Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 61 of 205 (660816)
04-29-2012 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Jon
04-29-2012 4:34 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
Jon writes:
They are only commenting on the fact that there is no evidence to support an arson conclusion.
Based on this an acquittal or verdict of not-guilty should have been handed out. But not a declaration of innocence.
You contradict yourself.
There is no evidence that a crime occured. The defendent is, by definition, innocent of a crime which did not occur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Jon, posted 04-29-2012 4:34 PM Jon has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 62 of 205 (660817)
04-29-2012 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by subbie
04-29-2012 4:54 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
If it was just a fire, it wasn't arson. If it wasn't arson, he was innocent of murder.
Hurst reviewed only documents. I can appreciate that Hurst does not believe that the fire was arson, but that is only his opinion, and it is not an opinion based on a completely independent investigation.
We simply do not have a justice system that is designed to establish actual innocence. In many cases, proving innocence requires proving a negative using non-exhaustive methods. Is it possible to set a house fire in a way that won't leave any evidence of arson? I believe that it is possible to do so.
Edited by NoNukes, : Fix tags. I'll let the grammar errors stay put.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 4:54 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 5:30 PM NoNukes has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 63 of 205 (660818)
04-29-2012 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
04-29-2012 5:22 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
Hurst reviewed only documents.
And a videotape of the investigation.
I can appreciate that Hurst does not believe that the fire was arson, but that is only his opinion, and it is not an opinion based on a completely independent investigation.
But it is an expert opinion based on all available evidence. If you want to simply disbelieve it, that's your prerogative, as it was Governor Perry's. But that is in fact evidence of actual innocence.
We simply do not have a justice system that is designed to establish actual innocence.
That is quite true. But that fact does not prevent us from looking at the evidence and assessing the actual guilt or innocence of the man in the context of this discussion.
Is it possible to set a house fire in a way that won't leave any evidence of arson? I believe that it is possible to do so.
And if I say it is not, where does that leave us? Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim? More importantly for this discussion, do you have any evidence that that is what happened in this case? Was Willingham a known arsonist who might be expected to have the knowledge and expertise necessary to do such a thing if it's possible? Do you have any reason to believe that Hurst didn't consider and dismiss that possibility?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 5:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 6:58 PM subbie has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 64 of 205 (660821)
04-29-2012 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by subbie
04-29-2012 5:30 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
But it is an expert opinion based on all available evidence. If you want to simply disbelieve it, that's your prerogative, as it was Governor Perry's. But that is in fact evidence of actual innocence.
I don't disbelieve it. I agree that Hurst found evidence of actual innocence. But Hurst does not go as far as you and crashfrog claim.
Hurst's official conclusion is that he found no evidence of arson, and that the original conclusion is not justified. Period. Hurst is not claiming to say how the fire started. A finding no evidence of arson, and refuting the evidence supplied by the state is not the same as demonstrating that there was no arson.
I've included a link to Hurst's report. You can judge for yourself exactly how far Hurst goes in addressing the so-called evidence.
Page not found - Innocence Project
I personally believe that Texas executed an innocent man, and I have zero respect for Governor Perry's action in this case.
And if I say it is not, where does that leave us?
I'm afraid you are going to have to take a side if you want me to argue. The actual question is much simpler. Is it possible that there could have been arson that wouldn't have been evident in whatever video tape and testimony Hurst was able to review?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : Add some ABE
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 5:30 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 7:24 PM NoNukes has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 65 of 205 (660824)
04-29-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by NoNukes
04-29-2012 6:58 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
I agree that Hurst found evidence of actual innocence. But Hurst does not go as far as you and crashfrog claim.
Hurst's official conclusion is that he found no evidence of arson, and that the original conclusion is not justified. Period. Hurst is not claiming to say how the fire started. A finding no evidence of arson, and refuting the evidence supplied by the state is not the same as demonstrating that there was no arson.
I'm only repeating what the Chicago Tribune reported.
"There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire," said Hurst, a Cambridge University-educated chemist who has investigated scores of fires in his career. "It was just a fire."
