Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

You contradict yourself.There is no evidence that a crime occured. The defendent is, by definition, innocent of a crime which did not occur.

Hurst reviewed only documents. I can appreciate that Hurst does not believe that the fire was arson, but that is only his opinion, and it is not an opinion based on a completely independent investigation.We simply do not have a justice system that is designed to establish actual innocence. In many cases, proving innocence requires proving a negative using non-exhaustive methods. Is it possible to set a house fire in a way that won't leave any evidence of arson? I believe that it is possible to do so.Edited by NoNukes, : Fix tags. I'll let the grammar errors stay put.

And a videotape of the investigation. But it is an expert opinion based on all available evidence. If you want to simply disbelieve it, that's your prerogative, as it was Governor Perry's. But that is in fact evidence of actual innocence. That is quite true. But that fact does not prevent us from looking at the evidence and assessing the actual guilt or innocence of the man in the context of this discussion. And if I say it is not, where does that leave us? Do you have any actual evidence to support your claim? More importantly for this discussion, do you have any evidence that that is what happened in this case? Was Willingham a known arsonist who might be expected to have the knowledge and expertise necessary to do such a thing if it's possible? Do you have any reason to believe that Hurst didn't consider and dismiss that possibility?

I don't disbelieve it. I agree that Hurst found evidence of actual innocence. But Hurst does not go as far as you and crashfrog claim.Hurst's official conclusion is that he found no evidence of arson, and that the original conclusion is not justified. Period. Hurst is not claiming to say how the fire started. A finding no evidence of arson, and refuting the evidence supplied by the state is not the same as demonstrating that there was no arson.I've included a link to Hurst's report. You can judge for yourself exactly how far Hurst goes in addressing the so-called evidence. Page not found - Innocence Project I personally believe that Texas executed an innocent man, and I have zero respect for Governor Perry's action in this case. I'm afraid you are going to have to take a side if you want me to argue. The actual question is much simpler. Is it possible that there could have been arson that wouldn't have been evident in whatever video tape and testimony Hurst was able to review? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Add some ABEEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm only repeating what the Chicago Tribune reported.I agree that there was nothing in the written report to demonstrate actual innocence. But, in addition to the written report, he also said, "It was just a fire." If we're just going to toss out wild, unsupported speculation, I can't rule out the possibility that Hurst set the fire and his report is an attempt to keep his own fat out of the fire, if you'll pardon the pun. No amount of baseless devil's advocacy is going to change the fact that Hurst said, "It was just a fire." There is no positive evidence of arson that has not been soundly refuted, and the only positive evidence we have is Hurst's statement that "It was just a fire." Only the most stubborn solopsist, simply taking a contrary position for the sake of arguing, can claim anything else without producing more evidence than has been presented here.

I understand. But I'm afraid that's not good enough.Let me provide some examples from Hurst's actual report.1. Apparently the original investigators concluded that some brown rings found on the cement porch were evidence of the use of an accelerant. Hurst gives an alternate explanation for the rings and indicates that the correct way to perform the analysis requires a chromatographic analysis. But no such analysis is available.2. The original investigation reported that kerosene was detected in a sample of wood. Hurst finds that only "mineral spirits of kerosene" were found, and that the finding was consistent with lighter fluid rather than kerosene. There was an innocent explanation for lighter fluid being present.In both cases, what the original investigators presented as iron clad evidence is shown not to be iron clad. But while Hurst has attacked the evidentiary value of the original evidence, his refutations don't quite prove innocence. I understand that. So what? Is that really evidence? I do find it persuasive, but it ain't proof. I understand your point, but I don't believe I am indulging in the kind of unwarranted speculation you illustrate with your 'Hurst did it' story. Hurst is stuck with the available testimony, evidence, and whatever he managed to see on the videotape. Hurst has taken his best shot, and so have a number of other investigators. But Hurst's report gives a pretty good indication of what he could and did could not conclude. And at best his report supports the fact that the conviction is not supported by the available evidence. We don't have to assume that Hurst or the other investigators are lying or incompetent in order to acknowledge that there is a possibility that an undetected arson occurred.

The entire issue of guilt/non-guilt/innocence is a red herring. No matter who's making the point or what their point is.But that's for a different post.

Jon, that's a pretty silly statement. Surely there are some valid things to discuss that do revolve around guilt/non-quilt/innocence.

No, you simply have to make up things out of whole cloth that nobody associated with the matter has ever said, and ignore what Hurst did say. As I have quoted numerous times, Hurst said, "It was just a fire."Is that really evidence? Of course it is. It is exactly the kind of expert opinion that courts and juries hear and rely on every day.Is it possibly subject to impeachment? Is it possible that there are additional facts that Hurst didn't consider? Is it possible that Willingham could have done it another, undetectable way that Hurst didn't consider? Is it possible Hurst did it himself? Is it possible the world was created last Tuesday and none of that ever happened? Yes, all of these things are possible. There is no evidence of any of them, and all of the evidence we have is that Willingham is innocent. But feel free to trot out any other wild hairs that come to mind. There's lots of room left in the thread.

Isn't this an appeal to authority?

No, it's a discussion of evidence. Expert opinion is one form of evidence. If anyone has any evidence contrary to that opinion, they can provide it. If it's contrary expert opinion, that's fine, we can compare and evaluate.

This is just turning the burden of evidence on its head.The legal state of "innocence" is the state of being not guilty of the crime. Willingham is perforce not guilty of the crime because no crime occurred.By the standard you employ, here, nobody can properly be considered "innocent."

You might want to brush up on your fallacies before you invoke them.Argument from authority - WikipediaHere is a pretty good primer
Fallacies - Nizkor

Yes. Hurst said that to the newspaper. But the quality of testimony he provided in his actual report is of a completely different character. Hurst official report is only that the evidence against Hurst elicited by the state is insufficient to conclude arson. But I haven't seen any evidence other than the defendant's testimony that proves or even strongly suggests that the fire was not arson. Actually, in court we restrict experts from giving ultimate conclusions of law. They aren't allowed to make decisions that substitute for jury conclusions. I understand that you are a lawyer. As best as I can tell, Hurst's statement "It's just a fire" was never offered in any circumstance in which it would be subject to impeachment. He certainly did not provide any evidence allowing us to say how the fire started.Again, in the report, Hurst goes through the evidence and tells us exactly what he thinks of it. We don't have to guess about what his official opinion encompasses. That statement is flat out false on its face. Willingham, is likely innocent despite the evidence suggesting otherwise.

Why would anyone have to provide evidence that the fire was not arson?What would be the difference between evidence that the fire was not arson and evidence that the fire was an arson made to look like not an arson?