Saturday, June 24, 2023
Sam Bassett – Cameron Todd Willingham
Willingham: Have you read the Beyler report? It could, hardly, be worse.
Have you read the Beyler report? (2) It could, hardly, be worse.
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Media Disaster: Cameron Todd Willingham: Media Colludes w/ the Anti-death Penalty Movement
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
Friday, June 23, 2023
Does Forensic Science Comm. have any jurisdiction in Willingham case?
originally published 1/28/2011
Does Forensic Science Comm. have any jurisdiction in Willingham case?
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
Regarding the jurisdiction, by time, of the Texas Forensic Science Commission in the Willingham case: It seems clear that the TFSC has no jurisdiction in this case. But that is why we have AG opinions.
Added later - NOTE: The AG determined the obvious, the TFSC broke the law.
The question in not why the TFSC has submitted questions to the Texas AG for his opinion, now, but why and how the TFSC could have spent all of the time, money and other resources on the Willingham case, without being responsible enough to get an opinion from the AG, prior to all of those expenditures.
Were John Bradley and R. Lowell Thompson, Navarro County District Attorney, the only ones who took the time to read the law? Of course not.
Has the TFSC been breaking the law this entire time?
added later: Yes. Quite obvious.
Review: CAPS/BOLD/UNDERLINE/QUOTE For my emphasis
“WILLINGHAM WAS EXECUTED IN 2004”
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 38. EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS Art. 38.35. FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE; ADMISSIBILITY. SECTION 21. Article 38.35, Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by this Act, (fn 2) “APPLIES ONLY TO THE ADMISSABILITY OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IN A CRIMINAL PROCEDING THAT COMMENCES ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT.”
(NOTE: WHICH IS 9/01/05)
The admissibility of physical evidence in a criminal proceeding that commenced before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the proceeding commenced, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 22. (a) “THE CHANGE IN THE LAW MADE BY THIS ACT APPLIES TO:
(1) EVIDENCE TESTED OR OFFERED INTO EVIENCE ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS OF THIS ACT (9/01/05); AND
(2) AN INDIVIDUAL WHO, ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ACT (9/01/05):
(A) IS CONFINED IN A PENAL INSTITUTION OPERATED BY OR UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE TEXAS DEPATEMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 411.148(a)(1)
(B), GOVERNMENT CODE, AS AMENDED BY THIS ACT;” SNIP applies to TYC and DNA SECTION 23. “THIS ACT TAKES EFFECT September 1, 2005."
If the law doesn’t mean what it says, then why does it say it? Just a thought.
The law can always be changed.
The question should be asked. “As the law seems clear, why wasn’t it followed?” or “Why wasn’t an AG opinion requested before all of the resources were expended?”
FN
(1) Does Forensic Science Comm. have any jurisdiction in Willingham case?http://homicidesurvivors.com/2011/01/28/does-forensic-science-comm-have-any-jurisdiction-in-willingham-case/
(2) links http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/CR/htm/Cr.38.htm http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/79R/billtext/html/HB01068F
======
Media Disaster: What the Willingham case is really about
Originally published 10/27/2009 (1)
Reply to Dallas Morning News “What the Willingham case is really about”
RE: Editorial: “What the Willingham case is really about”, Dallas Morning News, October 26, 2009
From: Dudley Sharp, independent researcher, death penalty expert, former opponent, 832-439-2113, CV at bottom
The Dallas Morning News (DMN) writes:” What counts most is the truth, no matter what the ultimate verdict.”.
We can all hope.
The DMN, until recently, has been extremely biased in this case. This anti-death penalty media bias, by many in the media, has been, overwhelming, throughout the US, over the past two months, in the Willingham case, just as it has, over the last two decades, with most death penalty issues (2).
The truth has suffered, greatly.
For example, instead of just reviewing the Chicago Tribunes’ Mills’ CYA piece, possibly the DMN and others will look at Stacy Kuykendall’s revised or contradictory statements, her standing by Todd Willingham, then condemning him, to determine if these are common characteristics of a woman suffering what is commonly called Battered Woman Syndrome.
Evidently, it didn’t even cross Mills’ mind.
Instead of the DMN’s backhanded “We’re not calling (Stacy) Kuykendall a liar. “, maybe some should look into that.
Maybe many in the media could make things a little less painful for her (and everyone else) by being more thorough.
The DMN has already revealed one major error in the Beyler Report. Look harder.
The Corsican Fire Department Report (CFDR) made some solid points against Beyler with regard to both errors and bias and the Texas Fire Marshal’s (TFM) office has already stated that they will be standing by their expert’s, Vasquez’, forensics, meaning that they will have to correct the Beyler Report in some convincing fashion, in order to defend Vasquez.
Craig Beyler is no slouch.
We are still waiting on what may be an updated CFDR. They stated they lacked much of the time and the evidence necessary to deliver a thorough report.
Due to Perry’s delay, they, now, have that time. And we are still waiting for the TFM Report.
While lacking all of that, as well as having no idea where a thorough, objective investigation by DMN reporters (or others’) may, eventually, lead, when it has already uncovered some damaging information, re Beyler, what does the DMN editorial board say, as do many others? . . . that Perry shamelessly thwarted the investigation by sacking commission members, that he blocked that search for truth and he should not fear putting the case under the microscope.
Can the DMN or others support any of that, with the facts? Of course not.
So much for a search for truth.
In other words, the DMN, as many, have already reached a verdict.
Is it possible that Perry did the prudent thing with all of the facts that he had before him? Of course.
Is it possible that he made a strictly political, stupid decision, based, only, upon course self protection? Of course.
Neither the DMN nor anyone else in the media can know, for sure. Not yet.
FN
1) Reply to Dallas Morning News “What the Willingham case is really about” http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/27/reply-to-dalls-morning-news-what-the-willingham-case-is-really-about/
2) Full rebuttal of media's anti-death penalty claims and /or showing why the pro-death penalty positions are stronger:
Research, w/sources, w/fact checking/vetting & critical thinking, as required of everyone in a public policy debate