Comments on: Nightline Explodes the Willingham Case

By: TH

TH — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:10:10 +0000

Sure, the Nightline piece is a re-hash. But it’s an important story that deserves to be told nationally. (Note how today’s DMN page A3 story on Perry quashing the review commission wasn’t even done by a local reporter but was a wire piece from the Chicago Tribune.) This is important to keep discussing during the election year–Perry would like nothing more than to have it go away.

For those who doubt what they saw in the video, read the Grann piece at newyorker.com. It is a brilliant piece of journalism and utterly convincing.

By: Marty Cortland

Marty Cortland — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:40:48 +0000

Daniel:

Hold off a second on the “full stop,” please. Criminal convictions do not rely on absolute certainty. Rather, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Merely impugning the credibility of the evidence is not sufficient.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:50:22 +0000

They don’t have to “prove” the fire was accidental. They merely have to credibly impugn the original “proof” that it was arson. If the original evidence was questionable, then this is a miscarriage et cetera. Full stop.

By: jjc

jjc — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 02:18:52 +0000

Curtis – We are not hearing the Gov’s side because he is not allowing it to be told. We are all grown ups here – what does that tell you? I think rather than waiting for the story to be told or fretting about media “fairness” (someone was put to death here), we should be demanding that the State of Texas open up about what really happened here.

By: Curtis Remington

Curtis Remington — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 17:09:20 +0000

In A Sense and Sharon: this is why I want to hear more from both sides. The coverage of this has been very one-sided. I want to hear it all so I can make up my own mind. Nightline failed to do that. I hope someone will.

By: Jack E. Jett

Jack E. Jett — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:17:07 +0000

I would hope we would rely on facts and not someone’s emotions when we put someone to death. Perhaps he pushed the car away to avoid a further explosion? Perhaps he was in shock and distraught? Perhaps the house was so engulfed in flames it would have been impossible to enter?

By: Sharon Boyd

Sharon Boyd — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:28:49 +0000

The guy let his 3 little girls burn to death, but he pushed his car away from the burning house. My husband was a Fire Chief. I asked him how many fathers (or mothers) did he ever see stand around outside while their children burned in the house? None! He got out, but couldn’t save one of 3 little girls?

His neighbors testified against him at the trial. His conviction was not just on the “scientific” arson data. Are we supposed to completely do away with juries and just rely on CSI staff in future murder, rape & assault trials?

By: In a Sense

In a Sense — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:46:43 +0000

The only expert that has stated that he believes the fire to be accidental is Hurst…who isn’t a recognized, trained fire expert (despite his other scientific qualifications). The other experts, including Beyler, have not claimed an accidental origin, as far as I can tell.

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:31:19 +0000

Wick: I really appreciate the care and thoughtfulness of your comments. You know, I think we are on the same page . I was reading a publication earlier this year and found myself drawn to a hatchet job on a poor fool who went from rags to riches to rags. The fool was in financial hot water with the publication or friends of the publication – I don’t remember. I have no idea why I was compelled to read it, but I sure felt icky after I learned about the financial dispute and the relationships. It seemed like a strange misuse of public trust, but here I am writing about the situation. Oh well. Thanks again for your comments and have a great weekend. Great food for thought.

By: Wick Allison

Wick Allison — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:33:49 +0000

@ Cheryl: I love you for your concern over what I should be interested in. The fact is, even I am puzzled by what I am interested in. Flipping through the NYTimes on a Saturday, I reach page 23 and find myself reading about Uganda. I did not know I was interested in Uganda. I still don’t think I AM interested in Uganda. But there I am, reading about it. It’s the same with writing. I suppose I would write about what you are interested in if I, too, were interested in it. But apparently I’m not. And I have no explanation for it.