Rick Perry: Pro-life is a core conviction
It is a liberal canard to say, “I am personally pro-life, but government should stay out of that decision.” That is not pro-life. That is pro-having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too…
Being pro-life is not a matter of campaign convenience. It is a core conviction.
~ Texas governor and Republican presidential primary candidate Rick Perry, at the Iowa Faith and Freedom dinner, as quoted by The Washington Post, October 22
[HT: Hot Air]
Oct.24, 2011 6:00 am |
Political anti-life bias, Voting |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Exactly!!!!!
Perry better change something, or else he’s toast. He’s almost back down to the levels in popularity of Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul.
Perry will soon bring out his own “flat tax” proposal, but Cain has the spotlight, there, and both plans would get zapped by voters anyway as they realize that the real beneficiaries are the very wealthy.
I’m glad he said that, plain and simple.
This man is eeeevilll. Don’t buy it.
Is this because of his handling of the death penalty in Texas, Jacque? Or are there more/other reasons? I am not informed at all.
Well, I don’t think someone who is an enthusiastic death penalty supporter and seems to be just dandy with uninsured and elderly people not receiving needed medical care is someone I personally consider consistently pro-life, but sure, he may be anti-abortion when it politically suits him.
“This man is eeeevilll. Don’t buy it.”
But you’ll vote for him anyway if he wins the nomination, right?
Is Perry serious? How can anyone believe Perry is pro-life when he worked for the Gore Campaign against Bush? Rick Perry is a RINO just like Romeny and Cain who also refuse to sign the Susan B. Anthony’s pro-life pledge. If they can sell out that easily and kill an innocent baby, can you really trust them? I am pro-life and pro-death penalty! Justice is God’s mercy!
The death penalty is God’s mercy? How does God let us know which murderers deserve death and which don’t?
All murderers deserve death.
He sent His son to establish His church 2000 years ago. Jesus said woe to him who does anything to the least of these little ones, better a millstone be tied around their neck and tossed into the deepest sea! Follow our 265th Pope who is Christ on Earth and can not error. The Catholic bishops and cardinals have lost their way but the Holy Father can never make wrong doctrin. The Catholic church allows the death penalty to defend the innocet and when you have crazed politicians who let people off of death row to walk the streets as we do in IL, it had better be inforced! The sacraments of the Catholic church, received wortherly, will give grace to avoid sin. +
So grateful today that I worship a just and merciful God and not Allie.
More than that, Bobby- His cover-up of the execution of innocent people does play heavily into my opinion.
Joan, Perry is evil. Obama is 10X more evil. Having to vote for someone evil like Perry to prevent a greater evil like Obama is the moral equivilent of being adrift on a raft in the ocean and forced to drink your own urine to survive. But since you support evil and wouldn’t vote to protect anyone if it were uncomfortable for you, I don’t expect you to understand.
You are aware that Obama is pro-death penalty AND pro-abortion- AND pro-euthanasia. At least a vote for Perry extends protection to one of these groups of people.
When you take an innocent life, you give up your right to life. The Bible makes it clear that the punishment for murder is death. It is God’s justice. Murderers do not deserve to live. They do deserve a savior and a chance to repent before they are righteously executed.
Lol, Allie. I believe that David was a murderer, at least by proxy. Wasn’t Paul a pretty bad guy before his conversion? I don’t pretend to be a Biblical scholar, but I think that forgiveness has something to do with God’s love. I don’t think the word mercy means what you think it means.
“Having to vote for someone evil like Perry to prevent a greater evil like Obama is the moral equivilent of being adrift on a raft in the ocean and forced to drink your own urine to survive.”
I really don’t think there exists a more apropos analogy…
Yeah, Jack, I’m not sold on the death penalty thing either. It really upsets me.
“Joan, Perry is evil. Obama is 10X more evil. Having to vote for someone evil like Perry to prevent a greater evil like Obama is the moral equivilent of being adrift on a raft in the ocean and forced to drink your own urine to survive.”
You realize you don’t have to vote, right, and therefore that analogy doesn’t exactly work?
“But since you support evil and wouldn’t vote to protect anyone if it were uncomfortable for you, I don’t expect you to understand.”
Newsflash: if you consider Rick Perry to be evil and yet you’re still willing to vote for him, then you’re supporting “evil” too. Me, if I was forced to choose between two unpalatable candidates for elected office, I just wouldn’t vote. It’s pretty easy.
You realize you don’t have to vote, right, and therefore that analogy doesn’t exactly work?
No, I do have to vote, because I care about other people and my vote could mean the difference between them living and them dying. So yes, because I have a fully-functioning conscience, I do HAVE to vote even when it’s uncomfortable for me.
Newsflash: if you consider Rick Perry to be evil and yet you’re still willing to vote for him, then you’re supporting “evil” too.
No, actually, I am voting to limit evil. Obama supports killing babies before, during and after birth, is pro-death penalty and pro-euthanasia. At least Perry would protect the babies. So by not voting, I just lose an opportunity to save children. Again, this is the moral dilemma of a person who actually has morals, so I don’t expect you to understand.
Me, if I was forced to choose between two unpalatable candidates for elected office, I just wouldn’t vote. It’s pretty easy.
I know. That’s why I said if my first response “But since you support evil and wouldn’t vote to protect anyone if it were uncomfortable for you” because of course you wouldn’t cast a vote for someone else if it made you uncomfortable. Of course you wouldn’t do anything you didn’t want to do, even if it saved human lives. That’s your platform. But some of us care about other people enough to endure the discomfort of voting for someone “unpalatable.” Therein lies another poetic nod to the difference between pro-life and pro-abortion: You will do what you want, even if people die. I don’t live that way. I don’t do what’s “easy”- I do what is right.
Anyone who is against the death penalty might feel differently if it were their child who was murdered.
As far as Perry, he has a 100% rating with Texas Right to Life and as governor, has always defended the rights of the unborn.
“No, actually, I am voting to limit evil. Obama supports killing babies before, during and after birth, is pro-death penalty and pro-euthanasia. At least Perry would protect the babies. So by not voting, I just lose an opportunity to save children. Again, this is the moral dilemma of a person who actually has morals, so I don’t expect you to understand.”
So you’re a utilitarian? Your reasoning isn’t compatible with a moral system that holds that evil is objectively and intrinsically so and cannot ever be supported or engaged in under any circumstances.
“No, actually, I am voting to limit evil.”
Would you then agree that it would be the moral choice to shoot and kill an innocent man if the circumstances were such that twenty more innocent men would die if you did not? That would be acting to limit (greater) evil [twenty innocent men being killed as opposed to one] even if your own personal role in doing so would require you yourself to commit an action that is inherently wrong.
joan says:
Would you then agree that it would be the moral choice to shoot and kill an innocent man if the circumstances were such that twenty more innocent men would die if you did not? That would be acting to limit (greater) evil [twenty innocent men being killed as opposed to one] even if your own personal role in doing so would require you yourself to commit an action that is inherently wrong.
Killing an innocent person is never the moral choice. Thankfully, voting isn’t killing.
A more apt analogy, joan, would be standing by and letting fifty people die, or working to save at least twenty of them. The moral choice isn’t to do nothing.
Joan,
It’s against my policies and better judgment to discuss morality with someone who sees nothing wrong with a mother dismembering her own child in what should be the safest place on Earth, but I will indulge you.
I am not a utilitarian. You can’t do bad things and expect a good result and the ends don’t justify the means. However, in a less than ideal situation characteristic of this fallen world, sometimes you can’t have the ideal and you are forced to do as much good as you can. So when three groups of people (unborn, criminals and the elderly/infirm) are being killed, I do everything in my power to save all three groups of people. When I can’t save all three groups but only two or even one (in this case, unborn babies), I don’t say, “It’s all or nothing. Oh well, guess you are all dead.” Rather, I do what I can to save as many as possible. I am not killing life to save life. I am only saving life. Someone else is doing the killing and I do everything I can to stop it, as much as I can. So this isn’t killing prisoners to save babies. Obama is killing prisoners AND babies, so I will vote Perry to save babies.
There is nothing inherently wrong with voting for Perry to save two groups when the alternative is Obama (which saves zero groups). If there were an alternative to Perry who would save all three groups, I would assuredly vote that way and save myself the nausea of voting for Perry.
Again, I am explained what is “inherently wrong” to someone who supports abortion. The irony would be delicious if it weren’t so bitter.
joan says:
Would you then agree that it would be the moral choice to shoot and kill an innocent man if the circumstances were such that twenty more innocent men would die if you did not? That would be acting to limit (greater) evil [twenty innocent men being killed as opposed to one] even if your own personal role in doing so would require you yourself to commit an action that is inherently wrong.
Just to clarify, you think it’s inherently wrong to kill people in order to save more people, but it’s perfect acceptable to kill an unborn child simply because the mother does not want to be pregnant? I agree that it’s wrong to kill one to save others, but you support killing one to save no one. Explain that.
“It’s against my policies and better judgment to discuss morality with someone who sees nothing wrong with a mother dismembering her own child in what should be the safest place on Earth, but I will indulge you.”
Well, it’s against my policies and better judgment to discuss anything with someone who can’t have an argument without making it personal, but here I am too.
“I am not a utilitarian. You can’t do bad things and expect a good result and the ends don’t justify the means. However, in a less than ideal situation characteristic of this fallen world, sometimes you can’t have the ideal and you are forced to do as much good as you can.”
It doesn’t matter if you identify as a utilitarian or not. You’re employing utilitarian reasoning (and language) to justify a course of action that ends with you supporting something (or in this case, someone) that you believe is evil.
“I am not killing life to save life. I am only saving life. Someone else is doing the killing and I do everything I can to stop it, as much as I can.”
It’s not about killing, Jacqueline, it’s about using the end result of an action to determine the moral permissibility of that action (in other words, the classic utilitarian relationship between ends and means). Here’s a thought experiment: would you consider it morally permissible to vote for Rick Perry if you instead had the option to vote for, say, Rick Santorum?
“There is nothing inherently wrong with voting for Perry to save two groups when the alternative is Obama (which saves zero groups).”
Then do you want to walk back your earlier assessment of Rick Perry as evil? Was calling him evil just an exaggeration used to underscore your intense dislike of him? Because what you are saying here is that, under certain circumstances, it’s okay to support evil, which is incompatible with the Christian understanding of objective morality.
Because what you are saying here is that, under certain circumstances, it’s okay to support evil, which is incompatible with the Christian understanding of objective morality.
This, from an abortion and One-Child policy supporter who at one time, on this site, claimed to be a Christian.
You realize you don’t have to vote, right, and therefore that analogy doesn’t exactly work?
Sadly, I probably won’t vote next year. I refuse to vote for Obama — not just because of the abortion issue, but because he is simply a terrible president, and the only Republican I would have voted for Pawlenty, is long gone.
I am so sorry to read that, phillymiss.
Allie says:
October 24, 2011 at 1:17 pm
All murderers deserve death.
I have to agree with Allie… although as sinners, we ALL deserve death.
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23, ESV)
“for the wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23a, ESV)
That’s what God’s mercy is — not giving us what we deserve.
“…but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23b, ESV)
I don’t understand why you folks keep paying attention to other candidates…Romney is your man this year.
Politicians have all sorts of ‘core convictions’. Whether they act on them is one thing, to what extent is another, and how successful they are at getting action to actually take place and to what extent is yet another.
The current crop of republican candidates are only espousing their ‘pro-life committments’ so effusively because they don’t have any clear cut or recognisably rational policies in regards to the economy and employment. It’s all platitudes and sound-bites.
I don’t understand why you folks keep paying attention to other candidates…Romney is your man this year.
Even if I were a Republican I wouldn’t necessarily consider the Republican nominee “my man.” Jon Hunstman is my fave of them all, personally. I don’t agree with him on everything (haven’t even researched his position on everything, but I know I disagree with him on some tax things, and on environmental issues – although that’s the case with most Republican candidates) but I trust him to not be a lunatic. Which is saying something, in this day and age.
The charge that Perry is evil and covered up the execution of innocent people is a blatent lie. The comment should be removed, there is absolutely no evidence for this.
Comparing Governor Perry, while not perfect (he supports illegal immigration) to Obama is really unjust. Obama supports the legalized killing of millions of unborn babies. Seriously, what kind of insanity is this.
“but I trust him to not be a lunatic”
What republican candidate would be a lunatic? and why?
Phillymiss: Sadly, I probably won’t vote next year. I refuse to vote for Obama — not just because of the abortion issue, but because he is simply a terrible president, and the only Republican I would have voted for Pawlenty, is long gone.
PM, I disagree with you on some things (as you know) but that was one fine, gut-basic post. :)
Jasper, obama has elected to not overturn laws which allow each and every individual woman to decide for themselves whether to continue with a pregnancy or terminate it.
Unless you’re going to tell me that Perry is ineffectual at getting any policies enacted, he could push to get rid of the death penalty in Texas or at least ensure that when doubts arise, executions are delayed. Yet he hasn’t even considered trying.
Jaqueline, joan isn’t really concerned about utilitarianism. In fact, she obviously supports it herself (you’re the one who thinks millions of girl babies being killed in China is just fine if the remaining ones can have better education and jobs — remember, joan?).
No, she is just setting you up. She wants to catch pro-lifers in some sort of contradiction, so she can call us hypocrites and vent her spleen at us. Don’t play her game — especially since she doesn’t have moral sense enough to fit into a thimble. You’d be fighting someone who’s essentially unarmed.
Nancy, so you trust a government that is willing to allow the killing of the unborn who are innocent and at their most vulnerable stage of life, to make a sound decision on the killing of a possible guilty life? If this country was actually governed by Christian principles like it once was, then MAYBE the death penalty would be something worth considering. Seeing that you are Catholic it is obvious you are unaware of the Church’s stance on such matters……the death penalty is the right of a government but is preferred to not be exercised if the guilty is not an imminent threat to society. With today’s advancements and technologies in our prison systems there is almost never a reason to put a person to death. The stance of the Church is to give someone as much time so that they may seek forgiveness from our Lord. Whether someone has murdered a life in the womb or outside of the womb, their purpose is not null and void. Like someone mentioned above there have been great holy people in our Church’s history that either were murderer’s themselves or by proxy. Putting them to death for their crimes would have been a great injustice for those that have been inspired by their conversion of heart, mind, and soul.
phillymiss,
I don’t see how Pawlenty is much different from fellow governors Romney and Perry. He would have “rubbed the wrong way” fewer people, I agree. But “Casper Milquetoast” just doesn’t cut it in today’s world
I really believe Pennsylvania is going red next year. Sorry you won’t be on the wave. :)
Doug – Why T-Paw? I lived in Minnesota for a few years under T-Paw – I was not impressed.
What republican candidate would be a lunatic? and why?
Why do you limit your question to republican candidates? ;)
Because there is only one democrat-Obama.
Again, what republican candidate would be a lunatic? and why?
Doug – Why T-Paw? I lived in Minnesota for a few years under T-Paw – I was not impressed.
