Disqus - Latest Comments for EEllis

Re: DRAFT EVERYONE

Don_Quijote — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:35:16 -0000

I see that you haven't read Jonathan Swift's "A modest proposal"...

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance
in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year
old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether
stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it
will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.

I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of
the hundred and twenty thousand children, already computed,
twenty thousand may be reserved for breed, whereof only one
fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep,
black cattle, or swine, and my reason is, that these children are
seldom the fruits of marriage, a circumstance not much regarded
by our savages, therefore, one male will be sufficient to serve
four females. That the remaining hundred thousand may, at a year
old, be offered in sale to the persons of quality and fortune,
through the kingdom, always advising the mother to let them suck
plentifully in the last month, so as to render them plump, and
fat for a good table. A child will make two dishes at an
entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the
fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned
with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the
fourth day, especially in winter.

Re: DRAFT EVERYONE

EEllis — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:41:18 -0000

"It goes without argument that conservatives and Republicans view the sole role of the Federal Government as provider of National Defense – and everything else is superfluous."

Why does it go? No one I know thinks that way and I consider myself conservative. Even the Libertarians I know don't go as far as your absurd statement.

"Republicans support these expenditures unquestionably"

Again with the absurd and factually incorrect statements.

"Conservatives’ only answer to different political, economic, social, or international issues is to turn to the Military. They even advocate drastic cuts in Medicare and Social Security payments to reduce the recession-caused $1.4 trillion 2009 federal deficit and the nearly $10 trillion in accumulated federal debt so as not to raise any taxes or cut any Military spending. "

So conservatives solution to single parent households is military? What? Every issue right? Asinine blanket statements again. In general conservatives believe in a strong military, of course so do many Dems, but overall as people you would not have any problem with the idea of fitting means to the task. Give the military money to do what they need not just give them money for the sake of it. And the whole of federal spending is not encapsulated by medicare/social security and the military.

"Due to the deep recession, our volunteer Military has met or exceeded all its recruiting goals for the past fiscal year and is on track to do so again next year."

And they did so when the economy was good even in the midst of the "wars"

"Private businesses will not hire until they see new paying customers and increasing gross revenues. They do not make expansion plans based upon tax breaks or the size of the Federal Deficit. Only the Federal Government can provide the needed stimulus to get this economy going. "

"Only the Federal Government" Are you kidding me? You may feel it's the best way but the idea that nothing else would ever work is .......... I can't even think of a word that encompasses such lack of understanding of history and fact as this.

I'm stopping reading this is some absurd fairy tale that has no basis in logic or fact.

Re: Agreement Reached in Honduras to Restore Status Quo Ante

dduck12 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:54:42 -0000

Wouldn't you guess that already cut a deal for some kind of immunity to get the U.S's . nose out of this mess?
In other words, we drop sanctions, you drop the matter.

Re: Agreement Reached in Honduras to Restore Status Quo Ante

EEllis — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:20:11 -0000

"Can they charge Zelaya with a crime? I was following the exchange between you and Austin Roth, and that came to me. Is his removal from the presidency the only punishment for breaking the law, or can he also be charged with something under Honduran law?"

In any other govt office they could remove citizenship and bar him from any position for 10 years. That's from memory only so I may be off a little. Manny of the things he has done may be criminal also, but the violation of the constitution by attempting to retain power doesn't come with a criminal charge.

Re: Texas, the Eyes of Justice Are Upon You (Guest Voice)

EEllis — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:56:07 -0000

"Do you have a personal involvement?"

Not in this case.

Re: Texas, the Eyes of Justice Are Upon You (Guest Voice)

EEllis — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:54:33 -0000

"Thank you for the thought provoking reply. I had thought we were done with
this for a while but don't mind the continuing discussion."

I enjoy a good discussion. To be honest as long as there is still a reasonable exchange I'll keep talking for the most part anyway

"It is clear that you and I have a different opinion of what constitutes a
fair trial. For example I believe that if a scientific method used at
trial turns out not to be scientifically valid years later, then a fair
trial was not had. I think you disagree based on what you wrote."

It's semantics but definitions are very important in these types of conversations. Fair in this context means, to me, a valid, legal trial. Unfair would be prosecutable misconduct, lying cops and fake evidence. That is not what this is about. Lets face it the word "fair" gets used alot but what does it mean and is there a point. We are not guaranteed a "fair" trial are we?

