many of those 167 people he diagnosed as "violent sociopaths" in death penalty hearings).
You could start here.

fuelair said:
Not to mention: http://www.nature.com/news/boston-scandal-exposes-backlog-1.11561


I want the bad guys got and for certain crimes removed from my world with prejudice. BUT, I also want CSIs/DA and related who do not make sure the science/evidence is full and complete before even making an arrest (outside of flight risks) to be in the same danger if they use materials that are fraudulent
to share that fate.. And I would like to take personal charge of that for any lawyer who let's an innocent person be punished to protect his client.
Click to expand...
"The Prosecutor is a servant of the people and the government. He is an advocate for both. He must be vigilant in the quest to seek out and convict the guilty, but must also ensure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted or oppressed. He must strive to preserve the public welfare and safety of all citizens. He must always seek justice."
This is, ironically, from the website of the Office of the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney.
:rolleyes:
 
Bump. Given that Skwinty is active again. Or is this thread being left to die?
 
deal made with witness

The other major development in this case is that it has become clearer that the state withheld information from the defense on its jailhouse snitch witness. Why am I not surprised?
 
A report on the Willingham and Willis cases

This link is to a report by several individuals, including John Lentini. The report covers both the Cameron Todd Willingham case and the Ernest Ray Willis case. It discusses what happens to the appearance of a room after flashover is reached and the whole room is involved. The Executive Summary states in part, "Neither the fire that killed the three Willingham children nor the fire that killed Elizabeth Grace Belue and Gail Joe Allison were incendiary fires. The artifacts examined and relied upon by the fire investigators in both cases are the kind of artifacts routinely created by accidental fires that progress beyond flashover.
 
Skwinty said:
.....
It sure does, based on the court testimony.
Please read the link and comments below.
....
Click to expand...

All this is character assassination. If the guy didn't set this fire -- and the evidence is compelling that he did not -- then none of the rest matters.
 
The Beyler Report

Many of the nation's top arson investigators have offered their thoughts on the Willingham fire. One of the is Craig Beyler. A link to his report can be found here and here. It is a long read, but it is worth it if fire science is a personal or professional interest. The Willis case is also treated.

"FM Vasquez is unique among the investigators of both fires in his attitudes toward arson and fire scene examination. His statistics of the fraction of fires which are in fact arson are remarkable and far exceed any rational estimate. It reflects his predisposition to find arson in his cases. This directly violates NFPA 921 and professional norms in general. His quotations that “The fire tells a story, I am just the interpreter,” and “the fire does not lie, it tells me the truth,” are hardly consistent with a scientific mindset and is more characteristic of mystics or psychics. The quotes separate the findings from his own judgment and seek to make him not responsible for his own interpretation. It seems to deny the role of rational reasoning. It is an expression of fire investigation as a mystical art rather than an application of science and reason."
 
Another retrospective viewpoint

In Chapter 3 of the book Forensic Science Reform, Rachel Dioso-Villa wrote, "Willingham's conviction and execution have illustrated the the dangers of admitting unsound Aron evidence into court and the blind reliance inexperts who do not have a science-based foundation for their beliefs."
 
A general problem in wrongful convictions

Skwinty said:
In the case of Willingham, according to court testimony, this doesn't seem to be one of them though.
Click to expand...
The previous links I have provided cast grave doubts on the original finding of arson. I hope that we can agree that this point is settled, but if not, we can discuss further, as far as I am concerned.

If I understand Skwinty's argument correctly, it is that court testimony about Mr. Willingham's behavior during the fire indicated that he did not try to save his children. The fundamental problem with this argument is that people's recollections changed over time in this case, something that David Grann's New Yorker article pointed out. What's more, this phenomenon is more general. Some fraction of this phenomenon just happens as people reinterpret (reinvent?) events in light of newer information or beliefs, but police questioning of witnesses can cause some fraction of it.
 
This case seemed for a long time to support the idea the exception proves the rule.

The rule is:

The death penalty focusses minds and volunteers so it becomes unlikely in modern times an innocent man will be executed.
The recent execution of Larry Swearingham disproves the rule as will the continuing endeavours to kill Richard Glossip.

RIP Willingham and Swearingham.
 
Samson said:
This case seemed for a long time to support the idea the exception proves the rule.

The rule is:

The death penalty focusses minds and volunteers so it becomes unlikely in modern times an innocent man will be executed.
The recent execution of Larry Swearingham disproves the rule as will the continuing endeavours to kill Richard Glossip.
....
Click to expand...

The legal system certainly makes mistakes, and that possibiity alone is the strongest argument against the death penalty. But it doesn't sound like Swearingen is one of them. Finding the victim's belongings at the defendant's home without explanation is suspicious enough. This might not be the guy to go to the mat for.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...-to-accept-this-as-my-fate-Larry-14366702.php
 
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides said:
.....
If I understand Skwinty's argument correctly, it is that court testimony about Mr. Willingham's behavior during the fire indicated that he did not try to save his children. The fundamental problem with this argument is that people's recollections changed over time in this case, something that David Grann's New Yorker article pointed out.
......
Click to expand...

The thing is how he acted doesn't matter if he didn't start the fire. He might have been terrified, confused, impaired or just seized by the primal instinct for self-preservation. If he didn't start it, he's not guilty.
 
Bob001 said:
The legal system certainly makes mistakes, and that possibiity alone is the strongest argument against the death penalty. But it doesn't sound like Swearingen is one of them. Finding the victim's belongings at the defendant's home without explanation is suspicious enough. This might not be the guy to go to the mat for.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...-to-accept-this-as-my-fate-Larry-14366702.php
Click to expand...
I checked and Swearingen has not joined Willingham on the Wiki list, which has just 3 other names post war.
However, he was in jail 22 days when the victim's body was discovered in so remarkable a condition pathologists declared it irreconcilable with a 25 days deceased person.

I will start a thread as this is important.
eta Your link is behind a paywall so maybe you could post the important indicators of guilt from it to the thread I just started

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346176
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I checked and Swearingen has not joined Willingham on the Wiki list, which has just 3 other names post war.
However, he was in jail 22 days when the victim's body was discovered in so remarkable a condition pathologists declared it irreconcilable with a 25 days deceased person.

I will start a thread as this is important.
eta Your link is behind a paywall so maybe you could post the important indicators of guilt from it to the thread I just started

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=346176
Click to expand...

It's not behind a paywall for me, and I haven't paid. Try clearing your cookies or using a different browser.

The link is basically a summary of the case, with the arguments from both sides. There isn't any one smoking gun.

I'll repost in the other link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom