Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

Let's try this again. Emphasis mine.Let me repeat, for emphasis, since it seems you have yet to absorb the point. "It was just a fire."If it was just a fire, it wasn't arson. If it wasn't arson, he was innocent of murder.

And a videotape of the 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. 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. 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?

I'm only repeating what the Chicago Tribune reported.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." 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.

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.

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.

Which means Hurst can't testify that it wasn't murder. That would be the conclusion of law. But it is well within his expertise to conclude that a fire was not started by a person, but "just a fire." Except for Hurst's statement that "It was just a fire." Why was that particular statement not included in the report that he wrote? I don't know. Ask him, or ask whomever he wrote the report for. None of that changes the fact that he made the statement.I'm quite confident that Hurst understands that there are three different conclusions he could have come to; a person started the fire, the origin of the fire cannot be determined, or a person did not start the fire. To simply assume that he didn't mean what he said when he said, "It was just a fire" is to refuse to accept the evidence that we have. Because the criminally unjust court system of Texas never provided an opportunity for him to testify. Again, that does not change the fact that he said, "It was just a fire." Other than character assassination and unsupported speculation based on a rock poster he had on his wall, what evidence is there that Hurst didn't completely debunk? It's been a while since I read in depth about this, but that's all that I recall them having. If you have more, please present it.

Curious. I'd be very interested in seeing where that is. My understanding is that most post conviction petitions raise issues such as ineffective assistance of counsel, jury misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, trial court error or newly discovered evidence. Other than a post conviction claim of actual innocence (which I suppose would have to be raised in the context of newly discovered evidence), I've never heard of a requirement that a defendant even suggest innocence in order to get a post conviction hearing.

Or perhaps he wasn't asked to. Can you tell me where, because I didn't see that. And so you think he would just make shit up? I didn't see anything in it of relevance to the instant discussion. I did agree that his report doesn't say Willingham didn't start the fire. What else do you want me to say about it?

Yes, the defendant has the burden of proof. But guilt or innocence isn't even a relevant issues for most of those claims. In fact, strictly speaking, guilt or innocence isn't even a necessary element in a claim regarding sufficiency of the evidence or a request for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. So while the defendant has the burden of proof, it isn't a burden to prove innocence.

You are correct insofar as those questions can all be asked in the abstract about capital punishment without any discussion of the real world implications. But you are wrong to suggest that real world experience is not relevant to those questions.There are many who disagree with your conclusions about the justice, civility and cruelty of capital punishment. Showing them that in practice the death penalty results in more blacks and poor people getting killed than whites and rich people might convince them to abandon the practice. In addition, showing them that innocent people have been killed because of imperfections in our criminal justice system might make a difference to them as well.

First, let me state that I'm not sure myself whether capital punishment, in principle, is wrong. However, I'm willing to assume for present purposes that it is. Yes, in the best of all possible worlds, I would want to convince people that my position is the right one. However, if I am unable to do that, the next best thing is to convince them that it cannot be administered fairly. If I can do that, capital punishment will end.Is it the best solution? Perhaps not. But do you really think it makes any difference to people sitting on death row? I know it wouldn't to me if I were there. And, if they were somehow able to fix all the problems, we'd then have a fairer criminal justice system. Surely that would be good, yes?

You are. And I feel no need to respond to speculation with anything other than my own speculation. Yes, I saw that.It wasn't him saying that he couldn't tell if the fire was started by a person or not unless there was a chromatographic analysis done. That was him saying that the previous investigator was wrong to conclude that there was an accelerant just based on visual inspection. It certainly never says he can't determine the cause of the fire without a chromatographic test. Yes, indeed. Much, if not all, of the report was simply a debunking of various claims the state made during trial. But nothing in the report ever said he couldn't determine a cause for the fire, and nothing is inconsistent with his statement that "It was just a fire." I'm quite interested in the evidence, that's why I asked you to direct me to what you were referring to. I disagree with your spin on it. Nothing changes the fact that he said, "It was just a fire."It was just a fire. It wasn't arson. Texas convicted an innocent man.