John Allen Muhammed Executed in VA at 9:22 pm

I believe that also, but had not really laid out all my reasoning on this thread.

The difference is more inner conflict than anything else. Assholes like John Allen Muhammad being executed serve the cause of having a death penalty very well. Shorteyes' example of Cameron Willingham does not. Reasonable doubt is precisely the problem I have with the application of current Death Penalty laws. Frankly, I think the use of Jail-House snitch testimony alone taints a state’s case sufficiently enough that the Death Penalty should be taken off the table. I believe I recently read 50% of all murder convictions that were subsequently overturned by the Innocence Project, used Jail-House snitch testimony to secure convictions. This stat alone seems sufficient to ban the use of Jail-House snitches altogether. I also take great issue with the way Miranda has been battered by subsequent courts to the point it hardly offers any protection at all for people not smart enough to just shut the hell up when being interrogated without a lawyer present. (I think it was 15% of those later exonerated had actually signed confessions.)

Ultimately, I tend to doubt very strongly that Willingham was innocent, and I’ve read plenty about him, but as you point out; simply believing him guilty is NOT the standard... and most certainly shouldn't be the standard when faced with the ultimate penalty.

I remain conflicted by the fact that convicted psychopaths have killed far more people than even the most die-hard anti-death-penalty-advocate could reasonably imagine the state has. But ultimately, I believe in the notion that a man should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence my abrupt about-face. I absolutely believe in the just-ness of the Death Penalty... I just don't trust anyone but myself with the responsibility to decide what constitutes "beyond a reasonable doubt".

I don't find examples of "someone thinks it so" very compelling.

Totally agree.

Anybody ever hear anything more about the LA mosques and the death-2-america sermons the two idiots had been attending? I mean, nobody should need be Albert Einstein to grasp the fact that if you put enough folks with IQs under 100 in front of that kind of ****, bad consequences are going to arise.

a judge is not any old someone, he/she is an agent of the collective who presumably have been chosen because people trust their judgement....are you really sure you are involved in the legal profession??

Shouting from the Rooftops September 22, 2009
Three years ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonio Scalia wrote:

"(there has not been) a single case - not one - in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops."

We knew then, though, that innocents had been executed. So we issued a report entitled "Innocent and Executed: Four Chapters in the Life of America's Death Penalty." In that report, we told the stories of four such men: Ruben Cantu, Carlos De Luna, Larry Griffin and Cameron Todd Willingham.

Despite investigative reports appearing in the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune and the St. Louis Post Dispatch that told these compelling and disturbing stories, these individuals did not become household names. Much more needs to be done to make the public aware that indeed the unspeakable has occurred - innocent people have been executed.

We now refocus attention on the case of one of the four innocent and executed, Cameron Todd Willingham. His story was recently highlighted in a chilling and compelling New Yorker article, "Trial by Fire." With the gripping style of a summer novel, reporter David Grann leads us through this tragic story to the inevitable conclusion that an innocent man was punished for a crime he did not commit.

Willingham's conviction and death sentence for the murder of his children rested on the theory that he had doused the floor of his children's bedroom and the hall with a flammable fluid. Investigators were never able to determine a real motive, but concluded that the fire was caused by arson. They found what they thought were "pour patterns" or "puddle configurations" and other evidence, which they believed confirmed that the fire had been deliberate.

In addition, the children's bedroom windows were broken in a spider-web-like pattern known to fire investigators as "crazed glass." Investigators believed this was proof that the fire burned very hot, and must have been fueled by a liquid accelerant. The theory was further supported by a chemist who claimed that a sample taken from the threshold of the house's front door contained traces of "mineral spirits" found in lighter fluid.

Add to all of this a portrait painted by the prosecution of Willingham that was less than flattering. Unemployed at the time, he had a history of womanizing, alcohol, paint sniffing and trouble with the law as a teenager. Willingham had cheated on his wife and been physically abusive of her - even when she was pregnant. He had a tattoo of a skull and serpent on one arm, and posters featuring the band Iron Maiden, a hooded skull with wings and a hatchet and fallen angel.

The capstone of the prosecution's case was jailhouse informant Johnny Webb, who had contacted authorities to say Willingham had supposedly confessed to using "some kind of lighter fluid" to set the fire.

Even Willingham's relatives believed he had started the fire. But they pleaded with authorities to spare the family the added trauma of a capital trial, and Willingham was offered a deal to save his life. His lawyer, who also thought he was guilty, was shocked when he did not take the deal. The attorney pressed family members to persuade him to change his mind.

Willingham refused, saying: "I ain't gonna plead to something I didn't do, especially killing my own kids." He went to trial in August 1992, and after all this evidence was presented, the jury took less than an hour to return with a guilty verdict. Willingham's appeals were exhausted, and claiming innocence to the last moment, he was executed on February 17, 2004.