Ex-GOP, I just liked Phillymiss’s post. I know almost nothing about Pawlenty.
“T-Paw” :)
Jasper, I think a fair amount of the Republican front-runners seem pretty loony, and have for some years now.
“Jasper, I think a fair amount of the Republican front-runners seem pretty loony”
How? it what way?
Jasper, all due respect, I have put A LOT of time into explaining various emotional, social, and political aspects of one month of my life, five years ago, to you – and you consistently don’t respect any of that, and behave at random times as though I have ever said any of it to you before, and occasionally call me names or say rude things to me, and otherwise dismiss just about every word I have ever written to you on that one subject. So at this very moment, having just had a root canal and needing to leave for work in forty minutes, I don’t really feel like writing a bunch of other words to you on other sweeping subjects including but not limited to: the economy, education funding, corporate regulation, environmental regulation, the role of government in enforcing social norms, or healthcare reform. I am informed in my beliefs and comfortable with them but I don’t really have the time to explain them to you over and over and over again for the next few years.
The charge that Perry is evil and covered up the execution of innocent people is a blatent lie. The comment should be removed, there is absolutely no evidence for this.
Actually, there is so much evidence for this, three documentaries (that I know of) have been filmed about it, one by PBS, and CNN did an expose, available on YouTube. Google “Cameron Todd Willingham” and you will see undisputed facts that Texas executed an innocent man and Perry went to great lengths to prevent an investigation- by stacking the board with political cronies who canceled the investigation and refuse to re-open it. The evidence if so plentiful to anyone who even looks. TIME wrote this article just last month: http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/27/the-controversial-willingham-case-what-rick-perry-knew-and-when/
Jasper, you should at least do a Google search so you know at least something before you make accusations that something is a “blatent (blatant) lie” or “insanity”- You make hateful character assassinations (often unfounded, impertinent and just spiteful) all the time toward clergy, celebrities and politicians you hate based on no information whatsoever (case in point, just a few days ago you called a Catholic Bishop a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”). I dislike Perry for factual reasons that I have taken time and effort to consider- to the extent of looking for contrary evidence and interviewing my friends who work directly and closely with the governor. I even conceded once that my friends who run pro-life PACs who work with him know more about him than I do, so I trusted their opinion for a while. After additional thought, I conceded that my colleagues and I disagree about him because they focus on abortion and I have additional concerns. Beyond his cover-up of the Willingham execution, he has thwarted Board recommendations for clemency, executed accomplices while the gunman was given a lifetime sentence for testifying against the condemned, executed the mentally retarded, mandated the HPV vaccine in Texas schools to pad his pockets and those of his cronies at Merck. These are facts that I can support. I also have speculation and rumors from valid sources, but I only speak things I can factually prove. Everything I say is true as are all of my comparisons.
Even if I didn’t have any facts, my opinion is just as valid as yours. Actually, my opinion is more valid because you have a loud, knee-jerk opinion on everything and I only form opinions on those things I have sufficient knowledge of or deem worth learning about in order to form an opinion that I can defend. I never campaign to have your posts deleted, even when they are profane, libelous, unfounded and hateful. Yet you are always demanding my posts be deleted. If you disagree, RESPOND- but trying to silence me is petty and juvenile.
Jasper, all due respect, I have put A LOT of time into explaining various emotional, social, and political aspects of one month of my life, five years ago, to you – and you consistently don’t respect any of that, and behave at random times as though I have ever said any of it to you before, and occasionally call me names or say rude things to me, and otherwise dismiss just about every word I have ever written to you on that one subject.
Maybe if we ignore him, he’ll just sniff us and then go away.
Hey Alexandra,
You don’t have to act like a cry baby. All I asked you is simply why you thought R candidates were lunatics. No reason to re-hash the past.
No I won’t Google it and be flooded by liberal lies. I have sources too, Willingham’s ex wife:
Stacy Kuykendall, the ex-wife of Cameron Todd Willingham, offers her first detailed account of the 1991 fire that claimed the lives of her three daughters and led to Willingham’s execution in 2004. “Todd set our house on fire then stood outside and watched it burn,” Kuykendall asserts, saying she agrees with Gov. Rick Perry’s portrayal of her husband as “a monster.”
http://rickvskay.blogspot.com/2009/10/cameron-todd-willinghams-ex-wife-agrees.html
Governor Rick Perry called Cameron Todd Willingham a “monster” and indeed he was. Nightline ran story titled “A Life Cut Too Short.” There were three life’s cut too short and their names are Amber Louise, Karmon Diane and Kameron Marie.
“Actually, my opinion is more valid because you have a loud, knee-jerk opinion ”
Ok, you feel better now? Really, you have the maturity level of a 9 year old who throws temper tantrums-> (bla, bla, I’m great and the rest of you are not!). Grow up.
No I won’t Google it and be flooded by liberal lies.
So everything is a lie except what Jasper says about something he’s never even heard of and refuses to obtain any information about. Why should anyone put any weight into that opinion? If I knew nothing of an issue and accused someone who did of lying and indicated that I had no intention of learning anything about it- I would hope no one would put any weight into that opinion. It certainly doesn’t add credibility when someone proves they aren’t lying but you won’t back down.
The bottom line is, even if Willingham’s ex-wife isn’t lying (and science overwhelmingly suggests that she is lying), Perry still refused to examine the exonerating evidence and afterward, derailed the investigation. If there is such assurance of Willingham’s guilt, why the need to hide the facts? Maybe it is because facts indicate that Perry let an innocent man die on his watch and then covered it up. I have evidence to prove both.
You declared there was no evidence to my claim- so I gave you some, LOTS- all at your disposal. I am sure you never heard of Willingham before today, yet you are sure of his guilt because you said he was guilty before you even knew he existed. You form a knee-jerk opinion and then shut-out anything that might challenge your uninformed assumptions. You are so sure that you are right, then you shouldn’t be afraid to learn about the case. If you are so afraid to be wrong about something that you will not learn anything about it, maybe you shouldn’t form opinions so quickly?
“It is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.”
It amazes me that anyone wants the government (fallible, human-constructed) to have control over life and death. There is no guarantee that any innocent person will not be a victim of this.
I agree Jasper. I went over this on a previous thread where somebody was attacking Perry with lies about stacking a board to try and get an innicent man executed. Frankly I am disappointed. Jacqueline is usually rational and logical in her posts. Are you under lot stress today Jacqueline?
Do you know Todd claimed that the reason he had poured
accelerant (cologne and perfume) on the carpets in the house before the fire was cause his kids liked the smell? How about the fact that while his kids were inside burning alive he took the time to move his car out of the driveway and parked it in the street? Just sayin. If I was gonna move my car it would have been through a wall in the house to try and save my kids.
Hey look, I believe the jury and Willinghams wife. You come in here spouting your liberal mouth off about how Perry is evil and I called you on it.
I tell you what, I don’t like you and you don’t like me, so lets just avoid each other. ok.
Please, don’t talk to me.
Stacking the board? Ignoring half a dozen experts about the lack of evidence for arson?
http://www.economist.com/node/14699746
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
Vetoing a ban on executions for the mentally disabled?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Notebook/Note_01-NGA10.htm
Stay classy, Perry!
Jacqueline is definitely in the right on this one.
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and juries are wrong all the time.
Jack,
I agree on the death penalty. I know how incompetent the government can be and I have seen too many people judged unjustly to think the government should be involved in killing. He should have been sentenced to life in prison and if he ever got out somehow I would not be against the mother of his kids killing him.
Stacking the board? Ignoring half a dozen experts about the lack of evidence for arson?
Jack,
What do you suppose was Perry’s motive for “stacking” the board. He is not the one who convicted the perp or the one who denied his exhausted appeals.
