CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM was innocent but executed

[superwhuffo1]

...thanks for shouting from the rooftops my friend.

[guteronkelpeter]

Thank you John for your utterance. But I think Todd was not executed he was murdered. The state of Texas must investigate this crime und punish the people, who are responsible for it.

[chekist1917]

Todd Willingham's own lawyer - David Martin - is now admitting his client was guilty and that he knew it. He says the defense presented no expert witness of their own because the one they hired said it was clearly arson.

 Also several jurors are speaking out and saying how offended they are that there are so many idiots that believe he is innocent when the evidence is overwhelming. You that think this sick bastard was innocent are SHAMELESS SUCKERS. IDIOTS.

GET A LIFE LOSERS!

[aj19bcx]

@chekist1917 the "overwhelming evidence" you speak of has all been debunked by modern science. many breakthroughs in the understanding of flashover have happened since then, david martin is basing his opinion on outdated folklore. willingham was appointed a new lawyer on the grounds of inadequate representation because david martin wouldn't do his job. and the jurors probably were not told of gerald hurst's new report.

[chekist1917]

@aj19bcx Again, HIS OWN LAWYER says he was guilty. I think he has forgotten more about the case than you will ever know. Comprende? And the jurors are furious at idiots that are claiming he was innocent. That's because, as they have said, his neighbors watched the bastard trying to move his car out of the way while everyone could hear his girls screaming as they burned. He said he tried to save them. He lied. You are a sucker. Period.

[aj19bcx]

@chekist1917 the eyewittness testimony is so full of contradictions it's not even funny, and willingham already explained why he was moving the car. i know that david martin thinks that he is guilty. he formed his opinion based on junk science before flashover was understood. i would recomend you read gerald hurst's report or one of the several others since then, but since it is probably beyond your comprehension i will instead recomend the new yorker article trial by fire.

[chekist1917]

@aj19bcx  I've read the pieces. Why don't you tell us what Todd's excuse was in the case of the car so we can discuss it. I think reader's would be very interested. Worrying about a car blowing up whilst your kiddies are being burned alive and screaming is absolutely unreal. No normal person would think of anything else. go ahead, in his own words, tell what his explanation was......

[aj19bcx]

@chekist1917 the car was next to the kids rooms if the kids had any chance of surviving the car exploding would have killed them. besides that their was not much else he could do. people who havent been in a fire don't always understand why you can't just run in and save people, even profesional firefighters have a hard time doing that.

[choppedpeanuts1]

@aj19bcx That has to be the dumbest rationale for moving the car I've ever heard. I have been in a fire. Looking at the layout of the house and his numerous versions of what happened, he had no intention of saving those kids and I have no doubt he started the fire.

[choppedpeanuts1]

@aj19bcx Obviously, the jury did not believe the explanation. And I have been in a fire.

[aj19bcx]

@choppedpeanuts1 the jury was told outdated evidence and after the new studies they changed their minds.

[choppedpeanuts1]

@aj19bcx the science may have changed, but the defense experts still can not rule out arson. The investigators also ruled out other causes of the fire when they investigated. Plus, there is circumstantial evidence that it was arson and of course, is confession.

.

And no, the jury did not change its mind. Sleezy defense investigators cornered a few and fed them bogus info. It's how these so called innocence projects work. Blech.

[aj19bcx]

@choppedpeanuts1 they don't have to rule out arson, discrediting the evidence the prosecution used shows they did not meet the burden of proof which is all the defense needs to show. the confession is hearsay, the most unreliable form of evidence their is. the prosecutions evidence is equivalent to saying

if santa were real, kids would get presents.

kids do get presents

therefore

santa is real.

[choppedpeanuts1]

@aj19bcx If they can't rule out arson, then they can't say that it was not arson. The burden of proof changes post conviction. Stop making crap up. And confessions/admisssions are admissible under a hearsay exception. That's Evidence 101. You don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Just stop already.

[aj19bcx]

@choppedpeanuts1 so you are resorting to the ad hominem fallacy. convictions are constantly being thrown out due to evidence being discredited, without the defendant being proven innocent. if the evidence is discredited that means he wasn't proven guilty, and you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. when you convict someone based on false evidence, then shift the burden of proof after doing so, then anyone can make up evidence and everyone accused would have to prove they are innocent.

[choppedpeanuts1]

@aj19bcx Not ad hominem and not a fallacy. It's a fact: you're clueless and making crap up.

[aj19bcx]

@choppedpeanuts1 i never said their wasn't a hearsay exception for confessions i said hearsay wasn't a reliable form of evidence. and if someone shows they were convicted based on false evidence, that is grounds for throwing out the conviction and if their is a new trial the presumption of innocence still applies. and calling me clueless and accusing me of making things up does not refute anything i say. it is a defense mechanism for someone who has lost the argument but won't admit it.

[choppedpeanuts1]

@aj19bcx Hearsay is admitted under an exception because it is reliable. And once again you demonstrate that you know nothing about the laws governing post conviction writs and appeals. I said you were clueless and making crap up because you are clueless and making crap up. Get over it.

[aj19bcx]

@choppedpeanuts1 the specific law depends on where you live, but their are cases where a conviction was thrown out for no other reason than the prosecutor used invalid evidence.

[choppedpeanuts1]

@aj19bcx Who cares? We're talking about this case.

[choppedpeanuts1]

@aj19bcx None of the numerous studies rule out arson. If you had actually read them, you would know that.

[aj19bcx]

@choppedpeanuts1 they don't have to rule out arson. not only is the presumption of innocence the backbone of our constitution it is also human right 11 in the U.N.'s universal declaration of human rights

[choppedpeanuts1]

@aj19bcx Yes, they do. And the presumption of innocence is not the backbone of our Constitution. Also, it only applies in a court of law. Most importantly, there is no longer a presumption of innocence because he was convicted. He murdered those three little girls in the most brutal and terrifying way. You and your ilk never give a damn about the victim's rights.

[Headhunter004]

@choppedpeanuts1 FYI the 6 leading arson experts IN THE COUNTRY disproved every finding of arson that the investigators presented. Meanwhile, the courts argued that he was a monster because he had an Iron Maiden poster on his wall of all things; we're seriously gonna take their word over the 6 leading arson forensic experts in the country? Very smart. As far as you championing victim's rights, give me a fucking break, you support a system that has put many innocent people to death, "VR" my ass.

[choppedpeanuts1]

@Headhunter004 None of the defense experts can say that it was not arson. Also, there is circumstantial evidence that it was arson. The state argued that he was a monster because he murdered his three young daughters. He also confessed. So, piss off. Find another thug to love. This one is in hell and is not coming back.

[shyangel6973]

your in France you should keep your nose in your own countrys buissness. your worse then an american always got your nose in somthing. rest asure in the U.S.A WE take care of ours like we got justice for them 3 INOCENT TRULLY little babies.. are u a father. I dont care what a fire official says IM A PARENT AND I COULD/WOULD NEVER leave a burning building with my children inside!!!

[femaleinessex1]

Great video, thank god you shouted from the roof top for Mr Willingham.

Michaela

[chekist1917]

@femaleinessex1 Thank God the guilty bastard was executed and is sucking cock in Hell right now.