Idaho makes final preparations for execution

Jun 12, 2012 Full story: KTIV-TV Sioux City 24

An Idaho man convicted of brutally killing a woman nearly three decades ago and mutilating her body is set to be executed Tuesday, marking the first time witnesses will be allowed to watch the whole process of lethal injection in the state after a challenge by media organizations.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Byte into an Apple”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2 Jun 12, 2012
I didn't know Idaho had the death penalty.
Bob Burns

Kunming, China

#3 Jun 12, 2012
On TV?
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#4 Jun 12, 2012
I used to read these stories with in interest in what the person did that they deserve to get executed instead of life in prison. Now I read them to read about the kind of evidence they have against the person to see if we are executing a guilty or innocent person.

“Byte into an Apple”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#5 Jun 12, 2012
Robert wrote:
I used to read these stories with in interest in what the person did that they deserve to get executed instead of life in prison. Now I read them to read about the kind of evidence they have against the person to see if we are executing a guilty or innocent person.
Yes its sad these days they just want to point the finger and blame somebody for crime they didn't commit.

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#6 Jun 12, 2012
Robert wrote:
I used to read these stories with in interest in what the person did that they deserve to get executed instead of life in prison. Now I read them to read about the kind of evidence they have against the person to see if we are executing a guilty or innocent person.
really?
then tell us, robert...did this man, or did this man not brutally murder and dismember that woman.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#7 Jun 12, 2012
BROvahqueen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes its sad these days they just want to point the finger and blame somebody for crime they didn't commit.
Well hopefully this is not one of those cases, I know the defense wants DNA testing done on some of the items that were not tested and that Idaho has only had two death penalty cases tossed, one because the guy was innocent and the other because the evidence was lacking to say he was guilty.

If he is actually guilty I hope they juice him, that was a terrible crime.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#8 Jun 12, 2012
Keeping this guy alive for almost thirty years with this penalty looming over his head is cruel and unusual punishment.

“Byte into an Apple”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#9 Jun 12, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Well hopefully this is not one of those cases, I know the defense wants DNA testing done on some of the items that were not tested and that Idaho has only had two death penalty cases tossed, one because the guy was innocent and the other because the evidence was lacking to say he was guilty.
If he is actually guilty I hope they juice him, that was a terrible crime.
Yes innocent until proven guilty. I'm sure the evidence is outstanding.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#10 Jun 12, 2012
carey529 wrote:
<quoted text>
really?
then tell us, robert...did this man, or did this man not brutally murder and dismember that woman.
He was convicted on circumstantial evidence, he passed a polygraph saying he did not do it, he had been in the house before, his blood type was found there, there were some items with blood on them which were not tested for dna and probably should have been. I think he probably did it but if I was going to kill him I would more than probably know he did it. That's just me, perhaps there is more compelling evidence out there that I don't know about.

We have executed 39 people in this country who were either innocent or there were some significant doubts about their guilt. In 8 of those cases they were possible innocent. Sometimes the words possibly innocent are a mis representation. In one case the time of death was grossly mistaken and when the murder actually occurred the executed suspect was under police surveillance. In another not only was the executed suspect innocent nobody was guilty because the death which they thought was a murder turned out to be an accidental death caused by a fire, nobody was guilty yet someone got executed. So in some of these cases it is not that they were possible innocent they were innocent period.