Also, Arson experts may differ on the validity of the arson charge but when confronted with the arson charge the perp said he had poured cologne throughout the carpets in the house because the kids liked the smell.
I went over this on a previous thread where somebody was attacking Perry with lies about stacking a board to try and get an innicent man executed.
That would be an unjust accusation- and just crazy. A governor can’t get anyone executed. A judge and jury must give that sentence. Saying that Perry tried to get anyone executed is completely absurd. All I have seen from him are three things:
A. an unwillingness to stay an execution to examine new evidence (even when recommended by the Board of Pardons and Paroles in cases that cast serious doubt on the condemned’s guilt or fitness to be executed),
B. Restaffing the Board and appointing a head that canceled the hearing and refuses to reschedule it
C. Continuing executions when the integrity of the death penalty is compromised and there is reason to beleive that innocent people might die.
If Perry were only guilty of A, that would be one thing. There is evidence of other innocent people executed under Bush that he failed to stop. B, however, shows that Perry is not assured of Willingham’s guilt, because the investigation would only serve to vindicate him against this evidence that is already public knowledge. Therefore he has reasonable doubt as Willingham’s guilt. That means C, he has continued to allow executions when he has reason to believe that innocent people will die.
Frankly I am disappointed. Jacqueline is usually rational and logical in her posts. Are you under lot stress today Jacqueline?
I don’t see anything irrational about me presenting evidence and drawing logical conclusions. Did I draw a conclusion that doesn’t make sense with the evidence I’ve presented? Supposing Willingham was guilty, is there another conclusion you can draw about Perry’s actions with the Board? How is obstructing an investigation in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence justified? What alternative explanations are there? We can disagree on whether Willingham was guilty or innocent, but there is no excuse for not examining new expert testimony.
Do you know Todd claimed that the reason he had poured
accelerant (cologne and perfume) on the carpets in the house before the fire was cause his kids liked the smell? How about the fact that while his kids were inside burning alive he took the time to move his car out of the driveway and parked it in the street?
I have never heard any of this. Can I ask where you heard this- because I have read a ton of pro and cons on this and have never seen this evidence before. It doesn’t matter, though- because again, if Willingham was guilty, an investigation into the evidence would only vindicate you and Perry if you are right. I have no problem with you being right- I hope you are and it was a guilty man Texas put to death. Why don’t we let the evidence speak? What are we afraid of?
Truthseeker, I cannot find any information on this cologne and perfume theory. I do know that:
Arson experts have testified that there is no evidence that arson occurred, or that an accelerant was used.
The inmate that Willingham supposedly confessed to later recanted, after making sure that he couldn’t be tried for perjury. He got let out early for his testimony.
That there is enough reasonable doubt for me, Perry’s actions to cover this up nonwithstanding.
Jacqueline,
Arson experts may differ on the validity of the arson charge but when confronted with the arson charge the perp said he had poured cologne throughout the carpets in the house because the kids liked the smell.
“I cannot find any information on this cologne and perfume theory. I do know that:
Arson experts have testified that there is no evidence that arson occurred, or that an accelerant was used.”
Jack,
Here it is from Wikipedia’ but I had seen this reported in multiple places:
“On returning to the house after the fire in the company of fireman Ron Franks, Willingham said that he had been over earlier and poured British Sterling cologne in the hallway from the bathroom to the bedroom in which the twins had died, because they had loved its smell when they were alive.”
Note that these twins were only one years old.
What do you suppose was Perry’s motive for “stacking” the board.
He didn’t stack the Board before the execution. He stacked the Board afterwards to squash the investigation. His motive was because he was in a re-election campaign against Kay-Bailey Hutchison and evidence that he was the first governor to have an innocent man executed on his watch would have hurt his campaign. It would have hindered his presidential hopes as well. That’s his motive.
Also, Arson experts may differ on the validity of the arson charge but when confronted with the arson charge the perp said he had poured cologne throughout the carpets in the house because the kids liked the smell.
Some things to keep in mind- arson is the murder charge. The charge was that Willingham deliberately set the fire (arson) to kill his children. Pouring perfume on a carpet is stupid, but it isn’t murder. Besides, the only place an accellerant was found was on the front porch, not not on the carpets or “poured under the children’s beds as they slept” which was reported to the jury.
By the way, the fireman that said Willingham admitted to pouring cologne was Ron Franks- I was in the same class as his daughter Beth Franks, Beth Roughton now. We were in the 4th grade at Frost Elementary at the time. I was raised 30 minutes from Willingham’s house. I might give Mr. Franks a call just to ask about this.
He is not the one who convicted the perp or the one who denied his exhausted appeals.
You are right. Perry wasn’t the one who convicted Willingham- the courts did. Sadly, I would have convicted him too with the evidence presented and if I were older, could have been on that jury. Yes, I think the judicial system failed in this case, but Perry failed too when he refused to grant a stay to re-examine evidence. Then he tried to cover-up his failure by replacing 3 out of 9 hostile board members with his cronies to stop the investigation when the media got wind of the new evidence. I am only accusing him of two things: he didn’t issue a stay and he impeded the investigation. The first accusation is a fact, the second one is my conclusion based on evidence, like you’ve concluded Willingham is guilty. Willingham might be guilty, but we should not execute with any doubt. You believe this, too.
Note that these twins were only one years old.
See, truthseeker, now I think you are being illogical. Why should anyone note that? It’s sad, but it doesn’t have any bearing on this. What does it matter how old the children were? If the twins were 2, 3, 4, or even 23- human lives are human lives. The age of the children is not evidence of Willingham’s guilt, it’s the same sensationalism used to evoke emotion in the jury to convict someone for this horrible loss. That’s like mentioned during a rape trial that the victim was a minor or a virgin- it invokes anger at the injustice, but it doesn’t prove that the person on trial committed the rape. We know that the twins were infants and they died in that fire- we don’t know that their father set that fire. There is serious doubt that he did.
The inmate that Willingham supposedly confessed to later recanted, after making sure that he couldn’t be tried for perjury. He got let out early for his testimony. That there is enough reasonable doubt for me
Jack, for others who were involved in this case and poured over the totality of the evidence there was enough to determine guilt even without the recanted testimony.
See, truthseeker, now I think you are being illogical. Why should anyone note that?
Jacqueline, I am a father of six kids. Kids ages are relevant and it is logical to take age of the children into consideration when looking at the actions of the adult who is supervising them. If my one year old liked the smell of cologne I might put a drop or two somewhere occasionally but I wouldn’t pour it throughout the house.
On a seperate note it strikes me as really coincidental that he would have poured the cologne the day of the fire. As an outsider looking in and based upon the evidence I have seen I think it is more probable that he told the firemen that cause he felt like he needed an explanation for the signs of accelerant trails running through the house.
Jack, for others who were involved in this case and poured over the totality of the evidence there was enough to determine guilt even without the recanted testimony.
But the rest of the evidence was false. It was junk science- folklore and wives tales. They recreated the fire (cost $30,000) without an accellerant and got the same results that the fire marshall testified was undeniable proof of arson. Real science proved junk science to be bunk. All the testimony on the arson that got Willingham convicted was untrue. So the recanted testimony was untrue and the other evidence as well. Why not look at new evidence?
I am a father of six kids. Kids ages are relevant and it is logical to take age of the children into consideration when looking at the actions of the adult who is supervising them.
Bad parenting is not murder, though. Being stupid is not a capital crime and unless you are making the case that this man accidentally set the fire because he’s an idiot, then this is impertinent.
