No report has decisively said the fire was not arson. Recent expert reports say arson cannot be proven. The Forensic Science Commission's investigation could help resolve that question. Perry had the right to replace the commission members whose terms were expired, but it's also true that he could have allowed them to continue serving until their work was done in order to expedite the investigation.
Read that again...
No report has decisively said the fire was not arson. Recent expert reports say arson cannot be proven.
Why is it that new reports say it cannot be proven one way or another whether it was arson? Well because new techniques exist and there is no way to use those techniques in 2009 when the evidence was collected in 1991. The fire would have needed to happen recently and the evidence would need to be collected according to the new methods...
The fact remains that no report definitively claims it was not arson. At the time the case happened they checked the house and found there was no faulty wiring or anything like that... all signs pointed to arson, and Willingham was convicted and his 9 appeals upheld because of an overwhelming volume of evidence against him...
The jurors convicted him because they believed the arson investegator's claims that there was no other way to explain the fire except for arson. This was fallacious. Because this claim is fallacious, Willingham would not have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ergo should not have been put to death.
ReplyDeleteWhy is this so difficult for you to understand?