I am not against the death penalty just executing innocent people. And in this case in particular who ever did it deserves the death penalty, I am not saying this guy did not do it just that I don't know and don't trust people to get this right anymore, I want to hear the proof again before they kill them.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#11 Jun 12, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
He was convicted on circumstantial evidence, he passed a polygraph saying he did not do it, he had been in the house before, his blood type was found there, there were some items with blood on them which were not tested for dna and probably should have been. I think he probably did it but if I was going to kill him I would more than probably know he did it. That's just me, perhaps there is more compelling evidence out there that I don't know about.
We have executed 39 people in this country who were either innocent or there were some significant doubts about their guilt. In 8 of those cases they were possible innocent. Sometimes the words possibly innocent are a mis representation. In one case the time of death was grossly mistaken and when the murder actually occurred the executed suspect was under police surveillance. In another not only was the executed suspect innocent nobody was guilty because the death which they thought was a murder turned out to be an accidental death caused by a fire, nobody was guilty yet someone got executed. So in some of these cases it is not that they were possible innocent they were innocent period.
I am not against the death penalty just executing innocent people. And in this case in particular who ever did it deserves the death penalty, I am not saying this guy did not do it just that I don't know and don't trust people to get this right anymore, I want to hear the proof again before they kill them.
If you're chosen to sit on a jury in a murder case, then you get to hear the proof. Second guessing based on erroneous, or fabricated evidence after the trial should not be considered proof of innocence. The innuendo you use suggesting the man burning his children to death wasn't guilty because someone with an anti-death penalty agenda later suggests the fire wasn't intentional has no bearing on the jury's finding and the actual proof used in the prosecution. No one is convicted on circumstantial evidence. These false allegations are common errors amongst those searching for some questions to validate their emotional predisposition. In fact, each and every death penalty case gets multiple reviews, some mandatory. Reasoned and careful men and women search every aspect of trial and conviction to insure no injustice is done. This goes on for decades. To suggest that innocent men and women have been executed is wrong and wrong headed. With the increased scientific scrutinies now available and used, the possibility of error is minuscule.

“Byte into an Apple”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#12 Jun 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're chosen to sit on a jury in a murder case, then you get to hear the proof. Second guessing based on erroneous, or fabricated evidence after the trial should not be considered proof of innocence. The innuendo you use suggesting the man burning his children to death wasn't guilty because someone with an anti-death penalty agenda later suggests the fire wasn't intentional has no bearing on the jury's finding and the actual proof used in the prosecution. No one is convicted on circumstantial evidence. These false allegations are common errors amongst those searching for some questions to validate their emotional predisposition. In fact, each and every death penalty case gets multiple reviews, some mandatory. Reasoned and careful men and women search every aspect of trial and conviction to insure no injustice is done. This goes on for decades. To suggest that innocent men and women have been executed is wrong and wrong headed. With the increased scientific scrutinies now available and used, the possibility of error is minuscule.
Even though there are multiple reviews, you can agree that there are actually some inncocent people who are put on death row because of advances in DNA technology. He isn't saying that the man didn't deserve the death penalty and that he isn't guilty but merely saying there are cases in which those that were executed turned out to be innocent in the end.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#13 Jun 12, 2012
BROvahqueen wrote:
<quoted text>
Even though there are multiple reviews, you can agree that there are actually some inncocent people who are put on death row because of advances in DNA technology. He isn't saying that the man didn't deserve the death penalty and that he isn't guilty but merely saying there are cases in which those that were executed turned out to be innocent in the end.
Not one instance of DNA testing done after an execution has established innocence (that I know of...) Some DNA testing done before an execution has cast reasonable doubt on the plurality of evidence establishing guilt, thus changing death penalties. Still, innocence was not proven, only doubt. The DNA tests done in those cases were on old cases, where DNA testing was not done at the time of conviction. Current cases are not subject to such possible exclusions of evidence. In the past, there was probably more possibility of innocent people being executed, either legally, or extralegally. Now, the only people being executed extralegally are the victims of these murderers.