You were using this information as evidence for arson and now you are using it for evidence that this man was a bad parent. Which one is it?
The truth is- none of us have all the evidence to make a case for guilt or innocence and the jury didn’t either. Debating back and forth on these trifles is futile, because neither of us are privy to all the information- this is precisely why I am saying there needs to be an investigation with all the evidence that wasn’t offered then. You are saying there shouldn’t be an investigation. Why?
On a seperate note it strikes me as really coincidental that he would have poured the cologne the day of the fire. As an outsider looking in and based upon the evidence I have seen I think it is more probable that he told the firemen that cause he felt like he needed an explanation for the signs of accelerant trails running through the house.
It seems coincidental to me, too. Would you execute him over this?
I don’t know whether Willingham was guilty or not (I don’t think he was)- but his conviction was based false testimony and there needs to be an investigation to find out the truth (it should have happened before Texas killed him). One Texas inmate (forget his name) is guilty as sin, but they are rightly re-examining his case because they found it was tainted by faulty testimony. We have more than reasonable doubts here about Willingham’s guilt- doesn’t that merit an investigation?
“e have more than reasonable doubts here about Willingham’s guilt- doesn’t that merit an investigation?”
Jacqueline,
We agree that the government carrying out the death penalty when life imprisonment is an option is a bad idea. Where we disagree is that I believe Rick Perry is a good man who looked over the evidence and believed the perpetrator was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Certainly your characterization as him being an evil man does not seem to me to be justified.
You were using this information as evidence for arson and now you are using it for evidence that this man was a bad parent. Which one is it?
Just that it did not make sense to pour cologne all of the house cause your one year old likes the smell. I really just have a hard time believing that. Even harder when tell the fireman investigating the scene with you that you did it just prior to the house burning down. I guess my answer is that it is evidence of arson cause it is beyond reasonable belief to me that anybody could be that big an idiot.
Where we disagree is that I believe Rick Perry looked over the totality of the evidence and genuinely believed the was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am not saying that Perry knowingly executed an innocent man. Maybe he did believe he was guilty (although I don’t see how if he did look over the evidence). The only benefit of the doubt I can give is that Perry thought Willingham was guilty when he denied a stay. However- the evidence did demand more examination and Perry was wrong when he didn’t order a stay- A good man can make a mistake with good intentions- but he doesn’t cover it up and continue executing people. That is an evil act and not the hallmark of a “good man.”
What I am saying is that when evidence suggested that he was wrong and Willingham could have been innocent, Perry opted to cover it up and continue executing people. What explanation do you have for sabotaging the investigation unless he has reasonable doubt now? The cover-up is what is damning here, because if Perry were so assured of Willingham’s guilt, he wouldn’t have stopped the investigation. A good man wouldn’t sabotage an investigation for political gain. A good man would see that the system’s fail-safes had failed and immediately cease executions. Rather, Perry hasn’t granted any stays since Willingham or shown any mercy even in cases with untested DNA evidence- like Hank Skinner.
David killing Bathsheba’s husband to hide his affair was an evil act done to hide another evil act. Perry’s mistake may not have been evil- Wrong, but not evil. I could have grace on that and chalk it up to the inherent problems with the death penalty. However- his covering it up is assuredly evil and his willingness to continue being merciless since is not a sign of a good man. None of his acts have been virtuous, but corrupt.
If there was evidence you (in good faith) sentenced an innocent man to death, what would you do? I would question all verdicts and cease everything until the truth was found and all questions were resolved. I would welcome all inquiries to that end. I wouldn’t cover it up for political gain and continue to deny clemency requests. How is any of this the sign of a good man?
Thinking him a good man is charitable- but the evidence here says that he is corrupt and doing evil to serve his own ends. I think your only evidence that he is a good man is his recent pro-life record (which is stellar on abortion- not so good on euthanasia). My friends in Austin that work closely with him insist that he takes huge political risks for the unborn, so that might be a genuine conviction. But that doesn’t excuse his evil acts in this case.
I guess my answer is that it is evidence of arson cause it is beyond reasonable belief to me that anybody could be that big an idiot.
Apparently you’ve never been to Corsicana, Texas. :) Sans a small percentage, most everyone there is that big an idiot- or worse. I endured them for 8 years (first grade through 9th grade) until I dropped out of high school ran away at 16 because I couldn’t handle it anymore. Cameron Todd Willingham probably was that big an idiot- I have no reason to beleive that he wouldn’t be this big an idiot. It actually makes more sense than him actually knowing cologne was alcohol-based and flamable.
My understanding of the people in Corsicana, Texas plays into my belief that Willingham is likely innocent, as the jurors probably had a combined IQ of 37, the prosecutor and judge were likely fishin’ buddies if not cousins, and the arson investigator there knew nothing of the properties of fire and likely never read a single book on the subject, but apprenticed under his uncle, another fire investigator with a 5th grade reading level who also never darkened the doors of a classroom- and so on. So I am more inclined to beleive the nation’s top fire experts, including Dr. Beyler and Dr. Hurst, who provided proof that the good ole boy analysis of the fire was wrong (i.e. they said that broken window glass cracked in a spider pattern can only happen when a fire burns hotter due to an accellerant- experts know that the cold water hitting the heated glass creates this affect all the time). These credentialed scientists that examined the orginal evidence and the restaged fire are likely correct. Even if I didn’t have a bias, I would still likely come to this conclusion.
I noticed a parallel. Because you beleive Perry is innocent (and you don’t consider that you might be wrong) you see no need for an investigation to examine all the evidence. Because Perry beleived Willingham guilty (and didn’t consider that he might be wrong), he saw no need to examine all the evidence. All this involves having way to much faith in our opinions.
Can we have the humility to conduct an investigation? People can be wrong. I could be wrong on this. I just want to know the truth.
Jacqueline,
The courts had reviewed the case many times on appeal including after the cell-mate recanted his testimony and they still found him guilty.
The only thing left is your accusation that Rick Perry stacked the board against him to get them to deny his lastest appeal based on the review of the arson evidence. Though I agree with you that we should not execute people when there is doubt I disagree that there was reasonable doubt of the arson. Perpetrators often pay a lot of money to have so-called experts who get evidence throw out based upon supposed science. You talk about junk science “proving” it wasn’t arson and I would disagree that they would be able to prove that. You say it burned down the exact same way. I could say that it burned down the same way cause they poured colonge up and down the hallways and I already told you his admission of doing such an idiotic thing and the reason for doing it on the day the fire started could be enough for me if I believed his ex-wife’s testimony believable that Todd Willingham didn’t want his kids. According to his ex-wife he tried to get her to abort those kids and when she refused he kicked her in the stomach etc. And the guy didn’t even take the stand in his own defense. That doesn’t prove guilt but it does make me ‘lean towards’ thinking the guy is guilty … So the latest supposed evidence of his guilt may not have swayed me either in regard to his guilt or innocence. And if I knew everything about the case I may not have thought he deserved more appeals based upon the latest expert testimony. So your argument that Perry stacking the board to deny this guy justice by granting another stay does not convince me that Perry did this for unscrupulous reasons. This guy was given a lot of appeals over the course of many years.
Question for you just out of curiosity. Do you know if the state paid the 30k to burn down the house a second time or was that paid for by the defense?
You talk about junk science “proving” it wasn’t arson and I would disagree that they would be able to prove that.
The defense doesn’t have to prove that the accused is innocent. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I am glad you aren’t deciding my fate. I can’t prove I never did most of the things I didn’t ever do. Prove to me that you didn’t dance naked in your bathroom last night when everyone in your house was asleep.
Though I agree with you that we should not execute people when there is doubt I disagree that there was reasonable doubt of the arson.