Just before his execution, Willingham's case came to the attention of acclaimed scientist and fire investigator Dr. Gerald Hurst. Dr. Hurst, who is widely credited with setting the scientific standard in forensic arson investigations, reviewed the evidence and determined that the conclusions reached by prosecution experts about the fire's origin were, in fact, not supported by science:

1) It was not true that the "puddle configurations" investigators observed could only have been caused by a fire started by an incendiary liquid - tests conducted by law enforcement in an eerily similar case revealed that the same patterns appeared in a fire that was not caused by an accelerant.

2) It was not true that the "crazed glass" was evidence that the fire had burned "hot and fast" as a result of being set by an accelerant. Experience and observations from other house fires explained the cause of the "crazed glass pattern" as the rapid cooling that resulted from the glass coming in contact with water from fire hoses.

3) It was not true that evidence that the fire was extremely hot proved that an accelerant had been used. Well-established science indicates that wood fires burn at the same temperature as gasoline-fueled fires.

4) And what of traces of an accelerant on the front porch? Photographs taken before the fire, and confirmed by neighbors, indicated that the family used a charcoal grill on the front porch and stored a container of lighter fluid there. When flames exploded from the house, the grill melted and the container of lighter fluid had burned. Water from the fire hoses likely spread the charcoal lighter fluid from the burned container into the house.

As the scientific building blocks of the prosecution's case crumbled, so did the testimony of Mr. Webb, who went back and forth until his death about whether he actually told the truth about Willingham's jailhouse confession.

Based on his review of the evidence and science, Dr. Hurst believes that the fire was accidental - likely caused by a space heater in the children's room or faulty wiring. This renowned scientist shredded the so-called scientific evidence, and made it clear that Willingham was innocent.

Merely telling you about this article does not do it justice. Read it yourself, and if you're not 100% convinced that an innocent man was executed, at least ask yourself this question: can you live with the finality of death as punishment when a case like this leaves so much doubt?

CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM.

If Cameron Todd Willingham had been serving a life sentence in Texas, rather than a death sentence, we would in all likelihood be rejoicing today. He could have joined the 135 other prisoners freed from death row since 1973 after being found innocent, and we'd be celebrating his life instead of regretting his execution.

But we are not powerless. There is something we can do.

Shout it from the rooftops. CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM.

CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM did not start that fire.

CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM WAS INNOCENT AND EXECUTED.

We can make sure that everyone knows the name CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM, and work so that no other innocents are executed. Join our campaign to shout it from the rooftops at www.ncadp.org learn what you can do to set this right and help us End the Death Penalty.

posted by Diann Rust-Tierney at 5:19 PM

http://www.ncadp.org/blog.cfm?postID=148

A judge is just another human being, whose opinion may or may not be any more accurate than your own. This is aptly demonstrated in every single successful appeal. You, are an idiot.

Furthermore, most persons who have recently been exonerated instead of executed were fortunate that DNA evidence was available, or else they would surely have been killed by the state. Doesn't it make sense to you that persons with no DNA evidence and persons convicted before there was DNA tesing have been executed? How could they not?

By that logic an expert in the field when offering an opinion on a subject in his field is no more worth trusting of his judgement than the bum on skid row. Oh wait, you are the idiot who thinks that only you are trustworthy to find the truth....never mind.

Many appointments are politically-based, and much corruption takes place within the political arena. The judge could be stupid, or irrational, or racist, or able to be bought off, or any number of other 'un-judge-like' things. So, someone being appointed a judge doesn't mean dick.

That is a very powerful argument Edgar. One that factors mightily into my recent about-face.

Keep in mind though, I only said I haven't seen proof. I’m no longer standing along side Scalia on this. But neither am I standing along side story writers like David Grann. His bold exclamation that Willingham is “innocent” is absurd… even if he’s correct that the evidence no longer appears “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The theories of accelerants used in that trial were by no means the only evidence presented against Willingham. Keep in mind, Willingham was first convicted by presumably disinterested fact-finder(s) and the law’s applied were reviewed by no less than 9 appellate courts. To blindly accept some author's opinion of "innocence" is a logical leap I can’t follow.

If Willingham were the only example, I would have to perhaps shut up.

By CHARLES LANE
Washington Post

LUTTRELL, TENN. - It has been nearly two decades since the body of Carolyn Muncey was discovered under some brush, just 100 yards from her small cabin in this Appalachian hamlet.

The 29-year-old mother of two had been savagely beaten, and her death shook a tiny tobacco-growing community to its roots.

Not long after her slaying, authorities charged Paul Gregory House, a paroled rapist from Utah who lived nearby, with her murder.

In February 1986, a local jury convicted him and sentenced him to death.