"It would be interesting to talk to your friend to see if Texas complies
with ABA standards for capital defenders in terms of qualifications,
training and case load maximums. Sounds like, from what you describe, that
Houston may though not sure, other areas probably not. "

I doubt it, they couldn't, you really don't realize how spread out Texas is till you've been here. In many jurisdictions they would have to go get a lawyer from outside the area to meet the qualifications and they don't do that.

"Even among
lawyers, capital work is quite unique and even other lawyers don't fully
understand it and wonder why anyone would do it. Ask your friend if he
gets that reaction from other attorneys? Bet he does."

In Houston the DA's are good, very good. They take a lot death penalty cases but you would be shocked by how many they pass up. Here in Houston when they go for the Death Penalty they almost always get it and they always convict. So those that do capital work are not really trying to get anyone off, just to keep them from dying, and these are some of the best defense attorneys around.

"When you say that DA's in less populated
counties lack the resources of the big city, that needs to be qualified.
Even those DA's have access to all the resources of the state, like the
state crime lab, and usually have access to special assist units from the
state Attorney General's Criminal Prosecution Division, some of the best
and most experienced prosecutors and investigators in any state. I don't
know whether the AG's Assist Division applies in Texas, but you can ask
your friend. Small town defense lawyers who take an occasional capital
case have no such experience or access to resources. "

There is a criminal prosecutions division and they will take over a case but then it is theirs not the locals so that doesn't happen often unless the DPS\Texas Rangers investigated in the first place. The crime labs are supposed to provide info, unbiased info, and isn't supposed to be on either side. True small town lawyers just don't do many capital cases, but then neither do small time DA's or even judges. If the Judge is fair then he, and it's he who controls the appointments, will make sure the trail is fair. Many Judges do just that, drafting lawyers who prefer not to work but have experience, paying more for better representation. In Willinghams case the Judge assigned 2 lawyers to the case. The system can be screwed up but in this case I think it was "fair".

Re: Texas, the Eyes of Justice Are Upon You (Guest Voice)

tidbits — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:14:15 -0000

Hi EEllis -

Thank you for the thought provoking reply. I had thought we were done with
this for a while but don't mind the continuing discussion.

It is clear that you and I have a different opinion of what constitutes a
fair trial. For example I believe that if a scientific method used at
trial turns out not to be scientifically valid years later, then a fair
trial was not had. I think you disagree based on what you wrote.

You have obviously spent a great deal of time and energy looking into this
case. Do you have a personal involvement? You need not answer if you do
have personal involvement, and I will admit to you honestly that there are
things I am not at liberty to disclose.

Your description of the Texas justice system is not uncommon with big metro
areas providing better defense than smaller counties, though Texas does
have a reputation for quick & dirty murder trials with an extraordinarily
high rate of death verdicts...though not as bad as Alabama & a couple of
other states.

It would be interesting to talk to your friend to see if Texas complies
with ABA standards for capital defenders in terms of qualifications,
training and case load maximums. Sounds like, from what you describe, that
Houston may though not sure, other areas probably not.

My experience is that evidence is viewed through the prism of the
individual viewing it. We, you and I, have very different prisms. My
experience also is that what a lawyer sees in terms of legal process often
differs from what a lay person sees in terms of process. Even among
lawyers, capital work is quite unique and even other lawyers don't fully
understand it and wonder why anyone would do it. Ask your friend if he
gets that reaction from other attorneys? Bet he does.

With one point I will take issue. When you say that DA's in less populated
counties lack the resources of the big city, that needs to be qualified.
Even those DA's have access to all the resources of the state, like the
state crime lab, and usually have access to special assist units from the
state Attorney General's Criminal Prosecution Division, some of the best
and most experienced prosecutors and investigators in any state. I don't
know whether the AG's Assist Division applies in Texas, but you can ask
your friend. Small town defense lawyers who take an occassional captial
case have no such experience or access to resources. Many of them don't
even know what to ask for from the judge (I've seen it first hand). And
the people available for their teams, like investigators or mitigation
people, have nowhere near the experience level of those provided by the
state to the DA.

Re: Texas, the Eyes of Justice Are Upon You (Guest Voice)

EEllis — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:23:38 -0000

"Texas is among the worst when it comes to fair trials."