My position is that we shouldn’t execute people ever when we can incarcerate them instead. I can have no doubt in my mind that you dance naked when everyone is asleep- but just because I believe something, doesn’t mean I can’t be wrong. I can be wrong. You are not perfect- you can be wrong. But if you are so sure of yourself, why do you oppose an investigation?
The only thing left is your accusation that Rick Perry stacked the board against him to get them to deny his lastest appeal based on the review of the arson evidence.
I never said that. I clearly stated otherwise. I can only say what I already said dozens of times. You are not reading it. It’s not worth the calories for keystrokes. I said that Perry sabotaged the investigation after the execution.
This is pointless: I have asked you dozens of times the same question, directly, clearly, in English and you refuse to answer: What is the harm in an investigation? What are you afraid of?
I will answer your question about the 30k when you answer the one I bolded and asked 13,456 times already. I know the answer. If you have so much evidence that you are convinced that Willingham was a murderer, you should know the answer, too. The answer doesn’t support your position, so you clearly get all your talking points from “Willingham is guilty” blogs.
“The cover-up is what is damning here, because if Perry were so assured of Willingham’s guilt, he wouldn’t have stopped the investigation.”
Jacqueline, Does the fact that he replaced three members of the board and they ended up voting against the defendant prove that Perry was covering something up? Is there any evidence that he spoke with these people ahead of time and made sure they were going to vote against the defendant prior to selecting them? Exactly what evidence do you have to back up your accusation of a cover up?
What is the harm in an investigation? Why do you oppose learning the truth?
There is no harm in an investigation when one is warranted. The current truth is that without having reviewed the totality of the evidence neither one of us can say wether or not further investigation was warranted. This guy had several appeals over the course of many years.
Jacqueline, for someone who likes to be so fair-minded you seem to be sure Perry was covering up something
If he wasn’t, we’d have the investigation, wouldn’t we? Speaking of: What is the harm in an investigation? What are you afraid of?
Especially when you don’t know all the evidence.
I don’t. Neither do you, but you have no doubts still that Willingham murdered his family, so What is the harm in an investigation? What are you afraid of?
There is no harm in an investigation when one is warranted
I see: it’s unwarranted if it could prove you wrong or hurt Perry’s career. If nothing else, it’s warranted to put an end these debates.
I find it telling that those who think Willingham was innocent want an investigation- and those who think Willingham was guilty are afraid of an investigation. That alone speaks volumes to me and only reinforces my belief that Perry is hiding the truth. If you are so very sure that he is guilty enough to execute him, you’d think you wouldn’t be afraid of examining all the evidence. You’d think you would prove your case and put an end to all those who accuse Perry of letting an innocent man die during his tenure. You’d think you guys would jump at the chance to prove that you are right! You’d think.
“I see: it’s unwarranted if it could prove you wrong or hurt Perry’s career. If nothing else, it’s warranted to put an end these debates.”
Jacqueline, I am really not sure what kind of investigation you would like to see. Why do you say I am afraid of an investigation? I never said that I was. What kind of investigation did you have in mind?
What crime do you say needs to be investigated? Are you saying we should reinvestigate wether or not Willingham was guilty?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5cFKpjRnXE&feature=player_embedded
This sums up all my previous comments about the idiots in Corsicana. Perfect example of why I ran away the second I could drive.
Watch it and tell you stand by their handling of the case. These people don’t have two brain cells to rub together to form a spark.
Jacqueline, I am really not sure what kind of investigation you would like to see. Why do you say I am afraid of an investigation? I never said that I was. What kind of investigation did you have in mind?
The one Perry sabotaged. You are defending the sabotage- saying that the canceled investigation was unwarranted.
Jacqueline.
Is it possible that Todd and his cell mate planned together for him to testify against Todd and then recant so that they both get off?
Is it possible that Todd and his cell mate planned together for him to testify against Todd and then recant so that they both get off?
Sure. Anything is possible. I sincerely doubt it, though. Corsicanans aren’t that smart.
Is it possible that he is innocent? You can’t consider any possibility that you may be wrong, can you?
My position is that guilty or not, the evidence was not sufficient to kill this man. They did not prove arson. Period.
Just last month, a confessed killer of 3 people- Duane Buck was granted a review because the death penalty in Texas is only sentenced when there is evidence that the criminal will kill again. The evidence presented? The expert said that Buck was likely to kill again because he is black and blacks are statistically more likely to kill than whites. So had a white man killed 3 people, he’d get a life sentence, but Buck got death. If the only thing between a life sentence and a death sentence was the color of his skin, we have a BIG problem.
I am not afraid of finding out if the guy was innocent. I never did say that. I just said you were way out of bounds saying that Perry was evil for denying the stay of what he believed to be a heinous criminal who had exhausted years of appeals. I am not afraid of the truth and if the guy was innocent I would want to know. You have admitted that you don’t have all the evidence and in fact you said you knew some pertinent information but would hold back on giving it to me for some reason. I am not sure why you said that and I wonder why you nwould be less than forthright with the facts.
Also, I watched your YouTube video and it seemed like the lawyer who represented him was very thorough and competent in his defense. If anything I feel more sure of his guilt after watching the video. Your comments about him give the appearance of a predisposed impression of incompetence. You may be prejudiced in this regard due to your own past personal dealings (obviously not dealings you enjoyed) with the people in that area.
My position is that guilty or not, the evidence was not sufficient to kill this man. They did not prove arson. Period.
Jacqueline,
Do you know if they poured cologne on the carpets when his defense team of experts simulated the fire? You already admitted that you did not know all the facts and yet you declare “They did not prove arson. Period.”
The answer doesn’t support your position, so you clearly get all your talking points from “Willingham is guilty” blogs.
You may want ask yourself how something can be so clear to you when it is so patently false. Slow down. I have never been to ”Willingham is guilty” blogs and I was not even aware they existed.
I am not afraid of finding out if the guy was innocent. I never did say that.
So let’s investigate it! Oh wait, Perry sabotaged that investigation- and you support him in doing that. There must be a reason. If you are not afraid, stop defending the cover-up.
I just said you were way out of bounds saying that Perry was evil for denying the stay of what he believed to be a heinous criminal who had exhausted years of appeals.
I said (many, many times) what makes him evil is not that he made a mistake in denying the stay, even though he did make a mistake (remember my David/Bathsheba analogy)- good faith errors happen. What makes him evil is that he covered up that mistake. That and the fact that he has not waned at all with executions- denying Board-recommended clemency and the like. That is evil.
I am not afraid of the truth and if the guy was innocent I would want to know.
Then let’s investigate! Why do you defend Perry’s sabotage of the investigation? There is no justification for it. You haven’t considered the possibility that he is innocent. I could be wrong- but you can’t be wrong. Seriously, you can’t show a little bit of humility here?
You have admitted that you don’t have all the evidence and in fact you said you knew some pertinent information but would hold back on giving it to me for some reason.
Not about this case- I have good sources that indicate other types of corruption, but those can’t be substantiated and I don’t want to fuel rumors, so I stick to facts. Everything I have presented is a verifiable fact. You have tons of “theories” about why Willingham is guilty. I have scientific evidence that he is not- and that Perry is hiding that fact.
I am not an expert and I don’t have all the information- Are you an expert and do you have all the information?
I am not sure why you said that and I wonder why you nwould be less than forthright with the facts.
I am not. I’m the one who is demanding full-disclosure and an investigation of the facts. You are the one that won’t acknowledge that you are not perfect and could be wrong and should let experts mitigate this.
Also, I watched your YouTube video and it seemed like the lawyer who represented him was very thorough and competent in his defense.
