No way is this guy innocent.

[ManyBeers]

....that a 24 year-old father was able to get out of his 975 sq. foot house alive and unscathed,
and at the same time unable to get his 2 year-old and twin infant daughters out as well
whether they be dead or alive. The 2 year old was found dead in the master bedroom where
Willingham awoke to her cries of "Daddy! Daddy!" . Is that explainable?

He basically stands outside and watches the place burn knowing his daughters are too
young to escape on their own.


I think the jury which convicted him probably asked themselves the same question and
determined it is inconceivable as well.



New Yorker article

 

[Lamont Burns]

inconceivable!

 

[Pheran]

What I find inconceivable is that there is someone named "Buffie Barbee".

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

you keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

Are you a parent?

 

[slayer202]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

Are you a parent?

Are you retarded?


edit: did you even read the article? looks like an innocent man was killed...probably not the first. and there are millions that have been locked up because of cops or prosecutors manipulating evidence in their favor

 

[DesiPower]

can someone post a gist of the article? its too long to read at work...

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

you keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it means.

Why do you think that?

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

Are you a parent?

Are you retarded?


I'd say the clear evidence of arson was that swayed the jury...

I guess so.

According to the article the arson evidence isn't "clear".

 

[Miramonti]

cliffs? no tiempo ahora.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

highly unlikely

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: jjsole
cliffs? no tiempo ahora.

Basically a 24 year old father awakes to his 2 year old daughter's cries of "Daddy! Daddy! realizes his 975 sq. foot house is on fire and he gets out alive and unhurt but his 3 infant daughters are killed. In my mind--- unless he wanted his daughters dead--his story is impossible for a father.

 

[Riceninja]

so he did it on purpose or just didnt care about the girls - either way he deserves to die.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
....that a 24 year-old father was able to get out of his 975 sq. foot house alive and unscathed,
and at the same time unable to get his 2 year-old and twin infant daughters out as well
whether they be dead or alive. The 2 year old was found dead in the master bedroom where
Willingham awoke to her cries of "Daddy! Daddy!" . Is that explainable?

I think the jury which convicted him probably asked themselves the same question and
determined it is inconceivable as well.

New Yorker article

Ya, heard the author talking about this story yesterday. Pretty interesting. I haven't received my new issue in the mail, yet (&***&^ West Coast BS!! :|), so based on the details form the radio, it sounds pretty crazy.

Texas being the first state to admit to executing an innocent man? Yikes.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

Are you a parent?

Are you retarded?


I'd say the clear evidence of arson was that swayed the jury...

the point of the article is that the "clear evidence" heard by the jury was anything but. The investigators used outdated, non-scientific, and completely erroneous methods of arson investigation to stack against the accused.

Apparently, their methods were the phrenology, or chiropractic disciplines of the world of arson investigation.

The case was re-examined shortly before the execution was to be commuted, and found undeniably to be an accident. Texas still killed him, though. They're funny that way.

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

highly unlikely

his post --------------------------------------->








your head --------------------------------------->

 

[ViviTheMage]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

you keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it means.

haha

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Riceninja
so he did it on purpose or just didnt care about the girls - either way he deserves to die.

Well I definitely believe he did it on purpose. The only way to explain his actions are that he wanted them dead. I don't believe any father would escape without their babies...dead or alive.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: slayer202

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

Are you a parent?

Are you retarded?


I'd say the clear evidence of arson was that swayed the jury...

the point of the article is that the "clear evidence" heard by the jury was anything but. The investigators used outdated, non-scientific, and completely erroneous methods of arson investigation to stack against the accused.

Apparently, their methods were the phrenology, or chiropractic disciplines of the world of arson investigation.

The case was re-examined shortly before the execution was to be commuted, and found undeniably to be an accident. Texas still killed him, though. They're funny that way.

So you believe as a father you would have got out without your babies? You would have left them to burn. Even if you thought they were dead you wouldn't have gotten then out ...no
matter what?

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

highly unlikely

his post --------------------------------------->








your head --------------------------------------->

What?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Riceninja
so he did it on purpose or just didnt care about the girls - either way he deserves to die.

Well I definitely believe he did it on purpose. The only way to explain his actions are that he wanted them dead. I don't believe any father would escape without their babies...dead or alive.

Screw the jury trials, evidence, appeals, etc.... ManyBeers is able to tell us with his infallible intuition whether someone committed a crime or not :roll:

 

[T9D]

...

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: DesiPower
can someone post a gist of the article? its too long to read at work...

By now, both investigators had a clear vision of what had happened. Someone had poured liquid accelerant throughout the children?s room, even under their beds, then poured some more along the adjoining hallway and out the front door, creating a ?fire barrier? that prevented anyone from escaping; similarly, a prosecutor later suggested, the refrigerator in the kitchen had been moved to block the back-door exit. The house, in short, had been deliberately transformed into a death trap.

[...]

The defense had tried to find a fire expert to counter Vasquez and Fogg?s testimony, but the one they contacted concurred with the prosecution.

BUT, after Willingham was executed:

In 2005, Texas established a government commission to investigate allegations of error and misconduct by forensic scientists. The first cases that are being reviewed by the commission are those of Willingham and Willis. In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez?s approach seemed to deny ?rational reasoning? and was more ?characteristic of mystics or psychics.? What?s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, ?not only the standards of today but even of the time period.?

:shocked:

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: ManyBeers

Originally posted by: Lamont Burns
inconceivable!

highly unlikely

his post --------------------------------------->








your head --------------------------------------->

What?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo

watch this to get it

 

[Pheran]

That article is extremely long and I haven't finished it, but I've into into Part IV and now there is absolutely reasonable doubt in my mind that this guy is innocent - the arson info in that part is damning to the prosecution.

And for those that say no father would leave a burning house without his kids, that is just stupid. While I would do absolutely everything in my power to rescue my daughter from a fire, I am not Superman and I cannot withstand superhot flames or suffocation. I can imagine situations in which I would be forced to give up.