I'm familiar with the system here so I can't say where we rank but it is a problem in some places because it depends on the judges to see that people get decent representation. In some cases that means they get real good lawyers, here in houston, but out in the boonies they get who they can find. I know a guy who does a fair amount of capital cases here in town. He is in private practice and only does capital cases as an appointed attorney. He basically gets an unlimited budget. He bills the court and they pay. As long as the time is legitimate he will get paid for it. Experts and such are as the court decides but a denial means a point for appeal so if it's a reasonable they pay. Out in the boonies it is different but then the prosecutors are to. They don't have the experience, quality, and bankroll of the Harris County DA. I think in large part it balances out with some glaring exceptions. I also think it's a system that is way to easy to corrupt. But I really here little about fixing the system and I wonder if thats not because they, opponents of the death penalty, would then have one less tool to use against it.

2 There was accelerant at the front door, no dispute. Since they had a BBQ on the porch where charcoal lighter was water would of carried traces in so forensically there is no telling how that happened to have occurred. And the problem is that you get so many appeals. He used them up. You want to challenge then do it right because you get one bite. He had experts dispute the evidence at trial. They were just not as compelling as the ones brought out since he is dead. You also need to consider that the only ones still working on thins case are the ones trying to disprove it. Its like the defence worked an extra 10 years on a case while the prosecution stopped. It would be sad if they couldn't give the appearance of a question wouldn't it?

4 I wasn't specifically talking about you but you know the people I mean and that many things used are misleading, incorrect, lies, and totally without merit and they don't care because it fits their agenda. And I also object to saying he didn't receive a fair trail. At the time the arson investigation was straight out of the textbook. The textbook may have been wrong but the connotation that he was treated unfair is wrong. He received all his appeals and was unable to show cause for overturning his verdict. Now 10years later science may have progressed enough that the arson work in his case would no longer meet the requirements for valid evidence. That does not mean that it was "unfair" to use it as evidence then.

"Once we decide that fair trials can be dispensed with for one class of citizens, dispensing with
them for other classes of citizens is not far behind."

I think he got a fair trail. A fair trial means that the system went thru it's process and a decision was rendered honestly. You can have a fair trial and not of done the crime. That you would exclude evidence ........ well if you leave it to the judge then you better have a better reason then "some would do it different" if you want to over rule them don't you think? You don't want to research but you feel comfortable condemning the trail without really looking into it. Have you looked at the appeals on the merits of each? By your experience you would be much more likely than I to find a glaring mistake made by the courts. There must be a point where you stop retrying the things. If you think the current system in texas could be better run then advocate your heart out for it and I would support it. But that really isn't what people want done first is it?

Re: Texas, the Eyes of Justice Are Upon You (Guest Voice)

tidbits — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:45:59 -0000

EEllis -

Thank you for your reply. It was appreciated in its absence of hositility
and more reasonable approach. I'd like to address it point by point, but
first a disclaimer. I do oppose the death penalty. That is the result of
years of experience in the field and 11 years as a trial court judge. I
know first hand how poor the representation is for man of those accused of
capital murder and how rare an occasion a well defended capital murder
trial is. And, Texas is among the worst when it comes to fair trials.
Much of the problem has to do with payment for defense and defense experts
to offset the nearly unlimited availability of state resources for the
prosecution. My issue is with fair trials, not with seeing that the guilty
are punished. I am one of the strongest proponents you could ever meet for
life without the possibility of parole - ever. I have represnted these
"scumbags" and do not want them on the street. And , fyi, life without
parole is far less expensive to the taxpayers than execution, but that's
another issue.

1. You say that being a scumbag should not be a basis for execution.
Thank you. That is not the position you have taken previously, and this
one is far more reasonable. Second part of that sentence, that you
wouldn't want a scumbag for a poster boy. Yeah, true. But, there aren't a
lot of people sentenced to death who aren't scumbags. That's the truth.
One of the issues in a capital case is the "future dangerousness" of the
defendant. Guess who qualifies? Scumbags. One of the problems in
opposing the death penalty is that you are defending the scum of society on
the moral ground of not taking an additional human life at the hands of an
executioner. Another fyi - I oppose, on moral grounds, all taking of human
life by man...criminal murder, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia,
and physician assisted suicide. Drives my liberal friends nuts.

2. About not wanting to second guess the people who were there. It's all
a factor of what they were presented. You even referred to it in an
earlier comment. They were told there was evidence of an accelerant at the
front door. That's what the whole forensic dispute is about, that the
"opinion" of the state's experts about "evidence" of accelerants (scorching
at the front door), was based on debunked science. They didn't hear the
other side. That's why it wasn't a fair trial...even if Willingham was a
scumbag. I am not self assured about it in "the opposite way", i.e. I do
not profess any self assurance that Willingham was innocent. He may have
been guilty. I just think an independent investigation is called for
because of the science used by the prosecution.

