TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The man confessed to a family member that he set the fire that killed his kids. This is very strong evidence.

Willingham's ex-wife's brother claims his sister said Willingham confessed to her. I don't think any of the other family members allegedly gathered to hear her make that statement have come forward to confirm the brother's claim. The ex-wife has not spoken with the press, but she has previously defended Willingham and denied that he beat her while she was pregnant (part of Perry's "monster" claim).

I think that would be hearsay of hearsay. Hearsay squared, and by a prejudiced party. Not convincing.

chabouk wrote:He wasn't convicted and executed for beating his pregnant wife, he was convicted and executed for a fire that was not arson.

If you were there, why didn't you help the kids, or at least testify in his defense?

TDDude wrote:Texas is by and far, the leader in the US today as far as fiscal responsibility is concerned. Texas is actively recruiting, and getting, big business from all over the United States to pull up stakes in whatever liberal/bankrupt state that they happen to reside in and move to Texas. Even Toyota is moving a plant from California to the San Antonio area. The Tacoma truck is to be built there.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/To ... to_SA.html

This condition did not happen by mistake and one reason I’m convinced is due to Gov. Perry’s leadership.

Do I like everything he does? Nope. I think he has failed on border issues big time but then again, who in the past 10 years in political leadership hasn’t. Perhaps this fire-execution story has legs and perhaps not. I don’t see any comments by Perry or his spokesman on what is being alleged. They quote the fired guy quoting a former General Council to Perry but that’s as hearsay as it can get.

There is a lot to be gained by liberal power brokers to get rid of our Governor and turn our state congress over to democrats. Plus, the Houston Chronicle is basically a big city liberal rag so please take whatever they choose to report and how they report it with a grain of salt.

I like Kay Bailey Hutchinson as a Senator but she has absolutely no business right now running for Governor. She will do nothing but cause damage to the Texas Republican Party. Gov. Perry is doing fine as governor and this kind of fight will cause more problems than it may solve. This story is an obvious ploy to feed flames to the coming fire.

But hey, what do I know? I’m just a guy who carries a gun every day.

This post was originally started after Perry made some very public statements about this case to a reporter last week. I was embarrassed by his comments and thought that it showed the Governor's ignorance on the whole "due process" intent, including appeals. I responded to the above post in an opposing view. No profanity...etc. It was deleted. Do you have to be pro death penalty, pro Perry, and a card carrying conservative Republican to have a voice on this forum? Was it that I called Perry a Buffoon? That was a response to Perry calling Todd Willingham a "monster". Both are judgement calls. Perry seemed to imply that because he was an otherwise bad man that even if the evidence did not support the crime of arson, the State was still justified in executing him. When that sound bite made the world and national news, I was embarrassed for all Texans...Conservative and Liberal alike! I still believe that Perry is no longer serving Texas in a positive way and that Kay Bailey Hutchinson will make a better Governor and will thoughtfully review last minute appeals before an execution. Perry, unlike his predecessors, refuses to disclose what he and his staff did when presented with the information casting the arson determination into doubt, hours before Todd Willingham was executed.

KD5NRH wrote:

chabouk wrote:He wasn't convicted and executed for beating his pregnant wife, he was convicted and executed for a fire that was not arson.

If you were there, why didn't you help the kids, or at least testify in his defense?

If you were there, why didn't you?

I don't care for your implication that if I wasn't an eye witness, my opinion doesn't matter.

chabouk wrote:I don't care for your implication that if I wasn't an eye witness, my opinion doesn't matter.

I don't care for people who state their opinions as fact.

KD5NRH wrote:

chabouk wrote:I don't care for your implication that if I wasn't an eye witness, my opinion doesn't matter.

I don't care for people who state their opinions as fact.

I think KD5NRH hit the nail on the head. And also shows why the death penalty is flawed. Prosecutors present their opinion of guilt to the jury. Arson investigators present their opinion as well. The defense gives it's opinion. From that the jurist each and individually form their opinion of guilt or innocence. In Willingham's case, those opinions led to a guilty verdict based on the interpretation of the evidence presented. The problem is that this is not a perfect world and sometimes opinions turn out to be wrong. We take the roll of God when we execute someone. It cannot be corrected at a later time when certain opinions turn out to be wrong. I think there is no doubt now that the majority opinion, supported by modern science, shows that an innocent man has been put to death. Very sad and scary in my OPINION!!!

OK Folks, no personal attacks and keep the discussion civil or the thread will be locked.

It appears that the discussion so far has generated into an example of conflict resolution...

I do not care who you are, or what your position is on an issue...Governor Perry could go off on me in the most foul mouthed manner concievable...And you know what...

Nothing will happen...

I may smile, and maybe say something like: "Let me see if I understand you, you think I am a [expletive deleted], and that I can go [expletive deleted]..."

"Ok, governor...I see...How's your campaign going???"

And I walk away...What happens after that will not be of my choosing...(Which is what will happen every single time, no matter who it is)

Now, as far as capital punishment...This guy had every single opportunity to drag out the inevitable, and was given every chance to get ALL the bases covered from what I know about this case...But then again, news is NOT evidence in a court of law, nor would I interject anything either way to drag out the process...

The governor did not administer the injection, he followed the law, and the recomendation of the "system"...If you do not believe people should be held accountable, and be punished for their crimes, then this is not the forum to debate that issue...

What is applicable here is OUR ability to accept the responsibility, and also (more important) to be accountable for our actions...I recall the most revealing portion of all the classes I have taken over the years has been the "conflict resolution" of the Texas CHL class...Which has also been the most rewarding...Attitude is key...

Remember, I'll just smile, try to get the story straight in my head, then turn around and leave...

If by doing that it enrages that person even more...Well...There may be some sad people, somewhere, about it...

I don't see why people in this forum need to get all up into each other about it...

stevie_d, I couldn't have said it better myself. Thank you.

KD5NRH wrote:

chabouk wrote:I don't care for your implication that if I wasn't an eye witness, my opinion doesn't matter.

I don't care for people who state their opinions as fact.

You mean people like Governor Perry?

I don't see this as a General Gun, Shooting, or Equipment topic. . . should be in off-topic or politics.

chabouk wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:I don't care for people who state their opinions as fact.

You mean people like Governor Perry?

Come again.

The original jury examined the evidence and came to a verdict.

The appellate court or courts examined the evidence and didn't overturn the verdict.

The parole and pardons board examined the evidence and didn't stay the execution.

What do all you guys know that they didn't? Facts not opinions.

Dudley wrote:The original jury examined the evidence and came to a verdict.

The appellate court or courts examined the evidence and didn't overturn the verdict.

The parole and pardons board examined the evidence and didn't stay the execution.

What do all you guys know that they didn't? Facts not opinions.

The jury and the courts examined "evidence" (in the form of testimony) that we now know to be seriously flawed. It was "fire science" that was not science at all, and has been refuted by actual scientists.

Every independent arson expert who has examined the case has concluded that it was not arson. If you want to know the detailed facts, there are 17 pages worth of details, background, and expert opinion in The New Yorker article:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... fact_grann" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

chabouk wrote: The jury and the courts examined "evidence" (in the form of testimony) that we now know to be seriously flawed. It was "fire science" that was not science at all, and has been refuted by actual scientists.

I strongly disagree. The jury examined all of the expert testimony presented to them. In the case of expert testimony, the jury is the sole determinant of which expert to believe. The evidence examined by the current media frenzy and the innocence project is not being examined by unbiased scientists, just by experts selected for their point of view. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with saying the first evidence is now proven to be junk. That is the jury's decision to make and no one has sent the case back to a jury for a retrial.

Isn't it interesting that the media is selecting cases that cannot be sent back to the jury for retrial and not presenting the side of the original expert? This is why I am against almost all cases of post-humous review of criminal cases. I have faith in the jury system and the appeal system.

srothstein wrote:

chabouk wrote: The jury and the courts examined "evidence" (in the form of testimony) that we now know to be seriously flawed. It was "fire science" that was not science at all, and has been refuted by actual scientists.

I strongly disagree. The jury examined all of the expert testimony presented to them. In the case of expert testimony, the jury is the sole determinant of which expert to believe.

We agree on this.

I contend that the testimony submitted to the jury was seriously flawed. And, in our current system, once a jury determines facts, those "facts" aren't subject to review, no matter how flawed they were, because only the original jury may determine the "facts" of a case.

There are numerous court rulings saying that proof of actual innocence is not enough to overturn a guilty verdict absent any procedural errors in the trial. That's insane: Actual proof of innocence can't be introduced at appeals, so long as all the lawyers involved followed the rules.

The evidence examined by the current media frenzy and the innocence project is not being examined by unbiased scientists, just by experts selected for their point of view. I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with saying the first evidence is now proven to be junk.

The Texas Forensic Commission's own independent expert said there was no evidence of arson.

The experts who have examined the case haven't been selected for their points of view. They've been selected for their actual scientific expertise, something the "arson examiners" in the original case didn't have. Their expertise amounted to folklore, with no scientific basis.

That is the jury's decision to make and no one has sent the case back to a jury for a retrial.

The principal party is dead, having been executed, so it's a bit late for a retrial.

That is one of the issues when it comes to capital punishment: you can't undo the needle after killing an innocent person.

Isn't it interesting that the media is selecting cases that cannot be sent back to the jury for retrial and not presenting the side of the original expert? This is why I am against almost all cases of post-humous review of criminal cases. I have faith in the jury system and the appeal system.

See my comment immediately above. There are multiple cases of the Innocence Projects proving that people sentenced to death are actually innocent. Objecting to posthumous review is exactly what Perry has done: he's not only objected, he's fired those who might have revealed that Perry signed off on the execution of a man who was actually innocent.

There is no statute of limitations on being found innocent. Radio talk host Tom Joyner recently secured posthumous pardons for two of his ancestors, who were wrongfully convicted and executed in 1915.

I have no philosophical or moral objection to the death penalty as suitable punishment for certain crimes. I do have a serious concern about the government being able to fairly dish out this punishment, so that no innocent person is ever executed.