“Byte into an Apple”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#14 Jun 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
Not one instance of DNA testing done after an execution has established innocence (that I know of...) Some DNA testing done before an execution has cast reasonable doubt on the plurality of evidence establishing guilt, thus changing death penalties. Still, innocence was not proven, only doubt. The DNA tests done in those cases were on old cases, where DNA testing was not done at the time of conviction. Current cases are not subject to such possible exclusions of evidence. In the past, there was probably more possibility of innocent people being executed, either legally, or extralegally. Now, the only people being executed extralegally are the victims of these murderers.
There were some cases that before DNA advanced technologically they were able to prove innocence because of mismatch in DNA. The organization that helps prove the innocence of inmates (can't remember what it was called at the moment)..They're called the Innocence Project. Well of course current cases can't be changed but I did refer to the older ones.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#15 Jun 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
If you're chosen to sit on a jury in a murder case, then you get to hear the proof. Second guessing based on erroneous, or fabricated evidence after the trial should not be considered proof of innocence. The innuendo you use suggesting the man burning his children to death wasn't guilty because someone with an anti-death penalty agenda later suggests the fire wasn't intentional has no bearing on the jury's finding and the actual proof used in the prosecution. No one is convicted on circumstantial evidence. These false allegations are common errors amongst those searching for some questions to validate their emotional predisposition. In fact, each and every death penalty case gets multiple reviews, some mandatory. Reasoned and careful men and women search every aspect of trial and conviction to insure no injustice is done. This goes on for decades. To suggest that innocent men and women have been executed is wrong and wrong headed. With the increased scientific scrutinies now available and used, the possibility of error is minuscule.
So what is it that you believe, since you mentioned the fire lets talk about it. Are you suggesting that regardless of the evidence which came in after the trial that Texas should have executed Todd Willingham because at the time the jury believed he did it and it was not thrown out of appeal.

Your lying about the facts by the way, When the foremost fire expert in the country and the father of modern fire science says that the fire was not arson that is not just some person and that is not an second guessing based on fabricated evidence. We are not talking about the situation where one side hires an expert to say what they want to hear and the other side hires a different expert to say what they want to hear. You can not fine a credible expert in the country who contradicts that the fire was an accident not an arson. The Hurst report not only found fault with the original investigation's conclusion but disproved each and every one of the 20 indicators of arson in the original report. Every review of the Hurst report has sustained it.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission formed by the state legislature can hardly be called an anti-death penalty group. They hired their own expert and investigated the Willingham case, their expert reported finding that the forensic analysis used to convict Willingham was wrong - and that experts who testified at Willingham’s trial should have known it was wrong at the time. The Texas Commission was set to present these findings however before they did Gov. Rick Perry removed the head and 2 other commission members and appointed some new members which put their work on hold. He could not have that come out when he was running for the Republican nomination since he was the presiding governor when the execution occurred.

You either have not read the information on the Willingham case or you are just plain stupid. I can't see how any intelligent person can read up on that and not know we executed an innocent man.