I agree that there was nothing in the written report to demonstrate actual innocence. But, in addition to the written report, he also said, "It was just a fire."
The actual question is much simpler. Is it possible that there could have been arson that wouldn't have been evident in whatever video tape and testimony Hurst was able to review?
If we're just going to toss out wild, unsupported speculation, I can't rule out the possibility that Hurst set the fire and his report is an attempt to keep his own fat out of the fire, if you'll pardon the pun. No amount of baseless devil's advocacy is going to change the fact that Hurst said, "It was just a fire." There is no positive evidence of arson that has not been soundly refuted, and the only positive evidence we have is Hurst's statement that "It was just a fire." Only the most stubborn solopsist, simply taking a contrary position for the sake of arguing, can claim anything else without producing more evidence than has been presented here.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 6:58 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 7:40 PM subbie has replied
 Message 70 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 8:22 PM subbie has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 66 of 205 (660825)
04-29-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by subbie
04-29-2012 7:24 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
I'm only repeating what the Chicago Tribune reported.
I understand. But I'm afraid that's not good enough.
Let me provide some examples from Hurst's actual report.
1. Apparently the original investigators concluded that some brown rings found on the cement porch were evidence of the use of an accelerant. Hurst gives an alternate explanation for the rings and indicates that the correct way to perform the analysis requires a chromatographic analysis. But no such analysis is available.
2. The original investigation reported that kerosene was detected in a sample of wood. Hurst finds that only "mineral spirits of kerosene" were found, and that the finding was consistent with lighter fluid rather than kerosene. There was an innocent explanation for lighter fluid being present.
In both cases, what the original investigators presented as iron clad evidence is shown not to be iron clad. But while Hurst has attacked the evidentiary value of the original evidence, his refutations don't quite prove innocence.
I agree that there was nothing in the written report to demonstrate actual innocence. But, in addition to the written report, he also said, "It was just a fire."
I understand that. So what? Is that really evidence? I do find it persuasive, but it ain't proof.
f we're just going to toss out wild, unsupported speculation, I can't rule out the possibility that Hurst set the fire and his report is an attempt to keep his own fat out of the fire,
I understand your point, but I don't believe I am indulging in the kind of unwarranted speculation you illustrate with your 'Hurst did it' story. Hurst is stuck with the available testimony, evidence, and whatever he managed to see on the videotape. Hurst has taken his best shot, and so have a number of other investigators. But Hurst's report gives a pretty good indication of what he could and did could not conclude. And at best his report supports the fact that the conviction is not supported by the available evidence. We don't have to assume that Hurst or the other investigators are lying or incompetent in order to acknowledge that there is a possibility that an undetected arson occurred.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 7:24 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 8:03 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2012 8:51 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 205 (660826)
04-29-2012 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by NoNukes
04-29-2012 4:49 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
But Onifre isn't talking about not-guilty, is he? He's talking about innocence.
Yes, and Onifre's point is a red herring.
The entire issue of guilt/non-guilt/innocence is a red herring. No matter who's making the point or what their point is.
But that's for a different post.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 4:49 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 8:02 PM Jon has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 205 (660828)
04-29-2012 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jon
04-29-2012 7:55 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
The entire issue of guilt/non-guilt/innocence is a red herring. No matter who's making the point or what their point is.
Jon, that's a pretty silly statement. Surely there are some valid things to discuss that do revolve around guilt/non-quilt/innocence.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jon, posted 04-29-2012 7:55 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Jon, posted 04-29-2012 9:42 PM NoNukes has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 69 of 205 (660829)
04-29-2012 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NoNukes
04-29-2012 7:40 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
We don't have to assume that Hurst or the other investigators are lying or incompetent in order to acknowledge that there is a possibility that an undetected arson occurred.
No, you simply have to make up things out of whole cloth that nobody associated with the matter has ever said, and ignore what Hurst did say. As I have quoted numerous times, Hurst said, "It was just a fire."
Is that really evidence? Of course it is. It is exactly the kind of expert opinion that courts and juries hear and rely on every day.