3. Thank you for agreeing about Judge Justice. It really was not germain
to what we were discussing, but I appreciate that you agree about that
much.

4. I will not do "anything" to disparage a death penalty. I will, to be
sure, argue against it on moral grounds. But, when I criticize a specific
trial based on fair trial standards or adequate counsel standards, it is
just that. And it is based on understanding of the law and experience.
Just so you know, there have been cases where I have contended that I
opposed imposition of the death penalty, but could not and would not argue
with the quality of defense or the fairness of the trial. That is not true
in the Willingham case. Guilty or innocent, he did not receive a fair
trial.

Another point, just as one with the experience to speak to it. The fact
that Willingham was moving a car when police arrived proves nothing.
People do the strangest things under stress...I had a client who watched to
see if a corpse would sunburn. It could mean something or it could mean
nothing. It's circumstantial and prejudicial evidence, that may or may not
have meaning. Many judges, with decent defense counsel arguing the point,
might well have excluded this evidence about the car.

Fair trials matter, EEllis. If the scumbags of the earth don't get fair
trials, then someday neither will you or I. Once we decide that fair
trials can be dispensed with for one class of citizens, dispensing with
them for other classes of citizens is not far behind.

Glad we got to more civil discussion. Hopefully, our discussions in future
can be more respectful. I will try to do my part in that regard.

----------------------------------------

Re: Pres. Obama Stands Witness at Dover Air Force Base

EEllis — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:41:07 -0000

I was all set to act with, well lets just say I was upset with the petty and clueless nature of the post. I have seen the responses from others and it calmed me down. I have had family members come home and the last thing I would want is for any of my family used for politics. The idea that my aunt or cousin could show up on a newspaper grieving is something that would be almost impossible to tolerate. I felt Bush acted properly but am more than willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt that his visit is meant to honor our fallen and not PR.

Re: Gov. Perry’s Capital Impropriety

EEllis — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:36:51 -0000

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

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.

Re: Gov. Perry’s Capital Impropriety

EEllis — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:32:36 -0000

"it is worth $30K"

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.

Re: Gov. Perry’s Capital Impropriety

Doriancito — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:21:23 -0000

I stand by my statement that if the Beyler report/investigation eventually proves a wrongfully convicted man innocent, even if it leads to additional investigations---it is worth $30K...and more.

Just a personal opinion.

Thanks for your comments.

Re: Gov. Perry’s Capital Impropriety

tidbits — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:00:54 -0000

EEllis -

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?

Re: Gov. Perry’s Capital Impropriety

EEllis — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:47:27 -0000

I don't know. To be honest I just don't think anything that would be revealed would really hurt Perry. The report you mention, I believe it was done by Hurt, has been released and he does total trash the positive finding of arson. I don't think voters in Texas will care. So the whole cover up seems........... unnecessary?

Re: Gov. Perry’s Capital Impropriety

tidbits — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:36:34 -0000

EEllis -

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.

Re: Gov. Perry’s Capital Impropriety

EEllis — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:31:19 -0000

"It was not intended to prove anyone's innocence or guilt."

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.

Re: Gov. Perry’s Capital Impropriety

Doriancito — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:43:31 -0000

The report commissioned by the TFC was to investigate the facts surrounding the fire and subsequent investigations. It was not intended to prove anyone's innocence or guilt. That would be up to others---using the report as one of the inputs.

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

Thanks for the comment

Dorian

Re: Gov. Perry’s Capital Impropriety

EEllis — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:56:45 -0000

What I seen in researching Willinghams case is how the science of arson investigation is changed and advanced much to the benefit of everyone but especially important here in Texas due to some of our unique conditions. I have been wondering if Perry has felt, somewhat like myself, that The Texas Forensic Science Commission was going past there mandate in investigation not just the science but, as mentioned on a previous post, the innocence of Willingham. Spending money (I understand $30,000 on one report) on case studies is fine but is "innocence" investigations really the best way to improve Texas Forensic Science? I think this is more likely than some cover up but Perry's insistence on remaining quite just feeds the fire and is counterproductive.

Re: Texas, the Eyes of Justice Are Upon You (Guest Voice)

tidbits — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 01:48:15 -0000

EEllis -

I attempted to reply several hours ago, via email reply. It apparently did not get through Disqus. My apologies. While six or seven paragraphs long, which I cannot remember or repeat, it essentially acknowledged a change in tone in your last reply, acknowledged my background as an attorney and judge, explained that I focus on fair trial because of my background and experience, pointed out that there are no choir boys to use as poster children in murder cases, and suggested that, with a new understanding you and I might have more interesting, and less argumentative, discussions in the future. I also pointed out that there have been cases where I have said that a fair trial was had, but Willingham's is not one.

Wish Disqus hadn't lost that reply, but I'm sure we'll have the opportunity again.

Re: Texas, the Eyes of Justice Are Upon You (Guest Voice)

EEllis — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:11:16 -0000

"What I don't agree with is that being a scumbag justifies execution...innocent or not"

I agree but common sense would be not to use one as a poster boy wouldn't it?

"Glad you're so cock sure of Willingham's guilt. Must be a nice position to be in...not having been on the jury, not having heard the evidence, not having been privy to the quality of the defense, not having been part of the prosecution, not having read the contrary reports, not having seen the execution review materials, and all. Wish I had your omnipotent and arrogant self assurance about a case I wasn't part of."

The funny thing is, and I honestly laughed about it, is that you seem so "self assured" about it just in the exact opposite way. My feeling is that there isn't enough reason to decide the people who were there and made the decision were wrong. I'll be honest I don't want innocent men put to death and I'm not an advocate for the death penalty, but can easily live with it.

As to something I agree with, Judge Justice was a courageous man who did much good, defendant's are not required to prove their innocence. Sorry to be "an ideologue" but lets face facts, you didn't really know details about the case and were just repeating "anti" talking points not really wanting to get "into" the case. I understand and sure it sounds bad on the outside. When you look at the details of the case you have to wonder what the big deal is. Simply put some people will say, do, use anything, to prevent or disparage a death penalty.

Re: Texas, the Eyes of Justice Are Upon You (Guest Voice)

EEllis — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:24:25 -0000

In this case there is no "new" test. There was accelerant found near the front door and that's it. The "new" evidence is just interpretation of visual evidence so not "new" in any legal sense. That is the law, it must be "new" and it isn't. The new evidence must create "a doubt as to the efficacy of the verdict sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict." And in this case, to the judges involved, it didn't.
Also it would have been ridiculously easy for you to find this out. Arguing from facts is always better.

"who violated his professional ethics by calling his client guilty"

Did he? Says who? His client was dead and gone and he said an innocent man had not been put to death. I understand that it is not a violation of the state bar so..........

"Why do you fear an independent assessment??? Just asking."

I don't and so far haven't seen one. Look at first I knew nothing and had an open mind. Later after looking into it I feel ok about the result. Do your assessment but why should I care?

"And you still refuse to answer the question about why Perry is engaged in a cover up"

Because I don't think it is a cover up. Look it's Texas, Willingham was a scumbag, Perry let the system do it's thing, innocent or not what difference would it make to Perry? Voters won't care.

"Speculating is not an answer."

Well that's what you are doing. And what I would be doing if I acted like there was some absolute answer. Be consistent at least.

Look there is one item that is under attack- the finding of arson by the investigators- and I do think the situation surrounding the fire made them believe it was arson as much or more than the physical evidence. I also believe that in trial having just the fire, without the investigators calling it arson, and the other evidence Willingham would of been convicted just as easily.

Re: The Surge Worked; “We” Won the War

Don_Quijote — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:20:20 -0000

I was just objecting to the false idea that we funded the Iran Iraq war.

Not only did we fund the Iraqis, we also sold weapons to the Iranians...

Re: The Surge Worked; “We” Won the War

Don_Quijote — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:16:35 -0000

Insurgencies that are contained in one country are almost always defeated.

Care to make a list of Insurgencies that have been defeated by outsiders since the end of WWII, hell that have been defeated period that did not involve genocide...

Hell, if you have AK47, RPGs, Semtex and the passive support of the local population an insurgency can run on for decades on end... see Palestine, Lebanon, Vietnam, Algeria, East Timor, Sri Lanka ( that one seems to be ending in a nice little genocide).

Re: Texas, the Eyes of Justice Are Upon You (Guest Voice)

EEllis — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:17:58 -0000

" but a fair trial includes putting the prosecution's case to the test, and that did not happen here as far as the arson evidence was concerned. "

That's just not the legal system. Willingham had the opportunity to challenge and that's it. What new test would they do? Is there something "new" or just new experts? You need something new and opinions don't cut it. Even his lawyer said that he was guilty.

As for the cover up, it is much more likely that the Gov thinks the Forensic science commission should be worried about standards and qualifications rather than spending $50,000 on investigating the "innocence" of a dead man. I'd be a little pissed myself.