http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/SfFUijhyl…

If it proves that the correct man was executed, then it is worth it. It if shows that the wrong man was executed, then it is worth it – only if we use it to make sure that, in the future, no one is wrongly executed.”

Actually the issue was: is spending $30,000 worth it to prove a person's innocence.

My opinion is yes.

But, as to the second part of your comment, I agree with you that it is worth it “if we use it to make sure that, in the future, no one is wrongly executed.” You notice, I left “only” out, because in my opinion, in the case of Willingham, it certainly would be worth it to his parents or other family to see their son/relative exonerated—whether he is dead or alive.

Thanks

Dorian

If it proves that the correct man was executed, then it is worth it. It if shows that the wrong man was executed, then it is worth it – only if we use it to make sure that, in the future, no one is wrongly executed.

You wont find an argument from me there.

I don't know it's a bunch of maybes with a weak motive but anything is possible. I just think people are exaggerating the likelihood beyond what facts can support.

Great but what if they have no money to investigate or monitor a crime lab screwed up like Houston's was? It's not about the value of the report, but rather are they using their resources towards the correct goals. There is an honest argument about the goals they should be trying to achieve.

Just a personal opinion.

Thanks for your comments.

I agree that a cover up “was” perhaps unnecessary. The problem with cover ups is that, once undertaken, they become their own scandal separate and aside from what was being covered up. Remember also that Perry's real challenge is not the general election, but the Republican primary. And, what are his opponents tarring him with? Not Willingham;s guilt or innocence, but the cover up.

Btw, who ever said politicians were smart enough to figure out when a cover up was or was not necessary?

After some of our recent discussions, I'd like to simply present a theory and seek your reaction. First, I agree that the scope of the Commission's mandate is the official excuse from the Governor's Office. The legislator who crafted the legislation creating the Commission has made it clear that is not the case from his perspective. Sorry I do not recall his name. And, $30k is peanuts…maybe not even peanuts.

Second, I don't think what Perry is doing has anything to do with whether Willingham was guilty or innocent. I agree that some on the anti-death penalty side are trying to portray it in that light. They may be missing what is really happening, and that position could come back to bite them in the butt.

Third, you have probably read Dudley Sharp's article [he always links to his own pro-death penalty website and to articles he wrote - interesting] where he “speculates”, his word, that Perry just wants to delay the TFSC investigation to allow for additional evidence. I applaud him for admitting it is speculation, but the speculation is flawed because it omits critical facts, including the Governor's Office of General Counsel pressuring the prior Chair of the TFSC to drop the investigation…not delay it, and because Perry has persistently refused to disclose the execution review materials that were available to him prior to sending Willingham to his death. The new Chair, hand picked by Perry has, thusfar, refused to commit to even proceeding with the investigation. Those facts are not consistent with Sharp's speculation.

Here is my opinion, and I will admit that it is no more than my opinion. Perry is involved a cover up and for one very good reason. He is scared down to his political socks that he will be forced to release the execution review materials if the investigation proceeds. You see, and this was reported here at TMV, prior [not after, but prior] to Willingham's execution Perry was presented with a written report from a Texas arson expert, forget his name, that the State's evidence from its arson expert was based on flawed science. Most people like to talk about the Beyler Report. But, the first report of problems with this important prosecution evidence came not from Beyler, but from a Texas expert and came prior to Willingham being put to death.

My opinion, Perry is covering up as hard as he can for political purposes, to keep the execution review materials from coming out showing that he brushed aside serious questions about key evidence in the prosecution's case and sent Willingham to his death without further investigation. That's what he is really afraid of, and that is the reason to cover up. Btw, no idea what else might be in the execution review materials. My guess is it's a bombshell. For example, it is possible there was an opinion letter recommending a stay of execution pending further investigation, or proof that he never reviewed the materials…but that really is speculation on my part. Remember even GWB as Governor released exection review materials.

My prediction: we have not heard the last of this. Sooner or later, the story will break. I'll bet you a handshake with my dog that my version turns out to closer to the truth than Sharp's.

Then maybe it should not have been touted as an innocence investigation.

“As to the cost of $30,000, I would just ask, how much is proving someones innocence (yours, mine) worth?”

Wait a minute, a second ago it wasn't about “intended to prove anyone's innocence” but now it is? Look I want our forensic practitioners to be as skilled as possible. The commission is a good thing and needed in Texas. The huge failure in the Houston Crime lab, that's the commissions business. Setting current standards for arson investigators, that is the commissions business. There is a massive list of things that they can and should be doing and them concentrating on a case where the defendant is dead and the science has moved light years ahead. It wasn't until 2000 that it was finally established that arson investigation had to follow the scientific method! It was considered an art not a science. The investigators actually followed what was in the forensic guides at the time, it was just wrong. So you have a commissioned with limited money, and time, and someone wants to argue that there is no possibility that a person could see them as going off track. That the “innocence investigation”, couldn't possible detract from the job of overseeing forensic lab, setting training and guidelines, ensuring compliance with those guidelines?

Like I said I believed it was a real possibility, maybe likelihood, that it was the case. If so Perry could of, and know I think should of, made that case and “pointed” the commission in the direction he felt they should take. This is a new commission and it's reasonable that it takes time to establish how they do things, priorities, responsibilities, ect. Perry has an absolute right and responsibility to direct the commission in the direction he believes is correct. Being open about the issues may have shut down some of the questions and moved the debate to where it belongs. He again has himself to blame for the situation.

Thanks for your additional thoughts and especially for the update on your daughter.

We continue to wish her a speedy and complete rehab

Dorian

Though we may not agree on the base issue of capital punishment, I very much respect your thoughtful reflection on the issue. If It is not too presumptuous, I think we would agree on the need for certainty, clarity and unchallengable fair trials and due process, including if necessary independent review to assure tthat the system is working properly. Neither the politics of state or federal leaders nor the politics or desire to win cases by prosecutors should interfere with the administration of fair and honest justice.

Thank you for your comments, and best as always to Vicki.

Thanks for your reply.

Vicki is doing well. Rehab is slower than she wishes (I think she thought as soon as she was back home, everything would magically be back to normal!), but despite the occasional moments of frustration, she continues moving forward.

And yes, the death penalty is a tricky issue for me, especially as I do not need the supposed preventive aspect of it to support it, as I think very few criminals in the heat of committing an act stop and go 'wait, I better make sure I commit my crime in a way I am only facing life in prison.' I think retributive results are also a legitimate part of the criminal justice system.

But as often as death penalty cases seem justified at the time, it is the disturbing and systemic prosecutorial abuse of evidence and process by the police and prosecutors in high-profile cases that is very worrisome.

Anyone that follows the law at both the trial and the various appellate levels, even just as a hobby as I do, knows that the reality is overall and to a very high degree prosecutors are NOT interested in Justice; they are interested in convictions.

Knowing (I think) your political leanings, I find your comments particularly thoughtful, candid, and important—to me.

Thanks

Dorian

That said, anyone who is in the line of appeal and review for any legal decisions should show restraint and respect for the process, particularly in capital cases. However, there has always been a strong tendency by the system as a whole and especially the actors directly involved to be resistive to admitting to mistakes.

This is beyond the pale, though. Craven politics with the process only weakens belief in the fairness of the entire justice system. The most callous opinion I have read was something like “well, Willingham is already executed, so what real harm is Perry doing?” What can you say to those who say that?

While a supporter of the death penalty in general, it is cases like this that are disturbing enough to make me ponder what is accomplished by it.

As to the cost of $30,000, I would just ask, how much is proving someone's inncocence (yours, mine) worth?

Thanks for the comment

Dorian