Is it possibly subject to impeachment? Is it possible that there are additional facts that Hurst didn't consider? Is it possible that Willingham could have done it another, undetectable way that Hurst didn't consider? Is it possible Hurst did it himself? Is it possible the world was created last Tuesday and none of that ever happened? Yes, all of these things are possible. There is no evidence of any of them, and all of the evidence we have is that Willingham is innocent. But feel free to trot out any other wild hairs that come to mind. There's lots of room left in the thread.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 7:40 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 9:05 PM subbie has replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 205 (660832)
04-29-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by subbie
04-29-2012 7:24 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
subbie writes:
If we're just going to toss out wild, unsupported speculation, I can't rule out the possibility that Hurst set the fire and his report is an attempt to keep his own fat out of the fire, if you'll pardon the pun. No amount of baseless devil's advocacy is going to change the fact that Hurst said, "It was just a fire." There is no positive evidence of arson that has not been soundly refuted, and the only positive evidence we have is Hurst's statement that "It was just a fire." Only the most stubborn solopsist, simply taking a contrary position for the sake of arguing, can claim anything else without producing more evidence than has been presented here.
Isn't this an appeal to authority?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 7:24 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 8:27 PM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 04-29-2012 9:02 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 71 of 205 (660833)
04-29-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Chuck77
04-29-2012 8:22 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
No, it's a discussion of evidence. Expert opinion is one form of evidence. If anyone has any evidence contrary to that opinion, they can provide it. If it's contrary expert opinion, that's fine, we can compare and evaluate.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 8:22 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 72 of 205 (660834)
04-29-2012 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NoNukes
04-29-2012 7:40 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
This is just turning the burden of evidence on its head.
The legal state of "innocence" is the state of being not guilty of the crime. Willingham is perforce not guilty of the crime because no crime occurred.
By the standard you employ, here, nobody can properly be considered "innocent."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 7:40 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 9:17 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 84 by Jon, posted 04-29-2012 9:56 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 73 of 205 (660836)
04-29-2012 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Chuck77
04-29-2012 8:22 PM


Fallacy
You might want to brush up on your fallacies before you invoke them.
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
Here is a pretty good primer
Fallacies - Nizkor

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 8:22 PM Chuck77 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 205 (660837)
04-29-2012 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by subbie
04-29-2012 8:03 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
As I have quoted numerous times, Hurst said, "It was just a fire."
Yes. Hurst said that to the newspaper. But the quality of testimony he provided in his actual report is of a completely different character. Hurst official report is only that the evidence against Hurst elicited by the state is insufficient to conclude arson. But I haven't seen any evidence other than the defendant's testimony that proves or even strongly suggests that the fire was not arson.
Is that really evidence? Of course it is. It is exactly the kind of expert opinion that courts and juries hear and rely on every day.
Actually, in court we restrict experts from giving ultimate conclusions of law. They aren't allowed to make decisions that substitute for jury conclusions. I understand that you are a lawyer.
Is it possibly subject to impeachment?
As best as I can tell, Hurst's statement "It's just a fire" was never offered in any circumstance in which it would be subject to impeachment. He certainly did not provide any evidence allowing us to say how the fire started.
Again, in the report, Hurst goes through the evidence and tells us exactly what he thinks of it. We don't have to guess about what his official opinion encompasses.
and all of the evidence we have is that Willingham is innocent.
That statement is flat out false on its face. Willingham, is likely innocent despite the evidence suggesting otherwise.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 8:03 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2012 9:08 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 78 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 9:25 PM NoNukes has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 75 of 205 (660839)
04-29-2012 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by NoNukes
04-29-2012 9:05 PM


Re: Mr. Willingham
But I haven't seen any evidence other than the defendant's testimony that proves or even strongly suggests that the fire was not arson.
Why would anyone have to provide evidence that the fire was not arson?
What would be the difference between evidence that the fire was not arson and evidence that the fire was an arson made to look like not an arson?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 9:05 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 9:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024