Long after the trial, DNA tests were performed on Muncey's clothes. They proved that body fluids on the clothes belonged not to House, as authorities believed and told the jury, but to the victim's husband, Hubert Muncey Jr.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in House's case, the first in which a death row inmate has come to the high court with DNA evidence claiming innocence. The justices' intervention takes place at a time when DNA evidence may be changing the way Americans think about criminal justice, including the death penalty; last week Virginia Democratic Gov. Mark Warner ordered DNA testing in the case of a man executed in 1992, to see whether he was wrongly put to death.

The Supreme Court has never squarely ruled that executing an innocent person is unconstitutional. Appellate courts do not usually concern themselves with new evidence, instead focusing on whether a defendant received a fair trial.

House's lawyers want the court to rule that, in the age of DNA testing, the Constitution guarantees those with particularly strong claims of innocence a chance to seek a new trial, even if the normal appeals process has run out. At a minimum, they say, House is entitled to a new hearing under existing court precedent, which allows death row prisoners with strong claims of innocence to raise separate constitutional issues that would otherwise be barred.

But Tennessee officials argue that House's case is about a duly convicted killer denying the people of Luttrell justice for Muncey's death. While DNA testing may have knocked a hole in the state's case, they argue, its foundations are still solid.

No matter which side wins, the court's ruling could have consequences for the ability of other death row inmates to contest their convictions in federal court.

Two Luttrell women, sisters Penny Letner and Kathy Parker, say that a drunken Hubert Muncey Jr. visited them in 1985, telling them tearfully that he had struck and killed his wife in a moment of anger. Muncey denies any involvement in the murder.

Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, said that in his view the refutation of the semen evidence destroyed the state's entire theory of the crime.

Go edgar!
I'm with you.

and likewise sometimes the exceptions prove the rule...your statement does not in any way go against my argument. The extreme cynicism of your statement speaks to your lack of ability to trust, not to anything about the general ability of judges to Carry out their duties with competence. The legal system is flawed, but the primary weak spots are those who make the law and those who prosecute the law, the judges overall are still pretty damn good. Overworked to be sure, because our political system is broken and we cant get judges appointed in the numbers that we require, but you will not find evidence that they are often corrupt or ruin proceedings with flawed decisions.

You demonstrate your ignorance more with every post. A successful appeal means a Judge made a mistake.

You further demonstrate your ignorance with your blathering about "experts". For $150 and hour, you can get an "expert" to testify on either side of just about anything. Start getting upwards of $500 an hour, and you can get an "expert" with a 25 page Curriculum Vitae to deliver convincing testimony that black is indeed white. In unscrupulous sales circles, they call these guys "singers." Frankly, experts in many instances are part of the equation of Justice being for sale. The State has an endless supply who’ll happily have their testimony steered. Defendant’s, on the other hand, are limited by the depths of their wallets as to how convincing of expert they can hire.

Qualified fact finders, by contrast, require virtually no qualifications at all and these are the people entrusted with the duty to sort out justice... bums on skid row included... for good reason.

Name calling is the lowest form of debate. Kindly point me to a post of yours that specifically counters what I said. If you won't, then the rational conclusion is that you can't.

Your low opinion of your chosen profession is indeed impressive. How do you drag yourself out of bed every morning to toil in what according to you is a crooked racket?

Yes, I'm cynical. I've worked with doctors who don't know the first thing about medicine, bodies, treatments, or who their own patients are. I've worked with engineers who were slipshod, uncaring, and lazy. I've worked with lawyers who cut corners, didn't research well enough, didn't care about their clients, and were lazy. I can trust, but only when it's deserved.

I disagree with you - the primary weak spots are the people who implement/interpret the law. Not saying that some laws don't need to be updated or corrected, but usually it's the operator not the machine that's at fault. Judges regularly let charged people out on bail when they shouldn't. They regularly give lighter sentences than they could. They make mistakes like everyone else, but the problem is that they're not the ones paying for those mistakes... it's another rape victim, an abused girlfriend/wife, another store that's been robbed, another elderly couple being home-invaded.

Justice is too lax these days and judges have a responsibility that far too often isn't met. When you add to that a corrupt or inept judge, you have organized chaos, which is what I think we have.

Yes, of course there are good people in every profession... but the ones we need to know about are the ones who are criminal or incompetent.

I always wonder WHY a certain person is in their position, so yes, that makes my cynical again. What is it a payback for? Certainly something. Events are usually orchestrated, not subject to happenstance or coincidence. So who's pulling the strings and why?

in other words you don't trust. You (or me or any person) don't have the time, brain power, access to facts nor perception to judge the worth of each individual. You either trust your fellow man on principle or you don't. You don't, which if many people did as you would make human cooperation and thus civilization impossible. There is no hope for our future with your outlook. It does not matter how just it seems to you, how sound your position is logically in your mind, it is a dead end. The collective is counting on your ability to see this, to steer clear of the trap of your confidence in yourself linked to your lack of confidence in the rest of us.