The man broke so many ethics in that one video (privilege for one) that the dozens of other lawyers are seeking to have him dis-barred. Legal organizations issued public letters condemning him and stating that his actions do not represent professional lawyers in Texas. This man is an arrogant, bumbling idiot who thinks that because he poured lighter fluid on a carpet and set it on fire and it looked like the carpet in the house- then his opinion is that he was guilty- even though the real experts disagree. If you think that was thorough and competent, we have a different definition of competence.
People make up their minds and defend it in the face of evidence to the contrary instead of being intellectually honest and changing their minds, selectively hearing what they want to hear. That’s what you are doing. That’s what David Martin is doing. He gets a report from an expert that combed over the evidence, re-staged the fire and refuted the investigation- but nope, he saw burned carpet. Pompous. He can keep his beleif that Willingham was guilty for other reasons, but the fact that he can’t concede the scientific facts. Why can’t he say, “Okay, so the science refutes this, but other evidence gives me reason to beleive he was still guilty.” Nope- he has to be right about everything.
If anything I feel more sure of his guilt after watching the video.
Because small-town redneck gossip is always reliable? On one hand, a lawyer with no expertise of fire investigation burns carpet and declares him guilty. One the other hand, 6 of the nation’s top experts conduct rigorus investigations and disagree. Between a lawyer’s opinion and a Ph.D. in chemistry- I am going with the Ph.D.- Same thing if the Ph.D. was a self-professed expert of law- I would agree with the lawyer. See, when people study something for 8+ years and get a doctorate in it, they tend to know more about that subject than someone who say, didn’t study that topic for 8+ years.
Your comments about him give the appearance of a predisposed impression of incompetence. You may be prejudiced in this regard due to your own past personal dealings (obviously not dealings you enjoyed) with the people in that area.
Yes, I have that impression. I was willing to be pleasantly surprised- and instead, I saw a worse charicature of what I remembered. Stiil, dozens of lawyers and others who viewed that interveiw have no previous dealings with people in that area and still thought they were looking at Cousin Eddie from the National Lampoon vacation films in a cowboy hat. Dozens of lawyers felt compelled to condemn his behavior.
Open your mind a square-inch here! Accept the fact that you don’t have all the information. Acknowledge that you aren’t an expert even if you did have all the information. Consider the fact that you may not be perfect and right all of the time even if you were an expert and had all the information. All of these truths demand remedy, but letting experts have all the information and render a decision. That’s called an investigation.
The Beyler report is all the proof we need- but I still demand the Board act on it to post-humously vindicate Willingham and re-examine other convictions based on faulty science.
truthseeker says:
Do you know if the state paid the 30k to burn down the house a second time or was that paid for by the defense?
Jacqueline says:
I will answer your question about the 30k when you answer the one I bolded and asked 13,456 times already. I know the answer.
truthseeker says:
I am not sure why you said that and I wonder why you nwould be less than forthright with the facts.
Jacqueline said:
I am not.
truthseeker says:
then why do you continue to not answer the question. And if you want to drop the sarcasm cause I answered your “bolded” question multiple times and you just keep repeating it again and again without answering my question to you. Since this last appeal was done by a different attorney I am guessing that the defendant hired private experts to contradict the arson finding.
Jacqueline says:
“The Beyler report is all the proof we need”
truthseeker says:
1) To you since they have Phd’s you are absolutely sure the science proves that their finding is correct. I don’t have that kind of acceptance of court experts when they get paid a healthy sum by the defendant to testify to a beneficial conclusion as if it were scientific fact. You seem to place complete faith in people with Phds. My experience tells me that they would claim any science angle that support the client who is paying them and portray that as being scientific FACT and ignore any findings otherwise. That leads me to ask the second question above and you did not respond so I will ask you that again too.
2) Do you know if they poured cologne on the carpets when his defense team of experts simulated the fire for use in the Beyler report? If not then the whole report would be useless.
You keep insisting that Perry “sabotaged” an investigation. To that end I asked you a question you did not respond to. So I will ask it here again:
Jacqueline, Does the fact that he replaced three members of the board and they ended up voting against the defendant prove that Perry was covering something up? Is there any evidence that he spoke with these people ahead of time and made sure they were going to vote against the defendant prior to selecting them? Exactly what evidence do you have to back up your accusation of a cover up?
To you since they have Phd’s you are absolutely sure the science proves that their finding is correct.
Yeah, I trust the Ph.D.’s- because I can personally testify on how agonizing and nearly impossible it is to get one and you can’t have one without expertise.
Do you know if the state paid the 30k to burn down the house a second time or was that paid for by the defense?
This is all on Wikipedia, dude- a state agency, the Texas Forensic Science Commission, concerned about the evidence the Hurst found authorized the 30K investigation. Even though this non-partisan, rigorous, scientific investigation exonerated Willingham, Perry called it anti-death penalty propaganda in spite of the fact that it was objectively created by a non-partisan agency and creditted by non-partisan experts. He just didn’t like that it suggested an innocent man may have been executed on his watch. So two days before the hearing on these findings, Perry fired 3 members and replaced them with “friendlies”- the new head cancelled the hearing and refuses to reschedule it.
The defense team had nothing to do with any of the investigations. It was a government agency- and I don’t know if the poured cologne or not. You put way too much stock in these trifles.
Anywho, I have said all I can say here and need to return to real life. It’s been interesting chatting with you.
I don’t know if they poured cologne or not. You put way too much stock in these trifles.
Jacqueline, It is hardly trifles. It doesn’t take a Phd to see that an investigation to determine wether or not arson occured would need to use the same accelerant that was used for the original fire. If they did not use the same accelerant then the your the Breyer report was just made inadmissable by a dummy like me who only has an associates degree. And that would also mean your ‘proof’ is made questionable at best and more likely meaningless.
Also, you still provided zero evidence of sabotage or coercion being used in the replacement board members Perry picked. Saying a governor appointed ‘friendlies is not proof. Did you expect him to appoint enemies? Insinuating that just the fact that board members were replaced equals sabotage is spreading unsubstantiated rumors.
It’s been a slice chatting with you too Jacqueline. May God help us both discern the truth in everything we encounter.
truthseeker, if you have some spare time, this [long] article about the Willingham case is a good read: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=1 Around page 12, I think, it specifically talks about a different “open and shut” arson case whose circumstances were recreated pretty much exactly – and the way the fire burned went counter to just about every bit of arson “common knowledge evidence” that was taken as science during the trial.
Chemistry tests for incendiaries- there were none. No cologne, only lighter fluid by the BBQ grill on the front porch. So this cologne thing is an unnecessary trifle you are hung up on in spite of other, more sophisticated evidence found by experts who know what they are talking about.
Yes, I would believe a Ph.D. in chemistry over an A.S. in Chemistry. I would believe an A.S. in Chemistry over a Ph.D. in Creative Writing. It’s not about academic rank- It’s about who has the expertise. I don’t have the expertise. You don’t have the expertise. The Corsicana fire and police don’t, the lawyer doesn’t. I respect expertise also because it makes sense to trust people who know what they are talking about over those who do not.
I agree to an extent Jacqueline. But their can often many factors that drive the way these present things ad there is no real “proof” to arson like you say. Arson is more a science of looking for things symptomatic of the way fires burn and it can often point to arson, as I believe this case did, but in mmost cases an honest analysis does not really prove or disprove arson. I actually read the Hurst report and started reading the Breyer report and the Texas forensic boards findings. Interesting stuff. I haven’t finished reading everything but from what I have read I would say the Breyer report does not “prove” innocence; what it does is provide additional possible explanations to explain the symptoms of arson that were detected at the scene.