It is my duty as a citizen to object to this sort of thing not to just wait till it is my turn on the jury before I have an opinion.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#16 Jun 12, 2012
BROvahqueen wrote:
<quoted text>
There were some cases that before DNA advanced technologically they were able to prove innocence because of mismatch in DNA. The organization that helps prove the innocence of inmates (can't remember what it was called at the moment)..They're called the Innocence Project. Well of course current cases can't be changed but I did refer to the older ones.
Yes, the Innocence Project is a fine organization, but has elements in it inclined to attempt abuse of the concept of doubt. The history of American jurisprudence is exemplary in upgrading and modernizing protection of the innocent. People used to be executed for stealing horses within very short time frames. We need to reimpose the death penalty in cases of forced violent rape. Modern forensics can carefully establish related DNA to murder and rape.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#17 Jun 12, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>So what is it that you believe, since you mentioned the fire lets talk about it. Are you suggesting that regardless of the evidence which came in after the trial that Texas should have executed Todd Willingham because at the time the jury believed he did it and it was not thrown out of appeal.
Your lying about the facts by the way, When the foremost fire expert in the country and the father of modern fire science says that the fire was not arson that is not just some person and that is not an second guessing based on fabricated evidence. We are not talking about the situation where one side hires an expert to say what they want to hear and the other side hires a different expert to say what they want to hear. You can not fine a credible expert in the country who contradicts that the fire was an accident not an arson. The Hurst report not only found fault with the original investigation's conclusion but disproved each and every one of the 20 indicators of arson in the original report. Every review of the Hurst report has sustained it.
The Texas Forensic Science Commission formed by the state legislature can hardly be called an anti-death penalty group. They hired their own expert and investigated the Willingham case, their expert reported finding that the forensic analysis used to convict Willingham was wrong - and that experts who testified at Willingham’s trial should have known it was wrong at the time. The Texas Commission was set to present these findings however before they did Gov. Rick Perry removed the head and 2 other commission members and appointed some new members which put their work on hold. He could not have that come out when he was running for the Republican nomination since he was the presiding governor when the execution occurred.
You either have not read the information on the Willingham case or you are just plain stupid. I can't see how any intelligent person can read up on that and not know we executed an innocent man.
It is my duty as a citizen to object to this sort of thing not to just wait till it is my turn on the jury before I have an opinion.
The Commission in Texas was politically motivated and findings skewed twofold to abuse Perry and further the stance of anti-death penalty advocates. I have researched the evidence and findings. The original findings at the scene are relevant and imposing. The fire pattern and burn progress certainly establishes intentionality. The subsequent heralding of a questionable "expert" is based on such provably wrong assertions of "IF" there was a can of accelerant on the front porch, which of course there was not, etc. The fire scene investigated was not available to the subsequent "experts." Willingham was properly tried, properly convicted, properly reviewed many, many times and properly executed.

“Byte into an Apple”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#18 Jun 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the Innocence Project is a fine organization, but has elements in it inclined to attempt abuse of the concept of doubt. The history of American jurisprudence is exemplary in upgrading and modernizing protection of the innocent. People used to be executed for stealing horses within very short time frames. We need to reimpose the death penalty in cases of forced violent rape. Modern forensics can carefully establish related DNA to murder and rape.
Yes I agree we would be saving lots of taxes.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#19 Jun 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
The Commission in Texas was politically motivated and findings skewed twofold to abuse Perry and further the stance of anti-death penalty advocates. I have researched the evidence and findings. The original findings at the scene are relevant and imposing. The fire pattern and burn progress certainly establishes intentionality. The subsequent heralding of a questionable "expert" is based on such provably wrong assertions of "IF" there was a can of accelerant on the front porch, which of course there was not, etc. The fire scene investigated was not available to the subsequent "experts." Willingham was properly tried, properly convicted, properly reviewed many, many times and properly executed.
Gerald Hurst, Ph.D. and national fire expert refuted the report, Craig Beyler the fire expert of the Texas Forensic commission refuted that it was arson. There have been a number of stories on this by the media prompting more reviews. The Chicago Tribune reported that the Willingham case has been reviewed by nine of the nation's top fire scientists, all concluded that the original investigators relied on outdated theories and folklore to justify the determination of arson.

Governor Perry said that the "supposed experts" were wrong and not to listen to anti-death penalty "propaganda". What a nit-wit, good thing is not on the ticket.

So you telling me that the Discovery Channel, PBS, other news agencies, the innocence project, the Texas Forensic Commission, 9 of the nations top fire experts, all these people are wrong and you and Corsicana fire department investigator are right, just were were his credentials that led you to disbelieve all the other experts.

BS.

And as for being political the only thing political I saw was Governor Rick Perry firing the commission members before they could say something was wrong. Even Perry's political hacks who he hand picked to replace the commission members he fired finally made a statement. They finally acknowledged that state and local arson investigators used "flawed science" in determining the blaze had been deliberately set. But in a nod to Perry they also found insufficient evidence to prove that state Deputy Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez and Corsicana Assistant Fire Chief Douglas Fogg were negligent or guilty of misconduct in their arson work. So they are basically saying the state was wrong but it was because they were stupid not because they did anything wrong.
Bringmedinner

