|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Wiki writes: Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Let's try this again.
Wiki writes:
Emphasis mine. Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Actually, in court we restrict experts from giving ultimate conclusions of law. They aren't allowed to make decisions that substitute for jury conclusions. 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."
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. 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.
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 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."
Willingham, is likely innocent despite the evidence suggesting otherwise. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Post conviction, the standard for getting a convict's verdict overturned is quite a bit different. In some cases actual evidence of innocence is legally required. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
But in any event, Hurst report does not provide support for making a statement about how the fire was caused. Perhaps that's why he did not say that in his official report. Or perhaps he wasn't asked to.
Hurst could not do analyses that he himself said were needed. Can you tell me where, because I didn't see that.
I'm also sure that Hurst knew that he was not held to any of that when he spoke to the newspaper. And so you think he would just make shit up?
You haven't even responded to the portions of Hurst's report that I've cited so far. Hurst's report is only a few pages long, and I did link to it. 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?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
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.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Whether the death penalty represents a just, civil, and non-cruel punishment has nothing to do with whether or not the punished party has been wrongly convicted or not. Even when guilt is 100% certain, the questions are still the same along with the answers: Is capital punishment just? No. Is capital punishment civil? No. Is capital punishment non-cruel? No. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it. If murder is the most heinous crime, then execution is the most cruel punishment. It simply cannot stand; and we must not stand for it. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
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?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I thought I was the one speculating? You are. And I feel no need to respond to speculation with anything other than my own speculation.
For example, on page 5 where Hurst about the need to do a chromatographic analysis to determine whether an accelerant was used. There was no available material to conduct the analysis on at the time Hurst did his report. 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.
Note that an arsonist could light multiple spots in the same room, so Hurst finding in this regard merely indicates that the actual evidence in neutral with respect to arson. Many if not all of Hurst's rebuttals are of this type. 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."
If you really aren't interested in the evidence, perhaps there really isn't much for us to discuss. 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.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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024