That leaves the rest of the evidence (alibi, motive, history and current behaviours of the defendant etc) to establish proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Thanks Alexandra. I will look at it when I get a minute :)
Chemistry tests for incendiaries- there were none. No cologne, only lighter fluid by the BBQ grill on the front porch. So this cologne thing is an unnecessary trifle you are hung up on in spite of other, more sophisticated evidence found by experts who know what they are talking about.
Jacqueline, the defendant himself pointed out to the investigating fireman the places where he poured the “cologne”. The defendants own defense attorney says he did a simulated the burning in order to try and prove his clients innocence by placing accelerant in the locations where the defendant had said he had applied accelerant and the burn patterns matched exactly the crime scenes. The Breyer report gave other possible explanations for those burn patterns but it does not mean that the evidence used to convict him was not signs of arson or in any way disprove what was found when during the initial investigation. And it does not give you or anybody else reason to discard the defendants claim of pouring accelerant throughout the house as being a ‘trifle’.
Jacqueline,
from my perspective I have learned that the arson science has come to understand that flash fires (fires that spread all at once due to the air temperature rising to a certain degree) in fact cause the effect of fires with multiple points of origin which fire forensic has always deemed to be a sign of arson.
That does raise the bar on the criteria needed to prove arson. For example, as you mentioned above, chemistry tests for incindiaries etc. I find it hard to believe that these tests were not performed at the places of suspected ’puddling’ and the places where Cameron had said he had poured perfume.
I have not seen any evidence to support your claims of intentional sabotage by Governor Perry. I had asked you multiple times for any evidence of this and your only response was that he appointed ‘friendlies’ to the board that oversees the hearing recommendation process. That is his job and that does not prove any bias towards denying the defendant due process.
The place where the system needs change are as follows,
1) Governor Perry does need to look inside himself as a supporter of the death penalty and know that he is responsible if innocent people get executed. A governor who calls himself pro-life would need to spend a lot of his personal time reviewing these cases for accuracy or he needs to quit supporting the death penalty. There needs to be a zero tolerance for failure.
2) The point of system breakdown in this particular case appears to be the review hearing board. This from the article Alexandra pointed me to:
LaFayette Collins, who was a member of the board at the time, told me of the process, “You don’t vote guilt or innocence. You don’t retry the trial. You just make sure everything is in order and there are no glaring errors.” He noted that although the rules allowed for a hearing to consider important new evidence, “in my time there had never been one called.” When I asked him why Hurst’s report didn’t constitute evidence of “glaring errors,” he said, “We get all kinds of reports, but we don’t have the mechanisms to vet them.”
As I have stated before; for multiple reasons I am against the state executing anybody. It is cheaper to keep them in prison for life and it takes away the heinous possibility of the state executing an innocent man. But if a state like Texas wants to keep the death penalty the governor needs to make sure there is a more failsafe process in place where both the governor and the review board are assuredly vetting any petitions or appeals including the review of any exculputory process or change in evidence.
As far as Perry’s responsibility goes. He needs to know that it is his solemn duty to make sure the above failsafes are put in place cause any executions of innocents persons to whome he denies a stay are on his head.
That said Jacqueline, the last thing I would like to address is your assertion that Perry sabotaged the appeals process by stacking the board with ‘friendlies’. Perry replaced three members of the board does not prove that Perry was covering something up? Is there any evidence that he spoke with these people ahead of time and made sure they were going to vote against the defendant prior to selecting them? Exactly what evidence do you have to back up your accusation of a cover up cause I have asked you this several times and you have yet to give me any.
truthseeker said:
Jacqueline, the defendant himself pointed out to the investigating fireman the places where he poured the “cologne”. The defendants own defense attorney says he did a simulated the burning in order to try and prove his clients innocence by placing accelerant in the locations where the defendant had said he had applied accelerant and the burn patterns matched exactly the crime scenes.
I take this back. I am not sure wether the defense attorney put accelerant where the defendant said he had poured. He may have put it in the locations where the investigation showed signs of puddling etc. I just don’t know cause the documentation is not that detailed.
and the way the fire burned went counter to just about every bit of arson “common knowledge evidence” that was taken as science during the trial.
Alexandra, thanks again for pointing out that article. And just as a note to you. It didn’t really burn counter to previous arson “common knowledge evidence”. All that evidence is still in tact; eg. V-patterns still predict to points of origin and multiple points of origin still connote arson. What has changed is the observation that the flash fire effect has been shown to be a second possible cause of multiple V-patterns which point to multiple sources of origin so those things by themselves; though they still point to the possibility of arson; could also be the result of a single poiny of origin fire that becomes a flash fire.
Jacqueline, I did a little more research on why Perry replaced those board members. Their terms had expired. Your assertion of sabotage gave the appearance that he just fired them and appointed new ones out of the blue. That is not what happened here.
Also, the commission in Texas is still atually reviewing this case. So your calls for an investigation are already answered. They are looking closely at the “pour patterns”.
Actually the investigation concluded On April 15, 2011, the Texas Forensic Science Commission issued its report on the convictions of Cameron Todd Willingham and Ernest Willis, recommending more education and training for fire investigators and implementing procedures to review old cases. In July 2011, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued an opinion in response to questions from the commission about jurisdiction and authority.
So the bottom line is that my assertion above that this is ongoing was wrong. This is settled unless somebody; the Innocence project or the defendants family or the attorney general somehow re-opens this case.
Alexandra, thanks again for pointing out that article. And just as a note to you. It didn’t really burn counter to previous arson “common knowledge evidence”.
I’m glad you read it! I know it’s a long one but I didn’t know much about arson before, except what I saw on TV about burn patterns and pooling and yes v-shapes, and it really shocked me.
The common knowledge I was referring to was that these signs of flash fire, or just regular fire, are signs that point to arson, when in actuality they appear to be somewhat naturally-occuring.
Alexandra,
What I understood is not that multiple points of original naturally occur in all fires. The big finding here is that multiple points of origin were found to occur naturally in flash fires. The only way this occurs naturally is when the air in a building heats up to temperatures that the heat radiating from the air is so hot that it is able to ignite additional points of origin without burn trails.
In summary my finding that they now recognize multiple points of origin to be a naturally occuring event in flash fires but it is still not considered a naturally occurring event in ‘regular’ fires. ‘Regular’ fires are still considered to naturally spread through trails of flames leading from a single point of origin.
I have no way of knowing everything that the investigation found or that the jurors and investigaitors were privvy to so I would not feel comfortable in declaring arson or no arson. I can say that I am not comfortable passing judgement (especially death penalty) without irrefutable proof. The state has put things in place to allow the commision to investigate future cases from the standpoint of just not procedural errors but also exculpatory evidence of innocence or guilt. That is not enough for me personally to make me a death penalty advocate. I am left hungry for seeking more detailed evidence on many factors that I do not have. Unless Jacqueline has something to add like info from her conversation with the fireman dude on the scene or or someone else has something to add I think I will let this rest for now. I found out lots of intresting stuff.
The topic of this article says pro-life can’t br personally pro-life and yet not want the government to stop abortion. That would be having your cake and eating it to. I would say to Perry, a pro-life person who is for the death penalty and does not want to stop all government executions until absolute failsafes of injustice are in place is a person who wants to have his cake and eat it too.
May God the Father of Jesus Christ bless and protect and guide who call upon His name.
truthseeker, I am not just referring to the multiple points of origin. Regardless, I think that whether or not a “sign of arson” can occur naturally is more important than whether it occurs naturally in a flash fire or a “regular” fire.
Gotcha Alexandra ;)