San Jose, CA

#20 Jun 12, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Gerald Hurst, Ph.D. and national fire expert refuted the report, Craig Beyler the fire expert of the Texas Forensic commission refuted that it was arson. There have been a number of stories on this by the media prompting more reviews. The Chicago Tribune reported that the Willingham case has been reviewed by nine of the nation's top fire scientists, all concluded that the original investigators relied on outdated theories and folklore to justify the determination of arson.
Governor Perry said that the "supposed experts" were wrong and not to listen to anti-death penalty "propaganda". What a nit-wit, good thing is not on the ticket.
So you telling me that the Discovery Channel, PBS, other news agencies, the innocence project, the Texas Forensic Commission, 9 of the nations top fire experts, all these people are wrong and you and Corsicana fire department investigator are right, just were were his credentials that led you to disbelieve all the other experts.
BS.
And as for being political the only thing political I saw was Governor Rick Perry firing the commission members before they could say something was wrong. Even Perry's political hacks who he hand picked to replace the commission members he fired finally made a statement. They finally acknowledged that state and local arson investigators used "flawed science" in determining the blaze had been deliberately set. But in a nod to Perry they also found insufficient evidence to prove that state Deputy Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez and Corsicana Assistant Fire Chief Douglas Fogg were negligent or guilty of misconduct in their arson work. So they are basically saying the state was wrong but it was because they were stupid not because they did anything wrong.
The fire undeniably started with an accelerant in the children's bedroom. The progress of the fire extended outward from the children's bedroom. The burn patterns on the floor of the children's bedroom do not support subsequent suppositions not investigating the actual scene.

An agenda can find "expert" testimony to claim the moon is made of cheese if it pays well enough.
Robert

Hollywood, FL

#21 Jun 12, 2012
Bringmedinner wrote:
<quoted text>
The fire undeniably started with an accelerant in the children's bedroom. The progress of the fire extended outward from the children's bedroom. The burn patterns on the floor of the children's bedroom do not support subsequent suppositions not investigating the actual scene.
An agenda can find "expert" testimony to claim the moon is made of cheese if it pays well enough.
I shared office space with a modern arson investigation team for 10 years so go bullshit someone else I am not buying it, that fire reached flashover, when a fire reaches the flashover threshold, it is impossible to visually identify accelerant patterns. While the prosecutor thought that the "bizarre" path of the flame indicated that an accelerant was used, the path of the fire followed a post-flashover pattern of going in the direction of ventilation. He was accused of using an acceleration in three rooms not just the kids bedroom, the front porch was the only place where an accelerant was verified by laboratory tests, and a photograph taken of the house before the fire showed that a charcoal grill was there. The family confirmed that lighter fluid was by the grill used for family barbecues. Water sprayed by firefighters likely spread the lighter fluid from the melted container. All twenty of the indications listed by Vasquez of an accelerant being used were rebutted by Hurst. Doctor Hurst is not just some expert for hire, he is the top expert in the field and it not going to lie about this stuff and if he why are then not other experts saying he is wrong. Every fire expert who has looked at this agrees with him to the man, no exceptions, the state even agrees with him now regarding the fire but say it is not their fault. You are 100% wrong on the fire and simply do not want to accept it.

The reason you are confused is that between the time that Willingham was convicted and the time he was executed fire science changed and not just a little bit, it changed significantly. It was not until they started experimenting by setting research fires with special equipment inside that they truly understood some of the things that happened inside and why.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Court tosses Washington man's porn conviction Sep 14 californio 2
Hearing over gay marriage laws underway Sep 10 Professor Jumper 46
Idaho, Nevada, Hawaii gay marriage cases in court Sep 8 Yakitori 15
Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada gay marriage laws in court Sep 8 WeTheSheeple 1
Reno Couple Awaits 9th Circuit Appeal In Gay Ma... Sep 2 WeTheSheeple 2
Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares fo... (Mar '13) Sep 1 Terra Firma 1,568
Challenges to gay marriage bans: Where they stand Aug '14 Lawrence Wolf 64

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE