Rick Perry May have Violated Federal Law in Willingham Execution

I Was Taught... (0.00 / 0)

It's better that a criminal/guilty man/killer go free than to imprison/execute an innocent one. What ever happened to that? Perry and the state of Texas just don't give a damn.

---

by: David T @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 12:44:42 PM CDT

Bloodthirsty Texans (3.00 / 1)

He has to feed his intellectually deficient, bloodthirsty base.  

---

by: TXsharon @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 15:04:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Be careful, (0.00 / 0)

since we don't know that Willingham was innocent. We'll probably never know whether the fire was an accident or arson.

What we do know is that the prosecution was based on shoddy work. We know that important questions were raised long before Willingham was executed, and the Perry ignored them. We know that, based on the information available, Willingham should never have been executed. We know that Perry is trying to cover up his previous disregard for justice (and for human life) by firing the people who were going to officially weigh in on it.

What Perry did was awful, and Glenn Smith is right to cry "foul". Perry is unfit to govern Texas! But saying "an innocent man was executed" is jumping to conclusions in the same way that the prosecutors and jury in the Willingham case did. (Thank goodness the consequences aren't nearly as bad.)

---

by: LSadun @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 15:16:14 PM CDT

My understanding (3.00 / 1)

is that the fire was likely not arson based the science. So, if he's innocent of arson then he's innocent of murder.

State fire investigators and Corsicana fire officials maintained that burn patterns, cracked windows and other signs pointed to arson.

[...]

At trial, prosecutors told jurors that Willingham had intentionally left his daughters to die in a burning home.

But myriad scientists say that conclusion of arson was based on outdated training that, at the time of trial 15 years ago, had already been replaced by science-based methods that would have pointed to bad wiring or a space heater.[Emphasis Added.]

Maybe he was guilty of a lot of things, but there is sufficient doubt that Willingham was guilty of murder.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 20:12:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not arson (0.00 / 0)

"based on the science."

---

by: Elsbeth @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 20:16:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's plenty of doubt (0.00 / 0)

and if I were on a jury I'd certainly vote to acquit. This was a huge miscarriage of justice. But "likely not arson" doesn't mean "definitely not arson". In truth, we'll never know.

---

by: LSadun @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 23:39:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lorenzo..."A finding of arson could not be sustained" (3.00 / 2)

That is what Dr Craig Beyler wrote in the report that was going to be discussed at the Oct 2 meeting of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, until Perry pulled his Richard Nixon act.

---

by: Scott Cobb @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:14:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Guilty, innocent, or unsure? (0.00 / 0)

We agree that the evidence against Willingham was weak and horribly mis-handled, that he should never have been convicted, and that he certainly should never have been executed. It's very likely that Willingham was completely innocent. (We also agree that Perry's overhaul of the panel was an awful abuse of power, and that this case is a strong indictment of how capital punishment is applied in Texas.)

But concluding that "a finding of arson could not be sustained" doesn't mean it wasn't arson! It just means that the evidence wasn't (nearly) strong enough to show that it was arson.

Our justice system is supposed to acquit people for whom there is a reasonable doubt of guilt. With BS evidence against him, Willingham should certainly have been acquitted, and Beyler's report tries to give him an acquittal posthumously.  But a certainty that we reached the wrong verdict is a far cry from a certainty of actual innocence.  

---

by: LSadun @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:41:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you should (0.00 / 0)

write a diary and lay this out better. It seems to be a little too much quibbling as far as I am concerned. Maybe I don't understand.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:34:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No need for a diary (0.00 / 0)

Elsbeth, Scott and I all agree about the big picture -- the justice system failed horribly, and Perry's efforts to cover it up are disgraceful.

All I was trying to say -- from the start -- is that absence of proof isn't proof of absence.  And that, when there's any doubt at all, we're better off saying "how dare we convict somebody on such flimsy evidence?" rather than "we killed an innocent man."

Over and out.  

---

by: LSadun @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:23:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think (0.00 / 0)

the language being used gets it the attention it deserves. "Man convicted on flimsy evidence," may be more technically accurate, but when our state is so blood thirsty, it takes a strong statement to make people give it at least a few more minutes of consideration and the same amount of thought given to the latest football scores. I get what you mean. It is the proper framing for an academic discussion, for sure.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:58:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Impeachment (3.00 / 2)

Is this a call to impeach the Governor? Seems that way.

www.stonewalldemocratsofdentoncounty.org

---

by: John McClelland @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 15:56:10 PM CDT

CNN's Anderson Copper 360 (3.00 / 1)

They did a story on Rick Perry and the Todd Willingham controversy tonight. It reruns at midnight in Austin.  

---

by: Scott Cobb @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 21:48:25 PM CDT

Scott Cobb (0.00 / 0)

I was just watching that on CNN and was going to comment on it. You did a very nice job, by the way (that was you, wasn't it?) They said they tried to interview Perry today and he wasn't available. I betcha they re-run this story over the weekend quite a few times. Talk about legs...this story seems to be growing by the second.  

---

by: Elsbeth @ Fri Oct 02, 2009 at 22:07:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Elsbeth...Yes, that was me. (3.00 / 2)

CNN told me they might post the video of the story on Monday. They said they usually don't put the Friday videos online till Monday. They also said they would keep on the story as it develops.

Barry Scheck was also on MSNBC. Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

---

by: Scott Cobb @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 12:08:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I posted a you tube clip on the CNN interview below. n/t (3.00 / 1)

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 21:44:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Youtube? (3.00 / 1)

Can't the man whose testimony was canceled just record it and put it on youtube or something?  Preserve it just in case the meeting is never rescheduled or he gets H1N1.  

I know the meeting was for the state body to hear the testimony, but reconstitution by Perry is common to get his way.  

---

by: Sara2019 @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 16:17:26 PM CDT

I hope (0.00 / 0)

he's in some kind of witness protection program.

---

by: Elsbeth @ Sat Oct 03, 2009 at 19:52:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Scribd.com (3.00 / 1)

I posted a copy of Dr. Craig Beyler's report on scribd.  We can't hear his testimony, but we can read his report.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2060...

---

by: Sara2019 @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 15:02:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

CNN Anderson Cooper on Perry below (5.00 / 1)

---

by: Libby Shaw @ Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 21:39:48 PM CDT