CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM was innocent but executed

Three years ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonio Scalia wrote: "(there has not been) a single case - not one - in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops." So, I am shouting that CAMERON TODD WILLINGHAM was innocent but executed

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• innocence
• executed
• death
• penalty
• USA

[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.

[choppedpeanuts1]

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

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

[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 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 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.